Author Topic: Border patrol agents sued and prosecuted (Read 1769 times)

Edbert1 · « **Reply #45 on:** August 13, 2006, 03:03:29 PM »

The DA's office decides which cases to prosecute and which ones not to. Thousands of cases are dropped per jurisdiction per year for a myriad of reasons, among which is a simple unwillingness to prosecute. The DA's office for some reason felt it was in the interest of their citizenry to take up this case. A case where ALL evidence used to prosecute these Border Patrol Agents was the testimony of a grug smuggler, who would not even testify without promises of immunity for his crimes, err alleged crimes...LOL.

What I want to see is the prosecutor and her entire chain-of-command fired for even taking this case. I want any DA's office in the future who might be presented with a case where a foreign drug smuggler (smiggler) wants charges brought up against US peace officers (I don't care what branch) to be dropped rather than prosecuted.

Horn · « **Reply #46 on:** August 13, 2006, 03:23:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Edbert1
The DA's office decides which cases to prosecute and which ones not to. Thousands of cases are dropped per jurisdiction per year for a myriad of reasons, among which is a simple unwillingness to prosecute. The DA's office for some reason felt it was in the interest of their citizenry to take up this case. A case where ALL evidence used to prosecute these Border Patrol Agents was the testimony of a grug smuggler, who would not even testify without promises of immunity for his crimes, err alleged crimes...LOL.

What I want to see is the prosecutor and her entire chain-of-command fired for even taking this case. I want any DA's office in the future who might be presented with a case where a foreign drug smuggler (smiggler) wants charges brought up against US peace officers (I don't care what branch) to be dropped rather than prosecuted.

We'll agree to diagree then. I'm no fan of grug smigglers but as a citizen I would feel uncomfortable with LEOs shooting fleeing suspects, removing evidence from the crime scene to hide said shooting, failing to report the shooting, and pursuing when it was against department policy.

If I heard a DA was dropping such a case I would scream cover-up. There are right and wrong ways to nab a bad guy. These guys were poster children for the wrong way.

Prosecting the case was absolutely the right thing to do.

As an edit: Our oh-so-competent Administration should change the rules to let the BP do their jobs -- the non-pursuit policy is idiocy. But then, so are many drug laws

Edbert1 · « **Reply #47 on:** August 13, 2006, 03:40:40 PM »

I hear what you're saying Horn, these guys definitely screwed up, I just don't think the punishment fits the crime, or in this case, fits the violation of policy. 20 years hard time for not following policy? I also think that deadly force should be allowed to prevent flight from aprehension, whatever happend to "stop or I'll shoot"? The streets, the citizenry, the LEOs, and arguably even the perps themselves (if they stopped of course) would all be safer were it allowed. As things stand now it seems our entire Criminal Justice System is just geared to protect the criminal from the citizenry and the LEOs.

FWIW, the case would not be so black and white for me were the perp a citizen. Being a citizen grants the protections of the bill of rights which i do not think should apply to foreign combatants (being involved in fisticuffs with LEO's in this case) , be they at Gitmo or fleeing across the Rio Grande. The US constitution protect the US citizens, not the world.

Horn · « **Reply #48 on:** August 13, 2006, 04:22:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Edbert1
I hear what you're saying Horn, these guys definitely screwed up, I just don't think the punishment fits the crime, or in this case, fits the violation of policy. 20 years hard time for not following policy?

No, 20 years (recommended, not sentenced to) for this:

"A Texas jury convicted the pair of assault with serious bodily injury; assault with a deadly weapon; discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence; and a civil rights violation. Compean and Ramos also were convicted of four counts and two counts, respectively, of obstruction of justice for not reporting that their weapons had been fired."

The policy violation had nothing to do with the charges.

Quote

Originally posted by Edbert1
I also think that deadly force should be allowed to prevent flight from aprehension, whatever happend to "stop or I'll shoot"? The streets, the citizenry, the LEOs, and arguably even the perps themselves (if they stopped of course) would all be safer were it allowed.

Agreed, however, I'm sure you will agree that while it is OK to try to stop a KNOWN CRIMINAL one cannot just shoot someone who may or may not have committed a crime because they are running away. They had NO IDEA of the guy's citizenship at the time, right?

Quote

Originally posted by Edbert1
FWIW, the case would not be so black and white for me were the perp a citizen. Being a citizen grants the protections of the bill of rights which i do not think should apply to foreign combatants (being involved in fisticuffs with LEO's in this case) , be they at Gitmo or fleeing across the Rio Grande. The US constitution protect the US citizens, not the world.

Ok, but I don't see how citizen or not citizen pertains to this partiular case other than the civil rights violation. Further, this was not a "foreign combatant" which has its own particular definition--I fear we are now entering a whole 'nuther argument here.

Bottom line, I hope that as a result of this case some the current laws and regs are looked at. I would be willing to bet (and hope) that these two get less than 20.

Maverick · « **Reply #49 on:** August 13, 2006, 05:44:32 PM »

It was the US attorney saying the agents didn't "know" the suspect was a smuggler in the article. There is no information in the article for the situation leading up to the physical assault on one agent and the firing of shots by another agent. Without the information the agents had at the scene it's rather silly to say they had no knowledge the suspect was or was not a smuggler. Example, the agents stop a car or truck crossing the border not at an immigration point (likely already trying to flee from them) and a bunch of folks bail out and start to run away. The agents chase the driver. They have already observed an unlawful crossing of the border which clearly makes the occupants of the vehicle and the driver in particular subject to arrest. Clearly in the scope of their duty here in this example.

The article does state the shots were fired after one agent attempted to apprehend the suspect and had already been assaulted by the suspect to the point where he was unable to continue. This makes the suspect a felon by itself and he has already shown himself to be a dangerous felon by the assault and injuries to the first BP agent.

Unless there is some law that actually requires the agent wait to be fired upon, the agent has the right of self defense and if they perceive there to be a weapon in the hand of the suspect they are allowed to fire first if the suspect does not comply with the order to drop the weapon.

If the suspect has a revolver, there won't be any casings fromn the suspect weapon at the scene.

Almost all of the above is speculation however as there is no information in th article to indicate all of the particulars in this case. That of course is assuming the article is factual in what was presented to begin with.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #50 on:** August 13, 2006, 05:58:30 PM »

I haven't been following this too closely, but I have seen many cases where an LEO shot or shot at a suspect who pulled an object that may or may not have been a gun on said LEO, and the LEO only got a slight investigation.

Again shooting from the hip, but I think that the fact that it was border patrol agents that were involved had a lot to due with the case being persued by the DA.

Horn · « **Reply #51 on:** August 13, 2006, 09:36:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
It was the US attorney saying the agents didn't "know" the suspect was a smuggler in the article. There is no information in the article for the situation leading up to the physical assault on one agent and the firing of shots by another agent. Without the information the agents had at the scene it's rather silly to say they had no knowledge the suspect was or was not a smuggler. Example, the agents stop a car or truck crossing the border not at an immigration point (likely already trying to flee from them) and a bunch of folks bail out and start to run away. The agents chase the driver. They have already observed an unlawful crossing of the border which clearly makes the occupants of the vehicle and the driver in particular subject to arrest. Clearly in the scope of their duty here in this example.

The article does state the shots were fired after one agent attempted to apprehend the suspect and had already been assaulted by the suspect to the point where he was unable to continue. This makes the suspect a felon by itself and he has already shown himself to be a dangerous felon by the assault and injuries to the first BP agent.

Unless there is some law that actually requires the agent wait to be fired upon, the agent has the right of self defense and if they perceive there to be a weapon in the hand of the suspect they are allowed to fire first if the suspect does not comply with the order to drop the weapon.

If the suspect has a revolver, there won't be any casings fromn the suspect weapon at the scene.

Almost all of the above is speculation however as there is no information in th article to indicate all of the particulars in this case. That of course is assuming the article is factual in what was presented to begin with.

"On Feb. 17, 2005, Compean was monitoring the south side of a levee road near the Rio Grande on the U.S.-Mexico border in Fabens when he spotted a suspicious van driving down the north end of the road. He called for backup.

Ramos headed to Fabens, where he thought he could intercept the van at one of only two roads leading in and out of the small town.

Another agent was already following the van -- with Aldrete-Davila at the wheel -- when Ramos arrived."

Maverick · « **Reply #52 on:** August 14, 2006, 01:55:00 PM »

Source? None of that was in the article we have been discussing.

Edbert1 · « **Reply #53 on:** August 23, 2006, 05:14:38 PM »

Just got this update on the case of the BP agents:

Quote

+ +
From the Desk of:
Steve Elliott, President
Grassfire.org

8/23/06

Edward,

We've just gotten confirmation from Ignacio Ramos's
attorney Stephen Peters, that sentencing for the two
U.S. Border Patrol officers has been postponed until
September 18.

This is great news, because it allows us to continue
ratcheting up the grassroots pressure, and it is working!

Tonight, Grassfire's own Ron De Jong, will appear as a
radio guest on 610 WTVN in Columbus, Ohio to discuss
the case and the overwhelming grassroots response with
host Dirk Thompson.

++ 100,000 petitions arrive in El Paso!

Edward thanks to so many who have worked so diligently
to rally support for agents Ramos, and Compean, Grassfire
sent more than 100,000 petitions and personal comments to
attorney Stephen Peter’s office as a strong show of
grassroots support.

"I was just looking over the comments," said Peters, when
Grassfire called his office on Wednesday. "I will make them
available to my client so that he can see the support he
has from the American public."

Peters urged Grassfire to continue rallying support for
the agents over the next few weeks leading up to the new
sentencing date on September 18, saying all the attention
is very good. "Absolutely, keep them coming. I hope you
send me 100,000 more!" he said.

But that's not all.

Grassfire has already sent more than 100,000 petitions to
the White House, and our successful Faxfire delivered
thousands of faxes sent to key leaders in Congress and
the Department of Homeland Defense which no doubt rattled
some cages, as key leaders in Congress are now calling for
an investigation of the case!

++Action Item #1--Alert Your Friends

Edward, grassroots Americans are making a compelling
impact on this issue, but we must remain vigilant in the
days leading to the sentencing. That is why we are urging
ALL who have signed our petition to forward this message
to your friends, urging them to take action with you by
signing our petition by clicking here:

http://www.grassfire.org/142/petition.asp?PID=11665231

Since sending 100,000 petitions to Mr. Peters office on
Tuesday, more than 13,000 citizens have signed the petition!

This kind of response is due in part to friends like Frank M.,
a retired New Jersey police officer, who called our offices
to tell us that he has made this case his personal mission
to see these men pardoned. Frank is rallying support by
appealing to local police lodges--urging them to post a
link to our petition on their web pages!

Others, like Lillian B., have used the power of the Internet
to rally more than 250 signers!

This is Grassfire at its finest, and we are so proud of the
way our team has responded in support of these two border agents!

Steve Elliott
President
Grassfire.org Alliance

P.S: Grassfire has just completed "The Truth About the
Illegal Invasion: 21 Fallacies of the Open Borders Agenda"
booklet. This 55 page booklet exposes the lies and myths of
the immigration debate in compelling fashion, and we will
send you two copies for a gift of any amount to help
Grassfire maintain our frontline presence on the immigration
debate. Click here to read a sample of the booklet:

http://www.grassfire.org/12042/offer.asp?rid=11665231

++For more on this case:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060823-122228-3575r.htm

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
(Note: Please do not "reply" directly to this e-mail message. This
e-mail address is not designed to receive your personal messages.
To contact Grassfire.org with comments, questions or to change
your status, see link at the end.)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+ + + + +
Grassfire.org Alliance is a non-profit 501(c)4 issues advocacy
organization dedicated to equipping our 1.5 million-strong network
of grassroots conservatives with the tools that give you a real
impact on the key issues of our day. Gifts to Grassfire.org are not
tax deductible.

+ + Comments? Questions?

http://www.grassfire.org/email.asp?ind=10

I don't want them getting their jobs back, their failure to report the incident alone is grounds for dismissal in my book. But I hope they can avoid doing time too. The courts need to keep right and wrong, as well as the good guys and the bad guys in mind when cases come before them.

Horn · « **Reply #54 on:** August 23, 2006, 06:28:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Source? None of that was in the article we have been discussing.

Original article, first post of the thread.

Horn · « **Reply #55 on:** August 23, 2006, 06:31:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Edbert1
Just got this update on the case of the BP agents:

I don't want them getting their jobs back, their failure to report the incident alone is grounds for dismissal in my book. But I hope they can avoid doing time too. The courts need to keep right and wrong, as well as the good guys and the bad guys in mind when cases come before them.

"A Texas jury convicted the pair of assault with serious bodily injury; assault with a deadly weapon; discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence; and a civil rights violation. Compean and Ramos also were convicted of four counts and two counts, respectively, of obstruction of justice for not reporting that their weapons had been fired. "

Greaaaaaat. A fine example of sterling law enforcement.

Legislate the changes, don't go around the existing law(s)--bad precedent.

Gh0stFT · « **Reply #56 on:** August 23, 2006, 06:52:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by RedTop
I want our borders secured and people sent home who are here illegally.

I want common damn sense in poiltics.

I want 1 term or at the most 2 terms of Senators and Reps.. Then they are OUT.

I want freedom of speech in ALLL AVENUES and not just what is politically correct for some.

I'm sick and tired of being screwed by laws made by people out of touch with the PEOPLE! Who are basically bought by groups who want to impose thier will on ME.

Generally I am just sick of hearing the BULLCRAP I hear everyday.

Why people just cant use thier DAMN heads and some COMMON SENSE and simple reason is beyond me.

Sorry...vented there.

LOL welcome to the Democracy, where alot of different people minds have to fit through the same hole.
Maybe what you are looking for is more towards just one human decide what to do,
but this leads to other known different problems (i.e. the Fuhrer ;)

john9001 · « **Reply #57 on:** August 23, 2006, 07:51:18 PM »

<I want our borders secured and people sent home who are here illegally.

I want common damn sense in poiltics.

I want 1 term or at the most 2 terms of Senators and Reps.. Then they are OUT.

I want freedom of speech in ALLL AVENUES and not just what is politically correct for some.

I'm sick and tired of being screwed by laws made by people out of touch with the PEOPLE! Who are basically bought by groups who want to impose thier will on ME.

Generally I am just sick of hearing the BULLCRAP I hear everyday.

Why people just cant use thier DAMN heads and some COMMON SENSE and simple reason is beyond me.

Sorry...vented there.>>

i have to agree with redtop