Who would want to be a border patrol agent?

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?


What makes you think I discount the doctor's testimony? There was quite a bit of testimony and evidence. Apparently the preponderance of evidence was to find Ramos and Compean guilty.

This is the way it is. Juries make decisions based on evidence. You claim the smuggler had a gun, and the evidence does not show that. Your evidence is what I would call 'faith based'. You have faith in cops. Just because they are LE, you think somehow they would not lie or be dishonest. Clearly, the evidence shows the agents to have been deliberately deceptive about this shooting incident and to work hard to cover up the evidence.

I grant you, it is possible the smuggler had a gun, but it is NOT the jury's fault that they found Ramos and Compean guilty. NO GUN BELONGING TO THE SMUGGLER WAS FOUND. These two keystone cops screwed up royally and didn't get Davila when they should have. Evidence that may have helped them did not exist, largely because of their own poor behavior at the scene.

This was a bad shoot. Ramos and Compean tried to cover it up. The Justice Department was unable to look the other way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What makes you think I discount the doctor's testimony? There was quite a bit of testimony and evidence. Apparently the preponderance of evidence was to find Ramos and Compean guilty.

This is the way it is. Juries make decisions based on evidence. You claim the smuggler had a gun, and the evidence does not show that. Your evidence is what I would call 'faith based'. You have faith in cops. Just because they are LE, you think somehow they would not lie or be dishonest. Clearly, the evidence shows the agents to have been deliberately deceptive about this shooting incident and to work hard to cover up the evidence.

I grant you, it is possible the smuggler had a gun, but it is NOT the jury's fault that they found Ramos and Compean guilty. NO GUN BELONGING TO THE SMUGGLER WAS FOUND. These two keystone cops screwed up royally and didn't get Davila when they should have. Evidence that may have helped them did not exist, largely because of their own poor behavior at the scene.


Because the smuggler continued running and got in a car which drove away. It was later that any charges were filed, after the smuggler got in contact with his childhood friend border patrol agent who acted as the go between. There isn't even any bullistics evidence to show that the bullet that hit the smugglar came from either Ramos's or Compeans's guns. Do you really think he was going to volunteer the gun when the prosecutor went to Mexico and offered him immunity to testify against the agents?

I think it's time to get rid of deal making and immunity, it leads to too much false testimony by the crooks who want to get off.

As for the childhood friend border patrol agent, why is he still an agent? He LIED on his background information. And his testimony, again was taken as truth.

So we have a jury who believes the testimony of people who've been proven to lie under oath and disbeliving the people for which there is no proof that they lied under oath.
 
Because the smuggler continued running and got in a car which drove away. It was later that any charges were filed, after the smuggler got in contact with his childhood friend border patrol agent who acted as the go between. There isn't even any bullistics evidence to show that the bullet that hit the smugglar came from either Ramos's or Compeans's guns. Do you really think he was going to volunteer the gun when the prosecutor went to Mexico and offered him immunity to testify against the agents?

I think it's time to get rid of deal making and immunity, it leads to too much false testimony by the crooks who want to get off.

As for the childhood friend border patrol agent, why is he still an agent? He LIED on his background information. And his testimony, again was taken as truth.

So we have a jury who believes the testimony of people who've been proven to lie under oath and disbeliving the people for which there is no proof that they lied under oath.

Repped for the comment in bold. But your last para needs work. The jury would not know those things. I've been on a jury and found out later some of the stuff that was withheld from us.
 
Because the smuggler continued running and got in a car which drove away. It was later that any charges were filed, after the smuggler got in contact with his childhood friend border patrol agent who acted as the go between. There isn't even any bullistics evidence to show that the bullet that hit the smugglar came from either Ramos's or Compeans's guns. Do you really think he was going to volunteer the gun when the prosecutor went to Mexico and offered him immunity to testify against the agents?

I think it's time to get rid of deal making and immunity, it leads to too much false testimony by the crooks who want to get off.

As for the childhood friend border patrol agent, why is he still an agent? He LIED on his background information. And his testimony, again was taken as truth.

So we have a jury who believes the testimony of people who've been proven to lie under oath and disbeliving the people for which there is no proof that they lied under oath.

Sheila,

You and I could sit down with the trial transcripts and deal with the testimony--just the testimony alone. Not the spin from Lou Dobbs show.

The jury made the right call based on the evidence at trial. No new information warranted the judge appealing the trial decision. It's regrettable that these agents have a ten year sentence for their misconduct.

These two agents should have hauled the smuggler to the jail. The guy was down on the ground. They should have reported the shoot and let LE investigate the shoot.

Then all available evidence would have been recovered. I think they paid dearly for these mistakes, but it isn't a flaw of the justice system. The justice system worked as it's supposed to. The jury hears the evidence and decides whether to convict, the court sentences.
 
Repped for the comment in bold. But your last para needs work. The jury would not know those things. I've been on a jury and found out later some of the stuff that was withheld from us.

Good point.

The prosecutor should be doing jail time because he knew the smuggler lied under oath.
 
Sheila,

You and I could sit down with the trial transcripts and deal with the testimony--just the testimony alone. Not the spin from Lou Dobbs show.

The jury made the right call based on the evidence at trial. No new information warranted the judge appealing the trial decision. It's regrettable that these agents have a ten year sentence for their misconduct.

These two agents should have hauled the smuggler to the jail. The guy was down on the ground. They should have reported the shoot and let LE investigate the shoot.

Then all available evidence would have been recovered. I think they paid dearly for these mistakes, but it isn't a flaw of the justice system. The justice system worked as it's supposed to. The jury hears the evidence and decides whether to convict, the court sentences.


It all comes down to the question "Did the smuggler have a gun". We know that smugglers have guns. We also know that the doctor's testimony is consistant with someone that was pointing a gun at the patrol officers.

You may choose not to believe the smuggler was pointing a gun at the officers but even if he wasn't, as long as they believed he was, they were right to shoot.

As to the rest, not one but two supervisers showed up immediately after. They KNEW shots had been fired and were there when one of them picked up some of his shells and threw them in anger. They are the ones that were suppose to file the report. They didn't because they wanted to go home.

Sorry Sky, but anyway you look at it, justice was not served in this case.


As for the smuggler being down on the ground, he wasn't for very long and got up and attacked Ramos, then started running.
 
It all comes down to the question "Did the smuggler have a gun". We know that smugglers have guns. We also know that the doctor's testimony is consistant with someone that was pointing a gun at the patrol officers.

You may choose not to believe the smuggler was pointing a gun at the officers but even if he wasn't, as long as they believed he was, they were right to shoot.

As to the rest, not one but two supervisers showed up immediately after. They KNEW shots had been fired and were there when one of them picked up some of his shells and threw them in anger. They are the ones that were suppose to file the report. They didn't because they wanted to go home.

Sorry Sky, but anyway you look at it, justice was not served in this case.


As for the smuggler being down on the ground, he wasn't for very long and got up and attacked Ramos, then started running.


1. The evidence did not indicate the smuggler had a gun. There was no gun found, and eye witnesses, other than the accused, did not see the smuggler with a gun. Your claim; 'we all know smugglers have guns' is a weak argument. The evidence does not prove the smuggler had a gun. Juries convict on evidence--not on faith--in LE never lying or smuggler 'always' having guns.

2. The smuggler had his hands up in surrender position. The BP agent decided to smack the smuggler with the agents firearm. The smuggler took off rather than stay and take a beating. Then the agents started firing as he was running.

3. The MD testimony is that the position of the bullet is consistent with the possibility that the suspect was turning around to face his pursuants when he was shot. The rest is speculation--faith based again. There is no evidence that the smuggler had a gun.

4. There is a ton of evidence that Ramos and Compean were incompetent. There is evidence of filing false reports and covering up their deeds. There is the evidence that they did not take Davila into custody after shooting him.

5. They didn't file a report because they wanted to go home? That's not acceptable police work--especially when firearms are discharged.

I have spent hours pouring over the trial transcripts. At one point, I had printed them all out and read every page. Sheila--you are reading media spin. The anti-immigration zealots like Dobbs have decided to try the entire case in the media--instead of studying the actual trial transcripts. You are making a plausible case, it could have happened the way you say it did, but the evidence does not back up your theory.

Ramos and Compean lost. I'm sorry for that. If they had done their jobs right, it would be the smuggler that Johnny Sutton would have put away--NOT the cops. Prosecution is gnerally on the side of LE.

Sutton is apparently a better prosecutor than the defense attorneys, or the evidence just wasn't compelling enough for the jury to dismiss the case or claim the BP not guilty.

Your side lost. I'm sorry for that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

Sky I disagree that the jury heard all the testimony. They were not allowed to hear that awaiting trial he was arrested again for the same offence.

I also have a couple other questions that maybe those who read the transripts can answer. 1. How does someone out-run someone with a bullet in their butt. 2. Was the bullet said to have hit him in the butt ever recovered?
 
Sky I disagree that the jury heard all the testimony. They were not allowed to hear that awaiting trial he was arrested again for the same offence.

I also have a couple other questions that maybe those who read the transripts can answer. 1. How does someone out-run someone with a bullet in their butt. 2. Was the bullet said to have hit him in the butt ever recovered?


Yes. That is the way our justice system works. The judge decides what evidence is and is not admissable.

1. The smuggler did not have a bullet in his butt untill he was close to the border. 15 rounds were fired. An eye witness, Agent Juarez testified that the smuggler did not have a gun and that he did not feel the agents were threatened or returning fire.

2. The bullet was recovered. It was surgically removed from the smugglers butt. The BP agent stipulated the bullet was in fact, the one he discharged from his service weapon.
 
The bottom line is that public servants are (and should be IMO) held to a higher standard than joe six pack. When they fall, they should fall harder. We place a huge amount of special trust and confidence in them to do thier jobs correctly.

I've followed the thread really closely and I see three problems.

1. R&C broke the law. No matter what reasons they had, they broke the law.

2. The BP chain of command apparently facilitated it. Additionally the BP now is using the R&C decision as an excuse to not fully do the job they are tasked with.

3. The prosecution used some really shady tactics to convict these two. It makes me wonder if they knew something else about them that we don't know? OR if the prosecutor was looking for a high profile case to launch a personal reward? I don't know, but it smells and should be investigated as well.

Just my dos centavos (yeah folks that is a joke btw)
 
1. The evidence did not indicate the smuggler had a gun. There was no gun found, and eye witnesses, other than the accused, did not see the smuggler with a gun. Your claim; 'we all know smugglers have guns' is a weak argument. The evidence does not prove the smuggler had a gun. Juries convict on evidence--not on faith--in LE never lying or smuggler 'always' having guns.

2. The smuggler had his hands up in surrender position. The BP agent decided to smack the smuggler with the agents firearm. The smuggler took off rather than stay and take a beating. Then the agents started firing as he was running.

3. The MD testimony is that the position of the bullet is consistent with the possibility that the suspect was turning around to face his pursuants when he was shot. The rest is speculation--faith based again. There is no evidence that the smuggler had a gun.

4. There is a ton of evidence that Ramos and Compean were incompetent. There is evidence of filing false reports and covering up their deeds. There is the evidence that they did not take Davila into custody after shooting him.

5. They didn't file a report because they wanted to go home? That's not acceptable police work--especially when firearms are discharged.

I have spent hours pouring over the trial transcripts. At one point, I had printed them all out and read every page. Sheila--you are reading media spin. The anti-immigration zealots like Dobbs have decided to try the entire case in the media--instead of studying the actual trial transcripts. You are making a plausible case, it could have happened the way you say it did, but the evidence does not back up your theory.

Ramos and Compean lost. I'm sorry for that. If they had done their jobs right, it would be the smuggler that Johnny Sutton would have put away--NOT the cops. Prosecution is gnerally on the side of LE.

Sutton is apparently a better prosecutor than the defense attorneys, or the evidence just wasn't compelling enough for the jury to dismiss the case or claim the BP not guilty.

Your side lost. I'm sorry for that.

The jury makes their decision on the "perponderance" of the evidence. The smuggler got in a car and drove away, so there was no gun found. Nor could there be even if he had one. Johhny Sutton went to Mexico to find this man and bring him back to testify against the border patrol agents...why?

Why was the border patrol agent/childhood friend of the smuggler not charged with anything? He LIED on his background report. Had he not lied, he wouldn't even be a border patrol agent. Why is he STILL a border patrol agent? IMO he's the one that should have been charged, how many times has he let his childhood friend across the border with the drugs?

As you have finally admitted, he turned around while running. Guess what? He didn't have to have a gun, the border patrol agents only had to believe he had one to fire. That's their job. I've seen the training film. When the guy reaches into his pocket, you fire...yeah, you kill the deaf guy but the alternative is that he could be getting a gun to fire on you. And yes, that's in the training film and yes it was a real life situation where the cops fired and yes they killed a deaf man and yes there were no charges filed. It was justified.


It was up to the supervisors to file the report....when your supervisor tells you not to...he's the boss, you do as he says.

You give the benefit of the doubt to a smuggler that lied under oath, I give the benefit of the doubt to the border patrol agents.

The question is, why would you give the benefit of the doubt to a known criminal even now, after the trial, knowing he lied under oath and that he continued to smuggle drugs into this country even under the protection of the prosecutor?
 
Sky I disagree that the jury heard all the testimony. They were not allowed to hear that awaiting trial he was arrested again for the same offence.

I also have a couple other questions that maybe those who read the transripts can answer. 1. How does someone out-run someone with a bullet in their butt. 2. Was the bullet said to have hit him in the butt ever recovered?

No the bullet was never recovered....therefore no bullistics match and no proof that the bullet that hit him was even fired from the agents.
 
Yes. That is the way our justice system works. The judge decides what evidence is and is not admissable.

1. The smuggler did not have a bullet in his butt untill he was close to the border. 15 rounds were fired. An eye witness, Agent Juarez testified that the smuggler did not have a gun and that he did not feel the agents were threatened or returning fire.

2. The bullet was recovered. It was surgically removed from the smugglers butt. The BP agent stipulated the bullet was in fact, the one he discharged from his service weapon.

Not from what I read, sky. No bullet was recovered.
 
No the bullet was never recovered....therefore no bullistics match and no proof that the bullet that hit him was even fired from the agents.


Agent Ramos stipulated and agreed BEFORE TRIAL that the bullet was extracted from Aldrete came from his service weapon. Independent forensic analysis also showed that the bullet extracted from Aldrete matched Agent Ramos weapon.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Agent Ramos stipulated and agreed BEFORE TRIAL that the bullet was extracted from Aldrete came from his service weapon. Independent forensic analysis also showed that the bullet extracted from Aldrete matched Agent Ramos weapon.

Okay, you're going on the trial transcipts... where in there is it said that the bullet was recovered or that a bullistics report was done. I will admit, I don't have the trial transcripts anymore, my computer died. I'm working on a netbook I got for my birthday this year and I like it, but it's a little more difficult to type on.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top