Posted on 05/16/2008 9:51:33 AM PDT by kingattax
Tossing them on the ground is one thing. Simple carelessness under the circumstances. Not right. But still plausible under the circumstances. They figured that the smuggler had escaped. The most plausible scenario is that other agents that were following right behind R&C had to have heard at least some of the shots that were fired by the two agents. You can hear ten .40 caliber rounds being fired a mile away out there in the open desert. Easily. Any veteran LEO can immediately recognize the sound of gunshots. The FOS gets arrives there at the scene, immediately asks what's going on and no one says anything about a single shot being fired....?? There's even a good chance that the FOS might have heard some shots himself.
I believe that Ramos' testimony that he heard the other agents talking about gunshots. I think that the FOS was aware that shots had been fired when he arrived or right after he arrived at the scene (informed by other agents). All of the agents at that point had figured that the smuggler had escaped but had left the van with the "cargo". Remember, it is actually the FOS that has to write out all of the paperwork and process it. The FOS probably figured that they weren't going to see OAD ever again and so what was the use in having to go back and do all that writing...?
When OAD had the bullet fragment removed at the hospital, his friend, agent Sanchez took the fragment home with him. A major no-no as far as the chain of evidence is concerned. But, they just let that slide. Oh well.
They were already on the ground. They picked them up and tossed them in the ditch.
Simple carelessness under the circumstances. Not right. But still plausible under the circumstances.
If you want to hide evidence of your wrongful shoot.
They figured that the smuggler had escaped.
Destroying evidence that you shot, what, 15 times, is okay if the guy escaped? LOL!
The most plausible scenario is that other agents that were following right behind R&C had to have heard at least some of the shots that were fired by the two agents. You can hear ten .40 caliber rounds being fired a mile away out there in the open desert. Easily. Any veteran LEO can immediately recognize the sound of gunshots. The FOS gets arrives there at the scene, immediately asks what's going on and no one says anything about a single shot being fired....??
So they admitted they shot? That they tossed the casings? LOL!
I believe that Ramos' testimony that he heard the other agents talking about gunshots.
What was his testimony about the casings?
The jury disagreed. Given that they actually attended the trial and heard all the evidence...
Compean and Ramos are guilty of shooting an unarmed man in the back, lying about it, and tampering with evidence.
You've got all the canned talking points down, doncha?
You lose all credibility with statements like this. No need to let facts get in the way!
But I keep coming back to the sound of all those shots being fired. The FOS arrives on the scene and immediately asks what has happened. One or more of the agents that were following R&C and that were already there says that they heard shots fired. Thus when Ramos is climbing back up the ravine he hears the other agents talking about gunshots. The FOS figures that they're never going to see OAD again so they'll just take the van and its cargo back to the station. R&C's failure to verbally state directly to the supervisor that they had fired their guns wasn't right, but I can still see how such a thing could happen under the circumstances.
If the FOS was aware that shots had been fired (which I believe he was ) then it is incumbent upon him to inquire how the events transpired with this subordinates.
You asked for training and why. I gave you an answer. Yes, people can forget where they are especially after a stressful situation. Compean evidently shot at someone for the very first time.
Destroy the evidence, quick, before the shooting becomes part of a legal process? Is that part of his training? I wonder, if every police force in the country used that philosophy would that be fine with you?
Yeah right. /sarc. If you read the testimony, you would know that one of the lying agents, said that Compean later counted out the spent shells in front of him. That same agent states that he found 5 more casings at the top of the levee and he threw them into the ditch. Now if Compean picked up the shells where the lying agent says they other shells were, Compean would have been visible to nearly half of the population of Texas and Mexico as he performed the "destruction" of evidence.
Read the testimony you might gain some credibility.
One juror later revealed the muddled thinking in that jury room. Johnny Sutton needs to be put behind bars for his handling of the case. He is just another Nifong.
And R&C immediately said, we did it? Why not?
R&C's failure to verbally state directly to the supervisor that they had fired their guns wasn't right
And neither was their destruction of evidence. I'm glad we agree.
If the FOS was aware that shots had been fired (which I believe he was ) then it is incumbent upon him to inquire how the events transpired with this subordinates.
You bet. It's also incumbent on the shooters to explain what happened. Without trying to hide evidence.
You mean the stress of a bad shoot?
If you read the testimony, you would know that one of the lying agents, said that Compean later counted out the spent shells in front of him.
Counted them out where?
Nope. It's just that they are more likely to get it right than someone like you.
The statute is on the books. No one except congress can change it. This idea that Sutton somehow re-wrote it is absurd.
I want one actual name.
Andrew McCarthy of NRO did yeoman's work debunking some of the absurd arguments of various C&R advocates. Whether he specifically addressed Brewer I don't know. I suspect not. He doesn't have time to refute every crackpot out there.
Translation : You simply don't want to read his brief.
Correct. I have better things to do than read every single thing written about the case.
So you don't even know what you are talking about. And you still expect to have any credibility...??
You're treating this Brewer brief as if it were the Bible or something. Newsflash: it's just one lawyer's opinion. It has no more authority or weight than any other lawyer's opinion, which are a dime a dozen.
He combined wording from the original statute with wording from the sentencing guidelines to create a altered version of the original. Where did they actually destroy evidence...? Tossing shell casings on the ground...??
No. Tossing them into a ditch so that they couldn't be found. Trying to cover up evidence is, in and of itself, pretty strong evidence of guilt. Basic common sense dictates that if you're not guilty, don't act guilty.
You keep using "their" and "Ramos and Compean( R&C)" when talking about destruction of evidence. Tell everyone what evidence Ramos destroyed or shutup about the "their" part in destruction of evidence if you want to be considered other than a liar.
Here is Kanof's description of the count Ramos was convicted on tampering with a proceeding. http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%204.pdf page 17
And the -- I think it's Count 9 -- it's either Count 13 9 -- I think it's -- I'm pretty sure it's Count 9 -- charges 14 him with 1512(c)(2), which is a general catchall phrase of, you 15 know, obstructing justice. 16 And the -- you know. And it's -- basically, they 17 couldn't investigate anything, because he didn't report it. 18 They couldn't investigate the victim being shot. They couldn't 19 investigate Mr. Compean being assaulted. They couldn't 20 investigate the discharge of either of their firearms, because 21 of the failure to report it.
The shell casings.
And list the lies to their supervisor.
For starters, failing to tell the supervisor about the shoot would constitute a lie of omission.
Are you trying to prove that you can't read? Fighting with a person is stressful. Shooting at a person is stressful.
Counted them out where?
Gee, kinda proves you haven't read the testimony.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Vasquez%20Transcript.pdf
at the C.C. Bills gate --- Page 37 Vasquez testimony
Not only have you not read the testimony, evidently you haven't even studied the case. Ramos did not touch a casing. Read the post just above yours, post 71.
For starters, failing to tell the supervisor about the shoot would constitute a lie of omission.
He also didn't tell his supervisor he made a U-turn in the intersection while attempting to apprehend Davila. Another lie of omission?
Right. Except that the statute in question was deliberately reworded or misstated by Sutton. And he did that to to make it easier for him to prosecute the case. But as you've pointed out, that no one but Congress can actually change the statutes, the convicition on those charges need to be overturned. This is exactly what Brewer argues.
Andrew McCarthy of NRO did yeoman's work debunking some of the absurd arguments of various C&R advocates. Whether he specifically addressed Brewer I don't know. I suspect not. He doesn't have time to refute every crackpot out there.
Andrew McCarthy never touches upon the points that Brewer makes. So no, you still haven't provided one actual name. And you still haven't read the brief yourself.
This was arguably the most important brief written on behalf of the agents that was submitted to the Fifth Circuit.
You're treating this Brewer brief as if it were the Bible or something. Newsflash: it's just one lawyer's opinion. It has no more authority or weight than any other lawyer's opinion, which are a dime a dozen.
Brewer's arguments are critical because they are based on actual facts. And Brewer isn't some "crackpot"; he was part of the legal team that argued the agents' case before the Fifth Circuit's three judge panel. So he is far more knowledgeable about this case than you or even McCarthy. The least you can do is read the brief for yourself.
No. Tossing them into a ditch so that they couldn't be found. Trying to cover up evidence is, in and of itself, pretty strong evidence of guilt. Basic common sense dictates that if you're not guilty, don't act guilty.
Again, Ramos testified that he heard the agents at the top of the ravine discussing gunshots. So, according to his testimony they (including the FOS) were at least aware that shots had been fired. Again, the sounds from all those gunshots being fired. That the FOS didn't follow through on procedure makes him even more culpable than the agents because he has to write out and process all the necessary paperwork.
You have GOT to be kidding me!!!
Andrew McCarthy attempted to declare R&C guilty based on his reading of a Department of Homeland Security-OIG Report of Investigation, a report (not transcripts or an account of the trial), that was 1) heavily redacted, 2) not released in its entirety (it included only 3 of 93 exhibits), and was written by the same people that were later found to have lied to Congress saying that Ramos and Compean were "out to shoot Mexicans." It was posted here.
There was NO legal analysis, let alone any "debunking." He included such stunning legal (NOT) analysis that he characterized the event as:
"...shooting human beings on sight just because they happen to be suspects, or here illegally, is reprehensible. It is inhumane. It is against the principles of honorable law enforcement. It is un-American."He blatantly mischaracterized the acts and then declared them reprehensible. Just another guy who seems not to want to let the FACTS get in his way.
Where is that at? The one column I have seen by McCarthy was on Feb 9, 2007 and it is pretty much a piece of trash.
From Andrew M.
As if more three-card-Monte from Carter were necessary, she also omits the report’s description of this particular agent’s relevance to the case. Why leave that out? Because it sinks one of our heroes. Compean had falsely alleged that (a) he had told the agent in question that he’d been assaulted by Aldrete-Davila and (b) the agent failed to file a report documenting this purported assault. But the IG’s pointed rebuttal, conveniently skipped by Carter, notes that “[Compean’s] own statements, his trial testimony, as well as statements and testimony from the other [Border Patrol agents] contradicted Compean’s allegation.”
Readers don’t need to take my word for it. They can read the report for themselves. They can observe how agent after agent knew about the shooting and helped Compean and Ramos cover it up. They can see how, at the time of the shooting, the two convicted agents never claimed Aldrete-Davila had a gun (as they now insist); how Compean expressly conceded that he had not been assaulted or injured (as he now claims); and how Compean confessed that he had concealed evidence of the fourteen shots he fired and then lied about what happened because, in his words, “I was afraid I was going to get in trouble.”
People can also read the testimony.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2010.pdf -- Jacquez testimony page 73.
Jacquez - Direct by Mr. Gonzalez 73 1 then Agent Ramos is the one that told him that he went after 2 the driver of the van, and that the driver and Agent Compean 3 had -- 4 Q. Wait. Sorry. Ramos told who? 5 A. Richards. 6 Q. Told him what? 7 A. That he went after the driver of the van. 8 Q. Okay. That Ramos went after the driver of the van? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And that the driver of the van got into some kind of 11 physical altercation with Agent Compean? 12 A. And that Compean's cut and was bleeding. 13 Q. You're saying he told Richards that Compean had a physical 14 altercation? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And that he was bleeding, correct? 17 A. Yes.
Sounds like an assault to me.
The transcripts of the trial were released after both these articles were written . Neither article addresses legal points. They do however throw in lots of hyperbole, like that Compean was "lying in wait" for Aldrete-Davila that day.
In the Border Patrol Case, the Best Defense Is a Good OffenseTo say that McCarthy "debunked" anything is just nonsense.
National Review Online ^ | February 9, 2007 6:45 AM | Andrew C. McCarthy
Posted on Friday, February 09, 2007 5:22:17 PM by 1rudeboyThe Border-Patrol Two Deserve Jail (Despite the “hero” propaganda)
National Review ^ | 01/27/2007 | Andrew C. McCarthy
Posted on Monday, January 29, 2007 9:30:51 AM by SirLinksalot
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.