Help the Border Patrol agents imprisoned

Well it is an interesting case.....

I was listening to KTRH yesterday and Rep. Culbertson was on and said the HS IG basically said that the congressman was lied to or given false information by the two investigators during a visit by him and others. This was during congressional testimony while he was under oath....

Have to see if I can obtain a copy of the transcript.

This makes it look bad... imo. Yeh the two guys may be guilty but why should investigators feel the need to lie/provide false information to Congressional Represenatives if the case is in the bag?
 
LEO's who are far more aware of the legal implications of their actions, cannot expect to be given the benifit of a doubt in a shooting when they have already actively attempted to cover up and interfere with the investigation.
Click to expand...

The new information that has been released conforms to the agents testimony at trial. Namely that all they were required to do is file an oral report with a supervisor, which was done.

In light of that, how exactly were they trying to cover something up.


Before continuing this endless debate, why dont we wait for the courts to decide.
Click to expand...

We are, but its a perversion of justice that in a case like this where new things keep popping out that make the result questionable that these guys will have already done almost 2 years for something they may not have done.


BTW I bet many of you would be arguing against the innocence of Mumia and Hurricane LOL...every political POV has it's cause celebe neh?
Click to expand...

True to some extent, but at least for myself I haven't arguing for innocence. What I have been doing is trying to find out why people are so convinced of their guilt when the evidence is so sparse.


WildsometimesithinkallfolksshoudlgotolawschoolAlaska
Click to expand...

Already did

Stage 2 Esquire :D
 
I saw a TV interview with Rep Culbertson .He did say Congress was lied to .I hope they follow it up. It's getting to be a bizarre story !!
 
Update: Ramos beaten in prison

http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?id=34792&siteSection=1

Former Border Patrol Agent Beaten in Mississippi Prison

Updated: February 7th, 2007 02:23 PM PDT

Story by kfoxtv.com

A former U.S. Border Patrol agent convicted of shooting a drug smuggling suspect and covering it up is in segregation now in a Mississippi prison, after fellow inmates assaulted him on Saturday night.

Ignacio Ramos started serving his term on Jan. 17, then was transferred to the correctional facility in Yazoo City, Miss., about a week ago.

"His first words were, 'They got me, Monica, they got me good.'" said Monica Ramos, the agent's wife.

Monica Ramos feared this would happened, but she said she had confidence in the prison system.

Ignacio Ramos along with former agent Jose Alsonso Compean were convicted of shooting a drug smuggling suspect then covering it up. Monica Ramos said her husband was in prison in Mississippi only a few days when he became uneasy with other inmates.

"It really escalated after 'America's Most Wanted.' He said they were watching him and shortly after the show he was asked, 'What is your name?'" said Monica Ramos.

Monica Ramos said her husband explained he let his guard down. He said he was sleeping when several inmates attacked him.

"He just had to curl up. They started beating him, he said they just started kicking him. He said he felt a blow to the back of his head," said Ramos.

In a written statement from the Bureau of Prisons, it read Ramos was subsequently placed in the Special Housing Unit pending a thorough investigation of the incident. It also stated Ramos was evaluated by staff at the institution who determined he had suffered some bruises and abrasions, minor in nature.

The facility is a medium-and-low security prison where Ramos was an inmate in the general population, an agreement his wife said was only fulfilled half way.

"It was an agreement. My husband said he'd go into general population. He also was in agreement that it would be in a white-collar facility," said Ramos.

U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., a vocal supporter of the agents, criticized the Bush administration on Tuesday for failing to protect Ramos and demanded a full presidential pardon for both men convicted.

In an exclusive KFOX interview with President George W. Bush last month, he said he had no intention to pardon them in the near future.

But Monica Ramos said she's thinking about the present and is glad her husband has been segregated.

"He's being protected right now. I can sleep better knowing he's not in general population," said Monica Ramos.

KFOX did not have the opportunity to ask questions to the spokesperson for the Bureau of Prisons. KFOX wanted to know what type of offenders are held in the Yazoo City facility and why Ignacio Ramos was place with the general population.
Click to expand...
 
I would never support a person in any uniform who upholds prohibition laws that don't deal with UPHOLDING rights.

Drug prohibition is like prohibition of "corn".

I reserve my rights, thanks.

Maybe the police, sheriffs and border patrol agents should look at what types of laws they are being asked to lay their life down to enforce? :mad:

I am all for secure borders, but they are demonizing drugs as much as Harry Anslinger did to save LEO's that don't pay much attention to the laws they are being asked to enforce.


(this is my opinion)

Flame away.
 
As a sidenote to the OP.

300,000 is a joke if you expect action! :eek:

Have any idea of the number of people who have SIGNED to legalize marijuana?

Have any idea of the number of states who have tried to EXERCISE their STATES RIGHTS to legalize, and noticed the smackdown from the federal oppressors?

Would these same 300,000 signers who signed this petition, sign on to help the citizen who is being hunted down like Randy Weaver, or Koresh?

If not, they may be "our" enemy.

http://www.edbrown.org/wordpress/

If this carries any weight, it will only be to appease the badge toting rights stealers who stand and enforce prohibtion laws, in an attempt to keep them loyal. :barf:
 
I would never support a person in any uniform who upholds prohibition laws that don't deal with UPHOLDING rights.

Drug prohibition is like prohibition of "corn".

I reserve my rights, thanks.
Click to expand...


Oh. I see. So you'll use the constitution as a shield in one thread but then abandon it in another. How very consistent.

What other legal matters do you take the salad bar approach to.:rolleyes:
 
Stage2 said:
Oh. I see. So you'll use the constitution as a shield in one thread but then abandon it in another. How very consistent.
Click to expand...

Clarify and elaborate please, or is this just a drive-by insult?

Stage2 said:
What other legal matters do you take the salad bar approach to
Click to expand...

Wherever the laws happen to infringe on my unalienable rights, regardless of what law or "claim" is made.
 
Clarify and elaborate please, or is this just a drive-by insult?
Click to expand...

No insult. You use the constitution as a justification for that soldier not reporting for duty but here you make the argument that you reserve the right to pick and choose the laws you want to follow.

You can't reconcile this.
 
Feinstein's letter does nothing to assist these agents. It opens, not by claiming innocence, but by claiming the sentence is too harsh for the crime!

Well, Di, the sentence was MANDATED by Congress in laws known as Mandatory Minimums. Di could easily introduce legislation to review these laws. She has not. Instead, as with everyone else who argues for a Pardon, she wants the laws kept in place, except for special classes of Americans. Note the following statement in her letter:

Does DOJ have any review or approval requirements before criminal charges – or at least charges that carry mandatory minimum or other enhanced sentences – can be filed against agents who are being prosecuted based on actions taken while on duty?
Click to expand...
Many of us wish to see justice served here, and we are in sympathy with the pain this has caused the families, on one side, and the Law Enforcement community, on the other. But, do we really wish to address that pain by setting up different sentencing guidelines for the average citizen vs an Agent of the State? I hope not; too reminiscent of totalitarianism. Criminal action is criminal action. If there is any way to free these Agents it is thru Appeal of the FACTS in the case, not thru a Get Out of Jail Free Card. The precedent would constitute a significant step down a very Slippery Slope.

Just my opinion. YMMV.
Rich
 
Well, Di, the sentence was MANDATED by Congress in laws known as Mandatory Minimums.
Click to expand...
I have mixed thoughts on mandatory mins. On the one hand, it doesn’t allow leniency in situations that deserve it. On the other hand, I have seen (over and over, and over again) activist judges spit in the eye of the law and reduce sentences to the point of essentially removing them completely. Mandatory minimums bypass the ability of these judges to do that. On the whole, I am in favor of mandatory mins.

Many of us wish to see justice served here, and we are in sympathy with the pain this has caused the families, on one side, and the Law Enforcement community, on the other. But, do we really wish to address that pain by setting up different sentencing guidelines for the average citizen vs an Agent of the State? I hope not
Click to expand...
I very much hope that different “classes” aren’t created, but I think that there should be a distinction made between somebody that is lawfully in possession of a firearm (LEO, CCW, etc) that is convicted of a crime and somebody that is not. I really don’t think the distinction should be between law enforcement and non-law enforcement, there’s enough “them vs. me” mentality as it is. You have to admit that it is pretty asinine to charge a cop with possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, when he is required to have that firearm in the first place. Just as it would be asinine to charge a lawfully carrying non-cop.

If there is any way to free these Agents it is thru Appeal of the FACTS in the case, not thru a Get Out of Jail Free Card.
Click to expand...
I agree, I think an appeal is the only worthwhile option here. A pardon doesn’t change guilt or innocence, just their punishment. I’ve never been in favor of a pardon, and I haven’t signed a single petition for it. I do have the gut feeling that this is a really messed up case and trial and I think when the facts come out, a lot of people are going to be royally pissed off.
 
Stage 2 said:
No insult. You use the constitution as a justification for that soldier not reporting for duty but here you make the argument that you reserve the right to pick and choose the laws you want to follow.

You can't reconcile this.
Click to expand...

Number one, try being specific.

In what way am I picking and choosing that is not my right?

The Constitution states that no law shall stand in direct conflict with it, correct? Obviously many laws now stand that are in direct conflict with it, including every drug prohibition law.

I don't have to observe unconstitutional laws, and won't.

It is my duty as a citizen to disobey unconstitutional laws, and then convince the jury of why these laws are unconstitutional, resulting in jury nullification of the law, since judicial review of laws is denying valid petitions for redress, ignoring the unconstitutionality.

If you want to debate the issue, be clear, and I won't back down from my argument because it is well founded and I have defended it against a lot more specific, itemized and coherant arguments than the one you just offered in rebuttal. :rolleyes:

Number two, I am not required to "reconcile" anything to the likes of people who can't make coherant arguments, and simply drive-by insult based on their beliefs and ideologies.
 
I don't have to observe unconstitutional laws, and won't.
Click to expand...
All the work we do to try and convince the common man that gun owners are just plain old law abiding people just like them and not some nutjob holed up in a bunker somewhere itching for a shootout with the man and it can all be undone by one sentence like this one. :(
 
Playboy Penguin said:
All the work we do to try and convince the common man that gun owners are just plain old law abiding people just like them and not some nutjob holed up in a bunker somewhere itching for a shootout with the man and it can all be undone by one sentence like this one.
Click to expand...

Excuse me?

I am a law abiding person in all aspects.

I have never violated the rights of another, except for a few bouts of fisticuffs as a child, and a serviceman. I initiated violence, never.

It goes against my core ideals to use force except in defense, but regardless of what uniform is worn, entering a home with guns drawn without notice of warrant or identification is grounds to be shot as an intruder to my private property, where I have the RIGHT to expect privacy, and defend it.

Prohibition laws put police and citizens at odds, and the basis for "drug raids" on faulty information and "anonymous tips" is a clear violation of rights.

How can I face my accuser if the tip is anonymous?
What if I am shot by a policeman who enters my home on bad information, or worse yet (legally for me) what if I shoot them?

One of the excuses people are using to try to lift blame off of these BP Agents is that they shot a "drug dealer", and that is somehow supposed to lessen the guilt the public feels for a wrongful shooting?

Drug prohibition laws are a disgrace to our society, blatant hypocrisy of our individual rights in the BOR, and is costing us as taxpayers an unreasonable, unjustifiable amount amount of money and innocent life in a war that can never be won in any way, except education, if at all.

I think any self respecting LEO would tell their CO that they refuse to uphold and enforce drug prohibition laws, since it violates basic rights of citizens.

After all, the only reason LEO's have jobs, is because we the people sought assistance in protecting our basic, enumerated individual rights, and saw fit to offer police protection as a form of "safety insurance".

I am ashamed that LEO's in this nation won't take the stance that the brave officers of LEAP have, in signature and action, in their local departments.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
http://leap.cc/
 
The Constitution states that no law shall stand in direct conflict with it, correct? Obviously many laws now stand that are in direct conflict with it, including every drug prohibition law.
Click to expand...


Based on what. I'm looking for something other than your say so.


I don't have to observe unconstitutional laws, and won't.
Click to expand...

A law is constitutional until challenged in court. You have an obligation to follow the laws and there is a process in place to fix those that might not be valid. Refusing to work within the system rightfully results in your punishment. The gentleman in Mass. who has decided to not pay his taxes has the same mindset as you. Take a guess at where it will land him.


It is my duty as a citizen to disobey unconstitutional laws, and then convince the jury of why these laws are unconstitutional, resulting in jury nullification of the law, since judicial review of laws is denying valid petitions for redress, ignoring the unconstitutionality.
Click to expand...

Once again you have it bass ackwards. Assuming you have standing, which you should if the law is actually being enforced, then you have a perfect opportunity to challenge the law.



Number two, I am not required to "reconcile" anything to the likes of people who can't make coherant arguments, and simply drive-by insult based on their beliefs and ideologies.
Click to expand...

There are no drive by insults at all, and my points are quite coherent. On one hand (Watada) you take the position that the constitution should be strictly adhered to above all else, and yet here (drug laws ) you refuse to use the process that is set forward to challenge laws you feel to be unconstitutional.
 
Excuse me?

I am a law abiding person in all aspects.

I have never violated the rights of another, except for a few bouts of fisticuffs as a child, and a serviceman. I initiated violence, never.
Click to expand...

This doesn't have anything to do with anything.


It goes against my core ideals to use force except in defense, but regardless of what uniform is worn, entering a home with guns drawn without notice of warrant or identification is grounds to be shot as an intruder to my private property, where I have the RIGHT to expect privacy, and defend it.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. So what is your justification when they enter with a valid warrant.



Prohibition laws put police and citizens at odds, and the basis for "drug raids" on faulty information and "anonymous tips" is a clear violation of rights.
Click to expand...

You don't have a constitutional right not to be "at odds" with the police. Furthermore, an anonymous tip with nothing more is not sufficient justification for a warrant. SCOTUS has already addressed this.


How can I face my accuser if the tip is anonymous?
What if I am shot by a policeman who enters my home on bad information, or worse yet (legally for me) what if I shoot them?
Click to expand...

First, if you are the upstanding person you claim to be then you have nothing to worry about legally since there will be nothing to find when the police show up to search.

But since you're stuck on this point lets assume you are less than wholesome and are a dealer. First, in this case, the accuser is the state so you will get to face them. If a warrant was issued solely on an anonymous tip with nothing more then there is no PC and the warrant will be ruled to be invalid. That means everything found in the search wil be inadmissible and you will get to walk. Yay.

However if there is something other than the tip which generates probable cause, then you are stuck with nothing to complain about.

People smarter than both you and I have already dealt with these issues.



One of the excuses people are using to try to lift blame off of these BP Agents is that they shot a "drug dealer", and that is somehow supposed to lessen the guilt the public feels for a wrongful shooting?
Click to expand...

I don't know very many people that have taken this position. Many people are concerned about the lack of evidence that prosecution's case was based on. I find it surprising that you just dismiss this given the deep fears you have about your own possible conviction.


Drug prohibition laws are a disgrace to our society, blatant hypocrisy of our individual rights in the BOR, and is costing us as taxpayers an unreasonable, unjustifiable amount amount of money and innocent life in a war that can never be won in any way, except education, if at all.
Click to expand...

I can say the same thing for disease and crime. Should we stop trying to combat those too?

Furthermore, how do drug laws violate the BOR. Please be specific. None of this "right to privacy" stuff because you won't find that written in the BOR either. Before you do, take a quick look at the GWC clause and the commerce clause. Then get back to me.



I think any self respecting LEO would tell their CO that they refuse to uphold and enforce drug prohibition laws, since it violates basic rights of citizens.
Click to expand...

And I think they would be out of a job.


After all, the only reason LEO's have jobs, is because we the people sought assistance in protecting our basic, enumerated individual rights, and saw fit to offer police protection as a form of "safety insurance".
Click to expand...

So which laws that have been validly passed (which ALL drug laws have) should agents determine to not enforce and which one's should they simply not question?


I am ashamed that LEO's in this nation won't take the stance that the brave officers of LEAP have, in signature and action, in their local departments.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
Click to expand...

I bet those officers still arrest people for drug violations. Why? Cause they value their jobs.
 
I only came in on the end of the broadcast but from what I heard the case against the two officers is starting to unroll.
Hopefully more wil be said next week.

And Gentlemen: DON'T FEED THE TROLL!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top