The two agents pursued Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, whose van was later found to contain nearly 800 pounds of marijuana. After Aldrete-Davila left his van and struggled with Compean, both agents shot at him as he fled but thought they had missed him, and he crossed the river back into Mexico. One of Ramos' bullets had hit Aldrete-Davila in the buttocks, it turned out.
A jury convicted Ramos and Compean in March of serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, obstruction of justice, and a civil rights violation. They are scheduled to be sentenced Aug. 22.
Aldrete-Davila, who was given immunity by the U.S. government to testify against the agents, is now suing the Border Patrol for $5 million for alleged civil rights violations.
So the drug smuggler somehow turned out to be the golden boy in this whole thing, with immunity from smuggling charges and a chance at $5 million in U.S. taxpayer money. The two Border Patrol agents are looking at hard time.
We don't presume to question jury convictions. But there are a lot of things not to like about this whole case and the way it developed.
It makes us uncomfortable that a Department of Homeland Security investigator tracked down Aldrete-Davila in Mexico and offered him immunity to testify against the two agents. We understand the need for the department to police the actions of its own employees, but somehow we liked to think that Homeland Security personnel were actually securing the homeland – not out making deals with foreign smugglers.
Radar, you left out a very important part of this whole story. The smuggler was granted immunity by the US attorney in order for him to testify against the agents. Before the trial he was arrested a second time smuggling a large amount of drugs into the country. He was granted immunity a second time by the same US attorney. Smells of collusion with the drug dealers, doesn't it?
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.