Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Edbert1 on August 09, 2006, 09:22:18 PM
-
Full article here:
http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4141562
+++++++++++++
Unbelieveable!
-
Makes ya wonder why people even bother anymore. YA can't do the right thing. It will only get you sued , jailed , or completely destroyed by the media.
Living in Northern Mexico is becoming more and more a reality everyday.
-
Could buy a jar and help 'em out. Well, the minutemen anyhow.
http://www.minutemansalsa.com/
-
Welcome to the world of Law Enforcement.
-
7- Members should remember this board is aimed at a general audience. Posting pornographic or generally offensive text, images, links, etc. will not be tolerated. This includes attempts to bypass the profanity filter.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
7- Members should remember this board is aimed at a general audience. Posting pornographic or generally offensive text, images, links, etc. will not be tolerated. This includes attempts to bypass the profanity filter.
Believe it or not , lately I have been in a funk. Couldn't really put my finger on it. Just a kind of don't give a crap about things type of attitude. Know what I mean?
I talked to my brother today who is a minister. HE just called looking for a talk. HE has been feeling kind of the same way. Like what are we doing here?
Stories like the above is kind of what I am talking about.
I wouldn't disagree with everything you said. I don't think we're really a crap-hole as you state....but this country is in a definate spiral downwards IMHO.
-
Gets old doesnt it.
-
This should be overturned immediately. Deborah Kanof works for us after all, I've written letters to both of my congresspersons asking that she be fired and disbarred, in reality I'd like to see her do time, hard time, in a Turkish prison, for her crimes against rational humanity. And she commits these crimes in my name, literally makes me ill.
Our employee (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Assistant+U.S.+Attorney+Debra+Kanof+%22&btnG=Google+Search)
-
"It is a violation of Border Patrol regulations to go after someone who is fleeing," she said. "The Border Patrol pursuit policy prohibits the pursuit of someone."
Am I missing something here? Why the f**k are we paying for Border Patrol agents to now stand around like a Cigar Store Indians? I'm going to send emails to my Congressman in response to this chit. Every day I HATE and DESPISE the Government that much more.
-
What got me was the local prosecutor PAID the drug smuggler to come back from MExico, and gave him immunity. (He has since been busted for smuggling aGAIN). I'm guessing we will find out this prosecutor chick has some ties to left wing groups in Mexico
-
mav... I think you are talking about uniformed police. I think that the ninja clad alphabet soup federal guys can pretty much do whatever it is that they want including breaking into anyones house in the weee hours of the night and shooting everyone they see...
Then... they get to investigate their own crime scene.
lazs
-
Originally posted by RedTop
....but this country is in a definate spiral downwards IMHO.
That whats most of my friends here in Europe have said also. As inviduals you Americans are mostly nice , hardworking and friendly fellows who help people in distress.
But as a nation you overregulate yourselves (reason is leaving Europe too as EU is gaining strenght.. politicians seem to think that if there is a law about something it will make life easier..like toilet paper widht regulation etc..) , make silly laws as they would make difference and such. So for me it seems that you have sound crew without captain and officers to keep the course straight...
Some are burning sails, other make their own canoes to escape the ship, at the bridge is full scale backstabbing war going on who has the helm and captain is making speeches at the masttop for seagulls who only listen because breadcrumbs.. and the rudder has been sawed off by some naysayers...
If only you would get your **** together and drown lawyers you would become strong again but now your ship is rotting..from inside.
-
i thought it was encouraged to shoot people in america? or have all those westerns been leading me on? :huh :huh :confused: :confused:
-
Originally posted by Furball
i thought it was encouraged to shoot people in america? or have all those westerns been leading me on? :huh :huh :confused: :confused:
No, that was Lazs leading you on.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
mav... I think you are talking about uniformed police. I think that the ninja clad alphabet soup federal guys can pretty much do whatever it is that they want including breaking into anyones house in the weee hours of the night and shooting everyone they see...
Then... they get to investigate their own crime scene.
lazs
Laz,
Once again you are trying to put words in my mouth.
In this case I think it's my fault. I should have been plainer in my comment.
I made that statement as it is the same damn situation that I lived with for my career. Do your job and you can expect to be sued for it and in latter times prosecuted for it.
My department also instituted a no pursuit policy. Right after it was instituted the number of people running increased dramatically. Why the hell not? If they were drunk and they ran they got away. If they just didn't want a ticket and they ran they could get out of it. They figured that no Officer was going to risk being sued if an accident happened because it was already known that there was a NO PURSUIT policy. If you turned on the siren to chase them you already were subject to disciplinary action. If you got a complaint from the person you chased and caught you could kiss your raise that year goodbye since it would be a founded ccomplaint. You violated the no pursuit policy. If the person you were chasing was KNOWN to be violent, armed and in process of committing a violent criome at the time you were pursuing him, THEN you could pursue him. Think about it, you already had to know who it was and what they were doing as they were doing it in order to just chase them.
You could not use deadly force except in a narrow range of situations. (This is not necessarily bad by itself) You could not threaten the use of deadly force by drawing your weapon and had to justify in a sworn statement to the administration every time you drew your weapon. This sworn statement was available to attorneys by the freedom of information act even though it was an employee personnel document since it was department POLICY that you fill it out. Now you could be sued for violating department policy by drawing the weapon even if you had reasonable cause due to the tactical situation such as facing an agressive suspect who had a stick or rock or a knife or even a gun unless they were actually threatening you with the gun. We were expected to "fight fair" and protect the suspect even though the suspect was trying to kill the Officer.
It came down to allowing the suspect to not only produce the weapon, threaten to use the weapon but actually start firing before you were authorized to draw your own. People kinda wondered why Officers didn't chase down armed suspect on foot. You had to wait to be ambushed before you could be ready to defend yourself. Ain't PC policy wonderful???? :rolleyes:
Some things finally changed but you can still be sued just for doing your job even for doing it right. You can also be prosecuted more than once for the same act as well, since double jeapardy does not pertain to civil rights violations.
So Laz, please don't preach to me about what the "government" can do to about breaking into a house and indiscriminately shooting everyone inside. That is pure BS and you know it. There is no more "shock value" in some of your extreme statements any more. You really don't validate your arguments when you go off the deep end.
-
Originally posted by LLv34 Jarsci
That whats most of my friends here in Europe have said also. As inviduals you Americans are mostly nice , hardworking and friendly fellows who help people in distress. Yes we are. Most times.
But as a nation you overregulate yourselves (reason is leaving Europe too as EU is gaining strenght.. politicians seem to think that if there is a law about something it will make life easier..like toilet paper widht regulation etc..) , make silly laws as they would make difference and such. So for me it seems that you have sound crew without captain and officers to keep the course straight... The course is IMO what is in question. Half the crew wants to go one way and the other half wants to go another. Meanwhile the officers and Captain are trying to play to thier respective sides of the crew so they aren't taken to the plank and made to walk it.
Some are burning sails, other make their own canoes to escape the ship, at the bridge is full scale backstabbing war going on who has the helm and captain is making speeches at the masttop for seagulls who only listen because breadcrumbs.. and the rudder has been sawed off by some naysayers... That my friend is what our governemnt has turned into
If only you would get your **** together and drown lawyers you would become strong again but now your ship is rotting..from inside.
It's not all lawyers that are the problem....its morals and people not caring about right or wrong. They only care about themselves. I am prolly in that mode as well. But , on a different scale. I don't care about the government snooping around in things. I think they should be in this post 9-11 world. If they didn't and something happened then the nay sayers would be the first to ask why they weren't. Stupidity.
But it's against our freedoms and an invasion of our rights is what I hear. What invasion? IF you never heard of it and were a typical law abiding citizen then you wouldn't have anything to worry about. Your life would never be disrupted cause you wouldn't know. Not the point they say. It's exactly the frikin point. Why worry about it? Hiding something?
We put up with politically correct B.C. talk because people are to afraid to speak the friggin minds because someone may be offneded. Freeedom of speech is only good when you say what they want to hear. Other wise they just want you to be quiet. Squelch that word "God". Please don't say Jesus or I'll have to call the ACLU and sue you for me hearing that. But , oh yeah let me burn that flag in protest of my government.
This whole Frikin nation is one big melting pot of politically correct bullch*t.
I have gotten a bit older. I have gotten a bit more set in my ways. But anymore I call a spade a spade. I don't give a crap about who doesn't like it or not. I may not be right but it is my right to say I believe in God , Jesus , Heaven and marriage being between Men and Women. Not a pitcher and a cather. Not between 2 lickity splitters.
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.
-
Wow, un-freaking-believable. Without making any stupid comments, i'll leave it at that.
-
Originally posted by nirvana
Wow, un-freaking-believable. Without making any stupid comments, i'll leave it at that.
:lol
-
In a lot of cases, the love-affair some have with the philosophy of moral relativism and the protection of individual "rights" collides with their desire that the government regulate everything and keep order.
T'aint always possible to do both, especially when Americans are divided on how to define the boundaries of each of these goals.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
In a lot of cases, the love-affair some have with the philosophy of moral relativism and the protection of individual "rights" collides with their desire that the government regulate everything and keep order.
T'aint always possible to do both, especially when Americans are divided on how to define the boundaries of each of these goals.
Yep
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
In a lot of cases, the love-affair some have with the philosophy of moral relativism and the protection of individual "rights" collides with their desire that the government regulate everything and keep order.
T'aint always possible to do both, especially when Americans are divided on how to define the boundaries of each of these goals.
I agree, but I don't see all the grey areas in this case. Two uniformed members of our law enforcement are going to jail for attempting to apprehend an illegal alien who was also a drug smuggler. On top of that the US Attorney used the testimony of a criminal to indict, prosecute, and ultimately convict said law enforcement officers. The moral relativism there, is about 99.9% versus 0.1%.
I want this DA not only disbarred but also tarred and feathered, lets ship her sorry arse over to Kabul post haste and fire every member of her chain-of-command right up to the AG himselfl. I cannot beleive this story is not on the front page of every paper in the country! What a travesty.
-
I agree...there are no grey areas in this case.
I smell corruption.
-
I wonder who the hell was on that jury? :confused:
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
I wonder who the hell was on that jury? :confused:
If it was held in El Paso, it's pretty safe to assume the obvious.
-
and yet.... the alphabet soup secret police in their ninja outfits are never treated like this even if they break into the wrong house or kill real American citizens.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and yet.... the alphabet soup secret police in their ninja outfits are never treated like this even if they break into the wrong house or kill real American citizens.
lazs
Gotta protect that cheap labor source.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
This should be overturned immediately. Deborah Kanof works for us after all, I've written letters to both of my congresspersons asking that she be fired and disbarred, in reality I'd like to see her do time, hard time, in a Turkish prison, for her crimes against rational humanity. And she commits these crimes in my name, literally makes me ill.
Our employee (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Assistant+U.S.+Attorney+Debra+Kanof+%22&btnG=Google+Search)
Yeah sure:
"The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it is a violation of someone's Fourth Amendment rights to shoot them in the back while fleeing if you don't know who they are and/or if you don't know they have a weapon," said Kanof, the assistant U.S. attorney. "
"The prosecutor also said the men destroyed the crime scene when Compean picked up his shell casings and attempted to cover up their actions by not reporting they'd fired their weapons. "
I've all due respect for LEOs but they blew it. And it really sucks when mandatory minimums creeps up and smacks someone in the fold, eh?
-
Originally posted by Horn
Yeah sure:
"The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it is a violation of someone's Fourth Amendment rights to shoot them in the back while fleeing if you don't know who they are and/or if you don't know they have a weapon," said Kanof, the assistant U.S. attorney. "
"The prosecutor also said the men destroyed the crime scene when Compean picked up his shell casings and attempted to cover up their actions by not reporting they'd fired their weapons. "
I've all due respect for LEOs but they blew it. And it really sucks when mandatory minimums creeps up and smacks someone in the fold, eh?
Sure..they made some mistakes...but minimum 10 years for shooting a criminal? You've got to be kidding if you think they deserved to be prosecuted..At most they should have lost their jobs if their bosses thought it was a big deal.
-
That's probably a standard law Astac, some places they have minimums for use of different weapons and such.
-
Have you noticed that, thanks to lawyers and all, police departments and law enforcement types will soon resemble the dunces in the movie "Demolition Man" ?
Then, of course, we'll have to figure out the 3 seashell thing
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Sure..they made some mistakes...but minimum 10 years for shooting a criminal? You've got to be kidding if you think they deserved to be prosecuted..At most they should have lost their jobs if their bosses thought it was a big deal.
"Mandatory" minimum sentencing sucks, doesn't it? I would prefer these guys go down for it so hopefully legislatures will take notice and rid us of the mandatory minimum structure--a structure which allows no flexibility for crimes such as these.
Of course, the mandatories are there from the first because people thought "criminals were getting off too easy."
-
It was a mistake to not report the shooting, there's no doubt about that. It is always up to the DA to decide which cases he/she chooses to prosecute though.
These men do NOT deserve to do hard time, arguably they deserve to loose their job, but in my opinion they should merely be reprimanded for missing the head shot. Maybe we could have a new hunting season on the illegal alein drug runners, deer season is pretty short around south Texas anyway.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Have you noticed that, thanks to lawyers and all, police departments and law enforcement types will soon resemble the dunces in the movie "Demolition Man" ?
Then, of course, we'll have to figure out the 3 seashell thing
Curses be on you for bringing up the 3 seashell thing, it drove me nuts trying to figure it out when the movie came out.
may you burn and freeze in a hot and cold place for bringing it up. < now try to figure that one out. :p
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
It was a mistake to not report the shooting, there's no doubt about that. It is always up to the DA to decide which cases he/she chooses to prosecute though.
These men do NOT deserve to do hard time, arguably they deserve to loose their job, but in my opinion they should merely be reprimanded for missing the head shot. Maybe we could have a new hunting season on the illegal alein drug runners, deer season is pretty short around south Texas anyway.
Did you even read the article you posted?
"According to the U.S. attorney who successfully prosecuted the agents, the man they were chasing didn't actually have a gun, shooting him in the back violated his civil rights, the agents didn't know for a fact that he was a drug smuggler, and they broke Border Patrol rules about discharging their weapons and preserving a crime scene."
They shot a guy that:
1) Had no gun
2) Shot him in the back
3) Didn't know for sure he had broken any laws
In addition, they:
4) Futzed up a crime scene
5) Tried to hide that they'd shot their weapons
6) Violated agency policies
You might want to get off that high horse. They should go down. As I said before the mandatory minimums that govern their crimes are harsh--maybe someone will notice.
If you or I did half of that stuff we'd be in deep fecal matter.
-
According to the trial evidence he was shot through the buttocks sideways which collaborates their story of him turning. Kinda tough to second guess a split second decision especially since he just assaulted the other officer.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
According to the trial evidence he was shot through the buttocks sideways which collaborates their story of him turning. Kinda tough to second guess a split second decision especially since he just assaulted the other officer.
True. He however wasn't the one who assaulted the officer. There were two of them (unless I'm reading this wrong). Still, they shot an unarmed man.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for nailing these illegals coming across; however, these LEOs screwed the pooch and should pay--also, mandatories. Additionally, there needs to be some scrutiny of the Border Patrol policies as they seem too restrictive.
-
horn , you understand he was/is a drug smuggler who was in this country illegally?
i do agree however that the agent was a bad shot, he only wounded the perp.
-
Originally posted by Horn
Did you even read the article you posted?
"According to the U.S. attorney who successfully prosecuted the agents, the man they were chasing didn't actually have a gun, shooting him in the back violated his civil rights, the agents didn't know for a fact that he was a drug smuggler, and they broke Border Patrol rules about discharging their weapons and preserving a crime scene."
They shot a guy that:
1) Had no gun
2) Shot him in the back
3) Didn't know for sure he had broken any laws
Dude, you are taking the word of the illegal alien drug smiggler (a term that is not open for debate here) over that of two uniformed peace officers on every one of your suppositions.
1.) The criminal said he did not have a gun (his testimony means less than nothing, were I on a jury I'd take every word he utters as a total lie).
2.) So what, he had just asssaulted the guy's partner and he DID have a gun (according to testimony he was about to fire).
3.) His even being here was a violation of federal law making him a felon.
I did not say they committed no errors, I cannot figure out why they picked up their casings, and there should be reprimands for doing so but not hard time. I beleive the DA should have laughed when the case came accross their desk. A drug smiggler from a foreign company wants charges filed against US Border patrol.....ummmm....no. Drop the file into the trash and move on to prosecuting BAD GUYS.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
Dude, you are taking the word of the illegal alien drug smiggler (a term that is not open for debate here)
Debate it? I can't even find a definition of "smiggler"!
;)
(sorry, "drug smiggler" just sounded funny)
-
Dang, I did it twice too. Who put that I next to the U on my keyboard?
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
Dang, I did it twice too. Who put that I next to the U on my keyboard?
its all that Dirk Diggler googeling you have been doing Ed :D
-
FYI BP Agent are not given peace officer status in Texas.
Art. 2.122. SPECIAL INVESTIGATORS. (a) The following named
criminal investigators of the United States shall not be deemed
peace officers, but shall have the powers of arrest, search and
seizure as to felony offenses only under the laws of the State of
Texas:
(1) Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
(2) Special Agents of the Secret Service;
(3) Special Agents of the United States Customs Service;
(4) Special Agents of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms;
(5) Special Agents of Federal Drug Enforcement Agency;
(6) Inspectors of the United States Postal Service;
(7) Special Agents of the Criminal Investigation Division
and Inspectors of the Internal Security Division of the Internal
Revenue Service;
(8) Civilian Special Agents of the United States Naval
Investigative Service;
(9) Marshals and Deputy Marshals of the United States
Marshals Service;
(10) Special Agents of the United States Immigration and
Naturalization Service; and
(11) Special Agents of the United States Department of
State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security.
(b) A person designated as a special policeman by the
Federal Protective Services division of the General Services
Administration under 40 U.S.C. Section 318 or 318d is not a peace
officer but has the powers of arrest and search and seizure as to
any offense under the laws of this state.
(c) A customs inspector of the United States Customs Service
or a border patrolman or immigration officer of the United States
Department of Justice is not a peace officer under the laws of this
state but, on the premises of a port facility designated by the
commissioner of the United States Immigration and Naturalization
Service as a port of entry for arrival in the United States by land
transportation from the United Mexican States into the State of
Texas or at a permanent established border patrol traffic check
point, has the authority to detain a person pending transfer
without unnecessary delay to a peace officer if the inspector,
patrolman, or officer has probable cause to believe that the person
has engaged in conduct that is a violation of Section 49.02, 49.04,
49.07, or 49.08, Penal Code, regardless of whether the violation
may be disposed of in a criminal proceeding or a juvenile justice
proceeding.
(d) A commissioned law enforcement officer of the National
Park Service is not a peace officer under the laws of this state,
except that the officer has the powers of arrest, search, and
seizure as to any offense under the laws of this state committed
within the boundaries of a national park or national recreation
area. In this subsection, "national park or national recreation
area" means a national park or national recreation area included in
the National Park System as defined by 16 U.S.C. Section 1c(a).
(e) A Special Agent or Law Enforcement Officer of the United
States Forest Service is not a peace officer under the laws of this
state, except that the agent or officer has the powers of arrest,
search, and seizure as to any offense under the laws of this state
committed within the National Forest System. In this subsection,
"National Forest System" has the meaning assigned by 16 U.S.C.
Section 1609.
(f) Security personnel working at a commercial nuclear
power plant, including contract security personnel, trained and
qualified under a security plan approved by the United States
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, are not peace officers under the
laws of this state, except that such personnel have the powers of
arrest, search, and seizure, including the powers under Section
9.51, Penal Code, while in the performance of their duties on the
premises of a commercial nuclear power plant site or under
agreements entered into with local law enforcement regarding areas
surrounding the plant site.
(g) In addition to the powers of arrest, search, and seizure
under Subsection (a), a Special Agent of the Secret Service
protecting a person described by 18 U.S.C. Section 3056(a) or
investigating a threat against a person described by 18 U.S.C.
Section 3056(a) has the powers of arrest, search, and seizure as to:
(1) misdemeanor offenses under the laws of this state; and
(2) any criminal offense under federal law.
Penal Code Chapter 49 deals with alcohol offenses (DWI, PI, ect.)
-
I'd like to point out a minor bit here.
There was no physical evidence at the scene that indicated the drug pusher had been hit during the shooting on this side of the border. All that anyone has is his testimony (paid for with money, status and immunity from his own criminal acts) that he was shot on that date and by that particular Border Patrol agent. There was no treatment North of the border to confirm he had even been wounded that day.
If the individual in question, wonderful fount of objectivity and truth that he is, did not get wounded on that day then the worst offense the Border Patrol officers committed was a Departmental policy violation of failure to report the firing of a weapon.
Would not this contention provide something called a reasonable doubt? Of course drug runners who assault Law Enforcement Officers ALWAYS tell the whole and unvarnished truth...:rolleyes:
Concho,
Something about that bit you pasted is this. That statute only gives the listed positions the right to enforce Texas STATE laws. It only grants them the authority to arrest etc. for Texas state felonies. It has nothing to do with the Federal status and authority to enforce Federal statutes. In other words Texas has nothing to say about them enforcing immigration and customs violations. Federal law trumps State law in that regard.
Example, without that statute if a FBI agent happened to interupt the robbery of a convenience store he could not arrest the suspect without that law you posted. It wouldn't be a federal violation and he would have no arrest authority other than possibly the citizens arrest situation, if that exists in Texas. I assume it does.
-
Originally posted by john9001
horn , you understand he was/is a drug smuggler who was in this country illegally?
i do agree however that the agent was a bad shot, he only wounded the perp.
Read the article. They DID NOT KNOW HE WAS A SMUGGLER (SMIGGLER). Got it? It was a "suspicious van"--period.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
Dude, you are taking the word of the illegal alien drug smiggler (a term that is not open for debate here) over that of two uniformed peace officers on every one of your suppositions.
1.) The criminal said he did not have a gun (his testimony means less than nothing, were I on a jury I'd take every word he utters as a total lie).
2.) So what, he had just asssaulted the guy's partner and he DID have a gun (according to testimony he was about to fire).
3.) His even being here was a violation of federal law making him a felon.
I did not say they committed no errors, I cannot figure out why they picked up their casings, and there should be reprimands for doing so but not hard time. I beleive the DA should have laughed when the case came accross their desk. A drug smiggler from a foreign company wants charges filed against US Border patrol.....ummmm....no. Drop the file into the trash and move on to prosecuting BAD GUYS.
You need to read it again:
1) They didn't know he was a smiggler or a criminal.
2) No gun was found (doesn't mean he didn't ditch it but no casings found either indicating the runner actaully discharged a weapon)
3) He was only a suspicious character--he was not a felon--you actually must go to court and be convicted to get that label, remember?
4) If everyone is not subject to the same rules, what good are they?
C'mon man--these guys made so many errors, the BP policies suck and the minimums required for their "errors" --all conspire to create this unfortunate scenario. It has nothing to do with the DA.
Best that can be said for this situation is that the BP's policy will be changed and that the Fed will look again at the ridiculous minimum sentence laws.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
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?
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
Source? None of that was in the article we have been discussing.
-
Just got this update on the case of the BP agents:
+ +
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.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Source? None of that was in the article we have been discussing.
Original article, first post of the thread.
-
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.
-
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 ;)
-
<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 :aok