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

Skip to comments.

'Attempted hit' put on Ramos family
World Net Daily Email | 1/15/2009 | Staff

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.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: borderpatrol; ramos
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last
To: r9etb

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.


21 posted on 01/15/2009 9:20:12 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Look, CW, we all know Sutton took the "possession of a gun in commission of a crime" statute and stretched it beyond all reason just so he had a long enough sentence to convince DOJ to give him the money for the prosecution.

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!

22 posted on 01/15/2009 9:21:40 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Melas
Hey, Sutton isn't out of a job yet either is he. Did you read my facetious post throughly and run it through your noggin a few times to see where this is headed.

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.

23 posted on 01/15/2009 9:23:38 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
President Bush has done a great job preventing another 9/11. President Bush did a terrible job where these two border guards are concerned. The 1st will outweigh the second. But not by much.
24 posted on 01/15/2009 9:27:25 AM PST by McGruff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
BTW, Chuckee, Sutton is not at all "well respected" ~ you'll see once he's out of office. At the moment he can command respect because he's shown himself to be kind of a loose cannon ready to toss people into prison on questionable charges.

Once he's out of office, and on his own, he's got NO FRIENDS.

25 posted on 01/15/2009 9:28:58 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior
All this to pander to illegal aliens....what an anti-American tragedy

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.

26 posted on 01/15/2009 9:36:04 AM PST by Ranger Drew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Oh, well... at least threads like this allow one to keep tabs on who’s in the whackadoodle contingent....


27 posted on 01/15/2009 9:39:40 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

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.


28 posted on 01/15/2009 10:00:52 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

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.

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86141


29 posted on 01/15/2009 10:01:10 AM PST by tumblindice (I hope someday to be the man my dog thinks I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

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.


30 posted on 01/15/2009 10:04:22 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice

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.


31 posted on 01/15/2009 10:10:16 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
CW, the "experts" are amatuers at interpreting just how far you can stretch a law or a federal regulation. I'm sure that given 5 minutes thought on the matter I could have Sutton's entire office prosecuted for having caused Ramos and Campeon to have had guns on the job, right there at hand, to shoot dope dealers.

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.

32 posted on 01/15/2009 10:16:30 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: McGruff
I think that the entire illegal alien lovefest on Bush's part will trump any good this 'moderate' socialist has done.

He's made Obomba's job easier by design as apparently even though Obomba is a fraud they both belong to the same club.

33 posted on 01/15/2009 10:27:30 AM PST by IbJensen (The USA has been failing since Wilson, Take this country back now before it's too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice
There is also info. regarding the latest colon cleaning technology so that, if you wish...

Colon Powell has done much 'cleansing' so, most of us have had quite enough of the Busies.

34 posted on 01/15/2009 10:29:59 AM PST by IbJensen (The USA has been failing since Wilson, Take this country back now before it's too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

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.


35 posted on 01/15/2009 6:06:53 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Alas, you miss the whole point. The way the law is written it's not just the perp, but the perp's cappos, and the cappo di tutti cappo who can be charged with responsibility for the weapon's presence.

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.

Snort!

36 posted on 01/15/2009 6:25:55 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Note, the not counting the bullets crime, which is the only one Sutton could prove without the testimony of a Mexican dope runner, doesn't carry an 11 or 12 year penalty ~ 6 months tops depending on circumstances, and usually just a letter to the personnel file.

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.

37 posted on 01/15/2009 6:48:38 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

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.


38 posted on 01/16/2009 5:40:12 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
There are multiple ways to attack the problem. One is to point out that the officers didn't voluntarily take guns to the scene of their crime(s) (if any). They were told to do so by higher authority extending all the way up to the President.

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.

39 posted on 01/16/2009 10:18:10 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

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.


40 posted on 01/16/2009 3:36:11 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next 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