Skip to comments.'Attempted hit' put on Ramos family
Posted on 01/15/2009 8:34:40 AM PST by IbJensen
The family of imprisoned Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos was the victim of an attempted hit on their lives this month, as the agent's wife says someone broke into their home and filled it with gas, trashing photographs and pummeling their dog.
How dare you criticize our Fearless Leader! After all, he kept us safe for the last eight years!
Sounds like more of an attempt to scare them, probably originating on this side of the border. An attempted hit from south of the border would have likely been sucessfull in spectacular fasion.
Guy like that would do breakins.
Bingo! The Bush worship on FR has reached all time highs while the people he’s done wrong during his tenure are having their dogs pummeled by the Mexican mafia. Good work W!
Perhaps a gift from one of those honest, hard working folks here to do the jobs Americans won’t do. Jorge’s administration has been a real Godsend for these two families, huh? Bush has done some good things and some bad, like most presidents. But placing and keeping these men in prison...destroying their families, this act alone makes him an even bigger BUM than Clinton or Carter. It is beyond inexcuseable.
Wow... an e-mail from WND. Doesn’t get more authoritative than that!
Admin, your job is getting harder by the day.
There are becoming almost no acceptable words from the English language to use in these threads.
“There are becoming almost no acceptable words ... “
`Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should.’
So what does you want—good grammar or good taste?
No doubt that there was something other than a robbery done on the home. The El Paso area is quite poor, and there are a lot of burglaries...few will take the time to “turn on the gas” in a home in a burglary spree....there are too many other places to hit
Jorge Boosh’s refusal to pardon Ramos and Compean is an outright travesty. Only the most brain-dead liberal GOPer still supports Boosh.
All this to pander to illegal aliens....what an anti-American tragedy
President Bush believes his Christianity and his friends mix. His biggest shortcoming is his belief in his friends. He believed Rumsfeld who told him to continue the course in Iraq (Surge, we don’t need no stinking surge!) and he believed those who told him that Ramos and Compean were guilty.
President Bush will burn in hell, mainly because of what he has allowed to happen to these two men.
How very true!
Bushie has worked overtime greasing the rails and carrying the heavy loads to make Obomba's job easier in morphing our USA into a third world nation.
Let this, then, be his legacy. He can now crawl down into the netherworld with Carter and Clinton.
Obomba will join them in one term, or less.
The conspiratorial blindness that could lead a supposedly sentient being to suspect that a sitting, well-respected U.S. Attorney trashed somebody’s house is indicative of the derangement of some of the pro-CR folks here.
The fact that none of the pro-CR folks will even suggest your theory is nuts is indicative of the level of discourse expected.
I agree with your sentiments up to “George Bush will burn in hell”. You don’t know that, it’s not your place, and to pretend that you do puts your soul in grave danger.
I mean, there are lots of people that we all of us get insanely angry with, but having heard about the visions that some saints have been priveledged to have of hell, I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. That’s right, no one, ever. Hell is real, hell is forever, and hell is, well, hell.
Pardon them President Bush or may it be on your conscience for the rest of your retirement.
That is the single nuttiest thing I’ve heard yet in my years at FR. Give me a break. Sutton isn’t breaking into people houses and beating dogs.
I asked on one of the other threads about this same WND story if anybody had a link to an actual article about the break-in. Nobody has responded.
I wonder why the dog-sitter didn’t blow up. I presume if they left their dog at home for a week while they went on vacation that they had someone coming over to take care of the dog.
That's why I treat anything to do with Sutton as though Sutton is a worthless drifter who somehow came into knowledge of a con that he's been using on everybody ~ or, alternatively that Sutton is a mad man.
In short, Chuckee Baybee, we consider Sutton a mentally unstable clown!
In fact, a really clever Freeper would see that I used Sutton's logic to come up with 11 and 12 year terms to come up with the idea that he, Sutton, would be breaking into homes, so we might as well blame him for this one.
Once he's out of office, and on his own, he's got NO FRIENDS.
I don't think he's pandering to illegal aliens. I think it's more a situation of; NOBODY shoots one of the Bush's drug mules (Davilla) and gets away with it.
And before the flaming starts, the Bush's have a very long history of being intertwined in illegal drug-running, going back to the time Papa was heading up the CIA.
Our bogus War on Drugs is WAAAAAAAAY too profitable.
Oh, well... at least threads like this allow one to keep tabs on who’s in the whackadoodle contingent....
Assuming your opinion of what Sutton did is accurate, and the trained legal professionals whose job it is to evaluate your claim has found it baseless, provides no support for your wild accusations.
You might as well say that since you think your hair is green, the moon must be made of green cheese.
WND Article, below.
There is also info. regarding the latest colon cleaning
technology so that, if you wish, you can flush five to
fifteen pounds of undigested waste from your colon.
I’d love to see one of the conspiracy theorists explain exactly what the POINT would be of trashing the guy’s house.
It’s not like the family needs to be intimidated into not speaking because they are having some effect on people.
I didn’t know we carried that much waste around with us. I guess that would be a useful thing for someone who had to lose weight quickly.
As for the article, the entire article is based on what the family told the reporter. It says the house was broken into while they were visiting her husband in prison. It says she thinks the gas was on for two days. It doesn’t say how long they were off visiting, it doesn’t say how she knows when the break-in happened, it doesn’t say if anybody was taking care of the dog, or whether the dog was inside or outside.
You see what the problem is, Sutton had to have a case worth pursuing ~ 10 years for example ~ and he didn't, so he found a bunch of ignorant Western hillbillies to buy into this idea. And they did.
He's made Obomba's job easier by design as apparently even though Obomba is a fraud they both belong to the same club.
Colon Powell has done much 'cleansing' so, most of us have had quite enough of the Busies.
I suppose you could live life assuming that we filled our district and appeals courts with amateurs ignorant of the law or it’s application.
I’ve certainly had judgments of the supreme court that I have disagreed with, so I’m not much for respecting authority for authority’s sake.
But I’m pretty sure I don’t want police to be allowed to use their weapons to commit crimes simply because they were given the weapons to protect us.
Which means that if the police are convicted of committing a crime, and they use their weapons to do so, I would expect they would be subject to the same laws I would be subjected to if I used my gun while committing a crime.
There are cases aplenty where the prosecutors have reached out and grabbed such folks ~
If you wanted to include cops in the net you should have written the law to do that, else you also write in the entire chain of command, and that includes, as it turns out, the President, the Secretary, the appropriate Under Secretary, etc., etc., etc. ~ the cappos. It's quite obvious Congress never intended such a thing ~ no President, no Secretary, no border patrolman.
You have a bad law stretched beyond its limits to do improper selective prosecutions.
That's why Sutton needed a bunch of bills to do the job. He'd never gotten away with it in DC.
And yes, I do believe we tend to man the Justice Department with yahoos and assholes. I had a perfectly good finding that a well known NGO owed the government over $10 million. The DOJ lawyers wanted to knock that down to 10%.
Typical DOJ lawyer.
He was overridden and they ended up going for the whole thing. Our own agency lawyers were chagrined ~ they knew that I'd always look down at them and other government lawyers the rest of their careers, and I do.
DOJ simply does not fund prosecutions that send a cup to stir for 6 months for paperwork errors.
It does, OTOH, fund prosecuting them for 10 years.
Sutton needed the gun thing interpreted by an aggressive careerist female (as I understood it) so he could get the prosecution funded.
We cannot help but notice that the two guys were Mexican Americans, and I would imagine you can get them prosecuted day and night out there in that part of the country ~ the locals don't differentiat between Mexican cops and Mexican criminals, American citizenship or not.
Maybe Sutton imagined "W" would promote him ~ that'd be useful 4 or 8 years from now.
Guy ruined his future career in Conservative or Republican politics. He'll have to become a Leftwingtard now.
The law deals with people who were in on the crime, not the people who provided the weapons, if the weapons were provided legally.
You’d have the same issue with a security guard using his weapon to go off and commit other crimes.
Now, I think it is quite a stretch to charge a gun crime when the police officers were on duty, performing an official act sanctioned by authority, even if during that duty they break the law.
But that is a different distinction than you seem to be making, because if I understand your argument you don’t think any police officer should face this law if they use their officially issued weapon in a crime.
In addition, while I personally think it is wrong to use this particular law against police who use their gun during their official duties (even if they commit a crime in those duties), I don’t think it is a violation of what the law says to do so.
But that “I don’t think” is not based on how I believe the law should be used, but on the fact that the judge in the case, and the judges of the appeals court, both ruled that the law could be applied to this case.
And since those judges know a lot more about the law than I do, they probably are right. At least, it is clear that smart people with a clear knowledge of law in this country believe the law was correctly applied, so it can’t be the case that Sutton went well beyond reason in using the law.
Smart people who know what they are doing disagree with your position. It doesn’t mean your position is wrong, but it does mean you are wrong to suggest that the use of the law can’t be rationally justified.
I would also note that congress, which passed the law, expressed no majority opinion that the law was being applied incorrectly, nor did they take any action to clarify the law.
And it’s not like they didn’t have a chance — there were hearings about the case, and there were representatives pushing to take a vote on it. It seems clear that a majority of congress either agrees with this use of the law, or at least doesn’t care that the law is being used this way.
I also am not a fan of mandatory sentences. I know that we have a lot of bad judges, and we should focus on hiring competent people to be judges. But once we have put competent people in place, we should give them some discretion to handle cases individually when there are extenuating circumstances, subject to legal review.
There’s no way a bunch of politicians are going to write the perfect law, but mandatory sentences suggest the law and the punishment are exact and perfect and should not in any way be tampered with.
In Virginia being an accessory to a crime gets you the same time. I'm sure you could pursue the same course in bringing federal charges against, for example, "crime lords", "gang chieftains", and "the President" ~
Still, the cops here didn't take their guns to work that day with the intention of commiting a crime. Someone else directed them to take those guns to work that day for the purpose of self-protection as well as shooting uppity drug dealers and other criminals.
So far nothing happened regarding the "intention" issue in that case.
The only "crime" Sutton could pin them with was administrative in nature and had a penalty of less than a year. He was actually trying to prosecute them for not counting their bullets.
Obviously Sutton is a mad man, but we digress.
You cannot link "intent" to the use of the gun with respect to the subsequent "crime" of not counting shell casings.
Does not happen except in hillbilly courts where the city slicker comes in and rubs the judge's inner thing and whispers "You know I'm one of George's buddies, ya hear".
The fact the guys were police officers who were required to be armed is sufficient to blow the "ten years" part right out of court in any real court. So I have to agree with you on that.
Now, back to the 6 months max for not counting shell casings, I don't think that one's been enforced since WWI.
Just for the record, while I have no intention of discussing it, not discussing it doesn’t mean I accept your interpretation that Sutton was trying to prosecute them for not counting their shells.
He screwed up.
Bush may love him but nobody else does.
Again, I have no information on that issue, but I would bet that if you actually went to where he lives, and asked around, that Sutton and his family are solid, his church is solid, his friends are solid, and that he is quite unaware that you and all of your friends hate him so much.
You don't see him or his friends here anymore but early on he had people who must have been on his staff trying to argue his case.
They didn't succeed because they were depending on the testimony of a dope dealer that he got shot by cops while transporting dope.
People here agitated to have the dope dealer picked up and prosecuted for a later crime ~ one which he committed while Sutton was using him as a witness against Campeon and Ramos.
Oh, yes, Sutton knows he's despised ~ he's also quite an evil little twit who knows he did wrong. Man's not fit to be a prosecutor and probably not fit to be a lawyer.
Actually, most of the people here agitated for the dope dealer to be arrested and charged for the first drug-smuggling incident.
Unfortunately, the two agents who were supposed to catch him let him escape, and then couldn't identify him in a lineup or provide enough information to put the man at the scene. Of course, telling that they had shot the man would have made it much easier to identify him, but once they hid that information there was no way it could be used against the man in court later.
Eventually, Sutton was able to get Davila on a different charge, and now the guy is in jail where he belongs. And he never got a dime of money for any "lawsuit" that was threatened, just treatment for his injuries from the shooting that the agents didn't report.
Sutton had every right to be pissed at the agents. He learned about a shooting from the guy who was SHOT, rather than from the chain of command.
I can't imagine Sutton was trying to make a deal to do talk radio. I guess you mean he went on some of the anti-Sutton shoes to try to explain his position, and was unable to do so. If you think a man's life is defined by how he does on a talk show, then maybe you are correct.
His being shot was not a problem. Guy lives in Mexico. People in the dope business get shot there all the time.
It's a stretch to argue that the border agents hit him.
The only evidence that this particular narcotrafficante didn't have a gun is his own claim ~ and there's no reason anyone should ever believe a narcotrafficante about anything.
Sutton's case was off target (go after the narcotrafficantes, not the border agents), and ill-grounded.
That leads all rational people to ask why Sutton wanted to do this ~ certainly had nothing to do with the power and majesty of the law.
My point about the shooting in this thread was that if they had reported the shooting, then finding the man with the agent’s bullet in him would have been strong physical evidence linking the man to the crime scene.
But since they didn’t report it, trying to use it at trial would be fruitless. Ramos would be on the witness stand testifying that they shot the guy, and the defense would tear him apart about the failure to report the shooting, and noting that Ramos could have shot the guy anywhere at any time, since there was no record of the shooting.
Remember, the only reason we know Davila was at the scene that day is because Davila testified that he was there. Neither Ramos nor Compean could identify him, they didn’t find any conclusive prints on the van, and they didn’t aprehend him there.
So there was no way we’d ever prosecute him for the drug smuggling — the bullet is the only physical evidence we had tying him to the scene, and that only works if you know he was shot at the scene.
If I'd been the boss here I'd sent both of these guys for remedial weapons training. There was no excuse for missing this puke.