Posted on 12/22/2006 4:58:51 AM PST by radar101
3 jurors out of 12.......hardly an overwhelming majority of jurors....if the facts were that plain, then the 3 jurors would have stood their ground ( i have been on a jury, and if i am convinced of guilt or innocence, nothing would have moved me to change my vote ) so either the 3 people have no spines, or they have no convictions. either way, i do not believe them.
Prosecutors with a win at ALL costs mentality.
Political pressure by illegal alien support groups.
Jury pool of the unemployed and nothingbettertodotoday.
Jurros selected to be as dumb as possible out of that pool.
Judges who don't want to take any heat at all.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Shana Jones, Special Assistant Daryl Fields, Public Affairs Officer
September 8, 2006 (210) 384-7452RESPONSE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO REPORTING INACCURACIES REGARDING THE COMPEAN AND RAMOS PROSECUTION
In response to misstatements and misinformation being reported in the media regarding the prosecution of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, relating to a shooting that occurred while they were on duty as U.S. Border Patrol agents on February 17, 2005, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas releases this advisory summarizing the evidence presented at defendants’ trial.
As will be demonstrated by the summary below, the defendants were prosecuted because they had fired their weapons at a man who had attempted to surrender by holding his open hands in the air, at which time Agent Compean attempted to hit the man with the butt of Compean’s shotgun, causing the man to run in fear of what the agents would do to him next. Although both agents saw that the man was not armed, the agents fired at least 15 rounds at him while he was running away from them, hitting him once.
On February 17, 2005, Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean were on duty along the U.S./Mexico border, working out of the Fabens Border Patrol Station. At approximately one o’clock in the afternoon, Agent Compean observed a van near the border about two and a half miles west of Fabens. According to the testimony, the driver of the van, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, failed to yield to Agent Ramos’ attempt to stop him, jumped out of his vehicle and attempted to run back to Mexico. After Ramos told Aldrete-Davila to stop, Ramos drew his service revolver and pointed it at Aldrete-Davila. Aldrete-Davila jumped into a steep ditch filled with dirty water and when he tried to climb the steep incline out of the ditch, he was confronted by defendant Compean, waiting for him with a shotgun pointed directly at him. During his testimony, Compean acknowledged that at that time Aldrete-Davila held his hands up, as if to surrender, with his palms open, and no weapon was in either hand, or evident on his person. Another agent, who had arrived by this time and observed the scene, heard someone yell “hit him.” Aldrete-Davila, who was at one time a legal resident alien of the United States and speaks some English, also heard someone yell “hit him, hit him,” and specifically heard Compean yell: “Parate, parate, Mexicano de mierda.” (“Stop, stop you Mexican shit.”) According to testimony, Compean swung his shotgun around in an attempt to hit Aldrete-Davila with the butt of his weapon, but lost his footing and fell face down into the dirt and brush. Aldrete-Davila began to run to the river. Agent Ramos also testified that when he saw Aldrete-Davila in the ditch, he had an opportunity to look at Aldrete-Davila’s hands, which he is trained to do for self defense and defense of another, and did not see any weapons in either of Aldrete-Davila’s hands. When Aldrete-Davila almost reached the river, but while he was still out in the open vega area, he heard numerous gun shots. Compean fired at Aldrete-Davila at least fourteen times and Ramos fired at Aldrete-Davila once. Aldrete-Davila felt a sting in his left buttock and fell to the ground. When he reached for the location of the pain, his hand came away bloody. Fearing the shooters were about to reach his location and kill him, he turned his head and saw the two defendants holster their weapons, turn away from him and walk back north. He got up, limped to the river and returned to Mexico where he sought medical attention and learned that the bullet had caused serious injury. The bullet remained lodged in his body, causing him pain and impeding his ability to walk, until extracted by a military physician in the United States. The bullet was removed in the United States because it was an important piece of evidence and because the law requires the government to render such assistance to victims. On March 16, 2006, the bullet extracted from Aldrete-Davila’s body was matched to the service weapon carried by defendant Ramos, evidencing that Ramos fired the shot that struck Aldrete-Davila.
At the time of the shooting, neither agent Compean nor agent Ramos knew that the van driven by AldreteDavila contained 743 pounds of marijuana. The evidence was un-controverted that, at the time the victim was shot, neither agent knew whether the driver was illegally in the United States or whether a crime had been committed. The only information they had was that the driver had failed to pull over to be identified.
According to the testimony of seven other Border Patrol agents who arrived at the scene of the incident after the shooting, neither Compean nor Ramos mentioned that the driver who absconded had a gun, or that any agent’s life was in danger. Defendant Compean repeatedly denied that he had been injured by the driver and refused the supervisor’s offer to file a Report of Assault on his behalf.
At the scene, Ramos told a supervisor that as the suspect fled from the vehicle, agent Compean was on the levee attempting to apprehend him. Defendant Ramos said that as the suspect tried to flee Compean either tried to grab the suspect, or did a “side to side” movement, but fell to the ground and got dirt in his eyes. Ramos did not mention the shooting, and said nothing about the suspect having a weapon. At the scene, when asked why he was so excited, Ramos told another agent that it was just the adrenalin that had him all pumped up.
An agent who encountered defendant Compean a short time later, away from the scene of the incident, testified that Compean told him, “That little bitch took me to the ground and threw dirt in my face.” Compean did not indicate that he felt threatened, that his life was in danger, or that the driver had a weapon at any time. Compean did show the agent nine shell casings that he had collected at the scene and indicated he was “probably missing five more casings.” Compean told the agent he had “fired some rounds...did a magazine exchange and fired some more rounds,” and asked the agent to look for the additional casings. The agent proceeded to the scene of the shooting, located the additional five casings, threw them into the drainage ditch and called defendant Compean, using his cellular telephone, to tell him he had found five rounds and threw them away. The removal of the shell casings from the scene made it impossible to do a complete investigation of the shooting.
According to written Border Patrol policy, an agent who discharges his firearm at anytime, including off duty or by accident, must report the discharge to a supervisor within one hour. Both defendants Compean and Ramos had attended firearms refresher training which includes a review of this policy the day before the incident. Border Patrol policy also requires that the scene of a shooting be preserved so that the Sector Evidence Team may examine the evidence and file a written report detailing their findings so that a determination can be made of whether the discharge was justified. Evidence presented at trial indicated that, in the entire time of the defendants’ employment as Border Patrol agents, every reported shooting had been ruled justified and no agent was disciplined as a result of a shooting. Defendant Ramos is a trained member of the Sector Evidence Team and a firearms instructor who teaches the discharge policy.
Testimony elicited at trial clearly established that, until an investigation began at the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the Department of Homeland Security-Office of the Inspector General on March 4, 2005, no written report had been filed, no oral report had been made, and no person in any official capacity was cognizant of the fact that a shooting had occurred or a firearm had been discharged by any Border Patrol Agent in the direction of an individual fleeing into Mexico after having failed to stop for immigration status identification on February 17, 2005. The only report of any law enforcement activity on file for the Fabens Border Patrol Station on that date was an Immigration and Naturalization form I-44, Report of Apprehension or Seizure, authored by both defendants and signed by Jose Alonso Compean. The very brief report stated that after the driver of the van failed to pull over for an immigration check: “The driver of the van began driving back south towards Mexico. The driver was able to abscond into Mexico.” The report, admitted into evidence, then indicated that immediately after the driver absconded, defendant Ramos spotted the bags of marijuana in the van. No written report exists that indicates that defendant Compean was assaulted by the driver, tussled with the driver, was threatened by the driver’s actions or thought the driver had a gun. Both supervisors who arrived at the scene, after the incident was over, repeatedly asked defendant Compean if he was assaulted or injured and if he wished for them to file a Report of Assault-Service Employees, which is routinely completed if an agent reports being assaulted by a suspect. Compean did not wish such a report to be filed.
This office did not prosecute the defendants because they had violated Border Patrol policies. They were prosecuted because they had fired their weapons at a man who had attempted to surrender, but, while his open hands were held in the air, Agent Compean attempted to hit the man with the butt of his shotgun. In fear of what the agents would do to him next, the man ran away from the agents, who then fired at least 15 rounds at him, although they had seen his open hands and knew that he was not holding a weapon and had no reason to think that he had a weapon, hitting him once causing serious bodily injury. The references to policies are made only to demonstrate that had the defendants believed that the shooting was justified, there was no reason for them to conceal it from supervisors and remove evidence from the scene. The laws of the United States make it a crime for law enforcement officers to use excessive force in apprehending suspects. It is a violation of any person’s Constitutional rights to shoot at them after they have attempted to surrender, knowing that they are unarmed and pose no danger to the officers or anyone else.
At the initiation of their investigation, the DHS-Office of Inspector General contacted Aldrete-Davila who was at the time in Mexico. Aldrete-Davila was at first reluctant to cooperate with the investigation because he feared that should he return to the United States, he could be prosecuted for the offenses committed in relation to the load of marijuana he was driving on February 17, 2005. In order to secure his cooperation and appearance at trial in the United States, this office agreed that in return for his truthful testimony he would not be prosecuted for the February 17, 2005, offenses. The agreement does not immunize any other conduct.
Based on all of the evidence admitted during the two-week trial, including the lengthy testimony of both of the defendants, the jury of twelve citizens heard all of the testimony, judged the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and unanimously found both defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of eleven of the twelve counts alleged in the indictment, including assault with a dangerous weapon, assault with serious bodily injury, discharge of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence and wilfully violating Aldrete-Davila’s Constitutional, Fourth Amendment right to be free from illegal seizure, as well as obstructing justice by intentionally defacing the crime scene, lying about the incident, and failing to report the truth. Sentencing for both defendants is scheduled for October 19, 2006.
Thanks, that sure explains everything.
A lot of this report is the word of the drug smuggler. I want to know why the Homeland Security got involved in this case in the first place. Who brought it to their attention?
It sounds like the agent who threw away the 5 shell casings was not one of the two accused. Nor does it say that the two agents told him to throw them away. It sounds like the agent did this on his own. This agent is not named.
If the story is not true, fine, but I sure would like to know why it took the government this long to reply to the public.
Also I previously heard that the Drug Smuggler's aunt said he always carried a gun. It's still hard for me to believe that a drug smuggler did not have a gun.
I also heard that a lot of what is being said presently was not in the court hearings. I respect the representatives who have taken up this case on the border agents behalf. I would think they had ample opportunity to look into this case and they sided with the border patrol agents.
It doesn't explain anything to me. I can't understand how someone could shoot a shotgun at someone 14 times and miss? Explain please!
I'm wondering why seven other agents came to the scene. I would think that the two agents called for backup. If they had planned on shooting an unarmed man, it doesn't seem like they would have called other agents to come to the scene.
There doesn't sound like there is any proof that so many shots were fired, except for the agent's word who by his own account went back and destroyed evidence. Was this Agent given immunity?
I still want to know how Homeland Security got involved. The man went back to Mexico, so I doubt that he is the one who involved Homeland Security.
If these two agents were out of control, then I wouldn't have any sympathy for them, but from what has been said they both had clean records. If the government has to rely on the testimony of a drug smuggler to whom they gave immunity, they didn't have a very good case. This same drug smuggler has been caught smuggling drugs after this case.
From what I understand the agents admitted firing a shot at this guy. They may have been afraid to write it up without proof that the guy had a gun. They claimed to have seen a gun.
It looks like the Mexican drug lords are taking over this side of the border. Payola or mordidas to the feds.
According to the Lou Dobbs show yesterday, Bush believes the BP agents got a fair trial.
You, FRaddict, are asking to many sensible questions. You know they don't even have blood evidence of the shots hitting the smuggler. This doesn't even pass the CSI smell test. Surely there was a trail of blood from his running but none was ever reported.
This is a set up by the government. We have seen this many times before.
Here is the border agents story:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53448
INVASION USA
Border agents plead for 'Christmas pardon'
Congressman hosts rally asking Bush to stop 'miscarriage of justice'
radar101, you left out the part where Compean and Ramos had neglected to inform their supervisors of the shooting and destroyed evidence of the shooting, and how their story suddenly changed after people started asking questions. The two versions of their story are so different that both cannot be simultaneously true; therefore, at least one of those stories is a lie. It's been my experience that when at least one story is a lie, the second and subsequent stories are likely to not be especially truthful.
It should read "Here is the border agents' SECOND story, after they first said that nothing had happened beyond the guy absconding into Mexico, and that no firearms were involved."
Okay, they lied. They thought they could avoid the hassle of reporting the incident, since the guy didn't appear to be hit.
Lying is not a 10 year sentence. If you thought a possible drug smuggler or human trafficker (he was in a van by the border) who turned around on you while running away and you thought he had a gun after you saw a fellow agent go down on the ground, would you shoot? In the heat of the moment I would give the Agents the benefit of the doubt.
One of them had been nominated asa Agent of the Year. The border is a war zone. And I wonder why the government went the extra mile of granting a drug smuggler immunity, to prosecute this case.
Lying is not a 10 year sentence.
Obstruction of Justice is...mandatory.
The rape charges in the Duke case have been dropped against the 3 LaCrosse players due to the D.S. withholding evidence. Lives have been ruined because of lies from the so-called justice. A coach was fired, a team dismissed or fired and now these 3 kids have their records ruined forever when applying for a job as they have to answer the question of arrests on job applications.
I know it is not the same but it is very similar. Having lived less than 9 miles from the border for the past 20 years, you had better know that I don't believe the testimony of a drug smuggler who has immunity.
Source? Other than more pictures of the felonious agents crying.
IF you are surrendering, hands above head, facing your apprehender--How do you get shot in the ass?
This set up has happened in the South for years. Are you going to deny that blacks have been entrapped for political purposes in the past? Do you think the government would tamper with evidence? Do you have your TV on right now to a news station and not cartoons?
I asked you for a source, not irrelevance and strawmen.
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.