Free the border agents!

[CrimsonWhite]

I see. According to them, they pursued this guy and he was armed. When he turns up later he isn't so that means he wasn't? Because a drug dealer's word is more trustworthy than a law enforcement officer's?
They're guilty of panicking and covering up the incident, but based on what has transpired since, I have a hard time blaming them. They hung these guys out to dry and the sentences are too severe for the crime, IMO.

I don't agree with the bold print at all. However, these guys did screw the pooch. They didn't report the shooting, because they did not feel that the alleged assailant had not been hit? Bullshit. You report any incident in which your service weapon has been discharged.

You are correct. They are guilty of covering up the incident. They shot at a fleeing suspect that they suspected was armed. They policed their brass. This is destroying evidence and is a federal crime. These Agents' probably didn't merit the punishement that they recieved, but they brought it on themselves. If they had handled the incident in a more professional manner, the would probably still be on the border.

BTW, the people that tell me that these guys are guilty as hell, are Border Patrol Agents themselves. That tells me alot.

 

[Gunny]

I don't agree with the bold print at all. However, these guys did screw the pooch. They didn't report the shooting, because they did not feel that the alleged assailant had not been hit? Bullshit. You report any incident in which your service weapon has been discharged.

You are correct. They are guilty of covering up the incident. They shot at a fleeing suspect that they suspected was armed. They policed their brass. This is destroying evidence and is a federal crime. These Agents' probably didn't merit the punishement that they recieved, but they brought it on themselves. If they had handled the incident in a more professional manner, the would probably still be on the border.

BTW, the people that tell me that these guys are guilty as hell, are Border Patrol Agents themselves. That tells me alot.

Fleeing suspects can't shoot at you? I suggest NEVER chasing me.

I already agreed they were guilty of covering up the incident and should have been punished for that.

I know a few Border Patrol Agents myself and apparently there is a difference of opinion between Texas and Arizona. I personally take the words of both with a grain of salt.

There is a mentality in the Federal government -- unless you're a Democrat -- to go for blood on the slightest accusation. The Marine Corps does it. The GOP does it.

Flipside of the coin, there is a "good old boy network" code of silence. I would look at the actual evidence.

Police officers shooting at a suspect they believe is armed happens regularly. I wouldn't risk the chance. They were sloppy though, because I also doubt I would have missed.

Point is, the punishment IS too severe. Clinton lied to cover up a crime and he didn't get 12 years.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Fleeing suspects can't shoot at you? I suggest NEVER chasing me.

I already agreed they were guilty of covering up the incident and should have been punished for that.

I know a few Border Patrol Agents myself and apparently there is a difference of opinion between Texas and Arizona. I personally take the words of both with a grain of salt.

There is a mentality in the Federal government -- unless you're a Democrat -- to go for blood on the slightest accusation. The Marine Corps does it. The GOP does it.

Flipside of the coin, there is a "good old boy network" code of silence. I would look at the actual evidence.

Police officers shooting at a suspect they believe is armed happens regularly. I wouldn't risk the chance. They were sloppy though, because I also doubt I would have missed.

Point is, the punishment IS too severe. Clinton lied to cover up a crime and he didn't get 12 years.

I'll admit that my knowledge of this case is maginal at best. Let me get into it and get back to you. You nevr know, I might change my mind.

 

[Vel]

I don't agree with the bold print at all. However, these guys did screw the pooch. They didn't report the shooting, because they did not feel that the alleged assailant had not been hit? Bullshit. You report any incident in which your service weapon has been discharged. You are correct. They are guilty of covering up the incident. They shot at a fleeing suspect that they suspected was armed. They policed their brass. This is destroying evidence and is a federal crime. These Agents' probably didn't merit the punishement that they recieved, but they brought it on themselves. If they had handled the incident in a more professional manner, the would probably still be on the border.

BTW, the people that tell me that these guys are guilty as hell, are Border Patrol Agents themselves. That tells me alot.

Their supervisor as well as other agents were on the scene. If their mistake was just that a report wasn't filed then their supervisor should be in jail with them. And please..10 years? Here in Tennessee, we had a woman shoot her sleeping husband in the back because he wanted her to dress up for sex and she only got 6 months.

 

[MrJim]

You can still provide the link. Add it to the thread and I'll put it in your post.

And yeah, if Bush pardons anyone, these two should be close to the top of the list.

>>

The link was at the end of the letter: "++ Click here to send a message to President Bush urging him to pardon Ramos and Compean.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Their supervisor as well as other agents were on the scene. If their mistake was just that a report wasn't filed then their supervisor should be in jail with them. And please..10 years? Here in Tennessee, we had a woman shoot her sleeping husband in the back because he wanted her to dress up for sex and she only got 6 months.

Okay, where are you getting that their supervisor was on scene with them? Also your, Tennessee case isn't relevant. Differences in federal and state sentencing.

 

[Agnapostate]

I'd like to see these two remain incarcerated, if only for the fact that John and Ken will be aggravated to no end.

 

[Article 15]

Cops are not above the law.

I don't feel the least bit sorry for these two.

 

[strollingbones]

tis never the crime...always the cover up....the agents placed themselves in this postion.

 

[Againsheila]

I don't agree with the bold print at all. However, these guys did screw the pooch. They didn't report the shooting, because they did not feel that the alleged assailant had not been hit? Bullshit. You report any incident in which your service weapon has been discharged.

You are correct. They are guilty of covering up the incident. They shot at a fleeing suspect that they suspected was armed. They policed their brass. This is destroying evidence and is a federal crime. These Agents' probably didn't merit the punishement that they recieved, but they brought it on themselves. If they had handled the incident in a more professional manner, the would probably still be on the border.

BTW, the people that tell me that these guys are guilty as hell, are Border Patrol Agents themselves. That tells me alot.

There were several border patrol agents on the scene, including their supervisor whose job it was to file that report. One of them picked up some of his casings and threw them in anger, not to cover anything up.

BTW, from what I understand it was their job to report the incident to their supervisor WHO WAS ON THE SCENE, and their supervisors job to file the report. That same supervisor later lied on the stand and got promoted for it.

 

[Againsheila]

Okay, where are you getting that their supervisor was on scene with them? Also your, Tennessee case isn't relevant. Differences in federal and state sentencing.

At the time I read voraciously on the subject. Their supervisor as well as several other border patrol officers were on the scene. The doctor hired by the prosecutor said that the entry and exit of the wounds was consistant with someone that was turning around and pointing somthing behind him while running. Their supervisor lied on the stand and was promoted for it.

The drug runner was caught running drugs before the trial even started and said on the stand that he had never run drugs before or since and Sutton made it so the jury never heard about the subsequent drug runs for which the drug dealer is now in prison for LESS time than the border patrol agents that shot at him.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

At the time I read voraciously on the subject. Their supervisor as well as several other border patrol officers were on the scene. The doctor hired by the prosecutor said that the entry and exit of the wounds was consistant with someone that was turning around and pointing somthing behind him while running. Their supervisor lied on the stand and was promoted for it.

The drug runner was caught running drugs before the trial even started and said on the stand that he had never run drugs before or since and Sutton made it so the jury never heard about the subsequent drug runs for which the drug dealer is now in prison for LESS time than the border patrol agents that shot at him.

Then you read wrong. The supervisor was on scene for the seizure of the drugs. The shooting was not reported for two weeks after it happened. The Station supervisor learned of the shooting via word of mouth from his wife. The agents policed their brass and did not report a shooting. By not immediatly reporting the shooting, it calls into question whether or not the assailant was shooting at them.

I am in agreement with Gunny on this. The punishment did not fit the crime. These guys should have been told to seek employment elsewhere, but they did not deserve to go to prison. The shitty thing is, that if these guys had gotten on the radio and reported "shots fired" then they would still be on the border today.

 

[Againsheila]

Then you read wrong. The supervisor was on scene for the seizure of the drugs. The shooting was not reported for two weeks after it happened. The Station supervisor learned of the shooting via word of mouth from his wife. The agents policed their brass and did not report a shooting. By not immediatly reporting the shooting, it calls into question whether or not the assailant was shooting at them.

I am in agreement with Gunny on this. The punishment did not fit the crime. These guys should have been told to seek employment elsewhere, but they did not deserve to go to prison. The shitty thing is, that if these guys had gotten on the radio and reported "shots fired" then they would still be on the border today.

Right, the supervisor was on the seen AFTER the shots were fired and never learned of them. Nope, didn't see the bullet casings or Ramos and Compean cussing...or discussing what had happened with the OTHER border patrol agents at the scene. He heard it from his wife after the fact, yeah, I believe that. And he got a promotion for that????

I do agree the guys should have been disciplined, but the again, the supervisor is the one who was suppose to file the report and didn't. Even if it happened as you said, the only thing they are guilty of is not filing a report on having fired their guns. Hardly worth losing their job, let alone spending 10 and 12 years in prison.

AND IMO, if the supervisor had to hear of the shots fired from his wife, she should be the one working for the border patrol, not him.

 

[sky dancer]

The two border agents deserve to be in prison. They were arrest, tried and convicted unanimously in a jury trial.

These agents broke the law and then they covered it up.

The court of appeals upheld their conviction and the were recently restentenced to their original terms.

 

[Againsheila]

The two border agents deserve to be in prison. They were arrest, tried and convicted unanimously in a jury trial.

These agents broke the law and then they covered it up.

The court of appeals upheld their conviction and the were recently restentenced to their original terms.

Yeah, the court of appeals that was suppose to issue a verdict in 45 days and originally said they didn't understand why Sutton charged them with the crime he charged them with, and more than 6th months later ruled exactly the way Bush and his buddy Sutton wanted them to.

No offense, but I think our court system is about as corrupt as the Mexican court system. The jury was told they MUST have a unanimous decision. Several of the jurers, later wanted to change their vote.

Sutton never should have brought this charge against the agents and having done so he's set a presidence and any cop that now discharges his gun during a felony can be charged. The law was intended to punish criminals, not our law enforcement officers, but that's the way it was used in this case and that opens the door against every other law enforcement officer in the country.

 

[sky dancer]

Yeah, the court of appeals that was suppose to issue a verdict in 45 days and originally said they didn't understand why Sutton charged them with the crime he charged them with, and more than 6th months later ruled exactly the way Bush and his buddy Sutton wanted them to.

No offense, but I think our court system is about as corrupt as the Mexican court system. The jury was told they MUST have a unanimous decision. Several of the jurers, later wanted to change their vote.

Sutton never should have brought this charge against the agents and having done so he's set a presidence and any cop that now discharges his gun during a felony can be charged. The law was intended to punish criminals, not our law enforcement officers, but that's the way it was used in this case and that opens the door against every other law enforcement officer in the country.

If the border agents had reported discharging their weapon they would not be in prison today. They did follow their training and report the shoot to the supervisor and they also filed false reports.

The precedent setting in this case is that law enforcement follow the law and their own rules of procedure or face the consequences.

The law is intended to be enforced fairly. Law enforcement is not above the law.

Review the facts. The officers shot a man who was unarmed when his back was to them.

They didn't want to be bothered calling the supervisor to the scene or having their action reviewed. So they did not report the shoot and filed a false report and even went back to pick up their shell casings.

They broke the law and covered it up.

Just like Nixon, it was the cover-up that caused the bigger problem.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Right, the supervisor was on the seen AFTER the shots were fired and never learned of them. Nope, didn't see the bullet casings or Ramos and Compean cussing...or discussing what had happened with the OTHER border patrol agents at the scene. He heard it from his wife after the fact, yeah, I believe that. And he got a promotion for that????

I do agree the guys should have been disciplined, but the again, the supervisor is the one who was suppose to file the report and didn't. Even if it happened as you said, the only thing they are guilty of is not filing a report on having fired their guns. Hardly worth losing their job, let alone spending 10 and 12 years in prison.

AND IMO, if the supervisor had to hear of the shots fired from his wife, she should be the one working for the border patrol, not him.

Did you miss the part where they policed their brass? It was not the supervisors job to file any thing. It was those two agents job to report it to their supervisor. If these simple facts are beyond you, then look for something else to do. Take up knitting or somthing.

 

[Againsheila]

If the border agents had reported discharging their weapon they would not be in prison today. They did follow their training and report the shoot to the supervisor and they also filed false reports.

The precedent setting in this case is that law enforcement follow the law and their own rules of procedure or face the consequences.

The law is intended to be enforced fairly. Law enforcement is not above the law.

Review the facts. The officers shot a man who was unarmed when his back was to them.

They didn't want to be bothered calling the supervisor to the scene or having their action reviewed. So they did not report the shoot and filed a false report and even went back to pick up their shell casings.

They broke the law and covered it up.

Just like Nixon, it was the cover-up that caused the bigger problem.

So you believe the word of a repeat criminal over the word of the border patrol agents? They claimed he was pointing a gun at them. The doctor said that the wound was consistant with someone who was turning as if to aim or point something behind him while running. They did not "go back" to pick up their casings. ONE of the agents picked up a few of his casings and threw them in anger immediately AFTER the shooting. The supervisor was on the scene, they reported to him. HE was suppose to file the report but said, according to the agents "If we file a report, we'll be here all night" and they decided NOT to file one since the guy apparently wasn't hurt as he kept running and lept into a car. Truth is, we don't even know if the criminal WAS shot by the border patrol agents since they didn't have any bullistics to test. Perhaps he was shot by the drug dealer, angry at him losing all those drugs?

From what I read, there was NO report filed, therefor they didn't file a false report.

Further, the drug dealer LIED on the stand, and we know this since he said he'd never transported drugs before or since and he'd been caught TWICE since the prosecutor granted him immunity but the prosecutor made sure that little fact didn't get reported to the jury.

I suggest you get on the net and read about this case, there's a lot of questions out there. Like why the government of Mexico asked that these two be prosecuted and why Bush told Sutton to prosecute them.

 

[sky dancer]

So you believe the word of a repeat criminal over the word of the border patrol agents? They claimed he was pointing a gun at them. The doctor said that the wound was consistant with someone who was turning as if to aim or point something behind him while running. They did not "go back" to pick up their casings. ONE of the agents picked up a few of his casings and threw them in anger immediately AFTER the shooting. The supervisor was on the scene, they reported to him. HE was suppose to file the report but said, according to the agents "If we file a report, we'll be here all night" and they decided NOT to file one since the guy apparently wasn't hurt as he kept running and lept into a car. Truth is, we don't even know if the criminal WAS shot by the border patrol agents since they didn't have any bullistics to test. Perhaps he was shot by the drug dealer, angry at him losing all those drugs?

From what I read, there was NO report filed, therefor they didn't file a false report.

Further, the drug dealer LIED on the stand, and we know this since he said he'd never transported drugs before or since and he'd been caught TWICE since the prosecutor granted him immunity but the prosecutor made sure that little fact didn't get reported to the jury.

I suggest you get on the net and read about this case, there's a lot of questions out there. Like why the government of Mexico asked that these two be prosecuted and why Bush told Sutton to prosecute them.

I have read extensively on this case. I read the trial transcripts. I printed them out and studied them.

I am convinced the jury heard all the evidence and decided they were guility. They were convicted and sentenced. The court of appeals has upheld the decision and the sentencing.

It's over. Justice has been served.

 

[Againsheila]

I have read extensively on this case. I read the trial transcripts. I printed them out and studied them.

I am convinced the jury heard all the evidence and decided they were guility. They were convicted and sentenced. The court of appeals has upheld the decision and the sentencing.

It's over. Justice has been served.

And yet, you believe they shot at an "unarmed man" who was transporting 700 pounds of marijuana across the border. You believe the word of the drug dealer over that of the border patrol officers. Did you bother reading what the doctor said about the entry and exit of the wound? Or don't you remember that part?