Who would want to be a border patrol agent?

[sky dancer]

...and Casey Wian, CNN Correspondent; T. J. Bonner, National Border Patrol Council; and one of the jurors from the trial...

...still LOL?

Ramos and Compean are still in prison. No pardon is coming. Sorry about that. Those two should have done their jobs right and put the smuggler away.

LE has to abide by the law. That's why it's called LAW enforcement. Ramos and Compean broke the law, were tried and convicted. Appeal was not strong enough.

Dobbs is all immigration all the time. If he wants to try the case again in the media he can knock himself out.

 

[Againsheila]

Ramos and Compean are still in prison. No pardon is coming. Sorry about that. Those two should have done their jobs right and put the smuggler away.

LE has to abide by the law. That's why it's called LAW enforcement. Ramos and Compean broke the law, were tried and convicted. Appeal was not strong enough.

Dobbs is all immigration all the time. If he wants to try the case again in the media he can knock himself out.

Sky, I don't believe you are stupid so I can only conclude that you are so stuck in your ways that you refuse to accept any truth that doesn't abide by your beliefs. Read the transcripts again. Why do you disbelieve the doctor's testimony in favor of the smuggler's testimony? We KNOW the smuggler is a liar, any intelligent person KNOWS he had a gun even though he LIED in court and said he didn't. The doctor's testimony is backed up by physical evidence, how can you dismiss it?

 

[indago]

This case of Ramos and Compean, and its juror tampering/coercion, is reminding me more and more of the case of Darlene Span:

Darlene Span related that two federal marshals came to her home while she was having a yard sale. They had no uniform. She described their attire as "wrinkled up shabby street wear." They wore cowboy boots, and had no badges to indicate that they were government personnel. She said that "they were sweaty, they were rude, and they were cocky." They showed her a picture of a man that was wanted by the federal government, and named the man. They were looking for a Mickey Michael, whose name was similar to the name of Darlene's brother, who was Mike Michael. She said "The person they were looking for lived in Indiana, and we lived in Phoenix all our life." She also noted that there was about a twenty-five year difference in their ages. She explained that she, and her brother Jerry, who was helping with the yard sale, tried to be helpful with the marshals, attempting to explain the discrepancies in the descriptions of the two men. The man that they were looking for had "jumped bail" on a robbery charge twelve years earlier. She said that the marshals then went "out of control", and demanded that she would have to get her brother there, right now, or she "would be sorry." She then demanded that the marshals leave the property. They would not leave. The marshals then began to manhandle Darlene and her brother Jerry, handcuffing them. Her Mother, who was also helping with the yard sale, picked up a camera and started taking photos of the scene. The marshals manhandled the woman and took her film from her. Darlene and her brother, Jerry, were taken to a local jail and were incarcerated for three days. They were later released. A year and eight months later, charges were brought against them of resisting and obstructing the officers in the performance of their duty. The government had suppressed the testimony of some of the witnesses present at the yard sale before the Grand Jury relating to these charges. Darlene and her brother found five other federal marshals who would testify at the trial that the two marshals, David A. Danes, and Gary T. Grotewald, were under internal affairs investigation for their behavior in other incidents. A marshal, Thomas Lopez, had written a letter to the federal prosecutor in this case, Ivan Mathew, relating his "personal knowledge" that the two marshals "have a reputation for provoking assault." The prosecutor took Darlene and her brother into a room and told them that if they put the testimony of these marshals into evidence, charges would be filed against other of their family members. One marshal who went to the prosecutor and was willing to testify against Dane and Grotewald was told that he "better go home and think twice before he lets anybody know that Grotewald and Danes beat up the Span family."

Darlene learned from some of the jurors, who waited for them after the trial to talk with them, that during the trial, they realized that the testimony of David Danes, and Gary Grotewald, "was rehearsed", and that they believed the testimony of witnesses, who were present at the garage sale during the incident, and that Darlene and her brother were innocent of the charges brought against them. They felt intimidated by the prosecutor, and the judge, Robert C. Broomfield, of the federal District Court, one declaring that she felt that she would be put in jail if she did not write "guilty" on the paper. The jurors, some in tears, believing that Darlene Span and her brother were innocent of the charges, declared them guilty. Darlene explained that some of the jurors called, even months later, saying that they were ill over having to find her guilty, knowing that she was innocent. One juror, Sally Osborne, speaking on a radio talk show of the incident, declared that the Span family had been "victimized".

Yes, Darlene Span was victimized. She was victimized by the jury. They broke the faith with one of the most portentous of the laws of God:

You shall not pervert justice, either by favouring the poor or by subservience to the great. You shall judge your fellow countryman with strict justice. — Leviticus 19 v 15

Alan Dershowitz, a professor from the Harvard University, took up the appeal for Darlene Span and her brother, finding over twenty appealable issues for review by the federal Court of Appeals; but even he could not undo the damage that the jury had done. The appeal failed to exonerate the Span family. Darlene and her family have lost their home because of the expenses of their ordeal with the Federales.

Doing what is right is a matter of character. The jury knew very well the right thing to do and didn't do it. But, that's what happens when you have a toady people, and a government on the take.

STORY1

STORY2

STORY3

STORY4

 

[KMAN]

Dude, terrible source.

WorldNutDaily = Lies & Propaganda (counterpart of North Korea State Media)

The fact is, Ramos and Compean shot an unarmed illegal immigrant in the ass while he was running back across the border. The two incidents are obviously different, that is if the shooting incident that is cited by WorldNutDaily is even true. In the incident they cited, the illegal immigrants were armed. In the incident with Ramos and Compean, the immigrants and unarmed and actually fleeing back to their country.

Even police in the United States are not allowed to shoot an unarmed drug dealer running away.

You can't disprove the source so you tear it down... in typical liberal fashion to....give me a break

 

[KMAN]

You have people like strollingbones who don't know the whole story so of course they don't see a problem with them being in jail... All I ask is that people read the whole story before commenting.

Bottom line... If you are crossing our borders illegally, smuggling drugs, and you run from law enforcement you deserve to be shot...

 

[KMAN]

Sky, I don't believe you are stupid so I can only conclude that you are so stuck in your ways that you refuse to accept any truth that doesn't abide by your beliefs. Read the transcripts again. Why do you disbelieve the doctor's testimony in favor of the smuggler's testimony? We KNOW the smuggler is a liar, any intelligent person KNOWS he had a gun even though he LIED in court and said he didn't. The doctor's testimony is backed up by physical evidence, how can you dismiss it?

It's impossible talking to some of these people like sky who don't understand the case.

I think you will find that the people on this board who defen the smugglers are either illegal immigrants, liberals, or hate the US... That's the only excuse for them....sad. These guys doing the best they can to try and protect our borders and you get idoits like this who favor the drug smuggler... I guarantee you these people don't have kids and don't care what happens to this country after they die.....just the facts.

 

[Againsheila]

You can't disprove the source so you tear it down... in typical liberal fashion to....give me a break

When Clinton was president, the conservatives were quoting "Capital Hill Blue" all the time and the liberals were dismissing it. Then when Bush first became president and Capital Hill Blue said some very bad things about him, suddenly all the liberals were quoting it.

Some people will only believe what they want to believe.

 

[Againsheila]

The jury listened to ALL the testimony. They didn't believe the border patrol agents testimony and neither do I.

I'm sure you have very nice LE friends. I hope your friends don't file false reports, and cover up their misdeeds like Ramos and Compean did.

At least one of the jury members says they were coerced into voting guilty.

OJ was declared "not guilty" did you believe his jury too?

 

[Againsheila]

It's impossible talking to some of these people like sky who don't understand the case.

I think you will find that the people on this board who defen the smugglers are either illegal immigrants, liberals, or hate the US... That's the only excuse for them....sad. These guys doing the best they can to try and protect our borders and you get idoits like this who favor the drug smuggler... I guarantee you these people don't have kids and don't care what happens to this country after they die.....just the facts.

I disagree with Sky on a lot of things, but this one bother's me the most, only because IMO there is only one right and wrong in this case. You can't look at it two ways. I know Sky isn't stupid so I can only conclude he just doesn't want to believe the border patrol agents are innocent in this case. Truth to tell, neither do I. I don't want to admit that our justice system is so messed up that it will send two border patrol officers to jail for doing their jobs. I can't ignore the facts though.

 

[sky dancer]

No one is defending the smuggler, it is disingenous at least, to say so. Had Sheila and I been on the same jury, there would have been a hung jury.

These two bozo BP agents could have arrested the guy and been honest about discharging their weapons. That would have saved them all that work lying and covering it up--which is how they have ended up in prison.

Facts are these two agents discharged their weapons repeatedly. Evidence shows the smuggler was unarmed. Rather than arrresting the guy they shot, they picked up their shells and failed to report the firing their weapons.

These guys messed up, bad, and they paid for it. Those are the breaks in our justice system.

 

[sky dancer]

At least one of the jury members says they were coerced into voting guilty.

OJ was declared "not guilty" did you believe his jury too?[/QUOTE]

It doesn't matter whether I agree with the jury's decision on the OJ trial. OJ's attorney convinced the jury there was reasonable doubt. I support the justice system. OJ had his day in court and he won. Ramos and Compean lost. That's our system.

You do believe in trial by jury, don't you?

 

[sky dancer]

Is lying to your superiors part of effective BP work? What about cover up? Is that the kind of LE you want?

How about LE that shoots unarmed suspects?

 

[pegwinn]

I personally support holding public servants to a higher standard than common citizens or criminals. After all, it aint like we are placing our trust in regular joes. If the border patrol isn't effective then blaming R&C isn't anything but excuses. It indicates a systemic failure and needs to be addressed that way.

 

[sky dancer]

I personally support holding public servants to a higher standard than common citizens or criminals. After all, it aint like we are placing our trust in regular joes. If the border patrol isn't effective then blaming R&C isn't anything but excuses. It indicates a systemic failure and needs to be addressed that way.

Ramos and Compean acted as individuals in their crimes. Blaming their criminality on 'systemic failure' in the justice system or the ineffectiveness of the border patrol system is BS.

 

[pegwinn]

I personally support holding public servants to a higher standard than common citizens or criminals. After all, it aint like we are placing our trust in regular joes. If the border patrol isn't effective then blaming R&C isn't anything but excuses. It indicates a systemic failure and needs to be addressed that way.

Ramos and Compean acted as individuals in their crimes. Blaming their criminality on 'systemic failure' in the justice system or the ineffectiveness of the border patrol system is BS.

You've misunderstood. I was not hammering the justice system at all. Please note the emphasis I added to my post above. Additionally I do not support other agents of the BP blaming thier lack of effectivness on the results of R&C. Below I have quoted my own post on page one of this thread. If you go back to the post you will see I had other comments I placed in the body of the source article as well. Hope this clears things up. Sorry for the lack of effective communication

I have a couple of issues with the story itself.

This thing reeks with incompetence and cowardice at the local level. It further reeks with incompetence in the chain of command for not conducting the required training to instill a physical aggressiveness needed to overcome the smugglers. It reeks of political cowardice since we are apparently afraid of pissing off Mexico.

Campean y Ramos is not relevant. They are a separate case and are now being used as a political rallying cry by one group and as an excuse for not doing their jobs by another.

 

[sky dancer]

Thanks pegwinn

That clears things up quite a bit. Cowardice. Yes. The whole thing is one big morality play about the downfall of cowardice all the way around.

The smuggler ought to be the one locked up, not the agents. If they hadn't been incompetent, that's what would have happened.

 

[pegwinn]

aaah no worries. Reagan was the great communicator. I am merely a retired Jarhead who had some time on his hands today.

 

[Againsheila]

No one is defending the smuggler, it is disingenous at least, to say so. Had Sheila and I been on the same jury, there would have been a hung jury.

These two bozo BP agents could have arrested the guy and been honest about discharging their weapons. That would have saved them all that work lying and covering it up--which is how they have ended up in prison.

Facts are these two agents discharged their weapons repeatedly. Evidence shows the smuggler was unarmed. Rather than arrresting the guy they shot, they picked up their shells and failed to report the firing their weapons.

These guys messed up, bad, and they paid for it. Those are the breaks in our justice system.

Why do you discount the doctor's testimony that says the bullet entered and exited consistant with someone who was turning around as if to aim something (a weapon) behind him and instead trust the smuggler's testimony that he was unarmed? How could you believe a guy smuggling 800 pounds of marijuana was unarmed?

There is no evidence that the smuggler was unarmed with the exception of his testimony. In fact the physcial evidence, the doctor's testimony was based on shows the smuggler was most likely pointing a gun at them as he was running.

Again, if you read the transcripts, why do you discount the doctor's testimony?

 

[Againsheila]

Is lying to your superiors part of effective BP work? What about cover up? Is that the kind of LE you want?

How about LE that shoots unarmed suspects?

TWO supervisors showed up at the scene, they didn't hide anything. One of the supervisors said since no one was hurt, don't file a report or "we'll be here all night". If anyone goes to jail for not filing a report, it should be the supervisor that lied under oath and got a promotion.

 

[Againsheila]

At least one of the jury members says they were coerced into voting guilty.

OJ was declared "not guilty" did you believe his jury too?[/QUOTE]

It doesn't matter whether I agree with the jury's decision on the OJ trial. OJ's attorney convinced the jury there was reasonable doubt. I support the justice system. OJ had his day in court and he won. Ramos and Compean lost. That's our system.

You do believe in trial by jury, don't you?

I believe in a honest trial by jury, not one that is corrupted to suit the purposes of a racist lawyer or a corrupt politician.

Oh, and I'll bet, if we were both on that jury, the two border patrol agents would be declared "not guilty". As I said, I don't believe you are stupid and I think when you truly weigh ALL the facts in this case, you will side with me.

Then again, I do believe the jury would have declared the agents "not guilty" if the prosecutor hadn't covered up the fact that the smuggler lied under oath and was caught smuggling again, AFTER being given immunity and before testifying.