Posted on 11/20/2007 8:50:33 AM PST by AuntB
Top conservatives have joined ranking House leaders in their bid to pressure the president to pardon two Border Patrol agents ...........
......... 31 major conservative petitioners joined a campaign led by Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican and presidential candidate, asking President Bush to pardon Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean before Thanksgiving........
"History has proven that the mere words and deeds of a president can change the course of history and profoundly affect both the tone and direction of the nation's moral character for generations to come," said the letter signed by 31 petitioners, mostly from Christian conservative groups and national-security organizations.
"The impact of a president's silence can have the same dramatic and devastating results. That is why we find your continued silence on the issue of a presidential pardon for Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean of great concern," ...........
The letter is one of more than a dozen attempts — including a petition signed by nearly 400,000 people across the nation — to reach the president. Mr. Hunter hand-delivered a similar letter to the president on Friday.
Some of the first signatures on the long list are conservative stalwarts Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation, David Keene of the American Conservative Union and Morton Blackwell of the Leadership Institute. Others include former Reagan administration official Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy ..... activist Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum.
The signers say they "find it unacceptable that some disillusioned Americans are being forced to conclude that the lives of Ramos and Compean are simply what the government has deemed an acceptable level of 'collateral damage' for a failed border security and national immigration policy." .
Federal authorities, however, denied that Mr. Aldrete-Davila had entered the U.S. under federal escort several times for medical treatment.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
While I do not wish to join in this well worn subject for further debate, I rise in total agreement to the arguments as presented by Badeye.
I also want to complement FANFANVOX for concluding his side of the debate, in the fashion of a gentleman.
Badeye...My academy was in 1977. I retired at the rank of Detective Sergeant responsible for Special Ops, among other things, after 26 successful and proud years of service. Of course I made my real money in private bussinesses on my off time. ;>)
On my department, as with most LEO organizations, ALL firearm discharges, as well as ANY use of force, is to be immediately and accurately reported, both verbal and written. I would have eaten alive any LEO, that in any way, failed at these reporting requirements. Lie to me and I will eat you, shade the truth and I will eat you, omit relevant facts and I will eat you, use unnecessary and unjustified force, I will not only eat you I will bury your bones. Commit a crime and I will laugh at you and turn my back to you, as you board the prison transport.
These Agents may have been nice guys, they may have at one time been great LEO’s. Had I known them personally, they could have been my best friends, but in this serious business. There is no room for incompetence or deception. There is no excuse for failing at your duty to be honest with you superiors about your actions, even when you screw up. There is no excuse for not following Department Policy for such serious issues. I would expect nothing less from a citizen that shoots at another person, I expect far more from a trained Cop, and so should every other citizen.
Above all things, the public deserves honesty from the folks they have given life or death authority to. As citizens, we should accept nothing less from those we have given such critical responsibility and authority.
I agree that the punishment for the Agents was too harsh, however, there is absolutely no acceptable excuse for their criminal, incompetent and reckless actions, including their reckless disregard for the truth in their futile attempts to cover for their mistakes, period. Had they only told the truth......which is what they are paid and sworn to do. Had they only followed proper procedure. From where I sit, these agents were NOT heroes, they were an embarrassment to the entire LEO profession.
As for the revelations pertaining to the prosecutor......That fellow gave the Agents an appeal issue and in doing so, he may have very well signed his own professional obituary. While justice is important and it can at times be complicated, there is no reasonable excuse for deliberately deceiving the Court and the jury.
You done good, Badeye. ;>)
Stay Safe and.....Have a nice Thanksgiving to all
No, they had probable Cause. Aldrete-Davila’s actions linked him to a specific crime and the agents witnessed those actions. Border Patrol observation, experience, Aldrete’s failing to yield and attempting to escape the agents by fleeing into Mexico, definitely pushes suspicion into the realm of probable cause. A suspect does not have to commit or be immediately linked to a crime to come under reasonable suspicion. The agents had probable cause to believe that Aldrete-Davila was a drug smuggler, which in their minds created a higher level of threat.
False. The evidence presented at court indicated the van was left at the river and then loaded. Davila showed up to drive the van. Ramos never called in any description of the van driver, just the van.
“He crossed with his van at a point other than a Port of entry, which means he had already violated the laws of the USA.”
There was no evidence Davila drove the van across the border.
“..people who drive vans across illegal crossings, as Davila had done...”
The evidence at trial showed the can had been purchased in the US, re-registered in Mexico and than driven across legally at a border crossing.
“...are either smuggling people or contraband, and you are right. It may have been Madonna Statues, but if so, they were in violations of import laws requiring them to make entry on their goods to Customs.”
I don’t know where you get your information, but it isn’t evidence entered at the trial. Is it from WND?
“Ramos and Compeon already knew that Davila had committed the very crimes that they were there to go after.”
Baloney, R&C knew nothing of the sort.
“Naw here is another shocker for you. Innocent people don’t lead police (or Border Patrol) on high speed chases. Guilty people flee from authorities.”
Define innocent. I’ve seen police chases on those cop TV shows that involved nothing more than the inebriated, some with outstanding parking tickets and a couple who were behind on their child support payments.
Of course you are right that the majority have or are committing crimes, but some are just stupid or scared.
“Finally Davila DID aim a gun at them, and that is why they fired.”
Baloney. R&C testified they saw a “black shiny object” and thought it may be a gun. However, nobody believed this story, particularly the jury.
The funny thing about this is at trial when Compean was asked if he still believed Davila had a gun, he said “I don’t know”. So here we have one of the shooters himself now questioning whether there was a gun there that day but R&C supporters know for a fact there was one and will claim so to high heaven.
They must psychics or something.
“Now, I am not sure how Ramos and Compeon are trained to fire, but when I was a Customs Inspector, we were trained to put two rounds into the center of mass, and one shot to the head.”
Both R&C testified they are trained to shoot to kill whenever they fire their weapons. Shooting to maim is strictly forbidden and would lead to their immediate dismissal.
“Davila was farther away than most of the targets they practice on at the range...”
Wrong. The distance between the agents position and the point at which OAD was dropped by Ramos is less than 120 feet. The typical starting distance for targets at a range is 25 yards...75 feet. Compean started shooting first as OAD ran away. It is estimated the range in which Compean fired his rounds was 25-100 feet.
It helps top read the transcipts.
“..and he had turned sideways, and lifted the gun at them, so his center of mass was not pointed at them.”
Turning sideways can be completed without also pointing a gun.
“Unless the drug smuggler in question brandished a firearm. ...and on that score it was R&C’s word against the criminal’s.”
And the jury heard all the evidence on this point and unanimously voted there was no gun on OAD at the scene.
“I’ll take the word of BP agents will stellar records over the word of a Mexican drug smuggler any day. How about you?”
There are bad cops. Ever hear of a throw down gun?
“The call at the Fabens Border Patrol Field Office was a “10-46 entering Area 76”. That’s how they knew it was Narcotics smuggling..”
SUSPECTED narcotics smuggling. Why is it not a single R&C supporter can differentiate between SUSPECTED and CONVICTED?
One invoolves the use of our system of justice, juries, judges and the assumption of innocence until proven guilty.
“This is incorrect. The supervisor has no say in how a shooting is reported. The agent is required to give a verbal report of the shooting to a supe within one hour of the shooting.”
And then what is the supervisor required to do?
“I think the problem we have is that you believe that juries are infallible.”
No, of course juries and even our jsutice system is fallable. What, are you saying we should scrap our system of justice and let all the convicts go free because of this?
Anyway, I think they jury got this one right.
My wife’s dad was a State Patrol Officer briefly and then went into private security for a corporation. So, I admit to having more than a normal bias. However, I am beginning to understand how Custer felt at the Little Big Horn!
“Happy Thanksgiving”, Gator and thanks for the gracious comment.
Ahh, the OJ reference. The Rosetta Stone of R&C supporters. If you believe this does that mean you think we should open our prisons and let all the convicts go free because the system may not work 100% of the time?
“There is no evidence that Aldrete-Davila did not have a gun.”
That’s called a double negative...try to avoid it it makes you look handicapped.
“Just as there is no conclusive evidence or testimony that Davila was unarmed...”
That’s the job of the jury, to sift through the evidence and separate the truth from the liars.
“...there isn’t any conclusive evidence or testimony that Ramos and Compeans had done anything other than cover up the discharge of their weapons.”
There is a victim with a shattered pelvis and a severed urethra.
“One the main reasons why I side with Ramos and Compean isn’t so much because of the tortured testimony of the witnesses as it with the many lies told by the prosecution.”
Hmmm, and what lies would these be?
” I believe that if this case had any merit to begin with, Sutton, Kanof and the rest wouldn’t have to resort to lying and smear tactics.”
It is the prosecutors job to do the best they can to convict those charged with crimes, it is the defense attorneys job to do the best they can to have their clients found innocent, and it is the juries job to weigh the testimony and evidence, separate fact from fiction and come up with a decision.
If you think that system is broken, I’d like to hear your alternative suggestions.
“The jury, at Sutton’s behest, was barred from hearing any evidence about Aldrete’s second, well known, drug-smuggling episode.”
I twasn’t “well known” and the judge barred it from the record, not Sutton.
“At Sutton’s behest, the drug smuggler was allowed to testify as an “innocent” victim and witness, pure as the driven snow.”
Witnesses are allowed to testify as they see fit and it is the juries job to seprate facts from lies.
“
Aldrete-Davila was still smuggling dope AFTER being given medical treatment at taxpayer expense and a border crossing card.”
It appears Sutton has arrested and charged Davila for this alleged offense.
“At the prosecutor’s behest, the trial judge ruled that informing the jury about the second smuggling offense was unnecessary to the agents receiving a fair trial.”
No, the judge ruled it was prejudicial and had not bearing on whether the R&C shoot that day was a good one.
“This is one of the elements that could well result in reversal by the 5th Circuit.”
If you believe that I got some land I’d like to sell to you.
“And as for your observation about shooting a fleeing suspect, whom you believe was unarmed but many others do not...”
Unfortunately, the people who count, the jury, also did not believe it.
“... being shot, obviously you don’t live on the border.”
I live in San Diego.
“ottom line is, several members of the jury have said that had they known the entire story, which Johnny Sutton withheld from them, they would never have convicted the agents.”
After having their lives and the lives of their families threatened.
“Yes, but I wonder why Campos testified he was shooting to kill, since that would make him look more culpable.”
All LEO’s are trained that if they feel they need to unholster their weapon and shoot, to shoot to kill...always.
Shooting to maim or hinder is a major violation of any agencies or departments policy.
I’m surprised you didn’t know this.
I may be mistaken but there did seem to be a trial with lawyers, a judge and a jury for R&C.
Are you stating no trial took place?
"Is anyone at all arguing that they CAN just shoot the guy?"
If missed those inferences and in some posts, downright plain speaking, then there is no hope for you.
"If a law enforcement officer asks you to stop and you don't stop and you do run, you'd better make good and sure that you don't do anything that might look in the half-light like you are reaching for a weapon."
Agreed. In this case the jury ruled there was no support for such an allegation.
"Laboratory or courtroom standards of precision simply cannot apply in such a situation."
Incorrect, they have to otherwise any LEO can shoot anyone they want and then claim "I thought I saw a black shiny object" and any innocent person is in danger of their lives being capriciously taken away by any angry or maladjusted LEO.
"YEAH, the law enforcement officer MAY be wrong in asking you to stop. A system of law based on perfection is going to fail. From the LEO's POV if you run and then half-turn with something shiny in your hand, everybody is probably going to regret it."
Probably. But in this case the jury didn't believe the agents. Neither did I.
"Are you among those who think that officers can only shoot after they're wounded..."
No, officers can shoot when they have justifiable belief their safety or the safety of others or property is in imminent danger.
"...and that if someone runs they should just let him go unless they know he's guilty?"
No, the officers should chase them down and catch them and then charge them with evading arrest along with their other crimes. Are you suggesting that LEO's be allowed to shoot anyone who may try to evade arrest, no matter the situation or suspected crime? How about jaywalking?
"Should the Border Patrol only apprehend people who give themselves up without a struggle?"
No, BP agents should apprehend all people suspected of committing a crime so they can subject to our system of justice which includes having their day in court in front of a jury of their peers.
““I’ve read the entire trial transcript” Why? What involvement in the case do you have?”
None. I wanted to be well informed on this issue and didn’t want to rely on WND, jaded apostates or shrieking talk show hosts for my facts.
Try it sometime, it’s an eye opener.
I was referring to the bigots masquerading as border security fans.
If you’re interested in knowing what I think, first read the transcripts. I get tired of debating with half witted fools who are too lazy to read but think their opinion is well informed and compelling.
Not necessarily talking about you.
“However you are told you are shooting to STOP.”
Baloney. Do you just make this up as you go along?
“I am frankly ashamed of my fellow right-wingers who can’t see this.”
Frankly, I’m disgusted, shocked and frightened.
IF Bush can pardon two turkeys in the Rose Garden on national TV for Thanksgiving, I wonder why he can’t pardon tow honnoable border guards who were doing their duty?
We all have to put the pressure on to have them home for Christmas.
I think he’s CHICKEN!
“These agents are on the line every day, unlike you or I sittin all cozy in our homes far away from the danger zone.”
I know one thing, If I were R or C and I thought the shoot was good, I wouldn’t have tampered with and destroyed evidence and then lie about the incident to my supervisor.
Cape Bufflalo:
That’s two honorable Border Guards! Preview before you Post!
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.