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

Skip to comments.

Senate to interrogate border agents' prosecutor[U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton](Ramos-Compean)
The Washington Times ^ | 17 July 2007 | Jerry Seper

Posted on 07/17/2007 5:37:55 AM PDT by BGHater

A Senate hearing today into the convictions of two U.S. Border Patrol agents who shot a fleeing drug-smuggling suspect is expected to spark heated debate as the U.S. attorney who brought the charges defends the prosecutions.

U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton will tell the Senate Judiciary Committee that a jury in Texas heard all the evidence against agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean in their shooting of Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila and ruled it was not justified.

"This case is not about illegal immigration but the rule of law," said Mr. Sutton. "After a 2½-week jury trial, these former agents were convicted of shooting at and seriously wounding an unarmed, fleeing suspect who posed no threat to them."

Another witness, T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Counsel (NBPC) who has angrily denounced the prosecution, will challenge the government's case, saying there were only three witnesses to the incident and prosecutors believed Mr. Aldrete-Davila over the two agents.

"The only way to conclude that Agents Ramos and Compean should have been prosecuted is if the word of the known drug smuggler is given more credence than the sworn statements of two law-enforcement officers," said Mr. Bonner, whose union represents all 11,000 of the agency's nonsupervisory personnel.

The committee also will hear from Border Patrol Chief David V. Aguilar, Border Patrol Deputy Chief Luis Barker and Ramos' appellate counsel, David L. Botsford.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat and chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee on terrorism, technology and homeland security, first raised questions about the prosecutions in February. Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, has ruled she will preside over the hearing.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: aliens; borderagents; compean; immigrantlist; ramos; senate; sutton; suttonsucks; traitorsutton
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-103 next last
To: jude24; xzins; blue-duncan
A jury weighed the credibilities, and decided they believed the smuggler rather than the officers who tried to cover up their crime. It's called falsus in uno.

The jury was not given all the information necessary to make that decision about credibility. The judge prohibited the defense from bringing up this guy's past and the fact that he had been arrested for drug smuggling even after this incident. BTW juries are composed of people who are generally too stupid to find an excuse or reason to get out of jury duty. And many jurors lie about whether or not they have prejudged a case just so that they can sit on a jury, especially in a high profile case, since there is the chance to hit the lottery with a book deal.

A prosecutor with an agenda and an unlimited budget can usually find a way to convict anyone of anything. If the Duke case had gone to trial, I suspect those white boys would have been convicted regardless of the lack of evidence. The jury would have ignored the forensic evidence and found a way to believe the lying prostitute.

51 posted on 07/17/2007 6:27:26 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: jude24

Ramos, 37, and Compean, 28, were sentenced in October to 11- and 12-year prison terms for shooting Mr. Aldrete-Davila in the buttocks after he refused to stop his van and fled on foot into Mexico after abandoning 743 pounds of marijuana. He was located in Mexico by Homeland Security officials and returned to the U.S. under a grant of immunity to testify against the agents.

"The only way to conclude that Agents Ramos and Compean should have been prosecuted is if the word of the known drug smuggler is given more credence than the sworn statements of two law-enforcement officers," said Mr. Bonner, whose union represents all 11,000 of the agency's nonsupervisory personnel.

52 posted on 07/17/2007 6:28:21 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: kabar
According to the DOJ, Assault with intent to murder, assault with a deadly weapon, unlawful disharge of a firearm in commission of a crime of violence, tampering with an official proceeding, and deprivation of civil rights under color of law.
53 posted on 07/17/2007 6:29:39 AM PDT by jude24 (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: kabar
Again, I am basing my response on the opinion of a former BP agent with almost 40 years service.
Well I don't think he was on the jury, nor the judge, prosecutor or defense counsel. It appears the judge used judicial discretion in her sentencing...
Begins on page 67

THE COURT: All right. I need Agent Compean and -- I'm sorry -- Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean to come on up and approach.

Gentlemen, although the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 requires a Court to impose a sentence within the applicable guideline range in an ordinary case, it does not eliminate this Court's discretion.

It is my duty, as Judge, to assess a fair and reasonable sentence by looking at many things that bear on the outcome, formed by my -- from my vantage point, as a person on a day-to-day basis who imposes sentences on many, many people. Some of the factors that I can consider include the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendants, the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment for this offense, to afford adequate deterrence to future criminal conduct, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records, the need to provide restitution, victim misconduct, susceptibility -- susceptibility to abuse or retaliation in prison. However, though this may apply to Counts 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11, in the case of Mr. Compean, and to Counts 2, 3, 8, 9 and 12, in the case of Mr. Ramos, it cannot apply to the mandatory minimum ten-year sentence that was imposed by Congress.[my bolding]

So, having said that, based on the information available to me, the circumstances of this case, and your particular circumstances, Mr. Ramos, to impose a sentence that is sufficient, but not greater than necessary to meet the goals of the sentencing, considering all of the factors listed, this Court will find that -- first of all, the Court is going to grant a downward departure based on victim conduct and susceptibility to abuse or retaliation in prison. And the Court is going to grant a variance, based on the nature and circumstances of the offense, the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of that offense, and promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, afford adequate deterrence to future criminal conduct, and avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records, the Court will find that a fair and reasonable sentence in this case is 12 months and one day on Counts 2, 3, 8, 9, and 12, to run concurrently, and 120 months on Count 4, to run consecutive to those Counts 2, 3, 8, 9, and 12. There will be three years of supervised release on a reporting basis. Once you are released, you remain under this Court's supervision for three years. During that time you have to obey all the standard terms and conditions adopted by this Court. You can commit no further crimes against the United States or any state or local government.

You will be prohibited from possessing a firearm or other dangerous weapon. You will be ordered to refrain from the unlawful use of controlled substances, and to submit to drug testing as required by the probation department. You will be ordered to participate in an anger management and counseling program approved by the probation office, and all the other standard terms and conditions. There will be a $2,000 fine. There will be a $100 special assessment per count, for a total of $600. And the Court will make a recommendation for a facility as close to El Paso as possible.

In saying all of that, I do want to make sure that I'm clear that the Court is overruling the objections regarding destruction or fabrication, the plus two, plus the plus two objection regarding abuse of a trusted position. Anything further in the sentencing of Mr. Ramos?

MS. STILLINGER: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Anything further in the sentencing of Mr. Ramos before I proceed to Mr. Compean?

MS. KANOF: Your Honor, was the Court going to impose restitution?

THE COURT: Let me look at that in just a minute, and then I'll go over that, also.

Regarding Mr. Compean, again, based on the information available to me in the circumstances of this case and your particular circumstances, Mr. Compean, to impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary to meet the goals of sentencing, considering all of those factors, the Court is going to first of all find that -- is going to grant a downward departure, based on susceptibility to retaliation or abuse in prison.

The Court is going to grant a variance, based on the nature and circumstances of this offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, in order to promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, afford adequate deterrence to future criminal conduct, and avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records, the Court will find that a fair and reasonable sentence in your case, Mr. Compean, is 24 months of incarceration on Counts 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11. Those will run concurrently. And 120 months on Count 5, to run consecutive thereto.

There will be three years of supervised release on a reporting basis. Once you are released, you do remain under this Court's supervision for three years.

During that time you can -- must comply with all the standard terms and conditions adopted by this Court. You shall not commit another federal, state, or local crime. You will be prohibited from possessing a firearm or other dangerous weapon. You will be ordered to refrain from the unlawful use of controlled substances and to submit to drug testing as required by the probation department.

There will be a $2,000 fine and a $100 special assessment per count, for a total of $600. And again, the Court will make a recommendation for a facility as close to El Paso as possible.

I need the attorneys and probation to approach regarding the issue of restitution real quick.
(Off-the-record bench discussion.)

THE COURT: All right. Before I proceed to the issue of restitution -- come on back up, Mr. Compean, and Mr. Ramos.

[end snip]


54 posted on 07/17/2007 6:31:41 AM PDT by deport ( Cue Spooky Music...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Well, Borders Guards are not above the law. They committed a crime, and tried to cover it up, lied, and then refused a deal.
******************************************
BULL!!

They informed their superiors and made a full and complete oral report of the event, they followed procedures, for you to say that they committed a crime and covered it up ignores the facts ,, Sutton withheld exculpatory evidence and lied to senators who were looking into this to short circuit their inquiry...


55 posted on 07/17/2007 6:31:56 AM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Guenevere

I will, and you do the same for me, okay?


56 posted on 07/17/2007 6:32:11 AM PDT by truthkeeper (It's the borders, stupid./LOUD and PROUD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: jude24; Perdogg
They picked up the spent shells and tried to cover up what happened. That was their mistake, not the shooting itself. That's called "consciousness of guilt."

No --- that's called "obeying your supervisors who were there on the crime scene".

If this were in rural Midwestern America, and the person shot an American citizen, we'd all be up in arms about jackbooted-thugs. But because the victim was an illegal alien, we want him shot like a dog?

You mean a "drug-smuggling illegal foreigner attempting to shoot a U. S. law enforcement officer".

And why was this dog's drug-smuggling activities, that were taking place even during the trial, withheld from the jury??? And just why has this drug-smuggling lying perjurious dog not been rounded up and prosecuted??? This was a grave miscarriage of justice and George Bush and his lapdogs know it.

57 posted on 07/17/2007 6:33:59 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: truthkeeper
I checked CSPAN as well and didn’t see it. Try sticking with CSPAN2, that looks like the best bet.
58 posted on 07/17/2007 6:34:50 AM PDT by BGHater (My Tagline will defend freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale
The coverup seems to be from the Bush Administration’s Hispanic Border Patrol Chief and the Hispanic Attorney General.

Fox guarding chicken coop.................

59 posted on 07/17/2007 6:35:04 AM PDT by varon (Allegiance to the constitution, always. Allegiance to a political party, never.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Ramos and Campion claim that their supervisor watched them pick up the spent shells and assumed that he was making the report. They did not know that the fleeing suspect had been hit.


60 posted on 07/17/2007 6:35:46 AM PDT by mission9 (Be a citizen worth living for, in a Nation worth dying for...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
he judge prohibited the defense from bringing up this guy's past and the fact that he had been arrested for drug smuggling even after this incident

It has no legal relevance. It wasn't known by Campos and Ramos at the time of the crime, nor does it bear upon his credibility. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, uncharged prior bad acts are admissible only if they relate to truthfulness. Drug dealing isn't considered one of those (since you could conceivably be an "honest" drug dealer. Yeah, I know.)

Even if it weren't inadmissible under that Rule, it would still be inadmissible as unduly prejudicial under F.R.E. 403. "He's an illegal drug dealer, so he should have been shot"? That defense just won't fly in any respectable courtroom.

61 posted on 07/17/2007 6:36:15 AM PDT by jude24 (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: deport
I am sure that they thought that a plea bargain would have forced them to admit guilt in this instance, where they thought they were innocent, espeically the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime. Manadatory sentencing then kicked in.
62 posted on 07/17/2007 6:36:16 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: jude24
A jury found OJ innocent. Do you believe he was innocent?
63 posted on 07/17/2007 6:37:27 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

64 posted on 07/17/2007 6:38:36 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar
Here are the trial transcripts which are the actual proceedings in the court which was the basis of the jury's decisions, etc.

Charges listed by the court begins on page 8 of this transcript Vol. VII

TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS

 

VOLUME I PDF VOLUME X PDF
VOLUME II PDF VOLUME XI PDF
VOLUME III PDF VOLUME XII PDF
VOLUME IV PDF VOLUME XIII PDF
VOLUME V PDF VOLUME XIV PDF
VOLUME VI PDF VOLUME XV PDF
VOLUME VII PDF VOLUME XVI PDF
VOLUME VIII PDF VOLUME XVII PDF
VOLUME IX PDF VOLUME XVIII PDF
VASQUEZ TESTIMONY PDF

 


65 posted on 07/17/2007 6:39:17 AM PDT by deport ( Cue Spooky Music...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Guenevere; All

I guess it won’t be televised, since it was supposed to begin at 10:00 EST and it’s not on C-Span right now. Maybe it will be rebroadcast at a later time.


66 posted on 07/17/2007 6:40:33 AM PDT by truthkeeper (It's the borders, stupid./LOUD and PROUD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Manadatory sentencing then kicked in.


Yep as mandated by the Congress of the United States, not the judge, prosecutor, or jury.


67 posted on 07/17/2007 6:41:05 AM PDT by deport ( Cue Spooky Music...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: jude24

Are we from the same country? I believe my people (even if their wrong) over a drug smuggling POS. If you check the guards records, they’ve been up for border guard of the year. If they were rotten to the core, something else woud have turned up in their past. Biggest crime was not killing the POS with that one shot, then there wouldn’t be all this downtream activity, and the drug groups would have a lot more respect for the BP because they would know it’s okay to kill drug running POS, and that the government supports those for stopping problems.


68 posted on 07/17/2007 6:41:14 AM PDT by Issaquahking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: deport

Thanks


69 posted on 07/17/2007 6:41:59 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: normy
" I can’t believe the major GOP players are too blind to see this."

I can.

Personally, after Shamnesty, I'm fine with the dems if they manage to do the right thing and I'm even better if the courts act to overturn.

GWB is twisting in the wind already and it might get a message across to the rest of the GOP.

70 posted on 07/17/2007 6:44:08 AM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; jude24; kabar

I want to know:

Was he shot in the back, the side, or the buttocks?

Since it obviously didn’t kill him, did it even render him immobile?

Was he truly a drug smuggler?

If he got away, could the agents have picked up their brass because they didn’t think they hit anything?


71 posted on 07/17/2007 6:49:14 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: jude24

A drug smuggling alien at that. The horror of it that they shot him in the butt. This case is more than rule of law...its about protecting our borders and the Open Border crowd that wants Mexico to join with us.


72 posted on 07/17/2007 6:50:03 AM PDT by cmiller623 (Mayor Antonio Villa....or never mind. Los Angeles is doomed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: deport
Charges listed by the court begins on page 8 of this transcript Vol. VII........ S/B Vol. V, Link is to the correct volume.
73 posted on 07/17/2007 6:51:05 AM PDT by deport ( Cue Spooky Music...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun
I'm not happy with this prosecutor, but one also has to look at the jury that convicted them.

Juries today are usually made up of the ignorant underclass. They have no capacity for analytical thought because they are no longer taught that in school. They don't really understand the jury system, which includes the concept of innocent until proven guilty. And most of them just want to get done and go home. In this case, was the jury hostile to boarder patrol agents because of cultural biases?

With your best Cheech Marin accent: "If the prosecutor says they're guilty, hey man, who am I to argue. ha ha ha."

74 posted on 07/17/2007 6:51:31 AM PDT by A. Patriot (CZ 52's ROCK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jude24; xzins; blue-duncan
Drug dealing isn't considered one of those (since you could conceivably be an "honest" drug dealer. Yeah, I know.)

And so should the jury.

Jude, the immunity deal given to the smuggler is unprecedented in American jurisprudence. Sutton had no business granting the perp immunity for drug smuggling in exchange for his perjured testimony that he did not have a weapon with him when he was smuggling millions of dollars worth of marijuana across the border.

If this guy had a complaint about being shot, he should have volunteered to testify against the officers who shot him. He refused to testify without a grant of immunity for his own crimes. That is unprecedented. And to top it off, he was smuggling drugs while under the grant of immunity.

Sutton had an axe to grind and an unlimited budget. Does the word Nifong mean anything to you?

75 posted on 07/17/2007 6:53:53 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Perdogg still doggedly wrong on this case. And you won’t convince him otherwise as he stands on principle. And loses the US as we know it because the US is about to get swamped with illegal immigrants who will change the country forever changing the principles set up to keep this country safe.


76 posted on 07/17/2007 6:55:45 AM PDT by cmiller623 (Mayor Antonio Villa....or never mind. Los Angeles is doomed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: varon

They refuse to see the possibility of a conflict of interest. If they really wanted to make it appear fair, they should both recuse themselves from commenting on the case.


77 posted on 07/17/2007 7:00:29 AM PDT by TommyDale (Never forget the Republicans who voted for illegal immigrant amnesty in 2007!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Was he truly a drug smuggler?

"Ramos, 37, and Compean, 28, were sentenced in October to 11- and 12-year prison terms for shooting Mr. Aldrete-Davila in the buttocks after he refused to stop his van and fled on foot into Mexico after abandoning 743 pounds of marijuana. He was located in Mexico by Homeland Security officials and returned to the U.S. under a grant of immunity to testify against the agents.

78 posted on 07/17/2007 7:02:39 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: xzins; jude24; blue-duncan
Was he shot in the back, the side, or the buttocks? Since it obviously didn’t kill him, did it even render him immobile?

He was shot in the side of the buttocks, which would be consistent with the officers testimony that he had turned and pointed a weapon at them when they opened fire.

Was he truly a drug smuggler?

He was granted immunity from the drug smuggling charges in exchange for his perjured testimony against the officers.

If he got away, could the agents have picked up their brass because they didn’t think they hit anything?

Since they watched him jump in a van and drive away they had no reason to suspect that they had hit him. The screw up was that they let the drug smuggler escape. Their crime was in not going by the book after this incident. But as anyone in the military will tell you, you only go by the book when you think someone will come along later and ask you why you didn't go by the book.

They picked up the shells while their supervisor watched them. Technically the supervisor was the one who would have been charged with filing the report on the weapon discharge, but he didn't. It is my understanding that if you discharge your weapon and there are other officers present who witness the event, that the person who discharged the weapon is not supposed to author the report on the incident. Nobody wrote a report on the incident. They didn't go by the book. Now everyone is there attempting to cover their own butts while these two guys rot in prison.

79 posted on 07/17/2007 7:02:53 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: BGHater; deport; All

Thanks for posting. Good news. Thanks for the links to trial transcripts. Thanks to all contributors. BTTT!


80 posted on 07/17/2007 7:07:53 AM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: jude24; kabar; xzins; blue-duncan; P-Marlowe

Are you a lawyer? You seem to have an inordinate amount of faith in the Department of Justice and U.S. Attorneys.

Here’s something for you to read to introduce a bit of reality in your life:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/wilson102703.pdf

Read that and tell me you can trust the Department of Justice to not get convictions of people they know are innocent.


81 posted on 07/17/2007 7:09:17 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: kabar

I would never believe that someone smuggling 743 lbs. of dope is unarmed. I person would have to be high on drugs to believe that.


82 posted on 07/17/2007 7:14:33 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

Another Senate dog and pony show. Do the Senate Democrats intend to please the Latino illegals, and the government of Mexico?


83 posted on 07/17/2007 7:16:39 AM PDT by popdonnelly (Our first responsibility is to keep the power of the Presidency out of the hands of the Clintons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
BTW juries are composed of people who are generally too stupid to find an excuse or reason to get out of jury duty. And many jurors lie about whether or not they have prejudged a case just so that they can sit on a jury, especially in a high profile case, since there is the chance to hit the lottery with a book de

Climbing up on my soap box

Your post is troubling. Have you ever been on a jury? I have. Multiple times. Each time I'm called, I have found a way to serve. I am not stupid. The people on the juries were not stupid. Yeah there is always a "free him" and a "hang him" on each one. Both sides see to this. This is good IMO though because the scale seems to balance in the middle. Instead of beating up the "uneducated" how about more of the "smart" people stop trying to get out of their duty and serving their country. Anyone who has ever made an excuse, that's what it was because we all find the time and a way to do what we want.

stepping down now:')

84 posted on 07/17/2007 7:22:14 AM PDT by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

“They committed a crime, and tried to cover it up, lied, and then refused a deal.”

Refused a deal? You mean, because these border agents had the audacity to believe they were innocent as justifies their sentence?


85 posted on 07/17/2007 7:29:23 AM PDT by guido911 (Islamic terrorists are members of the "ROP", the "religion of pu*&ies")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; jude24; kabar; blue-duncan

No one should spend years in prison on technicalities.

That is all this sounds like to me. These guys were officers of the law, so they were allowed to have weapons and were allowed to discharge them.

All the remainder sounds like technicalities surrounding a legitimate incident.

Warnings, probations, yada, yada....OK

But PRISON! Gimmeabreak!


86 posted on 07/17/2007 7:32:23 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: CindyDawg

Well said..... and if we have a major problem it lies with those who choose to find excuses to get off juries and uphold their duty to their country, state and local gov’ts. My experience has been much like yours.


87 posted on 07/17/2007 7:34:46 AM PDT by deport ( Cue Spooky Music...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: truthkeeper
It's being broadcast on the web live. Go to http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2872 and then click on the "Live Webcast" link on the right side.
88 posted on 07/17/2007 7:54:11 AM PDT by justanotherfreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: truthkeeper

I’ll let you know if I see it!


89 posted on 07/17/2007 8:04:09 AM PDT by Guenevere (Duncan Hunter for President 2008!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: CindyDawg; xzins; jude24
Each time I'm called, I have found a way to serve.

Each time I am called I simply tell the truth and I am excused. I admit my prejudices and either one side or the other will ask that I be excused. If all else fails, I will simply ask the judge if it would be lawful for a jury who thinks a law is stupid to aquit a defendant even though the evidence suggests that he or she actually committed the crime.

Personally I believe in the principle of jury nullification. Jury nullification is the last check on a tyrannical government short of open rebellion. If I express that opinion in open court, there is little chance I will be sitting on any jury.

Now, in this particular case I would have voted to aquit based solely on my belief that fleeing felons should be shot. If that were still the law, we would not have so many instances of law enforcement officers and innocent bystanders being killed by fleeing felons. "Stop or I'll shoot" should be the last words that a lot of these scumbags like Davila should hear.

90 posted on 07/17/2007 8:17:23 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: justanotherfreeper; Guenevere

Thank you!


91 posted on 07/17/2007 8:26:52 AM PDT by truthkeeper (It's the borders, stupid./LOUD and PROUD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: normy
I can’t believe the major GOP players are too blind to see this.

It really makes you wonder where the GOP's allegiance lies. Oh, wait, they have already shown us by their shameful pursuit of shamnesty and by the way they insulted us in the process.

92 posted on 07/17/2007 8:32:52 AM PDT by Heartland Mom (Build the fence, secure our borders, deport illegals - Protect our sovereignty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: truthkeeper

Wow, Feinstein is calling this creep out. Good for her.


93 posted on 07/17/2007 9:09:28 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; 7.62 x 51mm; ..

ping


94 posted on 07/17/2007 9:32:45 AM PDT by gubamyster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

who is she calling out? Sutton?


95 posted on 07/17/2007 9:55:33 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (Famously frisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Yeah and my husband says he can just look at the guy and tell if he’s guilty or not. You both are just trying to get out of it. I believe jury nullification has its place too but just answer the questions. If one side doesn’t want you the other may fight for you. They only get so many cross outs (I think). Get on the jury and be “smart”. What’s the worse that can happen? Some bleeding heart running to the judge and they excuse you?
96 posted on 07/17/2007 10:01:52 AM PDT by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun
The trial was held in El Paso, which can barely be considered America. It is far closer to a city in Mexico. I doubt that anyone who supports border enforcement can get a fair trial in El Paso.
97 posted on 07/17/2007 10:30:22 AM PDT by Iwo Jima ("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kabar
They picked up the spent shells and tried to cover up what happened. That was their mistake, not the shooting itself.

But Ramos did neither of those things. Only Compean.
98 posted on 07/17/2007 10:32:15 AM PDT by Iwo Jima ("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: justanotherfreeper

WOW, read T.J. Bonner’s testimony he really nails it.


99 posted on 07/17/2007 10:42:58 AM PDT by usurper (Spelling or grammatical errors in this post can be attributed to the LA City School System)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT; xzins; jude24
Cornyn hit the nail on the head when he asked the obvious question "Why shouldn't the border patrol be allowed to shoot a fleeing felon?" Sutton blamed the Supreme Court.

It was also quite telling that Feinstein and Cornyn both criticized Sutton for granting total immunity to the drug smuggler in exchange for his perjured testimony that he wasn't carrying a weapon. The jury was also prevented from knowing the fact that the conviction carried a minimum 10 year prison term and Feinstein was quite clear in her assessment that the offense which carried the minimum 10 year prison term was clearly not intended to apply to a case where the discharge of the firearm was the violent act for which the additional penalty of discharging a firearm in the commission of a felony was attached. There has to be an underlying felony and in this case there wasn't. In other words it is clear that these guys were railroaded by a zealous prosecutor who had no concern for justice. Feinstein made it clear that the statute was intended to apply to guys like Davila and not to border patrol agents who may have overstepped their authority.

Today I was happy to see that my Senator was Feinstein. She has moments of lucidity. Today was one of those moments.

100 posted on 07/17/2007 11:49:11 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-103 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