Posted on 01/17/2008 11:37:31 PM PST by pissant
Commutation of the sentence, not a pardon.
“So two border patrol agents were convicted on the word of a drug running illegal?”
Several of the jury members were quoted as saying they paid little attention to the testimony of OAD but convicted on R&C’s own unbelieveable and contradictory testimony, the damning testimony of other agents on the scene whose statements directly contradicted those of R&C, and their attempted cover up of the incident.
One was even quoted saying “It’s sad when the testimony of a drug mule is more believeable than that of the officers.”
You have all these people misrepresenting what went on that day and at trial and not one of them has bothered to read the trial transcripts to find out what really happened.
That’s real honorable. </s>
“Really. That is a different story. I must admit to not having read the facts.”
It’s “really a diofferent story because it is not true. If you want to know the facts, read the trial transcripts. (NOTE: It will take you several days reading off and on.)
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/index.html
ping
This could have been done a year ago, would fly through congress and be signed immediately by Bush. It would get R&C out of prison and protect all future LEO's from the same danger.
My question is WHY HAS IT NOT BEEN DONE? Why are R&C being allowed to rot in prison while activists and politicians grandstand, submit press releases and make photo ops?
Thinking FReepers need to ask this question.
It already does not apply to officers in the line of duty. And that has been stated and restated again and again by these guys.
“Commutation of the sentence, not a pardon.”
Agree with that statement 100%!
If it (ten year min) doesn’t apply why are these heroes still in prison?
Are you sure you want to post that link and have people go there and read it? Here are some of the responses;
“This proves one thing about Huckabee that seems to be more obvious in this election then any other in my memory. These candidates will say anything to get elected. These two men were convicted in a court of law by a jury of their peers. I know the prosecution withheld evidence that might have changed he circumstances in the case. Why didn’t their lawyers take action to get it introduced during their trial? Why did the judge not allow it? It seems the case is rip for appeal. But, for some politician to say when he gets elected, he will set two convicted felons free, because it is a popular topic, is blatant disrepect for the law. It is a cheap political trick.”
“The guys shot an unarmed man 15 times and didn’t report it, the legal status of the guy they shot is a bit irrelevant.”
“That’s what we need a POTUS who can rely on divine inspiration , and not wait on messy and confusing evidence , to announce a situation absurd . Oh pardon me .”
“Although initially I would have went along with this statement of pardoning. Looking more at the evidence I wouldn’t do that now. ““Some in the media and on the Internet have tried to portray Agents Compean and Ramos as heroes but that narrative is false,” Sutton said. “The actions of Compean and Ramos in shooting an unarmed, fleeing suspect, destroying evidence, and engaging in a cover-up, are serious crimes. They were prosecuted to uphold the rule of law.” If you want to hide something and destroy evidence then YOU know you did something wrong.”
“This case is under appeal and these 2 guys could wind up with a new trial or sentence reduction or have it thrown out on sloppy prosecution.Let the system work itself out.This is just Huck pandering....This guys gets a lot of mileage out of his caring puppy dog face.A lot of people out there fall for this crap just like the TV Evangelicals who live in mansions and drive Bentleys.”
” Like most conservatives, I was amazed at how Bush handled the situation. How could he let 2 border patrol agents go to prison for shooting an illegal alien drug smuggler?
Then I spoke to a family member and a neighbor who are both border patrol guys. Without a doubt, they both said, the guys should be in jail. They broke the rules, the lied and then covered up the incident. There was no sympathy from their co-workers.
What would happen if you freed the guys? You would be over-turning a jury conviction. You would be condoning a cover-up. You would be sending a message that violation of guildelines and the law is OK.
For Huckabee to come out and say that he wants to review the case tells you all you need to know about him. He is soft on illegal immigration and he feels that taking a stance like this will play well with anti-illegal alien crowd.”
Because Johnny Sutton mis-applied the law.
Oh and by the way-—I see nothing wrong with shooting an invader who is trying to get away. Yes, in the butt. Anywhere.
I see nothing wrong with the burden of proof placed on the invader, not the guys who struggle out there on that border...with their hands tied because GOD FORBID some drug dealer/child molester ad nauseum has his “rights” violated.
What is inherently wrong is that 2 border agents sit in prison with scum...and that there are some using sophistry to deny them their freedom.
Baloney. This law should apply to dirty cops who commit crimes while in uniform. Legislation can however be submitted that clarifies it would not apply to cops who make honest mistakes while in the field and when there is no premeditation or indication of conspiracy.
Too bad they didn’t just shoot, shovel, and shut up.
That fence needs to be built and the border patrol agents need to not have their hands tied in dealing with illegals.
His 9 point plan to dealk with illegal immigration makes sense. Read it.
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=26
Bush has to call Senior Caulderone and get his permission first.
By the way, is that killer Laurean getting asylum in Caulderone’s country? THAT should be interesting. More tweating of the American Eagle by the Mexican Rattlesnake.
“I see nothing wrong with Huckabee saying that the case is suspect.”
But that isn’t all he said. He said when he is Prez he would REVIEW the case. That means he hasn’t reviewed it to date. He then goes on to say R&C would be home by Valentines Day ‘09.
Hello? He is already declaring R&C innocent and he hasn’t even reviewed the case? If you don’t believe this is pandering to the crowd then there is no hope.
“Oh and by the way-—I see nothing wrong with shooting an invader who is trying to get away.”
The Constitution may disagree with you.
“I see nothing wrong with the burden of proof placed on the invader...”
Uhh, the “burden of proof” was on the prosecutors and the burden of proving them innocent on the defense. It’s how our system of justice works. In this case, 12 jurors sided with the prosecution and rejected the arguments of the defense. That’s how our system works in action. Other than that I have no idea what you mean here.
“...not the guys who struggle out there on that border...with their hands tied because GOD FORBID some drug dealer/child molester ad nauseum has his “rights” violated.”
But that’s the crux of the issue here, isn’t it? neither Ramos nor Compean knew at the time that OAD was a drug smuggler, they didn’t even know if he as an illegal or a US citizen, they just drew their weapons and started firing at an unarmed fleeing SUSPECT. Now if you believe we should allow all LEO’s to just fire their weapons to kill people they SUSPECT of a crime, any crime, say so. But I’m not sure you would like the results.
“...and that there are some using sophistry to deny them their freedom.”
This has to be your funniest statement to date. Unlike 99% of R&C “pardon” supporters, I read the transcripts. Every comment I make is based on facts, evidence and the testimony at trial. On the other hand you have people who have never bothered to read the facts, get all their info from Jerry Corsi and World Nut Daily...and think they are enlightened.
It’s not enlightened, it’s lazy.
The ‘crime’ was a judgement call, not a premeditated attempt to kill the dirtbag. That Law DOES NOT APPLY. PERIOD
And what if the guy turned out to be a US citizen who was smuggling Madonna statues to his mothers boutique in El Paso? Or someone behind on his child support payments? Or a guy with 10 speeding tickets? OR someone who had one too many at lunch?
Now I know you will find these possibilities ridiculous, but the fact is Ramos and Compean KNEW NOTHING about the perp at the time they shot him other than that he took them on a high speed chase. They didn’t know about the drugs in the van (the one OAD was driving was different than the one Ramos originally called in which was a blue mini van. OAD was driving a light grey full size van, so it might not have even ended up being the same van Ramos saw being loaded with something).
R&C didn’t probable cause, they barely had reasonable suspicion. If you are saying that you think it is okay for an LEO, any LEO, to shoot to kill ANYONE they SUSPECT of committing ANY CRIME, than say so.
I would have to respectfully disagree.
Makes a lot of sense. But what does that have to do with 2 LEO’s shooting an unarmed fleeing suspect in the back? One they didn’t know ws an illegal at the time? One they didn’t know was a drug mule at the time?
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.