Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why in God's name are Ramos and Compean still in prison?!
28 August 2008 | djsherin

Posted on 08/28/2008 1:44:28 PM PDT by djsherin

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-96 last
To: microgood
One thing for sure is they were trying to make an example of some kind because the charge that put them in jail for such a long time was connected to them being in possession of a gun when they committed the crime, a charge which has never before or since been used against law enforcement officials while on duty.

That is false. It is spin. Not only had the law been used against LEO's, but it had been used against LEO's in that very jurisdiction.

The defendants therefore advance the argument* that the application of the statute to the facts of this case is novel, i.e., did not provide them with fair warning, because its application here frustrates the statute’s legislative purpose, has no support in the cases of this circuit, and makes for bad public policy. [footnote ommitted] But cases in our circuit have permitted application of § 924(c)(1)(A) to police officers. See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 343 F.3d 423 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v. Winters 105 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 1997).

_____
*The defendents advanced more than one argument in this regard.
51 posted on 08/28/2008 2:57:29 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: djsherin
I read that they were sloppy after words and that supervisors heard the shots so there wasn’t a need to file a report (that was my understanding anyway).

I guess you don't need to know who they shot at or why they shot, just so long as you heard the shots? LOL!

52 posted on 08/28/2008 3:02:08 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Half the time it could seem funny, the other half's just too sad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
That is false. It is spin. Not only had the law been used against LEO's, but it had been used against LEO's in that very jurisdiction.

Thanks. I did not know that. Although I did look at those cases cited and those cops were engaged in heavily criminal activities (armed robbery, attempted murder, etc) and not just being stupid like these guys.
53 posted on 08/28/2008 3:06:41 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: microgood

(Full disclosure: I didn’t reread 924). My understanding is that the statute is triggered when a gun is used in a crime of violence, meaning that a consideration of the severity of the violent crime is outside the purview of the statute.


54 posted on 08/28/2008 3:10:49 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: djsherin

The cover-up was probably because of bad shooting. If R & C were good shots, they would be free today and there would one less Messkin drug dealer.


55 posted on 08/28/2008 3:11:40 PM PDT by ByteMercenary (9-11: supported everywhere by followers of the the cult of islam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

“He failed to file the report and tampered with the evidence precisely because he knew that what he had done was against the law.”

So he told you that’s why he did it....precisely? That’s not what I’ve heard at all. The reports said that they were required to file a report with their supervisor...except that their supervisor was THERE.

The criminal part of all of this is that this President sees fit to leave these patriots in jail while the REAL criminal gets free passes into the US courtesy of the taxpayer to be a witness against them. And, of course, we don’t let the jury know that he’s a multiple times drug runner THUG doing what he does best. He deserved more than a slug in the butt.


56 posted on 08/28/2008 3:13:12 PM PDT by battletank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ByteMercenary

If R & C were good shots, they would be free today and there would one less Messkin drug dealer................................And if they had they would have been guilty of murder.


57 posted on 08/28/2008 3:14:53 PM PDT by eastforker (Get-R-Done and then Bring-Em- Home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: battletank

You are advocating murder is OK? Yes the guy was a POS, yes he was running drugs, last time I looked we don’t shoot them in the back as a form of punishment. This was two dumb cops that couldn’t cover up what they did that they knew was wrong. The main reason they are in jail is cuz they were just plain stupid.


58 posted on 08/28/2008 3:19:17 PM PDT by eastforker (Get-R-Done and then Bring-Em- Home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

From what I understood their supervisors knew what was going on. I didn’t realize they were still required to file a report. Seems like a slap on the wrist thing though to me with maybe some suspension time.


59 posted on 08/28/2008 3:21:38 PM PDT by djsherin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: ByteMercenary

Ramos is a fine shot. Compean? I don’t know what to say . . . he either panicked or went Rambo.


60 posted on 08/28/2008 3:22:39 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: djsherin
From what I understood their supervisors knew what was going on. I didn’t realize they were still required to file a report. Seems like a slap on the wrist thing though to me with maybe some suspension time.

You need to read the opinion. The Circuit Court goes out of its way to state that neither it, nor the District Court, heard this case as matter of a Border Patrol policy violation.

61 posted on 08/28/2008 3:25:43 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

I will. But I’m hopping on and off the computer right now. I’ll read it later tonight when I’ve got a solid chunk of time. I’m just stating my preconceptions about what I’ve heard from the case and about this kind of policy in general.


62 posted on 08/28/2008 3:28:32 PM PDT by djsherin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: djsherin

It won’t be a fun opinion to read. Thankfully, Judge Jolly (and his clerks) did a fine job of writing it—he breaks apart the arguments and deals with them piece-by-piece.


63 posted on 08/28/2008 3:34:22 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Not fun because it shows Ramos and Compean in a different light or because it’s long, dull (I would imagine) piece to read?


64 posted on 08/28/2008 3:37:36 PM PDT by djsherin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: djsherin
Is it just a crime scene thing?

Yes, and Compean was an instructor that taught others the proper procedures about handling such a scene, so he couldn't reasonably argue that he didn't know better.

Their best argument was that they were lax in following regulations and just didn't want to deal with filing a report.

In my opinion the defense made a good case that a lot of regulations were commonly ignored in that border patrol office.

The testimony by some of the other agents left me thinking that Ramos and Compean were among the better agents there in actually trying to do their jobs if not exactly by the book.

Their supervisor was obviously trying to cover his own behind. It was obvious that he had to know that a high speed chase occurred with multiple units chasing after the suspect, however all high speed chases require supervisor approval and can only be done in sedans. None of the agents drove sedans, and the supervisor admitted that not only had he not approved a chase in this instance, but that he had never approved any high speed chases.

It was also obvious that a number of agents knew that shots were fired and none of them made any noise about the fact that no investigation was done and no report was filed.

To me that made it seem obvious that no one thought it was really necessary, or I guess the other option was that no one cared that they had tried to shoot the guy. I tend to believe that laziness is much more likely than malice, but the jury apparently felt differently.

What you ended up was with all of the witnesses being complicit in the incident to some degree. None of them had solid credibility. In the end it came down to Compean saying he saw a gun in the suspects hand and the suspect saying that he was shot for no reason. Somehow the jury decided that added up to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't think the two are completely innocent, but I also don't think there was nearly enough evidence to convict them of the crimes they were charged with, and the 10 year addition to the sentence for having used a firearm was completely ridicules.

65 posted on 08/28/2008 3:40:27 PM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic

I think that’s a fair evaluation. Thanks for the input.


66 posted on 08/28/2008 3:43:21 PM PDT by djsherin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: djsherin

Not fun, because I am sympathetic to the plaintiffs, and in a long read they (and their attorneys) really take it on the chin.


67 posted on 08/28/2008 3:47:39 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot
Just be sure that the question applies only to the defendant and not to the prosecution.

The prosecution did not tamper with any of the evidence. The defendants did.

Then just for fun, ask if the whole truth allows the omission of any part of the truth.

This is intended to imply that the prosecution withheld the truth by not allowing the defense to discuss Aldrete-Davila's crimes with the jury.

This has nothing to do with the "whole truth" regarding the incident, because at the time of the incident Ramos and Compean did not know Aldrete-Davila from Adam. They did not know that he was a drugrunner or even that he was not a US citizen. Unless the defendants were arguing that they were clairvoyant and could see the future, these facts were irrelevant to the incident the jury was considering.

That's the way the American legal system works.

68 posted on 08/28/2008 7:53:53 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz
That is wrong wrong wrong.

If that were true you would be able to correct the record. Instead, you just repeat an unsupported assertion three times.

69 posted on 08/28/2008 7:56:35 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: mountainbunny
Could you tell me where to find this information?

The Circuit Court's review of the case. I'll find you a link.

70 posted on 08/28/2008 7:59:54 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic
He didn't report discharging his weapon. I don't remember evidence of him covering up the incident beyond that

He removed physical evidence from the incident scene and he disturbed the incident scene as well - knowing full well that if he filed a written incident report as the law required or if came to light in any other way, there would be a routine physical inspection of the scene that he deliberately had interfered with.

71 posted on 08/28/2008 8:03:13 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: usurper
There are only three people in this world who know if he was unarmed, two former Border Patrol Agents and one convicted drug smuggler.

Or, more succinctly, only three convicted felons know the full story.

All three did their best to hide the details of what happened, implying that all three had something they wanted to hide.

72 posted on 08/28/2008 8:06:54 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RJL
We have only the involved criminal's word on this.

And the fact that the other two criminals couldn't consistently describe what sort of firearm the drugrunner had in his hand. And the fact that no physical evidence was recovered from the scene that would indicate that he was armed. And the fact that he was shot from behind.

73 posted on 08/28/2008 8:11:13 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: djsherin
Why in God's name are Ramos and Compean still in prison?!

Because they were convicted of a crime, failed on appeal, and did not receive a Presidential pardon?

Just sayin'

74 posted on 08/28/2008 8:16:17 PM PDT by Jim Noble (When He rolls up His sleeves, He ain't just puttin' on the Ritz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: usurper
They paid a heavy price for being lazy and not wanting to simply write a memo.

It's isn't a matter of not writing a "memo."

When a law enforcement officer fires a weapon, it's a big deal and needs to be accounted for. I don't think either of us would like to live in a jurisdiction where law enforcement officers would be allowed to fire as many rounds as they wanted without ever having to account for or justify the discharge of those rounds.

They also removed physical evidence from a crime scene. They also lied to investigators about tampering with the scene.

Although I still think that charging them with possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (which carried the mandatory 10 year sentence) was underhanded and unethical.

When you lie to and mislead investigators, they will throw the book at you. Especially when you have been underhanded and unethical - i.e. lied - to them. As peace officers themselves, Compean and Ramos knew they were playing with fire by messing with the investigation of other law enforcement personnel.

They basically dared the prosecution to throw the book at them.

75 posted on 08/28/2008 8:17:43 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Thank you so much.

Everyone should operate with all of the facts, regardless of what they are.

I appreciate it very much.


76 posted on 08/28/2008 8:27:56 PM PDT by mountainbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: battletank
So he told you that’s why he did it....precisely?

There are only two options: they tampered with the scene because the scene incriminated them, or they tampered with the scene because they were bored with their jobs and wanted to get fired and disgraced - just for kicks.

I'll go with the more rational option one.

That’s not what I’ve heard at all. The reports said that they were required to file a report with their supervisor...except that their supervisor was THERE.

Their supervisor was not there. He only showed up after the fact. And it does not matter - if he had actually been present at the incident he and Ramos and Compean would all have been required to file reports of what they did and saw.

An unrecorded verbal exchange with a supervisor is not a written record of a serious incident.

That should be pretty glaringly obvious.

The criminal part of all of this is that this President sees fit to leave these patriots in jail

Patriots don't lie and tamper with evidence. Patriots tell the truth and take whatever consequences they have coming to them.

He deserved more than a slug in the butt.

Of course he does. But he will never get what he deserves because Ramos' and Compean's incompetence and lies gave him the free pass he was hoping for.

Their behavior ensured that he could never be brought to trial. They were, in effect if not in intent, his accomplices.

77 posted on 08/28/2008 8:30:35 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: battletank
BTW - Aldrete-Davila will never be brought to trial on those charges, but he will be tried on a series of crimes he committed subsequently.

Crimes he would never have been able to commit had Ramos and Compean acted competently and legally.

78 posted on 08/28/2008 8:39:12 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: mountainbunny

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C06/06-51489-CR0.wpd.pdf


79 posted on 08/28/2008 8:41:35 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

It’s no conspiracy against the two. The administration has an open borders agenda and will enforce that agenda by any means necessary even if it destroys border patrol agents (and our nation) in the process.


80 posted on 08/29/2008 4:59:40 AM PDT by MBB1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MBB1984
It’s no conspiracy against the two.

Then you agree that they were justly tried and convicted?

The administration has an open borders agenda and will enforce that agenda by any means necessary even if it destroys border patrol agents (and our nation) in the process.

Ramos and Compean destroyed their own careers all by themselves.

Their Keystone Kops handling of Aldrete-Davila was an embarassment and their removal made border security automatically more effective.

If the agenda was truly "open borders" then the President would have promoted Ramos and Compean and packed the border patrol with as many Ramoses and Compeans as he could find.

81 posted on 08/29/2008 5:07:08 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Just because someone was wrongly tried and convicted, it does not necessarily follow that there was a conspiracy involved. You should know better than to apply that erroneous logic.

If you do believe the testimony of a drug smuggling, illegal alien over two American Border Patrol agents, we have nothing more to discuss. The beliefs upon which you base your strained arguments have no credibility.

82 posted on 08/29/2008 5:24:59 AM PDT by MBB1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: MBB1984
Just because someone was wrongly tried and convicted, it does not necessarily follow that there was a conspiracy involved.

If their appeal finds that they were justly tried and justly convicted, then either the appeals court is in cahoots with the prosecution to frame the defendants - or the defendants were not wrongly tried and not wrongly convicted.

If you do believe the testimony of a drug smuggling, illegal alien over two American Border Patrol agents, we have nothing more to discuss.

False dichotomy.

Under oath, Agent Ramos and Agent Compean and drugrunner Aldrete-Davila and Agent Juarez all gave conflicting testimony.

Ramos and Compean could not get their story straight between them and their own colleague's testimony impeaches them.

So we have four witnesses: one drugrunner (naturally untrustworthy), two border agents who deliberately tampered with the scene (and are thus demonstrably untrustworthy) and one border agent who did not tamper with the scene.

The most trustworthy individual present at the scene was Agent Juarez, and his testimony clearly indicates that Compean blatantly broke the law.

83 posted on 08/29/2008 5:57:38 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
He removed physical evidence from the incident scene and he disturbed the incident scene as well - knowing full well that if he filed a written incident report as the law required or if came to light in any other way, there would be a routine physical inspection of the scene that he deliberately had interfered with.

Compean did, but I don't remember anything saying Ramos didn't. I know he didn't pick up his brass. What did you hear he removed from the scene?

84 posted on 08/29/2008 6:56:08 AM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic
Ramos removed his sidearm, which at that point was an important piece of physical evidence, rather than turning it over to agency investigators.
85 posted on 08/29/2008 7:01:30 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Ramos removed his sidearm, which at that point was an important piece of physical evidence, rather than turning it over to agency investigators.

That wouldn't be considered tampering with the evidence because even if the incident was properly reported, the gun wouldn't have been left at the scene.

Ramos didn't tamper with the scene like Compean did.

You might as well say that Ramos shouldn't have removed himself from the scene.

By not reporting the incident, Ramos violated regulations, but his were acts of omission rather than consciously destroying evidence.

Both are wrong, but one can be considered a crime, while the other tends to be a work disciplinary issue.

86 posted on 08/29/2008 9:55:06 AM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic
That's a fair analysis. I concur.
87 posted on 08/29/2008 10:02:27 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
I disagree:

And the fact that the other two criminals couldn't consistently describe what sort of firearm the drugrunner had in his hand.

There was some distance between the Border Agents and the illegal smuggler, and the Border Agents were viewing the scene from two different perspectives. Often "eye witness" accounts are among the least accurate, some differences are to be expected.

======

And the fact that no physical evidence was recovered from the scene that would indicate that he was armed.

Likewise, there's no physical evidence that you didn't ______ (Fill in the blank). Should we throw you in jail?

======

And the fact that he was shot from behind.

Only in Johnny Sutton's twisted little mind. The illegal smuggler was shot in the side of his butt. That wound would exactly fit the profile offered to the Border Agents if the illegal smuggler had a weapon and was turned to shoot at our Border Patrol.

88 posted on 08/29/2008 11:09:52 AM PDT by RJL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

OK, Mr. Nifong-Sutton. How much are the dope barons paying you?


89 posted on 08/30/2008 7:59:27 PM PDT by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz
OK, Mr. Nifong-Sutton. How much are the dope barons paying you?

It's settled then. You are completely incapable of making a reasoned argument for your point of view.

90 posted on 08/30/2008 8:37:50 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: RJL
some differences are to be expected

The differences are radical.

The two border guards who fired at Aldrete-Davila claim he had a gun. The border guard who didn't fire claims that he did not.

Compean paints a picture of himself as heroically wrestling with Aldrete-Davila in hand-to-hand combat. Ramos and Juarez didn't see anything like that - just the wiry Aldrete-Davila easily outrunning the obese Compean.

Compean says he charged Aldrete-Davila with his shotgun. Ramos says that Compean didn;t charge, but swung his shotgun at Aldrete-Davila stock first, holding his weapon by the barrel (apparently firearm safety, telling the truth, filing reports and doing crunches are all skills alien to Compean).

The stories are all very different, and only the accounts of Juarez and Aldrete-Davila reconcile and make sense.

The illegal smuggler was shot in the side of his butt. That wound would exactly fit the profile offered to the Border Agents if the illegal smuggler had a weapon and was turned to shoot at our Border Patrol.

It would also fit if Aldrete-Davila was scrambling over hilly scrubland to get to the Rio Grande.

It's pretty clear from all of Aldrete-Davila's actions that day that his primary objective was getting out of dodge. Nothing that we know about him suggests that he had the physical courage to get into a gunbattle with four armed border agents. The last thing standing between him and his escape to Mexico was Compean. According to Compean, Aldrete-Davila decided to have a fistfight with him rather than draw a weapon, and then ran from the fistfight after throwing dirt. According to Ramos and Juarez, Aldrete-Davila ran right past the slow-moving Compean without confronting him and hightailed it for the river.

Compean's story makes no logical sense and is not corroborated by his two colleagues' testimony.

91 posted on 08/30/2008 9:09:19 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

And apparently you aren’t capable of conducting a fair trial with all your tentacles stuck into corrupt governments and drug cartels, Mr. Murtha.


92 posted on 08/31/2008 5:55:13 AM PDT by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz
And apparently you aren’t capable of conducting a fair trial with all your tentacles stuck into corrupt governments and drug cartels, Mr. Murtha.

The record is clear that you are defending two lying criminals.

All the epithets you use will never amount to a grain of truth.

93 posted on 08/31/2008 8:07:21 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
The illegal smuggler was shot in the side of his butt. That wound would exactly fit the profile offered to the Border Agents if the illegal smuggler had a weapon and was turned to shoot at our Border Patrol.

It would also fit if Aldrete-Davila was scrambling over hilly scrubland to get to the Rio Grande.

======

In virtually no scenario can I picture it being faster to run or scramble away sideways than running away forward.

That tells me something else was happening when the illegal smuggler presented his side profile to the Border Agents as he was fleeing from them.

It's clear you and I will not agree on this, good day to you.

94 posted on 08/31/2008 11:06:22 AM PDT by RJL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: RJL
In virtually no scenario can I picture it being faster to run or scramble away sideways than running away forward.

If one were running on a tabletop rather than actual terrain, maybe.

As a cross country runner I can tell you that the shortest distance between two points isn't always a beeline.

I would also point out that a pursuer does not necessarily follow precisely in his quarry's footsteps - you speak as if the physical conditions of the situation were Aldrete-Davila fleeing down a ramrod-straight, three foot wide tunnel. In reality he was fleeing across hillocky scrubland trying to find the quickest path to the Rio Grande.

The shot that wounded him entered the side of his buttocks and proceeded along his pelvis to rupture his urethra.

If Aldrete-Davila was at 11:58 or 12:02 in Ramos' view instead of dead-ahead 12 o'clock, Ramos' shot could easily have entered at the exact same point as it did without Aldrete-Davila doing anything but running for the border.

Again, the scenario described by Ramos and Compean strains credulity.

Think over the situation.

Aldrete-Davila's only concern is escape - he abandoned the drugs, he didn't turn his vehicle around to confront the border officers. He drove his vehicle as far as he could get with it and then abandoned it and made a run for the river.

At that point, the only thing standing between him and the river was Compean. If he was armed, the most logical thing to do would be to draw his weapon and take Compean out before Compean could shoulder his shotgun and fire. Taking Compean out would eliminate the one thing standing between him and Mexico.

Instead, Aldrete-Davila does not draw a weapon but tries to run past the shotgun-armed Compean, allowing Compean plenty of time to shoulder and aim. Compean claims that at this point he himself slipped and dropped his own shotgun trying to close with Aldrete-Davila and says that at that point Aldrete-Davila assaulted him and wrestled with him and then threw dirt in his eyes. So we are to believe that Aldrete-Davila, who supposedly was armed, was standing within yards of a self-disarmed Compean and did not draw his weapon but decided instead to get into hand-to-hand combat with Compean who was phsyically larger than himself?

Really?

And then, only after Compean had been able to rearm himself with a shotgun after a fight did Aldrete-Davila remember that he had a weapon in his possession and then - when he was already past Compean and very close to the river and safety - he decided to turn around and start shooting at a growing crew of border agents?

Give me a break.

The only way matters could have realistically unfolded was as related by Agent Juarez - that the scrawny Aldrete-Davila managed to run past the comically out-of-shape Compean, that Compean apparently tripped or slipped or somehow went down on the ground, and that he then took aim on bended knee with his shotgun at a fast-fleeing Aldrete-Davila, emptied his weapon and then reloaded and emptied it again - probably out of embarrassment and frustration at his pathetic performance.

Most likely Ramos - a better shot with a more accurate sidearm - responded to Compean's barrage of shells instinctually, and winged Aldrete-Davila.

At that point, Compean realized that he had screwed up what should have been an easy collar, had illegally fired at a fleeing suspect and that his illegal fire had tricked his buddy, Ramos, into doing something that might get Ramos in trouble.

So Compean picked up some of his brass, got another agent to help him clear up the scene and refrained from filing a report - a report that could only make him look incompetent or criminal or both.

When confronted with the unreported incident and taken by surprise by the fact that it came to light, Compean lied to his superiors using the only version of the story that could potentially keep him out of jail - claiming that Aldrete-Davila had what appeared to be a gun and had turned to fire on him.

Using Occam's razor, that is the only rational scenario.

And the jury and two courts agree.

95 posted on 08/31/2008 6:06:08 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

“All the epithets you use will never amount to a grain of truth. “

May you never find yourself under the same miscarriage of justice suffered by Ramos and Campeon.


96 posted on 09/02/2008 2:40:14 PM PDT by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-96 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson