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.
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.