Border Patrol Agents Sentenced

[badbob]

Here's the article, to me it's just more evidence that our government will never do anything about the border problem.
Link to article:http://www.jbs.org/node/1461

Last year U.S. Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean pursued a drug smuggler who was trying to make it back across the border from the El Paso sector into Mexico. During the pursuit, Ramos, after finding a bloodied Compean lying on the ground from his struggle with the smuggler, shot at the smuggler, believing him to be armed. The smuggler got across the border to a waiting van, but, as it turned out, was wounded.

For their split-second decisions during their 15-minute pursuit of the drug smuggler, the two agents were convicted in a trial where important evidence was withheld from the jury, and where the dubious testimony of the smuggler, who was granted immunity by the U.S. government, was used against them. On October 19 of this year, Ramos was sentenced to 11 years in prison and Compean to 12 years. However, the agents have been allowed to remain free on bond until January 17, when they must report to prison.

badbob

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

Our federal governmen isn't one big monolithic structure. The Border Patrol are almost 100% Patriot. Almost all of them want the border secured. The problem is that other elements in our government want a destabilized border. While we don't know if these guys are guilty or innocent, it isn't because of anything they did, it is because the fedgov won't release evidence.

Because one side of the fedgov is Patriot, and the other (and larger chunk), is loyal only to increased and increasingly naked power.

I wonder what really happened on the border, bc I would venture to guess the story is a touch more complex than just a drug runner getting shot. Oh well, I guess we'll never know.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

A bit more on the story, here.
Turns out the agents shot at an unarmed, fleeing drug smuggler and hit him in the butt. They then recovered the shell casings and attempted to cover up the shooting.

[Prosecutor] Sutton said that the Border Patrol badge is not "a license to shoot people, especially unarmed suspects who are running away from you, lie to your superior and write a false report."

Sutton said that he felt no sympathy for Aldrete [smuggler], whom he called a "piece of dirt."

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone said that she took into account the risk to the agents in prison and the conduct of the victim when deciding on lenient sentences on most charges, but that she could not reduce the 10-year mandatory, consecutive sentence mandated by federal law when a gun is discharged in the commission of a crime.

Bottom line:
Regardless of whether you or I like it, it is against the law for a police officer to fire on an unarmed, fleeing felon (this didn't used to be the case, but it is today).

It is against the law for an LEO to attempt to cover up a crime.

Whether you or I like it or not, Mandatory Minimums cannot be overridden by Judges. Thank the Failed War on [Some] Drugs. Federal Law requires a minimum 10 year sentence when a firearm is used in a crime. Doesn't matter whether you're a cop, a CCW holder, or a casual firearms owner. It's just the way it is.

This is a pretty clear cut case. They committed a crime with a firearm and attempted to cover it up. If you think the sentence is unfair (I do), it doesn't call into question the instant case, but the concept of Mandatory Minimums in general.

MM's were passed in response to the perception (and reality) that [some] Judges were handing out sentences that were too light in the Failed War on [Some] Drugs. The result: More bad guys are taken off the streets. More, slightly bad guys are incarcerated for far longer than they should be. LOTS of non-violent criminals are incarcerated for a VERY long time.

Choose your societal poison.
Rich

 

[STAGE 2]

The shouldn't have tried to cover it up, but I'm not going to second guess an agent in the field, and I'm certianly not going to lose any sleep over a coyote getting killed much less shot.

 

[rick_reno]

I wonder if they aimed for his butt?

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Rick-
Not to get off topic, but what's the point of the "rolleyes" icon?
Is it that you'd have center-punched him, running, from an offhand, or that they're clowns for failing to do so?????

He was fleeing. They shot. They hit. They covered and lied. They're going to prison for more than a decade. Just what is it that you see as the "story" here?

Rich

 

[tlm225]

Despite the support for these agents, the bottom line is they violated policy, shot an unarmed, fleeing man. Tampered with and concealed evidence, and lied.

 

[Tim Burke]

It really doesn't matter if the suspect was unarmed or not. If the circumstances were such that a reasonable man would have believed the drug smuggler was armed, the Border Patrol agents' actions should be interpreted in that light. As for picking up the brass and concealing the shooting, I suspect it is likely that they were trying to avoid paperwork. However, the Federal government does not buy into the concept of "no harm, no foul," so deviating from the book is always potentially dangerous.
I think every BP agent in the country should retire, quit or put in for a transfer to another agency if these two are ever remanded to prison.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Tim-
It's not that cut and dried. What would you say to a DEA agent who back shoots a druggie after spotting a pistol in his belt? There has to be a reasonable threat of grave injury or death to use deadly force; a man running away, without obvious weapon, is pretty much prima facia evidence that such reasonable threat does not exist.

You don't have to like it; nor do I. But it is the Law. You are bound to it; I am; and so are LEO's. Simply because it's being applied to Officers of the Law, doing a very tough job, creates no moral or legal ground for a pass, in my opinion.

As to them "just wanting to avoid paperwork", had I shot a man in self defense, for instance, I'd "just want to avoid the paperwork" also. But picking up my shell casing and filing a false report would be a felony. I might argue a whole bunch of things, in hopes of leniency, but I could hardly expect a pass.

The Judge, in this case, heard those arguments and granted as much leniency as the Law allows. All hail the War on [Some] Drugs and the laws it has created. That's my point.
Rich

 

[rick_reno]

Why the “ ”? If someone walked up to me on the street and told me this story – which is about a couple of pinheads who commit a crime and attempt to cover it up – I’d roll my eyes. This isn’t exactly new news – we have prisons full of morons just like this. Granted, not many of them are LEO’s but some obviously are.

 

[STAGE 2]

What would you say to a DEA agent who back shoots a druggie after spotting a pistol in his belt?

Let me buy you a drink.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Now replace the words "a druggie" with "a suspected druggie". Same answer?
Rich

 

[Marko Kloos]

Better yet, replace "DEA agent" with "BATFE agent", and "suspected druggie" with "suspected illegal machine gun owner". Still ready to buy that beer?

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Spoil Sport!
I was going there next.
Rich

 

[Tim Burke]

I'm taking the officer at his word. According to the first link above:

During the pursuit, Ramos, after finding a bloodied Compean lying on the ground from his struggle with the smuggler, shot at the smuggler, believing him to be armed.

Now, the smuggler escapes. I don't even know that he realized he had hit the guy. Ramos comes back to discover Compean is OK. After they compare notes, they realize that the smuggler was probably unarmed. Oops. That means this was probably an out of policy shooting. Now what are they going to do?
I'm not suggesting that they did the right thing. The right thing to do is to go by the book, report it, and justify it as appropriate according to the circumstances as they occurred.
They certainly screwed up, but I am in no way convinced that their actions warranted a criminal conviction of any sort, much less a felony.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Tim-
I think sometimes we like to retry cases based on sound bytes from the Media, forgetting completely that a jury of people just like you and I heard LOTS more information before coming to their verdict.

Rich

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Excerpted from a letter to Alberto Gonzales from Congressman Dana Rohrabacher

i provide this as I assume it pretty much comports with the facts, and is written in a manner that is as sympathetic to Ramos and Compean as possible.

As to the specifics of the case: The two border agents intercepted a suspicious vehicle. The driver fled on foot, running toward the border. Officer Compean, armed with a shotgun, cut off the drug smuggler. A witness heard someone yell ``hit him, hit him'' and then Compean shouted for the fleeing criminal to stop. Officer Compean could have shot him at close range. Instead, he refrained from deadly force by using the butt of his shotgun. A struggle ensued with Officer Compean ending up on the ground with dirt in his eyes, rendering the Officer vulnerable and at risk. Officer Ramos, seeing his partner laying bloodied on the ground, only then shot at the assailant as he ran toward the border. The fleeing criminal was wounded in the buttocks as he raced away from the altercation. After the incident the officers did not report the discharging of their weapons and failure to do so was a violation of standard operation procedures. Furthermore, they attempted to conceal this mistake, which dug them in even deeper.

Bad decisions or mistakes are never easy to acknowledge to superiors. The desire to cover up bad decisions is a human temptation and always makes an error even worse. Nevertheless, the Herculean prosecutorial effort and huge allocation of time and resources mobilized against Officers Compean and Ramos was not justified. Nor was the prosecution's demand for a sentence that could put these two officers in prison for 20 years. This action will destroy not only their careers, but the lives of two veteran patrol agents and their families. The statement made by U.S. Attorney Sutton is not persuasive enough to warrant the severity of the penalty being sought against Officers Compean and Ramos.

Did the two officers make a mistake? Yes. Did they violate procedures, not report those errors, and then obscure the facts? Yes. Does this case justify a severe reprimand, or perhaps a month-long suspension? Yes. Does it justify the egregious legal retaliation demanded by the U.S. Attorney? NO!

So, from my own standpoint, these two BP Agents got a raw deal. But these very same laws are used against other citizens daily. Perhaps Ramos and Compean should have been given a pass by the prosecutors, because they're LEO's. However, what do most of us say when we see LEO's getting a pass for actions that would place most of us behind bars.

The operative issue is stated in this line from the Congressman's letter:

Common sense should guide authorities in such matters. Throw the book at criminals who threaten our families and society, not at public servants protecting us because they've made an error and not admitted it.

One of the framers once argued that the Constitution was written in a manner that Devils could run the nation and justice would prevail. Yet this Congressman, a Republican who has been in the Congress for nearly 20 years of Drug War legislation, now realizes the truth:

Justice, today, does not flow from just laws. Rather it depends on the good intentions, apolitical contemplation and "common sense" of non-elected Prosecutors. Congressman Rohrabacher urges, not for just laws, but for selective enforcement according to HIS personal values. Stand in line, Congressman. I have values, too.

Congressman Rohrabacher has written the wrong appeal, I think. Alberto Gonzales is about as forgiving in this case as Janet Reno was to the Branch Davidians. Congressman Rohrabacher's efforts would be better spent in wresting the criminal justice system from the Prosecutors and returning those powers to the very judges and juries who Congressman Rohrabacher has helped to render impotent and irrelevant. Rein in Mandatory Minimums.

YMMV
Rich

 

[STAGE 2]

Now replace the words "a druggie" with "a suspected druggie". Same answer?

Yes. Next

Better yet, replace "DEA agent" with "BATFE agent", and "suspected druggie" with "suspected illegal machine gun owner". Still ready to buy that beer?

No, but the beauty of it is I don't have to. They are two different situations, and it is a fallacious argument on your part to try and make them the same.

They shouldn't have tried to cover it up, but I'm always going to give the guys working beat the benefit if the doubt. Especially since no one else will.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

I'm always going to give the guys working beat the benefit if the doubt. Especially since no one else will.

Unnecessarily grandiose for a Man of Letters, which you are. You've read the support here for these two agents.

Better yet, replace "DEA agent" with "BATFE agent", and "suspected druggie" with "suspected illegal machine gun owner". Still ready to buy that beer?

No, but the beauty of it is I don't have to. They are two different situations, and it is a fallacious argument on your part to try and make them the same.

No, it's not fallacious if you're willing to step past the Instant Case to the Case in Point. This nation has declared all manner of people "potential enemy combatants" in its history, all under the exact same logic. One need only look to the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Americans of Japanese (and Italian and German) descent or the McCarthy era to know that. Each of those periods are recognized black eyes on what we stand for.

And so, we now come to the legal and moral ethics of back shooting suspected fleeing Drug Smugglers and then lying about it? You've answered the Instant Question appropriately, but called it fallacious as Case in Point. I think not. In the context of a War on [Some] Drugs and a War [Without End] on Terror, the previous examples are little more than blueprint for shooting "Suspected Machine Gun Owners" tomorrow, depending on the Media and .gov's Declarations of War.

A man in your position owes us greater intellectual honesty than that, Stage2. I think you're ultimately capable of nothing less.
Rich

 

[badbob]

Another reason for fully informed juries, I think. The intent of the law and the letter of the law seem to be at odds. Justice was not served here.

badbob