Help the Border Patrol agents imprisoned

Eghad-
It doesn't surprise me that Poe is interested in the case. This case has become a lightening rod for many who believe our Immigration Efforts are far too lax and for those who wish to be seen as "Supporting Our Troops".

Unfortunately, they find themselves in the strange company of xenophobes and bigots also. Similarly, the same type of "Law and Order" conservatives who gave us 10 Year Mandatory Minimums for "using" a firearm in commission of a crime are now being slapped in the face by the unintended consequences of those very laws.

Their only answer: A Pardon which is (let's face it) little more than a call to overlook the very laws they supported and passed against the rest of us, when those laws are used against Agents of the State. His time would be better spent in reviewing the Mandatory Minimum history; Ramos and Compean will surely get a second chance in Court and will hardly be on a shoe string budget.
Rich
 
God Bless American Politics :rolleyes: and compromise.

I just wonder like Paul Harvey what the rest of the story is. Having worked in and around the military for a good many years and dealing with Soldiers I have developed a good bit of skepticisim that I never get both sides of the story 100%. I always have to do some digging and investigating. Once I do that the miracle of immaculate memory occurs in both parties. So if this is political dispute what cards are each side holding close?
 
My "issue" with this has always been that:

Contrary to what the "spin" and petition sites have listed as the "facts"

Everyone...even their supporters seem to admit that they were guilty...just not "real guilty"

Since it all started with some low life drug smuggler these two agents should not be held responsible for their actions. Never mind that they found the drugs after they shot him...details details

What really got me was the early calls for not just a pardon, but also expungement, reinstatement and commendations.

As if we were all supposed to assumethat a fair (re)trial was somehow out of the question

In a world where we have additional penalties for "hate crimes" some are now acting like the existing laws should somehow be diluted based on the character of the "victim"

If that was the case...these two probably should have got off...isn't "he needed killin" a valid defense in Texas?
 
News as of Feb. 6
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54132

INVASION USA
Government admits lying about jailed border agents
Inspector confronted on Capitol Hill, says promised 'proof' does not exist
Posted: February 6, 2007
8:06 p.m. Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas
A Department of Homeland Security official admitted today the agency misled Congress when it contended it possessed investigative reports proving Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean confessed guilt and declared they "wanted to shoot some Mexicans" prior to the incident that led to their imprisonment.

The admission came during the testimony of DHS Inspector General Richard L. Skinner before the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, according to Michael Green, press secretary for Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas.

Culberson was questioning Skinner about a meeting DHS officials had Sept. 26 with him and three other Republican congressman from Texas, Reps. Ted Poe, Michael McCaul and Kenny Marchant.

WND previously reported that at that meeting the DHS Inspector General's office asserted it had documentary evidence Ramos and Compean:

confessed to knowingly shooting at an unarmed suspect;
stated during the interrogation they did not believe the suspect was a threat to them at the time of the shooting;
stated that day they "wanted to shoot a Mexican";
were belligerent to investigators;
destroyed evidence and lied to investigators.
Under questioning by Culberson, Skinner admitted DHS did not in fact have investigative reports to back up the claims: "The person who told you that misinformed you," Skinner reportedly replied.

This prompted a startled and angry response from Culberson, who charged Skinner's office with lying to the Texas congressmen and painting Ramos and Compean as dirty cops.

Ramos and Compean began prison sentences last month after their actions in the shooting of a drug smuggler who was granted immunity to testify against them.

Responding to Skinner's testimony yesterday, Poe said it "explains why DHS has been stonewalling Congress."

"DHS didn't turn over the reports to us to back up their September 26 accusations for one simple reason – the reports never existed," the Texas congressman said.

"Why did it take DHS four months to admit their error?" he asked. "I wonder how much more has DHS told the public and Congress about Ramos and Compean that simply isn't true?"

Poe said he's determined to get to the bottom of DHS's claim.

"I expect this new revelation will lead to a lot more questions before we're done," he said.

Andy Ramirez, who has been involved with the case as chairman of Friends of the Border Patrol, told WND the DHS's actions "represent obstruction of justice, and they should be held in contempt of Congress, and, if possible, prosecuted to the full extent of the law."

"This admission today is yet more proof of how they are willing to distort the facts, as I have charged all along, in order to ensure a conviction," he said.

badbob
 
News as of Feb. 7
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54133

INVASION USA
Imprisoned border agent did report shooting
DHS memo shows Compean spoke to supervisor immediately after incident
Posted: February 7, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

WND has obtained a Department of Homeland Security memo indicating Border Patrol agent Jose Compean made a complete, in-person verbal report to his supervisor at the scene immediately following the shooting incident for which he and colleague Ignacio Ramos are now in prison.

The May 15, 2005, report filed by DHS Special Agent Christopher Sanchez documents a conversation between Compean and his supervisor that explains the decision by all nine Border Patrol agents and supervisors on the scene not to file written reports.

As reported by WND yesterday, a DHS memo filed by Sanchez April 12, 2005, shows seven agents and two supervisors were present at the Feb. 17, 2005 incident also decided not to file written reports.

The April 12, 2005, DHS memo stated that all the agents present at the incident were equally guilty for not filing a written report.

(Story continues below)



These memos directly contradict the repeated statements of the prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, that agents Ramos and Compean filed false reports about the incident.

As far as WND can determine, no written reports were filed by any of the Border Patrol agents or supervisors on the field.

Moreover, the record of the May 15, 2005, memo indicates Compean was truthful in reporting verbally to the most senior supervisor present at the incident.

Sanchez's memo of May 15, 2005, is a transcript of a hearing held by Compean with El Paso Border Patrol Sector Chief Louis Barker. The hearing was held at Compean's request in order to protest his proposed indefinite suspension resulting from his March 18, 2005, arrest on criminal charges.

The first part of the hearing was held April 7, 2005, before Compean's April 13, 2005, indictment. The second recording from the hearing is dated April 28, 2005.

At the administrative hearing, Compean was accompanied by union representative Robert Russell, a vice president of Local 1929, the El Paso branch of the National Border Patrol Council.

In the opening statement transcribed from the April 7, 2005, audio cassette, Russell makes Barker aware that Compean had made a complete report on the scene to Jonathan Richards, the more senior of the two supervisors who present at the incident.

Russell's testimony references a wound Compean suffered on his hand, a gash between the thumb and index finger, which he suffered when scuffling in the ditch with the drug smuggler, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, who had abandoned his vehicle and was attempting to escape back to Mexico on foot. Russell points to this wound as evidence of aggravated assault committed on Compean by the drug smuggler.

Here is Russell's recorded testimony:

Well, I mean, the base … the basis of this is basically … ummm … Mr. Compean … an assault took place that day against one of our agents, and he did defend himself, and the part of the assault is never mentioned in the complaint or anywhere by OIG (Office of Inspector General) that they know clearly how this did take place.
A few sentences later, Russell again references that what transpired at the scene was observed by the agents and supervisors in the field and subsequently fully known to the Border Patrol management at the station in Fabens, Texas.

Russell indicates that management at Fabens themselves chose not to make a report about Compean's injury. Here is his testimony:

Even management at the station in Fabens was fully aware of what had transpired and for whatever reason nothing was ever generated … and once all this comes forward, I mean, it's my belief even his attorneys' belief that even once that does come forward and all that information is presented that the charges will possibly be dropped … or dismissed … or he will be found not guilty … based on that … what did transpire.
Directly contradicting prosecutor Sutton's assertion that agents Ramos and Compean filed false reports, the April 2005 administrative hearing reveals Compean was forthcoming concerning the events of the incident.

In the second cassette, Russell makes clear that the reluctance to do more formal reporting after the incident came from supervisor Richards.

But the fact of the matter is an assault did take place. Umm … Mr. Richards did know about it.
Umm … whether Mr. Compean … Mr. Compean said yes sir to this or whether he was assaulted or not … doesn't negate Mr. Richards responsibility to take some action from the facts that were presented to him as to what happened out there.

He was on the scene. He was told by another agent exactly what had happened and it pretty much apparently stopped at that point.

Russell argues Richards did not want to go through the trouble of filing written paperwork. So rather than press the hand injury, which Compean felt was minor, Compean gave in to Richards' pressure to forget about the hand injury, obviating the only issue the supervisor felt might be needed to document in writing.

Station Chief Barker asked Compean why he didn't report the shooting. Compean admitted that possibly a written report should have been filed, but he and the other Border Patrol on the scene considered the incident inconsequential.

Compean testified:

As …As I stated to … umm … to this earlier … I didn't … I just … I know it was wrong for us not to reported it and I … if I would have thought that he had been hit or anything like that had happened I would have … I didn't … I just … I knew we were going to get in trouble because the way … the way it's been at the station the last two … three years … uhh … I mean everything always comes down to the alien. The agents are as soon as anything comes up … it is always … always the agent's fault. The agents have always been cleared but, with management, it's always been the agent's fault. We're the ones that get in trouble.
Compean continued to note that Aldrete-Davila escaped, and none of the agents in the field thought he had been hit. All the agents and supervisors in the field knew there had been a shooting and none of the agents or supervisors filed any written reports. There was no "cover-up" of anything that happened that day in the field, the documentation indicates. The only defect was failure by all to file a written report, including the two supervisors present.

Compean emphasized that the failure to report the incident was considered minor given the outcome:

He (Aldrete-Davila) was already gone back south. I … really didn't … didn't think he had been hit. The way I saw him walking back south he looked … he looked fine to us and we just didn't … nothing was ever said as … as to don't say anything keep your mouth shut nothing like that was ever … was ever brought up either. We just … we just didn't bring it up.
Compean's testimony emphasized supervisor Richards pressured him not to file a written report:

When we got back to the station it was the same thing he asked me and the way … the way I … the way he … he asked me ... he made it seemed like he wanted me to say no and that's why I said it.
By denying he had been injured, Compean made it possible for Richards to avoid the trouble of filing a written report on the incident.

The issue about filing a written report, according to Compean's testimony, turned on his willingness not to mention the assault. The decision not to file a written report did not turn on wanting to hide the fact that shooting had taken place.

Moreover, Richards was well aware Compean had been injured in a scuffling match with Aldrete-Davila on the levee, when he wrestled the drug smuggler down. Compean did not even realize his hand had been cut until Richards pointed it out to him at the levee.

The Customs and Border Patrol manual mentions that the penalty for failure to report the discharge of a firearm or use of a weapon as required by the applicable firearms policy is a written reprimand, or at most a five-day suspension for the first offense. The manual makes no mention of the possibility of criminal punishment for failure to report the discharge of a weapon.

In a last, more belligerent section of the hearing, Barker charges, "There was a shooting where somebody was shot and NOTHING WAS SAID!" The capital letters were in the original transcript, probably reflecting Barker's emphasis.

Russell responds, according to the transcript: "That was an administrative violation on his part by not reporting it to the agency, yes, but on the same part the agency failed to act when it knew that an agent had been assaulted."

Then, Russell himself shouts out, "EMPLOYEES SAW IT," pointing out seven Border Patrol agents besides Ramos and Compean, including two supervisors, were at the scene.

According to the transcript, the pressure on Compean not to file a written report came from Richards, the senior supervisor on the field.

Richards was applying pressure on Compean not to report the assault, because that would have demanded paperwork.

Moreover, according to the hearing transcript, there is no record Richards ever mentioned to Compean the need to file a written report on the shooting.

badbob
 
one: That is not a news source. It is a far right wing propaganda site.

two: Why would there even be investigative reports concerning a statement made during a questioning? No such reports would exist for a statement or confession other than interview documents. The prosecution would not be conducting a full investigation on a confession. That would be the work of the defense if they felt the confession was forced.
 
one: That is not a news source. It is a far right wing propaganda site.

Whether it is or it isn't that doesn't validate or invalidate the truth of the story.


two: Why would there even be investigative reports concerning a statement made during a questioning? No such reports would exist for a statement or confession other than interview documents. The prosecution would not be conducting a full investigation on a confession. That would be the work of the defense if they felt the confession was forced.

Not if they didn't know that this memo didn't exist. Both agents testified at trial that the reason that they filed no report is that they were only obligated to orally notify a supervisor, and that there were 2 supervisors on the scene that were apprised of what had happened.

Without knowledge of this memo, this is the only way for the defense to rebut the prosecutions allegations that these guys were jonesing for a fight.

At the end of the day something just doesn't smell right, and things in this case keep falling apart piece by piece. Its starting to look alot like Duke down at the border.
 
As an aside, does it seem funny to anyone else that one of the agents was able to be assaulted in his cell while sleeping?

I thought former LEO's werent' supposed to be in general population, but even if they were, aren't the cell doors locked when its lights out?
 
Whether it is or it isn't that doesn't validate or invalidate the truth of the story
It comes down to the old saying "consider the source". This is definately a right wing rag with a clear agenda. I would not believe a single thing they said unless I was able to confirm it through multiple sources. Same stance I take with far left groups.
Not if they didn't know that this memo didn't exist. Both agents testified at trial that the reason that they filed no report is that they were only obligated to orally notify a supervisor
If they testified in court that no report was filed because they only needed to notify their superior what is the relevance of this story then? That sounds to me like they said in court there was no "investigative report" (which I add once again should not have even existed anyway) so I do not see how this is a story but instead more of a play on words and an intentional try to play on people's misunderstanding of the story to stir up support.
 
"The manual makes no mention of the possibility of criminal punishment for failure to report the discharge of a weapon."

They were punished for shooting an unarmed man

All the "cover up" just makes them look bad and raises questions about why the supervisor(s) are still employed

As to the sob story about always coming down hard on the agents....that is pretty standard...if only to make it perfectly clear that they are not getting a pass just because they are in Law Enforcement

The PR machine (including WND) is obviously still in high gear

To use Rich's analogy...if I fired at a prowler ....and he later showed up with my bullet in his buttocks.....I would have some serious splaining to do about why I shot at him and then never said a word

Did I feel I had something to hide?

Perhaps because I knew he was not a threat

Since days have passed...any and all evidence that I might have been justified is now gone

And if I covered up an on the job injury I would lose my job

That day

The more of this I read.....assuming at least some of it is factual...the more I think a good lesson has been sent to the BP

You can't just decide you are going to follow this rule or that....or this law
 
It comes down to the old saying "consider the source". This is definately a right wing rag with a clear agenda. I would not believe a single thing they said unless I was able to confirm it through multiple sources. Same stance I take with far left groups.

Yeah, but wholly dismissing an article simply because of the messenger isn't very sound. I'm not saying don;t be suspect, I'm saying do some digging. Given the specificity of the article it shouldn't be too hard to verify.
 
They were punished for shooting an unarmed man

Based on what? The testimony of the dealer? And before you talk about a jury of their peers, its already going up on appeal for jury misconduct.

There isn't any evidence to prove that the perp was unarmed other than the word of the perp himself.
 
Based on what? The testimony of the dealer? And before you talk about a jury of their peers, its already going up on appeal for jury misconduct.

There isn't any evidence to prove that the perp was unarmed other than the word of the perp himself
Yes, if I know someone has an agenda to push I will not take their word as fact.

Is that how you would want a situation like that to go? If you were unarmed and shot by police you would want it to be a "your word against theirs" issue? You wouldn't want the burden of proof to be on the people that shot you? Like say, producing a weapon, a bullet fired, etc?
 
There isn't any evidence to prove that the perp was unarmed other than the word of the perp himself.

What was the evidence that the perp WAS armed? What kind of firearm did he have? How many of the other Border Agents who witnessed the shooting testified that the perp was armed?
 
You wouldn't want the burden of proof to be on the people that shot you? Like say, producing a weapon, a bullet fired, etc?

No. I would want the burden of proof to be on the state or the accusing party (as is required by our constitution) to show that there was a weapon.
 
What was the evidence that the perp WAS armed? What kind of firearm did he have? How many of the other Border Agents who witnessed the shooting testified that the perp was armed?

To my knowledge these two agents were the only ones present at the time of the altercation. By the time the rest got there the perp was in Mexico, so that would make anything they say irrelevant.

So yes, the only evidence that the perp was unarmed is that the perp says so.
 
"its already going up on appeal for jury misconduct"

Fantastic...Much better than trying it in the court of public opinion

Although I still find it plausible that the only jury tampering occured AFTER the verdict

And if jury misconduct is all they have....well then...the evidence of their innocence can't be all that overwhelming

What about all the supression of pertinent information that was osmehow supressed???


As far as WND....I looked at the DHS memo and then read their editorial...their conclusions were in no way supported by the facts in the DHS memo

As I have said before....what has always bugged me about this case is the assertion that, because the victim was an illegal and a drug smuggler, the standard rules do not apply and these guys should get a pass

People talk about the "message" their prosecution sends...that BP agents will be "afraid to do their jobs"

I worry that a pardon will send a different message

Open season at the border....just don't get caught...but if you do....go on talk shows and you will get off:barf:
 
"How many of the other Border Agents who witnessed the shooting testified that the perp was armed?"

Actually other agents testified that they did not shoot because they saw no reason to

But they are part of the conspiracy

Them

The Justice Department

The Jury

The Prison System

Some Aliens from Roswell

And GWB is pulling all the strings;)
 
Lest someone think I am down on Law Enforcement

I have a lot of sympathy for someone like the Denver cop that shot the retarded black guy that was armed with a knife

Since the "victim" was not an illegal drug smuggler the cop got suspended for a year without pay...and Denver coughed up some serious $$$

(he would likely have gone to jail but he was Asian so the race card was difficult to play...the reason this one is so convoluted is all the players have latin surnames)

All this despite the fact that he had a guy with a knife within 15 feet of him

So he followed procedure....and he got screwed...because there was more sympathy for the retarded guy (ok..developmentally disabled)

He got screwed by public opinion...not enough voices yelling FOR him

So you see....I would be happier if we didn't try these cases on the talk show circuit
 
Back
Top