Lou Dobbs: Outrageous, Bush pardons 14 people, including drug dealers, but not Ramos & Compean

- - Tonight an outrageous move from the White House, President Bush pardoning 14 people, including drug dealers. But not former border patrol agents Ramos and Compean.

DOBBS: President Bush today granted 14 pardons and he commuted two prison sentences. Five of those given clemency were convicted of serious drug charges. In what is an outrageous miscarriage of justice, former border patrols Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean serving lengthy prison sentences were not included on the president's list. They are serving those sentences for shooting and wounding an illegal alien drug dealer who they were pursuing and who was given immunity by the prosecutor to testify against those two border patrol agents. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have called for them to be released from prison. So far the White House has ignored those pleas and has done so again today.

When this was first discussed, before there was a trial, I explained how one could disbelieve Ramos and Compean simply by judging their actions by what they themselves had said.

You couldn’t convict them by their own words, but their own words, over time, were enough to make me discount what they said, and to believe they had acted improperly.

Their statements, even on the witness stand, gave an inconsistant and illogical bent to their story.

There certainly is a lot of inconsistancies in this story all around, like the picture that seems to suggest a driver door that wouldn’t open (I don’t know what the terrain was like around that, so I don’t know if Davila could have gotten out, shut the door, but not put the car in park so the car then rolled forward into it’s position, for example).

But when I throw out all the testimony except the statements of the two agents, I still do not believe the shooting was justified. Their actions and statements suggest to me that they didn’t trust that their shooting was justified either.

I would never have sent them to prison for a decade for it, but I wouldn’t assert their absolute innocence either.

before there was a trial, I explained how one could disbelieve Ramos and Compean simply by judging their actions by what they themselves had said.

The problem with is that Ramos made no statement prior to his testimony at the trial. His story did not change since there was only one version. On the stand Ramos testified he saw Davila perform a threatening action with what appeared to be a gun in his hand. This occured after Ramos heard unseen shots while he was crossing the ditch to help Compean apprehend a fugitive that did not comply with legal instructions from government officials properly performing their duties. So his testimony is neither illogical nor inconsistent with Compean. Compean testified he was on one knee after wrestling with Davila. Ramos testified he saw Compean not upright("on the floor') with Davila running away just at the edge of the river. Ramos fired after yelling at Davila to stop and seeing the threatening action by Davila. So either you believe Davila, a drug dealer and confessed liar, or you are dreaming up some inconsistency in the testimony of Ramos as to why he fired a single shot at Davila.

Now as to the picture of the van with the dirt jamming the door, the picture shows the tire torn away from the wheel on the left front. It is pretty obvious that the collision with the berm did that along with causing the drivers door to be slammed shut and jammed. The conclusion that can be drawn is that Compean told the truth about Davila leaping from a moving van. The action itself is trivial to the case, except that it further demonstrates that Davila is lying.

Finally exactly what actions of Ramos are you second guessing based upon his testimony alone? Remember all of the actions at the ditch transpired in seconds. Ramos was behind Davila. Davila was not patted down. And Ramos heard shots while he was in the ditch. I've seen the ditch. If you are in it, you wouldn't be able to see anything beyond the lip while inside of the ditch and in anycase Davila testified that all of the shots occured while he was halfway and beyond the vega going towards the Rio Grande.

But by not telling about the shooting, by going along with the destruction of evidence, Ramos made himself look guilty.

Every one of your statements is, "I believe" or "If ...". Simple truth is, that Ramos story is entirely believable. Not a single person could testify counter to what Ramos testified. Juarez and Vasquez testified that they did not see Ramos until he arrived back over the levee. Davila only testified that he saw agents pointing pistols at him from the north of the ditch. He could not identify a specific agent. After he was shot, again, he could only state that two agents were there and he did not say who they were. Finally he did not see them bend over and pick anything up. And of course, their last position just before the last shot would have been right where(within a few feet) Ramos shell casing was. Again Davila did not see anyone bend over and pick anything up. The scenario presents a big problem for the prosecution. According to Juarez, Compean fired from the top of the levee and ran into the vega. He did not see Ramos. Vasquez heard shots but did not see Compean so Compean would have had to have been shooting while in the vega. Finally, Davila looked back right after being shot and saw the two agents in the middle of the vega. That whole scenario would have placed spent casings in at least a hundred foot length. Clearly it would have taken quite a period to hunt down those shells. Ramos and Compean appeared seconds after entering the vega, not tens of minutes later. It is verifiable that less tha eight minutes elapsed from a call from Juarez during the chase and to a call from supervisor Richards terminating the event.

Ramos walked back ahead of Compean. That is corroborated by every witness that saw the two arrive at the top of the levee. Ramos does not have eyes in the back of his head, therefore he could not have seen what Compean did back there. It is readily apparent that Compean did pick up his dropped magazine, but Ramos did not see that because he walked back ahead of Compean. So Ramos did not "go along" with the destruction of evidence. He had no reason to fear anything. He did not think he hit Davila in order to have to hide anything.

I think that if a decent jury would have been formed, both Compean and Ramos would have received the justice they deserve. They would have been found not guilty. Instead, dimwits decided the wrong way. The prosecution's version of the events is rife with contradictions and illogical conclusions.

Ramos made no statements to Sanchez per the ROI.

I can only tell you what I believe. I was not at the incident, I have not spoken to either man, and there is no film.

So we are all stuck with providing our opinion of the information we have been presented.

It is possible, but highly unlikely, that Davila had a gun. The only argument other than the testimony of the two convicted agents (who both said they thought they SAW a gun, not that they confirmed he had a weapon), is the assertion that nobody would ever smuggle drugs without a gun. Since Davila was last captured smuggling without a gun, I think that shows someone WOULD do so.

Beyond that, whether Davila lied about everything else is largely immaterial. If Davila did not have a gun, the shooting was unjustified.

And since the agents did not follow procedure, they look like they had something to hide. Maybe their group was simply so lax in their operation that nobody followed the procedures. But not reporting the shooting as required by procedure makes it harder for the agents to convince a jury that they thought the shooting was justified.

Not telling anybody else at the scene that they thought Davila had a gun also lowers the credibility of their testimony. It is possible, but hard to believe, that two agents both felt threatened enough by a fleeing suspect that they were justified in trying to kill him, but yet neither felt in any danger after they lost sight of him, and neither felt any need to pursue him further or to tell other agents that they thought he might be armed.

I don’t know if Ramos knew about the shell casings, but since he didn’t properly report the incident, it looks like he was part of the cover-up. We know that several other agents were fired and confessed to being part of the coverup in some way.

I still think Ramos could have gotten off easy if he had said he shot Davila because Compean shot first, and because when he came on Compean he thought Compean was down because Compean had been shot.

Which perversely would make Ramos’ story somewhat more believable, only because if you have a plausible story that will get you off, and you tell a less plausible story, that generally means the less plausible story is the truth.

But since “seeing a weapon” would definitely get him off if he was believed, it is clear that saying “I saw a weapon”, especially since Compean was going to say “I saw a weapon”, would be seen as their best hope of getting off — and when the testimony matches the testimony that would most likely get you off, it makes it LESS believable because it’s exactly the lie you would tell — it’s unconfirmable, after all.

Given the agents wouldn’t necesarily expect the government to find Davila, at the time they were first questioned saying they saw a gun would be almost a sure ticket to freedom, since there would be nobody to testify against them.

As to your specific complaint that Davila couldn’t identify the agents, that makes no difference. Ramos and Compean both said they shot, so there is no doubt who shot. They identified the bullet matching Ramos’ gun, so there is no doubt about Ramos hitting him. If you decide that not reporting means they were trying to hide something, then you would presume that they are lying about seeing a gun.

With that presumption, the shooting was unjustified, the lack of reporting is a coverup, and you find the guys guilty. The fact that the testimony doesn’t match just confuses you as to what really happened, but if you’ve already decided the two agents are believable, you have no other testimony or evidence to find them not guilty.

If you presume they did not see a weapon, Ramos’ statement that he did could only be seen as going along with Compean’s story in order to help Compean. Ramos could have said he shot because Compean had shot and he thought Compean had been hit, but that wouldn’t help Compean. By both saying they saw a weapon, they help each other.

I don’t know if Ramos knew about the casings. One other agent testified about the casings, and it is presumed therefore that Compean knew about the casings although I can’t remember if he denied it or not. If you presume that Compean spoke with Ramos about the incident at some point, you could guess Compean or the other agent told him about the casings, but that is pure speculation.

I realise that if they are telling the truth, then there is no coverup. But I can’t simply presume they are telling the truth. Once you are convinced that they had a reason for not following procedure, it is easy to decide they lied about seeing the gun (it’s the easiest lie, and if they didn’t think Davila would be found it’s irrefutable).

I’m not a cop, but it seems obvious that if you have a clean shoot, you want to do everything by the book to make sure nobody questions it later.

Having the two men tried together hurt Ramos in my opinion. Just as I presume Ramos probably knew about the casings, it could be the jury does as well. If the trial was separate, maybe the casings don’t come into Ramos’ trial at all, because there is no evidence linking him to the casings being discarded.

And maybe since Ramos and Compean were together, the jury mistakenly attributes some things the one did to the other.

Finally, you boil it down to what I have been saying all along. You either make things up or you must believe confessed liars.

You admit it is possible that Davila had a gun and you somehow determine that it is unlikely for him to have had a gun. Somehow you must determine likelyhood for that contingency. Among the factors you apparently have used to determine likelyhood is the notion that Davila was captured in the act of smuggling sans weapon. Well, that is not what happened. He was ratted on by an accomplice so it is clearly not known that he was unarmed on that occasion. Here is a link http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/immigration/Aldrete-Davila-arrest.htm. Besides, it is not required that Davila have a gun, what is required is a reasonable belief that Davila posed a deadly threat. Now the situation as presented by all of the participants is of one that occurred in seconds and minutes. As I pointed out it is provable that the events in total at the ditch occurred in the space of less than eight minutes. Juarez made a call at 1319 while chasing Davila in the van. This call was certainly made before reaching the dirt portion of Jesse Harris road which was one mile away from the ditch. The road was much to rough to be making calls claiming near capture and Juarez's vision was, by testimony, obscured by dust. Since the event was called all clear by 1327, a total of 8 minutes was available for the events at the ditch were Davila at the ditch when Juarez made his call. We know from other testimony that this is not reasonable and therefore the time available for the events was less than eight minutes. A reasonable argument can be made that the time available was 5 minutes or less for the events to transpire there at the ditch. Since the call could have occurred just after the chase turned south on Jesse Harris, the time could have been as little as 5 minutes and that would eliminate any time for a somewhat in depth discussion of the events. So it is readily apparent that not much time was available for hunting down and picking up items such as spent shells unless they were located at one spot. Plus all testimony from all of the witnesses at the scene indicate the very short period of time spent at the ditch. Juarez and Vasquez opened the door of the van and Vasquez started looking at the numbers on a cell phone he found in the van. Before he did much of anything on those numbers the other agents started arriving. That shows that the time was certainly less than a minute. And remember Vasquez heard numerous shots, so Ramos had not yet shot his single shot when Vasquez was at the scene. Upon arriving the other witnesses testified seeing Ramos and Compean arrive at the top of the levee. Soon thereafter, and while Ramos was on the south side of the ditch and north of the levee, Supervisor Richards, who called in the all clear, arrived followed within a minute by Supervisor Arnold. What this means is that it is unreasonable to judge Ramos as having any culpability in the disposal of shells. Now from Ramos testimony it is evident that Ramos again was not overtly attempting to deceive anyone as to the events at the ditch.


7 Q. And it's your testimony to this jury that Mr. Richards
8 knew, because somebody must have told him. Is that correct?
9 A. When I came over -- back to the north side, I heard
10 somebody talking about the shots fired.
11 Q. Oh. In direct testimony you didn't say that. Did you just
12 remember that overnight?
13 MS. STILLINGER: Objection, Your Honor, he did say
14 that.
15 THE COURT: All right. This is cross.
16 MS. STILLINGER: I understand. I'm just objecting to
17 her misstating the testimony.
18 THE COURT: All right. I'll sustain.

This shows that Ramos testified that he believed that Richards knew about the shooting and it also shows that Kanof mistates testimony in her effort to shake Ramos. If this shows that anyone is lying to improve their situation that anyone would be Kanof. Furthermore, the testimony indicates that the investigation corroborates Ramos version of the events here.


C. Sanchez - Cross by Mr. Antcliff 84
1 Q. Then he hears -- while this is going on, he hears some
2 shots, right?
3 A. The first statement, he stated he only heard one or two
4 shots.
5 Q. Okay. One or two shots. And he hears somebody yell,
6 Shots. Is that right?
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. Okay. Then he tells you that he pretty much disregarded
9 those shots and continued on with what he was doing in the van,
10 right?
11 A. Yes, sir.

In conclusion, I believe the agents, not because of a predilection to do so. But because the testimony best supports their version of the events.

The events on the vega are limited to only at most three direct witnesses. For the initial shooting by Compean at Davila only Davila and Compean were present. Davila denies any contact with Compean and only observes Compean standing in the middle of the vega after being shot. Compean testifies shooting at Davila after having wrestled with him and being on the ground when Davila performed an action deemed as life-threatening by Compean. Several witnesses testify that Compean has dirt and dust on his shoulders and face when he appears returning from the vega. Ramos is the third witness to the events on the vega. He heard shots while crossing the ditch. He saw a "not standing" Compean at the base of the levee and saw Davila at the rivers edge. At that point he called for Davila to stop and Davila then turned and made a life-threatening action. Ramos then fired once. Two other witnesses were available, but they were not "direct" witnesses in that they heard but did not see shots.(except for Juarez who eventually claimed he observed Compean shoot from the top of the levee). There is one other "witness" to the events at the rivers edge. That witness is Davila's body. The path of the bullet does corroborate a path across Davila's body from left to right which is consistent with a turning Davila. Davila testifies he never turned to look back. Ramos testified he did.

All of what I have presented here is more than just believing Ramos and Compean, it is an outline of why they are believable and the others are not. But more than that, it was not Ramos nor Compean's task to convinced a jury that the shooting was justified. It was the task of the prosecution to show that the shooting was unjustified. I feel that they did not do that.

Since Davila was last captured smuggling without a gun, I think that shows someone WOULD do so.

Ummm... No. Aldrete-Davila was arrested in November 2007 on charges related to incidents in 2005. He was lured across the border by authorities to capture him for smuggling two years earlier--he was not caught in the act. Hence, one cannot use the circumstances of that arrest to tell anything about whether he carried a gun while smuggling.

From Johnny Sutton’s press release:

“United States Attorney Johnny Sutton announced today that twenty-seven-year-old Osvaldo Aldrete Davila was arrested today at the Ysleta Port of Entry in El Paso, Texas. Aldrete was indicted on October 17, 2007, by an El Paso federal grand jury on two counts of possession with the intent to distribute a controlled substance, one count of conspiracy to import a controlled substance and one count of conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute. His initial appearance is set for tomorrow at 2:30 p.m. (MST) before United States Magistrate Judge Richard Mesa.
According to the indictment, beginning on or about June 1, 2005, through November 30, 2005, Aldrete and his co-defendant Cipriano Ortiz Hernandez conspired to import and to possess with the intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. Additionally, on September 24, 2005, and then again on October 22 and 23, 2005, Aldrete-Davila did possess with the intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana.”

If I were to presume that, I would be ignoring evidence, ignoring testimony, and just making things up.

That's true, but if you presume they DID see a weapon, you are likewise ignoring evidence, and ignoring testimony. So you are wrong that you would be "just making things up" if you presume the agents lied about seeing a gun.

As painful as it is for us to believe, sworn law enforcement officers, who have previously had exemplary careers, have been known to shoot people who were unarmed, and then testify that they saw a weapon. If you can't believe that is a possibility, then you ARE ignoring the facts.

It is also believable that a border agent who had never shot at a person would, after an adrenaline-rush high-speed chase, shoot at a person without provocation. You can read Malcom Gladwell's book "Blink" for case history and information on this phenomena and what police departments across the country are doing to minimize this risk.

It is also believable that a border agent who ahd never shot at a person would, after being evaded by a perp, get angry enough about what just happened to shoot at him, maybe with no REAL intent to injure (Compean did not hit the guy, but he also did not testify that he was trying to miss), or maybe with intent to make the guy pay for making him look bad.

Davila got shot. Fortunately, you are not one of the pro-shooter posters who argue that Davila was not shot, or that we don't know Ramos hit him. The shooting was not reported. The people who should have known about the shooting found out NOT because it was properly reported, but because the person who was shot required medical attention.

The agents were unable to identify the person or capture him to get an indictment on the smuggling charge. They did not report that he was shot, so absent any testimony, they left the United States with the responsibility for treating the man, and left the man opening to sue for his injuries.

There is no indication from the actions on the ground that day that anybody felt threatened, other than the actual shots being fired. Only later did anybody report that the perp had a gun -- AFTER they were under threat of conviction for a bad shooting. Their story would be more believable if they had reported the perp's having a gun BEFORE they needed to do so to avoid being thrown in jail.

Since there is no video of the events, we are all of necessity basing our opinions on the conflicting, contradictory testimony given at the trial, as well as our own opinion of what is more or less believable. I've acknowledged that throughout the discussions over the months -- maybe it's time you realised that you too are simply providing a biased opinion.

In summary, when you say: If I were to presume that, I would believe that 10 year border patrol agents just go around shooting people for the fun of it. In short, that presumption would make no sense at all.

You are ignoring the fact that LEOs with 10 or more years of experience HAVE BEEN KNOWN to do exactly what you insist "makes no sense at all". A jury of 12 people apparently found that possibility to make a lot of sense. A prosecutor thought it made sense. A judge and appeals court didn't find it so outrageous a possibility that they overturned the case. The President didn't find it so outrageous a possibility that he felt compelled to pardon the agents. Other agents, who presumably should have as much of a presumption of perfection as you give these two men, found it plausible that they were guilty.

But of course, most people who are for these agents don't mind trashing all the other agents who were on the "wrong side" of this, or to trash the various prosecuters, or the people who run our country. For some apparently, it is easier to believe that the elected leader of the free world is so in bed with the mexicans that he would sell out two border agents, and to believe that there is a grand conspiracy among prosecuters who are highly regarded, judges, and even the attorney's general office, than it is to believe that two agents, for whatever reason, commited a bad shoot, and decided to pretend it didn't happen since with the perp gone, there was nobody to really complain.

I happen to find that last presumption MUCH MORE LIKELY than than the other. People make mistakes, and sometimes they wish those mistakes would just go away and sometimes it doesn't work out that way.

That's true, but if you presume they DID see a weapon, you are likewise ignoring evidence, and ignoring testimony.

No, not really. I am not believing a drug smuggler who claimed he didn't have a gun. And I'm acknowledging that there is no way to prove that he didn't because he escaped to Mexico with whatever he had on him at the time. In short, despite the many false statements made by Johnny Sutton and his lackeys that he was "unarmed," that simply cannot be proven.

So you are wrong that you would be "just making things up" if you presume the agents lied about seeing a gun.

So, unless they could prove that he didn't have a gun, you'll just choose to disregard their testimony otherwise? Sorry. That makes no sense to me. To believe that, you would have to believe they were in the habit of shooting at people for no reason--which was not backed up by their records. If they were going to do such a thing, do you really think they would call the entire Fabens Border Patrol force, including two supervisors, to the scene? Does not compute!

sworn law enforcement officers, who have previously had exemplary careers, have been known to shoot people who were unarmed, and then testify that they saw a weapon. If you can't believe that is a possibility, then you ARE ignoring the facts.

I'm not ignoring the possibility--I'm just saying it is non-sensical. I just don't support bringing charges of attempted murder for a possibility.

It is also believable that a border agent who had never shot at a person would, after an adrenaline-rush high-speed chase, shoot at a person without provocation.

More presumptions on your part? Shall we indict people on stories that might be believable or on the evidence?

It is also believable that a border agent who had never shot at a person would, after an adrenaline-rush ...

See above.

Fortunately, you are not one of the pro-shooter posters ...

Most of those who have questions about the bullet, the chain of evidence, the unwillingness of Davila to disclose where he received medical treatment, etc. are not "pro-shooters," IMO. There are legitimate questions that were never answered on these and related subjects.

The shooting was not reported.

Oh, come on! Not this again. The entire force was onsite within minutes of the incident. They KNEW there was a shooting!

The agents were unable to identify the person or capture him to get an indictment on the smuggling charge.

Woohooo! More from the Sutton propaganda machine, NOT corroborated by the testimony of the agents. They said they most clearly COULD identify Davila.

They did not report that he was shot, so absent any testimony, they left the United States with the responsibility for treating the man, and left the man opening to sue for his injuries.

They did not KNOW he was shot. Those pesky little details are not minor.

Only later did anybody report that the perp had a gun -- AFTER they were under threat of conviction for a bad shooting.

WRONG!!!!!!! Ramos and Compean said so from the very beginning in each and every discussion they had! Their stories NEVER changed!

I'm sorry--I can't read anymore of your post tonight. It's the same BS posted over and over again and refuted thread after thread.

What are you talking about? Compean's first interview as recorded by Chris Sanchez, the investigating officer, and taken the night he was first picked up and arrested, contained the following..

Compean then stated that as Aldrete-Davila was running away from him he thought he saw something shiny in Aldrete-Davila's left hand. Compean said that Aldrete Davila continued to look back over his shoulder towards Compean as Aldrete-Davila ran away from him.

Compean said that he began to shoot at Aldrete-Davila because of the shiny object he thought he saw in Aldrete-Davila's left hand and because Aldrete-Davila continued to look back towards his direction. Compean explained that he thought that the shiny object might be a gun and that Aldrete-Davila was going to shoot at him because he kept looking back at him as he ran away from Compean."

You have to remember, Ramos and Compean did not have any warning that they were going to be arrested. And of course, the arrest warrant was issued sans any statements by Ramos or Compean. So it is misleading to imply that the testimony was made up on the spot. Why? Because Compean did not hit Davila, and he did not see the shot Ramos made. He did not see where Davila was hit, yet his testimony precisely aligns with the facts. Davila was hit on his left side and that is consistent with reaching back to the left. Now some say that Davila was running at an angle to Compean. Well that is patently unbelievable for any angle other than negligible. At the ditch Compean and Davila were within two feet of each other and facing each other. Davila did scramble to his right and to Compean's left, but that would have moved him only a few yards away(I've been to the ditch). So given the testimony if Davila ran straight for the levee and over it, the angle's(bullet's path w/r to Davila's path) arc would have been measured in a few yards at most. Which means at 100 feet the angle is about 5 degrees. The path of the bullet across Davila's body is at least 45 degrees. So it is evident that an unturned Davila would not meet that scenario. If, instead, Davila continued to run to his right and away from Compean, then the angle would be even less than the five degrees of the previous example. So an unturned Davila does not meet that scenario. The only scenario left, since Davila testified he ran straight away, is the scenario where Davila changes direction at the ditch and goes from running to his right to running to his left. In that case, he "crosses" behind Compean and goes from Compean's left to Compean's right. But of course, the angle is extreme only at the beginning of the run. As he passes behind Compean the angle could be greater than 45 degrees but that would be within a few yards of Compean. As the distance between Davila and a pursuing Compean increases, the angle that Davila's body would be to the straight line connecting Compean and Davila(the bullet's path) would be less and less and would again end up to be around 5 degrees given the distances elicited in the testimony. Finally, it was Ramos' bullet that hit Davila and not Compean's, but the previous scenarios were necessary to establish the potential geometries of the event. The piece of evidence needed to place Ramos with respect to Davila is given by Davila. Davila turns and looks back while laying on the ground just after being shot. He observes the two agents together turning and holstering their weapons. That is consistent with Ramos' and Compean's testimony which places Ramos just to Compean's left and a few yards closer to Davila's position than Compean. Given that and all the previous scenarios it is evident that Davila was turned when hit by the bullet. That confirms the statement and testimony of Compean(in that Davila was looking back at times), and the testimony of Ramos who shot at the turning Davila. Davila denies such action.

As to contradictory and conflicting testimony, the human mind is used to ascertain the likely truth of the matter. It was the prosecutions task to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooting was unjustified. I do not think that they did that. I have shown the consistency of the physical evidence with the testimony of Ramos and Compean. Sure a bullet can travel across a body when the body is at an angle to the line joining the source of the bullet and the body. But when the source of the bullet and the body start from a position close to each other and the shooter chases the body being shot, the angle is not great. That is due to the Euclidean fact that two points determine a straight line.

Since the agents acknowledged they did not report the shooting, it seems absurd for you to continue to insist that simply because you think “everybody heard the shooting” that the official process didn’t need to be followed.

We have a fundamental difference. You seem to believe that it is impossible for a LEO to shoot an unarmed person. I think it happens from time to time.

You seem to misunderstand the concept of reasonable doubt. The agents have NO EVIDENCE that Davila was armed. They simply SAY he was armed. Because both of them are charged with shooting an unarmed man, the fact that the two of them BOTH say he was armed is not “corraberating evidence”, it is viewed as a self-serving statement.

I think you would understand why it is wrong to say that their statement is “evidence” if you thought through how such “evidence” would play out in any murder case.

The idea that if a police officer shoots me, I have to prove I wasn’t armed in order for the police officer to be held responsible is not one I would subscribe to.

It seems to me that you want to give extra credit to the LEOs because they are LEOs, while I want to hold the LEOs to a higher standard because they are LEOs. Maybe that is too fundamental a difference for us to ever to agree, but maybe if you think about that you won’t be so quick to dismiss other people’s arguments as absurd.

What are you talking about? Compean's first interview as recorded by Chris Sanchez, the investigating officer, and taken the night he was first picked up and arrested, contained the following..

That is what I am talking about. Their first interview was weeks after the shooting, and only after they were arrested, and would be expected to give statements that would exonerate them.

The two men committed a shooting. It seems a stretch to believe that they could not have discussed the shooting between the time of the shooting and the time of arrest.

Of course, if you believe that they are innocent, and knew the shooting was legal, you could also believe that they presumed nothing would come of it and would have no reason to think about what they would say if questioned.

However, if you entertain the notion that they knew the shooting was not justified, then you could understand why they didn't report it, and would presume they would have spoken to make sure they had a reasonable story.

If there was an investigation on the day of the shooting, the two would have been separated and questioned, and we'd know that their testimony was independent.

But two weeks later? They had plenty of time to have a conversation so that each of them would have some idea of what the other had thought that day.

All it takes is for them to run into each other somewhere, and Compean says "did you ever see the gun? I sure thought I saw on in his hand when he turned at me".

It doesn't even have to be an effort to try to corroborate a story -- it's simply the kind of conversation you would have after an incident.

There is a reason they have the rules about reporting a shooting -- and part of the reason is to save the agents from being charged later with a crime. See, the supervisor knows how to investigate. The rules don't have the agents file a report, the supervisor does.

The supervisor can get written statements from all the peopel at the scene, and build an airtight case for the agents.

How can you retain the irrational notion that the two conspired to keep a secret that wasn't a secret? Compean obviously knew that Vasquez heard the shots. And if he was going to lie about Davila having a gun why would he not lie to Vasquez who by his own testimony could not know whether Davila was armed or not?

Plus the statement that they would lie at the initial interview because they were lying at the initial interview is a tautology. The simple fact is that failing to remember is failing to remember also a tautology and is as valid an argument as your useless statement. What is relevant is how all of the testimony and actions fit together. You obviously believe that they are lying since you do not have one shred of argument about how the other physical evidence fits with the testimony. I can show from the testimony that all of the actions at the ditch happened within less than 5 minutes. From principally the testimony given by Compean in volume 14 pages 21-24 and page 34, along with times gleaned elsewhere in the testimony and remembering that the all clear is given at 13:27

13:11 Initial call by Compean
13:15:07 Vasquez asks if the van is dark blue? (It would seem that Vasquez saw the van first after Compean since he had travelled past Jesse Harris and then doubled back to Jesse Harris to observe Ramos and Juarez chasing Davila. It is hard to believe two blue vans were travelling in the area at the time.
13:17:34 Juarez asks if the van is newer model or older.
13:18 The call is made that identified the van. By Juarez testimony that would be just as they are going into Fabens
13:19 Juarez calls "We've got this baby!"
13:20 Ramos calls out that he is heading back south.

Ramos call is given therefore just upon leaving Fabens proper which is 3.5 miles from the ditch. That distance would take at least 3 minutes to cover even at a constant 70 mph which is clearly impossible since the S curve must be negotiated at less than 15 mph at the corners. That means that Davila and entourage would arrive at the ditch at 13:23. Voila 13:27 - 13:23 is 4 minutes. Therefore, every thing that happened at the ditch to include policing up spent shells and devising a devious coverup occurred in those 4 minutes. NOT LIKELY. It is known that Supervisor Richards made the all clear call. Ramos arrived coming back just as Richards arrived. What is likely is what Ramos and Compean testified to. After shooting at Davila, Ramos returned walking back straightaway. Compean followed and picked up his dropped magazine and the shells visible in the immediate area without much time spent in gathering those shells. Most likely at some point after talking to those at the scene Richards called all clear.

Now instead of continually saying "X" lied and must have lied, I use testimony to show that "X" lied and "Y" is most likely telling the truth. It is reasonable to assume that people know that shots were fired when you know that they are at the scene prior to and immediately after the shooting. It is therefore reasonable to assume that it is not necessary to report something that was probably already reported.

You seem hung up on irrelevancies.

Compean testified that he picked up his casings. So there is no doubt he picked up his casings. There was also testimony that he asked someone else to pick up more casings later, AFTER your 4-minute window, but that just reinforces that the casings were picked up.

I don’t think they made up a story at the scene. I know that they did not provide the appropriate report to their supervisor. I presume they knew other agents knew about the shooting, but none of the agents reported.

It’s not hard to envision a “small” conspiracy. It doesn’t take time or coordination — the other agents don’t talk about the shooting because they didn’t shoot, and if Compean and Ramos both decide not to report the shooting, that’s all it takes — 10 seconds of “hey, let’s just forget about this shooting, since he got away anyway.”.

They don’t even have to coordinate at the scene. Just both decide not to report.

As to the shooting not being a secret, no secret is hidden from everybody. IT was a secret from those who were supposed to be informed about it. The higher-ups had no idea there was a shooting — which is why they reacted as they did when they heard about the guy who was shot. One thing is always true about managers — they hate hearing about something they are supposed to know about from a superior, it makes them look bad.

IF the other agents keep a “don’t ask, don’t tell” philosophy about things, the secret remains a secret.

I will note that, if not for Davila having serious injuries from the shooting, nobody would know the shooting ever happened. There would be no police report, no stories in the newspaper. It would be a “secret”. The Border Patrol would have no records of the shooting, and it would not be recorded on their incident report.

That is a perfectly reasonable definition of “secret”, much more useful than your assertion that since other people at the scene knew shots were fired, it couldn’t be a “secret”.

You seem hung up on irrelevancies.

Well it appears that way to you since you apparently do not know how to support your arguments.

Have I ever claimed that Compean did not pick up casings? If you had read my last post you can see that I state that Compean picked up casings immediately close to the dropped magazine. That four minute window involves picking up at least 9 shells which according to Juarez testimony would have been at the top of the levee. There would have been at least five more down in the vega according to the prosecution's version of events. No one saw Compean pick up casings at the top of the levee which was visible to all at the scene. Therefore Compean could only have picked up 5 casings since according to Juarez he performed a magazine exchange at the top of the levee. What that means is that the prosecution's version of the events is wrong. Ramos and Compean's version of the events is entirely consistent with the evidence I have presented.

It is no assertion, it is a fact that since other people heard the shots that it was not a secret. What are assertions are your statements which start with "It is not hard to envision...", "I don't think they made the story at the scene...". And your imagined conspiracies involving the agents other than Ramos and Compean are ludicrous. The other agents only heard shots. They did not see bodies or wounds, so why would they conspire for any reason. Ramos testifed that he heard people talking about the shooting. Juarez made a statement that he yelled shots. Well, although Juarez is a confirmed liar, it is reasonable that he might have performed that action. Be that as it may, neither Ramos nor Compean talked to Juarez and he certainly heard the shots so again conspiracy theories involve secrets and planning. It is evident that no such thing occurred at the ditch. Especially in light of the fact that nearly the whole contingent of the Fabens station who were on duty at the time were present at the ditch when Ramos and Compean return. R&C could not possibly know who did and who did not hear the shots. This is verified by numerous testimony. Jacquez sees Ramos and Compean walk over the levee. At the scene prior to Jacquez were, Yrigoyen, Mendez, Juarez, Vasquez, and Mendoza. Now you're going to tell me that all of these people would have colluded to keep something secret. Remember, Ramos and Compean have no idea who heard the shots. All of those people were present when they crossed back over the levee. Most likely Richards and Arnold were also within earshot at the time Ramos crossed over the levee.

P.S. The path of the bullet through Davila is not irrelevant. The members present at the scene and the timing of their arrivals is not irrelevant. The prosecution spent a fair amount of time on them and did not rest its case on ,"They picked up casings and did not tell their supervisors, therefore they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." That is the extent of your reason for assessing their guilt. Sorry, but reasonable people use evidence to form judgements. They do not rely solely on the tingle up their legs.

You mention the “prosecution version” of events. The prosecution does not testify under oath, and does not therefore provide evidence. THe proseucution was not at the site, and therefore could not be a witness to picking up the casings.

You seem fixated on how many casings he picked up. You are fixated on whether davila was pointing in one direction or another, something that the bullet path cannot show one way or another, as was testified to, as if you think that proving that davila was a little more sideways it proves he had a weapon.

You continue to misuse the term “secret”, which is irrelevant anyway because there is no criminal complaint that hinges on the term “secret”. Obviously some people knew there was a shooting, and some did not. Those that did not included the people up the chain of command who were supposed to be informed. Arguing over whether the shooting was “secret” to those superiors or not is silly — they did not know the information.

The legal issue is not whether someone was keeping something “secret”, but whether someone reported the shooting to the appropriate people. In this case, the evidence is clear that they did NOT report properly to the appropriate people.

TO give you an analogy that you will ignore, it’s no secret how much money you make, but if you don’t file your income tax forms you will be held responsible for that failure.

Just as it is no secret what you do, but I have no idea what you do.

Any time a police officer has a bad shoot, it is possible someone “heard the shots”. Generally the person who they shot at has heard the shots. But they are still supposed to report the shooting.

And while you seem to be very much willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the two agents, there will be people who see the lack of proper reporting as a sign they wanted to cover up what happened, to NOT have it investigated.

If you know any police friends, ask them if they would NOT report any time they shot at someone in the course of their duties. I would be shocked if you could find an officer of the law who would suggest it was OK to take shots at a suspect and not end up with an official report of the shooting.

And the sad thing is, if Ramos and Compean had followed the process, they may well have not been convicted.

Nits about your other assertions of absolute truth: The fact that a location at the vega was “visible to all” does not mean that a Compean couldn’t have picked up a casing at that spot without anybody seeing him. Maybe nobody was looking at him at during those 10 seconds, or maybe they forgot.

As to your assertion that since people heard the shots, they would have to “collude” to hide the shots, that is also silly. All they had to do is not figure it was their job to file a formal report. Although it could also be that they all hold to the code that you don’t rat out your fellow officers. Happens ALL THE TIME. People don’t like to get other people in trouble, whether it’s LEOs, or people at work, or people who are driving, or anything.

I see people commit infractions of the driving laws all the time, and only once have I ever felt compelled to call the police. You might know someone at work who comes in late, or leaves early, or takes pens home, and just decide it isn’t your problem.

The fact that the prosecution presented many other witnesses to prove the case to a jury is not in question. The jury disagrees with your opinion of that testimony.

But my argument with you, and here, was NEVER that they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or that I know they must have done it.

My argument was that you, and others who insist that anybody who doesn’t KNOW they are innocent is stupid, are wrong, and that it is easy to look at the facts and believe they are guilty.

If you want to hold the trial in this forum, do it without me, it’s a meaningless, pointless, fruitless, and impossible task for you. Nothing you have said persuades me that they couldn’t have been guilty.

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.