Posted on 12/18/2007 3:35:08 PM PST by T.L.Sink
‘....two of America’s finest ...’
Sorry, they don’t come close to fitting this description.
Well, I was asking you to tell me the facts, but since you can’t, I’ll read it for myself. Do you know where I can find that transcript?
You’re use of the word “allowed” is interesting. It’s called witness testimony and is a basic feature our system of justice. All witnesses are “allowed” to do it, if the opposing counsel believes one is lying, it’s their job to show additional evidence rebutting or impeaching it, and it is the jury’s job to figure out what is truth and what are lies.
“He actually even claimed he didn’t know what was in the truck. He claimed he didn’t know it was drugs. He said that he didn’t know what the overpowering smell from the hundreds of pounds of marijuana in the van he was driving was.”
Wrong, OAD testified he knew he was transporting drugs, but he didn’t know what kind. The part about the mj smell is interesting. Since he already stated he KNEW he was hired to drive the load of drugs somewhere, saying he smelled mj would have been inconsequential. Maybe he had a cold that day. But admitting he knew it might be mj at that point, would have added or detracted nothing from the body of evidence since he admitted he was fully aware it was a drug run.
“The only people that know if OAD had a gun or something that might have appeared to be a gun in his hand are OAD, Compean, and Ramos.”
Yes, and it is the job of the jury to decide who was lying. Based on R&C’s pattern of cover up and their contradictory and disjointed testimony, the jury ruled it was R&C who were lying. After reading the transcripts, I agreed.
There were two pieces of testimony that bothered me the most. Compean claimed he chased OAD across and down the levee and tackled him at the bottom, where they had their struggle, then OAD broke free and ran and at which time Compean claims he saw the “black shiny object” and fired 14-15 times. But Agent Juarez testified he saw Compean firing as he ran across the top of the levee.
Compean then testified he picked up his shells and tossed them in the ditch but Officer Vasquez testified Compean later counted the shells in his hand in front of him (9-10) and then asked him to pick up any he missed. Vasquez testified he picked up 5 ON THE TOP OF THE LEVEE, called Compean and then disposed of them.
If Compean had started firing on top of the levee as Juarez and Vasquez testified, it would make all of Compeans subsequent testimony about when and how he fired, including the black shiny object, a lie.
But all R&C pardon supporters want to dismiss this evidence. They call Juarez and Vasquez liars (???) and all they want to talk about is that second run that has NO BEARING on whether the shoot that day was good or whether R&C were lying about what actually happened.
The funny thing about this is how R&C pardon supporters are aghast that anyone would question the word of R&C because they are good BP agents protecting the borders, but have no qualms whatsoever viciously attacking the reputations of anyone else, including other BP agents, DHS personnel, the judge, the jury, etc., who stand in the way. Hypocrites. As far as any information you believe was ruled inadmissible, the judge heard everything and then ruled how she thought was legal. That nobody knows what was said, what information was available, yet they shout loud and far that something was withheld that was exculpable, only proves that they are willing to say anything no matter how unsupportable by the facts at hand and on the flimsiest facts.
I’m interested in the truth and facts and when you got any, I’m more than ready to hear them. But until then all it is is a lot of hot air pardon supporters throw out there to divert attention away from the salient facts of the case because their position is weak and all it is is a lot of table pounding.
If you got the facts, pound the facts.
If you got the law, pound the law.
If you got neither, pound the table. I don't have a dog in this fight and had never considered getting involved. I hope OAD rots in prison and could care less about Sutton and his people. But the misinformation and outright lying the R&C pardon supporters were engaging in got my dander up and I couldn't allow that type of propaganda and misinformation stand on FR.
Tancredo to Drop Out and Endorse Thompson?
December 19, 2007 12:55 PM
Tom Tancredo's presidential campaign is planning a "major announcement" tomorrow in Des Moines. PJM's Richard Miniter thinks the Colorado congressman will likely drop out of the race and endorse Fred Thompson.
Tancredo to make “major announcement” Thursday on GOP bid
(dropping out?)
Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier | December 19, 2007
Posted on 12/19/2007 2:34:15 PM EST by xjcsa
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941857/posts
Tancredo to get out?
Politico | 12/19/07 | Ed Martin
Posted on 12/19/2007 3:09:02 PM EST by pissant
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941872/posts
Tancredo Scuttle
(Tom Tancredo drops out tomorrow, endorsement up-in-the-air)
The Atlantic | December 19, 2007 | Marc Ambinder
Posted on 12/19/2007 4:18:07 PM EST by 2ndDivisionVet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941901/posts
Tancredo to Abandon Presidential Bid
The Associated Press | 12/19/07 | George Merritt
Posted on 12/19/2007 8:27:19 PM EST by LdSentinal
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1942041/posts
“OAD was allowed to sit on the stand and feed the jury...”,
Are you familiar with the meaning of the word "and"?
It's usually a pretty obvious indicator that if you selectively quote just the part before the "and" you will lose the meaning of the entire sentence.
My sentence was:
OAD was allowed to sit on the stand and feed the jury a story that his smuggling drugs was a one time thing that he did because he got into financial trouble and needed the money so he could get his certifications so he could get his commercial drivers license back.
You can quote up to before the word because while still preserving the meaning, but without both "allowed to sit on the stand" AND "feed the jury a story that his smuggling drugs was a one time thing", you've essentially misquoted me.
All witnesses are “allowed” to do it, if the opposing counsel believes one is lying, it’s their job to show additional evidence rebutting or impeaching it, and it is the jury’s job to figure out what is truth and what are lies.
Which as I said, the defense was not allowed to do because the Judge ruled the evidence inadmissible. The prosecution was able to present evidence that hurt the credibility of the defendants version of the story, but the defense was not allowed to do the same with OADs testimony.
Wrong, OAD testified he knew he was transporting drugs, but he didn’t know what kind.
I reread the testimony, and you are correct that he did not deny that he knew it was drugs he was carrying. He denied he knew how much he was carrying. More specifically he said he didn't know how it was packaged so he didn't know if the packages he saw held a lot or a little.
The part about the mj smell is interesting. Since he already stated he KNEW he was hired to drive the load of drugs somewhere, saying he smelled mj would have been inconsequential.
His testimony reads to me like he was always trying to avoid admitting too much. I wasn't there, so maybe it came across differently to the jury, but I have a hard time seeing how the jury found him credible.
OADs testimony starts on page 68 of Volume 7 of the court transcripts if you care to look at it and don't want to have to dig through a bunch of files to find it.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/index.html
But admitting he knew it might be mj at that point, would have added or detracted nothing from the body of evidence since he admitted he was fully aware it was a drug run.
My point wasn't that he didn't admit he did something wrong. My point was that he was able to act like he had not done anything like this before and wouldn't do anything like this again. Since he wasn't a career criminal or criminally inclined, why would he have a gun?
Did he have a weapon is a critical question in the trial, and OAD was allowed to present himself as someone who wouldn't have such a thing, because this whole drug smuggling thing was completely our of character for him.
The defense was not allowed to bring up evidence that would have damaged that image he presented, and having tried to present himself in that manner would then have hurt his credibility.
Yes, and it is the job of the jury to decide who was lying. Based on R&C’s pattern of cover up and their contradictory and disjointed testimony, the jury ruled it was R&C who were lying.
The jury has to have all the pertinent information from which to make an informed decision, and important information was kept from them by the Judges ruling in favor of the prosecutor.
I'd also like to point out that I don't remember any evidence that Ramos tried to cover up anything. The evidence regarding Compean picking up his brass, and having another agent pick up and dispose of the rest make it appear Compean thought he had done something wrong, but Ramos came to the aid of a fellow officer that was already firing at a suspect, and didn't seem to do anything to corer up his role.
Compean claimed he chased OAD across and down the levee and tackled him at the bottom
I don't remember that. What I read was that OAD ran up out of the gully at Compean, there was an altercation, in which Compean ended up on the ground and OAD ran, and while he was running he turned back towards him with what Compean believed was a gun.
The evidence supports Compean's statement that OAD turned back towards him because of the angle of entry of the bullet, and I find it awfully hard to believe OAD's story about zigzagging back and forth at sharp angles as he ran away.
But Agent Juarez testified he saw Compean firing as he ran across the top of the levee.
After agent Juarez slipped going down into the levee, he returned back up to the van because he didn't want to get his feet wet, and he didn't actually try and apprehend illegal aliens, he just chased them back across the border. He didn't expect Compean to actually try and stop OAD from fleeing.
While at the van he turned and saw Compean firing while he was standing, not running. He never claimed to see if OAD did or did not have something in his hands when Compean started firing at him, only that he didn't see anything in his hands when he was running through the ditch toward Compean. He wasn't able to even see OAD at the time Compean fired the short and could only see Compean from the waist up. (Volume 9, page 16).
He did say later that he say him running down the vega, but his testimony about Compean shooting was that he appeard to be standing in a shoorter's stance and he saw him fire, reload, and continue firing.
I'd also like to point out that Juarez's testimony about OAD moving quickly up toward Compean directly contradicts OADs statement that he approached Compean slowly with his hands up, and Compean attacked him unprovoked.
If Compean had started firing on top of the levee as Juarez and Vasquez testified, it would make all of Compeans subsequent testimony about when and how he fired, including the black shiny object, a lie.
You need to go back and reread the testimony. Juarez was down in the ditch when OAD jumped across the water, and after that point he just turned around and went back to the van. He didn't care about the fleeing felon, he figured Compean would just let him go. That's his own testimony. He only looked back across the ditch from the van when he heard shots. His testimony does not contradict Compeans.
When Vasquez arrived on the scene, Juarez was already back up at the van. Vasquez said he heard multiple gunshots as he opened his car door. He never claimed to have seen Compean or Ramos fire shots, he didn't even arrive until after the Compean was firing and never saw the shots being fired, so how would his testimony contradict Compean's testimony? (Vasquez Transcript page 18)
Compean then testified he picked up his shells and tossed them in the ditch but Officer Vasquez testified Compean later counted the shells in his hand in front of him (9-10) and then asked him to pick up any he missed. Vasquez testified he picked up 5 ON THE TOP OF THE LEVEE, called Compean and then disposed of them.
As for where the brass was found, levees are sloped. Juarez's testimony was that when he saw Compean shooting he could only see him from the waist up, because he had moved down away from the edge, which is consistent with Compean's story that he had chased after OAD a short way and effectively tackled him.
The fact that Compean picked up his brass and had another agent collect brass for him as well is significant. However, why is it more likely that they did it because Compean just decided on the spur of the moment to try and murder a felling criminal rather than them just not wanting to do the paperwork for a case that would never be prosecuted because the suspect escaped into Mexico. Especially when they were the only ones who apparently though that actually trying to apprehend the suspect was important in the first place.
There is definately evidence that Compean didn't follow regulations. The prosecution argues that Compean and Ramos had nothing to fear by reporting the incident if their actions were innocent because agents haven't been charged when they used their guns in the line of duty and reported it.
However, they also had nothing to fear if they simply reported the incident even it they had done something wrong. The suspect had fled to Mexico, and no one could contradict their story. All they had to do is say they both saw a gun in his hand, and the investigation would have been short and sweet, except for a lot of paperwork.
It's hard to believe that the supervisor that showed up on the scened wasn't told about the shots being fired by anyone there. OAD was seen crossing the river and getting into a car. It sure seems credible that they didn't know that he had been hit, but they definitely knew he got away.
What would be the purpose in filing a report on being threatened by an unknown suspect that fled to Mexico? If they thought that OAD would be found, then it obviously would have been in their best interest to report the shooting regardless of if it was really justified or not.
But all R&C pardon supporters want to dismiss this evidence. They call Juarez and Vasquez liars (???)
I think you should reread the testimony since you apparently don't remember their testimony correctly.
The funny thing about this is how R&C pardon supporters are aghast that anyone would question the word of R&C because they are good BP agents protecting the borders, but have no qualms whatsoever viciously attacking the reputations of anyone else, including other BP agents, DHS personnel, the judge, the jury, etc., who stand in the way. Hypocrites.
Yes there are some supporters of Ramos and Compean that are like that. Why don't you direct your ire at those individuals instead of grouping everyone you disagree with together.
Whether OAD made one drug run or 100 is immaterial to whether the shoot that day was good. LEO’s are not allowed to shoot at a fleeing suspect unless they believe they or others are in immediate danger. It would have been illegal to shoot him if he was a drug lord, it would have been illegal to shoot him if he was a rapist,it would have been illegal to shoot him if he was a murderer (we don’t have to like it, but that is the law)...the functional question was whether R&C believed their safety was in danger and all the evidence indicated they didn’t. You could take all of OAD’s testimony out of the trial and I believe the jury would have convicted on R&C’s attempted cover up, destruction of evidence and contradictory testimony. Several other BP agents testified in direct contradiction to what, in particular, Compean said.
Compean testified he chased OAD all the way down the south side of the levee and that is where he shot from. This is not credible. Compean slipped down the north side of the levee when he took a swing at OAD with his rifle, when OAD took off. It has to have taken him at least a couple seconds to get up and start running. Compean was a short, heavy set agent loaded down with his equipment belt and heavy boots. OAD was a spry, wirey 20 something in tennis shoes. Several agents commented on how fast he was and that he was running at full speed. It is not conceivable that Compean could have climbed out of the ditch, righted himself, taken off and caught up with OAD in a matter of 20-40 feet. OAD would have run farther than that in the time it would have taken him to get to the other side of the levee.
Agent Juarez testified he SAW Compean shooting, reloading and shooting again from just off the south side of the levee...he could see him from the waste up. He saw him exchange magazines and heard more firing. This is consistent with how OAD testified. Are you saying Juarez and OAD were in cahoots? Adding insult to injury, none of the defense attorneys questioned OAD much if at all about what happened between getting free on the levee and getting shot at the far end of the vega. They just skipped the whole part as if it didn’t matter. Keep in mind defense attorneys don’t follow lines of questioning that may hurt their client.
Next, Vasquez testifies Compean asked him to pick any shell casings he may have missed. Guess where he found them? On top of the levee. This is also consistent with the evidence that Compean was just down a few feet on the south side and that OAD wasn’t running in a straight line, but slightly to the right. Compeans position and angle would have allowed his bullet casings to be ejected onto the top of the south side of the levee.
The bottom line is All of Compeans story about chasing OAD, and seeing a black shiny object and then shooting from the bottom of the levee area was inconsistent with all the other testimony presented at trial. If that testimony is untrue, than all of Compeans statements about seeing a black shiny object are seriously in doubt.
So all this hooey about OAD’s second load going to put this trial on it’s head is just wishful thinking. Even if the appeal judges rule it should have been allowed, it isn’t consequential enough for them to order a new trial. The best that we can hope for is that they rule the 10 year mandatory was misapplied, but I don’t even hold out much hope for this since the wording of the law is clear. Appeal judges are reluctant to insert new meanings and definitions into existing laws. They may take the tack that legislators had the opportunity to write in exclusions for LEO’s but didn’t. The fact that there has been NO effort from Congress to re-write this legislation and clarify it’s application to LEO’s does not work in it’s favor.
I understand what you are saying. I understood it the first time you said it. You just keep repeating yourself instead of listening to my replies.
Whether OAD made one drug run or 100 is immaterial to whether the shoot that day was good.
It was OADs testimony that made it material. When OAD tried to pain himself as an innocent pawn that got caught up in things, and that doing something like this was outside of his character, he made the testimony about the second run relevant.
The stories of OAD and the agents are in direct conflict. The jury needs to make an informed decision about who is lying and who is telling the truth.
OAD told a tale about him being an upstanding citizen that made this one mistake. The evidence about the second run impeaches that testimony, and the jury should have been allowed to hear it.
If OAD had not tried to act innocent, then the second run might have been irrelevant to this case. However, as soon as he tried to act innocent, evidence that impeaches that became relevant.
It would have been illegal to shoot him if he was a drug lord, it would have been illegal to shoot him if he was a rapist,it would have been illegal to shoot him if he was a murderer (we don’t have to like it, but that is the law)...the functional question was whether R&C believed their safety was in danger and all the evidence indicated they didn’t.
That would depend on if they knew he was a violent felon. At least in some states it is perfectly legal to shoot a violent felon to prevent them from fleeing.
However what you are really ignoring is that the jury needs to determine if it was likely that OAD was armed, and since he got away, there is no solid evidence one way or another. All there is for the jury to go on is OAD's testimony vs. Compean and Ramos' testimony.
...the functional question was whether R&C believed their safety was in danger and all the evidence indicated they didn’t.
What evidence? No one saw Compean's struggle with OAD. Ramos was still down in the gully, Juarez had gone back to the van because he didn't think apprehending OAD was important, and Vasquez hadn't arrived yet. The direct evidence is the testimony. Everything else is circumstantial.
Several other BP agents testified in direct contradiction to what, in particular, Compean said.
Well the things you said were contradictions in your last post were apparently you misreading the transcript.
Compean testified he chased OAD all the way down the south side of the levee and that is where he shot from. This is not credible.
Compean slipped when trying to push OAD back in the gully and fell to his knees. OAD was still below him in the gully and had to go around him to get out. Compean jumped back up, dropped his shotgun, and went after him. This didn't take seconds. He was down then back up.
OAD had to go around Compean, and was in the same steep gully with the loose dirt that Compean had slipped on the edge of. He was not in a position to just run past Compean withou being slowed by his position.
Compean was a short, heavy set agent loaded down with his equipment belt and heavy boots. OAD was a spry, wirey 20 something in tennis shoes.
Compean was waiting at the top of the other side of the gully when OAD arrived. He wasn't tired from working himself up during the car chase, he didn't have to scramble down into the deep gully, cross the waist deep water, and scramble up the loose dirt on the far side. He just waited at the top.
Compean was rested, OAD was already tired, and Compean didn't chase him far.
Agent Juarez testified he SAW Compean shooting, reloading and shooting again from just off the south side of the levee...he could see him from the waste up.
What Juarez said was:
He was -- he was not all the way inside, but he was almost halfway from the -- from the levee to the vega. He was not -- he was halfway down from the levee. (volume 9, page 17, lines 22 - 24)
He wasn't just on the south side of the levee like you said, and Juarez's statement supports Compean's story, not your version. I gave you links and told you where the testimony started in the documents, maybe you should go and read them again.
Adding insult to injury, none of the defense attorneys questioned OAD much if at all about what happened between getting free on the levee and getting shot at the far end of the vega. They just skipped the whole part as if it didn’t matter. Keep in mind defense attorneys don’t follow lines of questioning that may hurt their client.
What do you expect the defense attorneys to ask him? The prosecution stepped though that part in detail. The defense isn't allowed to keep asking him the same questions he already answered in hopes that he will contradict himself. They will just get the objection "asked and answered" and it will be sustained. So the defense asked questions about parts that the prosecution left out or were vague. They can't ask about a tussle between Compean and OAD that OAD already said didn't happen. He already answered. You're creating a little conspiracy theory based on nothing.
Next, Vasquez testifies Compean asked him to pick any shell casings he may have missed. Guess where he found them? On top of the levee.
Actually since we don't have the photos, all we know is that he picked up the ones on the levee road first, meaning they all didn't land on the road. How close is the levee road to the edge of the ditch? According to testimony in volume 14, from the edge of the ditch to the south side of the levee road is approximately 73 feet. So much for your assertion that the shots were fired just past the edge of the ditch. Once again, the facts match Compean's story, not yours.
The bottom line is All of Compeans story about chasing OAD, and seeing a black shiny object and then shooting from the bottom of the levee area was inconsistent with all the other testimony presented at trial.
No it was not. You apparently just can't read.
I'm 6' tall, I have a small to medium frame, and I weigh 190, and I have very little fat on me thanks to a high metabolism.
I dropped down to about 160 lbs a couple years back due to getting sick. I was awfully thin if not scrawny.
Thin and relatively light can help with keeping your footing going up down and back up the edges of the ditch, and likely made it easier to cross the water.
However, you won't find any scrawny sprinters. Distance runners yes. Sprinters, not. You need muscle mass for explosive speed. You also need it to climb out of ditches well, so climbing out of the ditch probably used up some of his energy.
In a distance run, lanky has an advantage over shorter and more stocky. In a sprint, short and stocky wins, and the weight of his duty gear isn't going to have that much effect on a stocky guy. It's a relatively small amount of weight compared to his weight. In a long chase OAD had the advantage, at least if he wasn't already tired when Compean started chasing him. However, in a chase of 70 - 100 feet, with OAD already a little winded, it is very credible that Compean caught him.
We’re probably going to have to agree to disagree on many of these issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
