Help the Border Patrol agents imprisoned

BlindFaith

New member
I'd like to encourage every forum member to click on the website
www.grassfire.org and sign the petition to pardon these agents.
One of the interviews listed is dated yesterday, 1-26-07, so it's
as up to date as possible.

The petition is up to 280,000 names so far and another petition
delivery to Washington is scheduled when it reaches 300,000 names.
These men need the legal help of every law abiding citizen.

For those not aware of their situation, this website provides full
information as to their plight.
 
Weren't they convicted by a jury of 12? Aren't these the agents that recovered spent casings and failed to report the incident to their supervisor?
I gotta believe there is more to the story than what's floating around the media.
 
Weren't they convicted by a jury of 12? Aren't these the agents that recovered spent casings and failed to report the incident to their supervisor?
I gotta believe there is more to the story than what's floating around the media.
I do believe so. I don't see why it's right to allow law enforcement to commit crimes in order to enforce the law. Seems kinda counter-productive to me.
 
These agents benefit from a very well organized movement to set them free. Unfortunately, much of what is reported on the net about the case is untrue and, in fact, rises to the level of pure Conspiracy Theory.

In fairness to presenting both sides, the following is from Prosecutor, Johnny Sutton, regarding this case. I'm not taking sides here, but too often we run off on one crusade or another without even knowing what we're fighting for.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: SHANA JONES
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2007 PHONE: (210) 384-7452
www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw FAX: (210) 384-7105

MYTH VS. REALITY--THE FACTS OF WHY THE GOVERNMENT PROSECUTED AGENTS COMPEAN AND RAMOS

Myth: THE AGENTS WERE JUST DOING THEIR JOBS
Reality: Securing our nation’s borders can be a tough and dangerous job. Often, Border Patrol agents find themselves in difficult and dangerous situations. We give them guns and allow them to defend themselves. Border Patrol training allows for the use of deadly force when an agent reasonably fears imminent bodily injury or death. An agent is not permitted to shoot an unarmed suspect who is running away.

There was no credible evidence that the agents were in a life-threatening situation or that
Aldrete, the Mexican alien, had a weapon that would justify the use of deadly force. In fact, Border Patrol Agent Juarez, who was at the scene, testified at trial that he did not draw his pistol because he did not believe there was a threat. He also testified that Aldrete did not have a weapon and was almost to Mexico when Agent Compean began firing at him. In America, law enforcement officers do not get to shoot unarmed suspects who are running away, lie about it to their supervisors and file official reports that are false. That is a crime and prosecutors cannot look the other way.

Myth: THE GOVERNMENT LET A DRUG SMUGGLER GO FREE
Reality: My office would have much preferred to see Aldrete convicted and sent to prison for his crimes. We are in the business of putting guys like Aldrete behind bars. In fact, this office leads the nation in the number of drug smuggling cases we prosecute. Because the agents could not identify him, found no fingerprints, could not tie him to the van and did not apprehend him after shooting him, the case against Aldrete could not be proven.

Myth: THESE BORDER PATROL AGENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED
Reality: The crimes committed by these agents rise to the level of felonies and are not mere administrative oversights. This was not a simple case of discharge of a firearm that was not reported. The truth of this case is that Agents Compean and Ramos shot 15 times at an unarmed man who was running away from them and who posed no threat.

This office cannot ignore these agents’ crimes just because the person they shot turned out to be a drug smuggler. Our system of justice requires that a person be tried in a court of law before he is punished. We do not permit police officers to summarily punish those whom the officers think have committed crimes. A police officer cannot shoot at an unarmed suspect who does not pose an immediate serious threat to the life of the officer or a bystander.

In order to maintain the rule of law, federal prosecutors cannot look the other way when law enforcement officers shoot unarmed suspects who are running away, then lie about it to their supervisors and file official reports that are false.

Myth: ALDRETE HAS BEEN ARRESTED FOR SMUGGLING MORE DRUGS INTO THE UNITED STATES
Reality: Aldrete has not been subsequently arrested for drug smuggling. Our office is in the business of prosecuting drug traffickers and alien smugglers. We are on the front lines of this battle and we aggressively prosecute these criminals every day in court. In fact, the Western District of Texas leads the nation in the number of individuals we prosecute for illegally smuggling drugs into this country. If we had a provable case against Aldrete, we would prosecute him.

Myth: THE GOVERNMENT GAVE ALDRETE BLANKET IMMUNITY FOR HIS CRIMES
Reality: Agent Compean failed to arrest Aldrete when he attempted to surrender; instead,
Compean tried to hit Aldrete with the butt of his shotgun, at which time Aldrete began to run towards the border. The agents shot at him 15 times, hitting him once, knocking Aldrete to the ground. Compean and Ramos chose not to walk over to the wounded Aldrete and arrest him; rather, they re-holstered their guns, turned around and left the scene. When Aldrete then got back to Mexico without having been apprehended and identified, there was no longer any way to tie him to the load of marijuana, except through his own admissions. Prosecutors promised Aldrete they would not use his truthful statements and testimony to prosecute him for the events that occurred on Feb. 17, 2005. Prosecutors around the country routinely make similar representations to obtain crucial testimony. This type of “use immunity” does not give blanket immunity for any crimes he may have committed or may commit in the future. If there were other admissible evidence besides his own statements sufficient to convict him, he could be prosecuted for the offense he describes.

As a practical matter, the promise to Aldrete gave up very little since the case against him was not prosecutable. There was no way to prosecute Aldrete while he was in Mexico. We could not have forced him to come back to the United States to be prosecuted, and there was no evidence against him until he agreed to cooperate.

Myth: ALDRETE HAD A GUN AND THE AGENTS ONLY FIRED IN SELF DEFENSE
Reality: Trial testimony from other Border Patrol agents who were at the scene and who arrived shortly after the shooting shows that this is not true. Testimony further revealed that Agents Compean and Ramos never took cover nor did they ever warn the other agents to take cover.

This action demonstrates that they did not perceive a threat. In his statement to investigators, Compean admitted that Aldrete had attempted to surrender with both hands open and in the air. Had Agents Compean and Ramos truly believed Aldrete was a threat, they would not have abandoned him after the shooting and they would have warned their fellow agents who arrived at the scene to stay out of the open while an armed suspect was on the loose. If the agents had believed that the shooting was justified then they would have left the crime scene undisturbed and let the investigation absolve them. The agents knew that Aldrete did not have a weapon and they knew he posed no threat to them as he fled. Agent Juarez also testified that Aldrete was surrendering to Compean with his hands open and empty palms turned to Compean.

Myth: THE AGENTS WERE NOT SURE OF WHAT THEY SAW BECAUSE IT WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT
Reality: The events of Feb. 17, 2005, occurred at approximately 1:00 P.M MT.

Myth: JOHNNY SUTTON IS AN OVERZEALOUS PROSECUTOR WHO IS ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE LAW
Reality: These agents were found guilty by a unanimous jury in a United States District Court after a trial that lasted more than two and a half weeks.

The two agents were represented by experienced and aggressive trial attorneys, both of whom vigorously challenged the Government’s evidence through cross examination.
Both agents told their stories from the witness stand and had full opportunities to explain their version of events and to offer their own evidence. The jury heard everything including the defendants’ claims of self defense. The problem for Agents Compean and Ramos is that the jury did not believe their stories because they were not true.

Myth: THESE AGENTS ARE FACING TOO MUCH TIME IN FEDERAL PRISON
Reality: Congress determined the penalties imposed on Compean and Ramos by setting the punishment for discharging a firearm during a crime of violence at a mandatory minimum of ten years (on top of any other sentence imposed). Congress did not make an exception for law enforcement officers

Myth: THE DRUG SMUGGLER WAS AWARDED A GREEN CARD
Reality: Aldrete was not given a green card which would enable him to have permanent legal resident status in this country. A military physician in the United States removed the bullet from Aldrete because it was an important piece of evidence and because the law requires the government to render such assistance. In order to have the bullet removed, meet with federal investigators and to testify in court in El Paso, he was entitled to come into the United States on a limited basis within a limited geographical area and only for those purposes. The last time he was legally allowed to enter the United States was in February 2006.

Myth: ALDRETE NEVER HAD HIS HANDS UP AND WAS NOT ATTEMPTING TO SURRENDER
Reality: In their sworn testimony, Agent Compean and Agent Juarez both testified that Aldrete did have his hands in the air in an effort to surrender.

Myth: COMPEAN WAS BLOODIED FROM A STRUGGLE WITH ALDRETE
Reality: Trial testimony showed that the only blood on Agent Compean was between his thumb and forefinger and was a result of him improperly holding his weapon. When asked if he was injured, he said “no” and when further asked if he wanted to file a report for his injury, he again said “no.”

<More Follows>
 
<Continued>
Myth: THESE AGENTS DID NOT REPORT THE SHOOTING TO SUPERVISORS BECAUSE THE SUPERVISORS WERE ON THE SCENE OF THE SHOOTING
Reality: The trial testimony of the defendants, fellow Border Patrol agents who were on the scene and who arrived shortly thereafter, as well as taped radio communications showed that there were no supervisors at the scene at the time of the shooting. The agents knew they must report any discharge of a firearm and had just received training to this effect the day before this shooting. Further, Agent Ramos was a Border Patrol firearms instructor and a member of the evidence recovery team. He was well aware of this requirement as he had taught this to other agents. They did not report the discharge because they knew the shooting was not justified.

Furthermore, based on their training and experience, they were aware of what law enforcement resources would be dispatched to the crime scene to investigate a shooting, including sector evidence team, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and state and local law enforcement.

Myth: ILLEGAL ALIENS DO NOT HAVE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Reality: The courts have held that the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protects all persons in the United States whether they are here legally or illegally. It is a violation of the 4th Amendment to shoot an unarmed person who poses no threat to the shooter. This law applies regardless of immigration status.

Myth: AGENT RAMOS CLAIMS THAT THE BULLET EXTRACTED FROM ALDRETE MIGHT NOT HAVE COME FROM HIS SERVICE REVOLVER
Reality: Agent Ramos stipulated and agreed before trial that the bullet extracted from Aldrete came from his service weapon. Independent forensic analysis also showed that the bullet extracted from Aldrete matched Agent Ramos’ weapon.

Myth: AGENT RAMOS WAS BORDER PATROL AGENT OF THE YEAR
Reality: Agent Ramos has never received any formal recognition or award for being the Border
Patrol Agent of the year. In fact, he has been arrested on at least two occasions for domestic
abuse and was formally disciplined for conduct unbecoming a federal officer.
 
There was a great editorial in the WSJ about this case

The writer pointed out that even those lawmakers that are trying to get them freed don't dispute that these guys broke the law(more than one)

But evidently it is OK since it turned out that they only shot a drug smuggler

Sure...they didn't know at the time that he was a drug smuggler
 
www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw

Excellent reading providing insight of the law and due process
I'd not seen before, in regards to their trial.
Many Thanks for the website connection.
Puts on a whole new view of these guys.
 
The writer pointed out that even those lawmakers that are trying to get them freed don't dispute that these guys broke the law(more than one)
Actually they don’t dispute that the agents broke policy, not the law. There is a major difference between the two.

If you read the DOJ article, you should certainly read the NBPC article Stage 2 linked to. I have no idea what actually happened, but there is certainly more to it. I find it interesting that members of congress have been getting stonewalled from the DOJ and haven't even been able to get a transcript of the case from the court. Couldn't tell you why, but it's really strange regardless of whose version is true.
 
Shooting an unarmed, fleeing doper in the rear is legal for Border Patrol fellers?

Sounds like a little more than a policy error to me.

Where the hell are these screwups getting all of their fanatical supporters? This has to be the fifth of sixth thread started to "help the wrongfully convicted buttshooters". They must have hired Carl Rove.
 
Stage-
I'm glad you posted that PDF, because it does contribute to "balance" here.

What we know is this:
1) These guys shot 15 times at a suspect, wounding him once, picked up their shells and either filed a false report or, at best, filed no report at all (according to your PDF, this was due to Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome!).

2) When there's a question as to facts in a case, we send it to a jury to hear ALL the evidence from BOTH sides.

As to #1, if you or I were to do that on our street and the person we were shooting at was wounded and later found to be a known child molester, would either of us get a pass simply because we were "doing our job" as a Father? Should we? The answers are both no.

No one on the side of these agents seems to be be arguing that they're innocent; only that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. And I agree. Mandatory Minimums are an outrage; but so long as they exist, it would be a greater outrage to apply a different standard to the Cop who breaks the law than to the Father who does.

As to #2, these guys were found guilty unanimously. They were found guilty even after they each testified. The result? Some sites are actually claiming that the jury was rigged, that three jurors were lied to by the Foreman and believed that a unanimous verdict was required by the Judge!

These same sites claim it was "all for the press" that these Officers were arrested in a midnight No-Knock Raid. Welcome to the New America, Officers Compean and Ramos. In the New America, if the law wants you and you're known to own a firearm, that's how they take you. If it's a necessary precaution against the rest of us, it's a necessary precaution against the two of you.

Yes, the case sucks. But I'll be damned if I'm going to demand that we start giving legal passes to people simply because of their employment, position or money. One size fits all, when it comes to Guilt or Innocence. If you don't like it, place your efforts where they should be placed: Oppose Mandatory Minimums; one size should definitely not fit all when it comes to sentencing.
Rich
 
www.nbpc.net/ramos_compean/rebuttal_to_sutton.pdf

Thanks for the website Stage 2.
Great additional reading from the Border Patrol's view.
 
Two things I hate are "wanna-be cowboys" and vigilanties.

These guys seem to be both in my opinion.

I am also not fond of people that think the end justifies the means no matter how drastic the means or who think rules are only there to be broken or only apply to other people.

I say lock 'em up.
 
Yes, the case sucks. But I'll be damned if I'm going to demand that we start giving legal passes to people simply because of their employment, position or money. One size fits all, when it comes to Guilt or Innocence. If you don't like it, place your efforts where they should be placed: Oppose Mandatory Minimums; one size should definitely not fit all when it comes to sentencing.

Bravo!!!!!!! Please note however that I differentiate between mandatory minimums and guideline sentences.

Wildplus1Alaska
 
Please note however that I differentiate between mandatory minimums and guideline sentences.
I learn something new every day. This day's lesson goes to Wild.
Agreed.

PPP-
I'm not at all convinced they were playing a Nick Nolte Border role. They may well be victims. If so, they are simply victims like so many of their fellow Americans who don't happen to wear badges.
Rich
 
I'm not at all convinced they were playing a Nick Nolte Border role. They may well be victims. If so, they are simply victims like so many of their fellow Americans who don't happen to wear badges.
From the evidence I have seen the definately violated the rules, then tried to cover up the fact that they had done this.

The biggest defense I saw issues was that the violation of the rules did not mean they violtaed the law but these rules were set as guidlines as to how to "legally" apprehend and handle a criminal. Therefore it is common sense that the two go hand in hand.
 
Last edited:
U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, the man at the center of the row over the prosecution and jailing of the two agents who shot the illegal immigrant, confirmed to Cybercast News Service Thursday that there is an ongoing investigation into Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila and others. The National Border Patrol Council insists there was a sealed indictment against Aldrete-Davila for smuggling the 1,000 pounds of marijuana.

Another individual indicted in that drug seizure was called as a witness for the agents' defense but was not allowed to testify because of a sealed indictment and an ongoing investigation, the union says. The union further contends that U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency officials involved in the seizure of the 1,000 pounds of marijuana were not allowed to testify in this Ramos-Compean case because of an ongoing investigation that could have been compromised.

Given the secrecy and gag orders on the case, Cybercast News Service asked the union about its source for the claims about a second drug offense.

"The agents, before they went to prison," said union President T.J. Bonner. "They felt free to talk without being held in contempt of court, because they were going to jail anyway."

Bonner believes the prosecutor is being disingenuous to claim there was no arrest.

"He's just being very cute," Bonner said. "Because the indictment was expunged, he's pretending it was never there."

Sutton stressed that he was limited as to what he could say regarding any ongoing probe.

"There's an allegation that were discussed at the [Ramos-Compean] trial among lawyers that I can't go into beyond that," Sutton said.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200701/NAT20070126b.html

hrmmm... so is there not or is there an ongoing investigation of Aldrete?
 
I could understand the agents getting a demotion or suspension -- they're not above the law -- but not this kind of prison sentence. Totally ridiculous. The word of a worthless drug smuggler taken over U.S. Border Agents. A sad day indeed -- and that useless piece of garbage smuggler will probably win his $5 million dollar lawsuit and taxpayers will foot the bill.

Sign the petition and ask the Prez to pardon them!
 
Eghad-
What does it matter?
Seriously, do the words "suspected", "alleged" or even "indicted" suddenly translate into "Wanted, Dead or Alive".

The beauty of our system is that it errs on the side of Ne'er Do Wells, that it might not punish your children tomorrow. I've always believed that as sound philosophy. If the Law is after Andrete, and he's a career criminal, it matters not to me whether they get him on Today's crime or Tomorrow's. He'd be done, regardless.

The issue here is whether we embrace the cultures of "Zero Tolerance" and "Whatever It Takes" based on internet reports of who's Guilty and who's Innocent.

Me? I'll stick with the Originators' construction, happily.

bullrat said:
I could understand the agents getting a demotion or suspension -- they're not above the law -- but not this kind of prison sentence.
Is that so? Do you take that position with every, otherwise law abiding citizen caught in the trap of Zero Tolerance? Name those you've signed petitions for. Or, does the fact that these two poor souls were once Enforcers color your position?

Rich
 
Back
Top