Wildalaska
Moderator
Statsistical anomolies dont an unjust system make. Besides, thats what appeals and post conviction remedies are for.
WildsorrytointerjectpleasecontinuethisexcellentthreadAlaska
Help the Border Patrol agents imprisoned
- Thread starter BlindFaith
- Start date
Statsistical anomolies dont an unjust system make. Besides, thats what appeals and post conviction remedies are for.
WildsorrytointerjectpleasecontinuethisexcellentthreadAlaska
There's obviously quite a lot of bull**** going on.
If members of congress really want court transcripts, they would get them from the court. You don't get transcripts from DOJ. Sounds like bull**** to me. Obviously just an attempt by one side to paint a fake picture.
The shooting is a crime if done illegally. A badge does not give a LEO the right or privilege to shoot at anybody. A policeman can be charged with murder for shooting someone, a badge doesn't save his ass. By not reporting a shooting done on duty, it shows intent to hide a crime.
Using your logic, a policeman who kills a civilian only needs to say "yeah I didn't report it because it was too much paperwork" to get off...
What's your point? Guilt and innocence obviously don't mean anything with your narrow definition of the courts. Because he isn't guilty by your definition, he also isn't innocent, because courts neither determine guilt or innocence, per your definition. So basically you had no point.
The DoJ and DHS cannot refuse anything when subpoenaed. Obviously members of congress didn't feel the need to go through official channels to get what they want, then obviously the DoJ and DHS can, as you claimed without proof, refuse to provide anything.
What the jurors hear is decided by the judge. The prosecutor and the defense attorney has the same powers and procedures to deny any evidence from being heard. The judge hears the merits of both sides, and decides.
Stop trying to accuse the judge, prosecutor, and even the jury of conspiring to put those men in jail without any proof.
If members of congress really want court transcripts, they would get them from the court. You don't get transcripts from DOJ. Sounds like bull**** to me. Obviously just an attempt by one side to paint a fake picture.
The shooting is a crime if done illegally. A badge does not give a LEO the right or privilege to shoot at anybody. A policeman can be charged with murder for shooting someone, a badge doesn't save his ass. By not reporting a shooting done on duty, it shows intent to hide a crime.
Using your logic, a policeman who kills a civilian only needs to say "yeah I didn't report it because it was too much paperwork" to get off...
What's your point? Guilt and innocence obviously don't mean anything with your narrow definition of the courts. Because he isn't guilty by your definition, he also isn't innocent, because courts neither determine guilt or innocence, per your definition. So basically you had no point.
The DoJ and DHS cannot refuse anything when subpoenaed. Obviously members of congress didn't feel the need to go through official channels to get what they want, then obviously the DoJ and DHS can, as you claimed without proof, refuse to provide anything.
What the jurors hear is decided by the judge. The prosecutor and the defense attorney has the same powers and procedures to deny any evidence from being heard. The judge hears the merits of both sides, and decides.
Stop trying to accuse the judge, prosecutor, and even the jury of conspiring to put those men in jail without any proof.
Bingo. This is not only factually incorrect but legally incorrect, and this is what keeps bugging me.
Failure to report a shooting is not a crime, but a breach of PROCEDURE. Should every LEO always follow procedure, yes of course. Have LEO's in the past failed to do so simply because they don't want the hassle, yes of course.
As far as what you said Rich, I'm not basing this on the advocacy group report (although they did cite this). The whole point for having the doctor testify to the wound and location of the bullet is to show that the perp was pointing back while shooting. Otherwise there would be NO reason for the defense to put a doctor on the stand.
Again. Looking at it from our perspective as outsiders, we have one party with no credibility at all, and two others who's credibility deserves to be questioned. Given its likely that the perp would carry a weapon, and the medical report indicates he was pointing back at the agents while running, I find I hard to see how so many here have lept over the presumption of innocence so quickly.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Once again, WHAT was his testimony? I haven't read it. The JURY heard it. I have to assume you did also. Barring that, you are only mouthing the words of an Advocacy Group, trying this on the internet; and arguing Federal Conspiracy.
Once again, Source Please? Or, at least, some FACTS.
Rich
"Failure to report a shooting is not a crime"
Maybe...I don't know actually..it may be or it may not
I know doctors are required to report a gunshot wound
BUT....By not reporting it there is/was no immediate investigation that might have proven whether the smuggler was armed
Instead they basically abandoned the "crime scene" and even removed evidence from it
Just like if I drag the bad guy outside my house, they screwed themselves when they messed with the scene
I usually take the side of law enforcement on most of these things...at least by default
But these guys did not act like innocent men
Those "policies" that some of you seem to view with disdain are there to protect the agents as much or more than the"bad guys"
These guys would have looked a whole lot "cleaner" if they had filed a report and protected the scene
They dug a pretty deep hole all by themselves
"well yeah..since you found out...we shot at him....and maybe we thought he was armed"
Maybe...I don't know actually..it may be or it may not
I know doctors are required to report a gunshot wound
BUT....By not reporting it there is/was no immediate investigation that might have proven whether the smuggler was armed
Instead they basically abandoned the "crime scene" and even removed evidence from it
Just like if I drag the bad guy outside my house, they screwed themselves when they messed with the scene
I usually take the side of law enforcement on most of these things...at least by default
But these guys did not act like innocent men
Those "policies" that some of you seem to view with disdain are there to protect the agents as much or more than the"bad guys"
These guys would have looked a whole lot "cleaner" if they had filed a report and protected the scene
They dug a pretty deep hole all by themselves
"well yeah..since you found out...we shot at him....and maybe we thought he was armed"
"the perp was pointing back while shooting"
Run forward...and then, while still running look over your shoulder
I don't watch CSI , but I think we have a similar body position to someone trying to shoot back behind them while running
Chances are a good prosecutor would ask that very question
"Wouldn't this man be in a similar posture if he were simply flailing an arm behind him while he looked to see if he were pursued?"
Run forward...and then, while still running look over your shoulder
I don't watch CSI , but I think we have a similar body position to someone trying to shoot back behind them while running
Chances are a good prosecutor would ask that very question
"Wouldn't this man be in a similar posture if he were simply flailing an arm behind him while he looked to see if he were pursued?"
There are 2 distinct actions here. One is shooting at a man, one is not reporting the shooting. One may be a procedural error, but the other can be a crime. Why one did not report the shooting, is left up the the jury to determine.
Stop saying they only committed a procedural error of not reporting to crime. They shot a man and cleaned up the scene. The jury determined they committed a crime.
If there is so much evidence of their innocence, instead of begging for a pardon, maybe they should appeal their case to a higher court, since you are so sure they are innocent.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
My LEO career was very short thanks to the first gulf war so I might be wrong but when I was in training we were taught that there is a very strict protocol that needed to be followed for every shooting for it to be considered a legal and just shooting.
If these protocol where not follwed then by default the shooting was not legal. Even if the protocol was followed the shooting could still be declared unjust. An unjust shooting even by an LEO is a crime. Therefore if they did not follow protocol (in fact tried to actively avoid it) then the shooting would by default be declared unjust and a crime.
Then you have the part of them picking up casing and trying to hide evidence. Another crime in itself.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Yup. Until, of course, they're tried and found Guilty. Then, guess what? They're no longer "presumed innocent" in the eyes of the Law.
Agreed. That's called an Appeal. They have the money to back it and claim more than enough procedural errors to demand it. So why the calls for a Pardon, rather than the traditional remedy of Appeal?
Doncha guys get it?
You are trying to Monday Morning Quarterback a TWO WEEK trial by "weighing all the evidence" you find in after-the-fact internet snippets.
It simply doesn't get sillier than this. Really.
Rich
Affirmative!
While specifics within each Department can and probably do vary, these are the general guidelines:
If your duty weapon is drawn, then a use of force report is required.
If you fire your duty weapon:
1. Render first aid, if possible.
2. SECURE THE SCENE OF THE SHOOTING. Establish a double perimeter.
3. When your supervisors arrive, provide clear details and full disclosure of ALL facts leading to the discharge of your weapon.
(NOTE: At this point, the previous CW was that the officer surrendered his/her weapon. Nowadays, if that is required the officer is usually re-armed on the spot.)
What do you NOT do---EVER?
1. Leave the scene of the shooting, unless in fresh pursuit.
2. Touch, alter, remove, adulterate or destroy evidence.
3. Lie to your supervisors or investigators.
While on duty, you are covered by your Department for your lawful actions performed as a police officer. The SECOND that you lie, conceal or commit a falsehood, guess what? You're fresh out of friends, and all that protection evaporates like water splashed on an El Paso sidewalk in August.
Also, there is ONE small thing that I'd like to call to everyone's attention:
Lots of members of this board are prone to painting law enforcement with the same broad brush--we're JBT's, road nazis, taillight chasers, etc. And, to hear the buzz, we're all out to be oppressive totalitarian thugs.
Please note well that EVERY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER THAT HAS POSTED TO THIS THREAD has said that (given the statements we have read) this was a BAD SHOOT.
And, EVERY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER THAT HAS POSTED TO THIS THREAD has advocated swift, draconain punishment for these men who attempted to murder an unarmed man.
Seems like we're not quite the buttheads you think we are, are we?
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Just received, by mail, a petition signature request for Compean and Ramos from the Center for Individual Freedom.
A couple of noteworthy excerpts (emphasis mine):
"Behind the wheel of the van was an armed illegal alien drug smuggler by the name of Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila"
"Anticipating the drug smuggler's attempt to make it back into Mexico, Agent Compean tried to cut him off but was shot by the fleeing felon. Coming to the aid of his fallen partner, Agent Ramos bravely continued to pursue Aldrete-Davila... even firing a shot that connected with the assailant's buttocks".
(Of course their web site tells a slightly different story:
"The agents heard gun shots while pursuing Davila on foot.")
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/compeanv1nm.html
Naturally, the last page of the 4 page letter was a plea for donations.
Looks like the spin stops....nowhere.
Rich
A couple of noteworthy excerpts (emphasis mine):
"Behind the wheel of the van was an armed illegal alien drug smuggler by the name of Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila"
"Anticipating the drug smuggler's attempt to make it back into Mexico, Agent Compean tried to cut him off but was shot by the fleeing felon. Coming to the aid of his fallen partner, Agent Ramos bravely continued to pursue Aldrete-Davila... even firing a shot that connected with the assailant's buttocks".
(Of course their web site tells a slightly different story:
"The agents heard gun shots while pursuing Davila on foot.")
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/compeanv1nm.html
Naturally, the last page of the 4 page letter was a plea for donations.
Looks like the spin stops....nowhere.
Rich
Ausserordeutlich
Moderator
Sounds like the "bite" from the improper grip somehow evolved into a gunshot wound by an unarmed fleeing felon.
What's your point? Guilt and innocence obviously don't mean anything with your narrow definition of the courts. Because he isn't guilty by your definition, he also isn't innocent, because courts neither determine guilt or innocence, per your definition. So basically you had no point.
My point is simple. You are in the wrong place at the wrong time and get charged and arrested for a crime you know you did not commit. You go to trial and are convicted of the crime by a jury of your peers. Now, are you now guilty because the jury says you are, or are you still innocent because you know you are?
http://www.publicintegrity.org/PM/default.aspx?act=main
My point is simple. You are in the wrong place at the wrong time and get charged and arrested for a crime you know you did not commit. You go to trial and are convicted of the crime by a jury of your peers. Now, are you now guilty because the jury says you are, or are you still innocent because you know you are?
http://www.publicintegrity.org/PM/default.aspx?act=main
invention_45
New member
Again, I'm forced to utter "amen".
When I start seeing petitions for pardoning those convicted of the more ridiculous provisions of drug, porn, and prostitution laws, then I'll consider signing a petition protecting enforcers from absurd prosecution.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Eghad-
Lots of people get indicted without going to trial, either because the case is too weak or because the indictment was sought in order to coerce their cooperation. I was the target of a formally threatened indictment by a SC Grand Jury in the 80's, due solely to my casual associations and "profile"...they wanted my "co-operation". I politely declined the co-operation part and invited the indictment. The Prosecutor never pursued. Had he, it probably never would have gone to trial, because there was neither guilt nor evidence. An indictment is little more than a vote of confidence.
As to the "sealed indictment" of Davila, that is the term of law used for MANY cases that begin with a Grand Jury, rather than the Courts (especially drug conspiracy cases which inevitably cast a large net). The prosecutor or magistrate "seals" the indictment until such time as the defendant(s) are apprehended, so as not to tip their hand. The prosecutor will not necessarily charge all of those indicted, once all of the investigative work is in.
In this case, the Web sites would have you believe that sealed meant "quashed". BIG difference.
Rich
Lots of people get indicted without going to trial, either because the case is too weak or because the indictment was sought in order to coerce their cooperation. I was the target of a formally threatened indictment by a SC Grand Jury in the 80's, due solely to my casual associations and "profile"...they wanted my "co-operation". I politely declined the co-operation part and invited the indictment. The Prosecutor never pursued. Had he, it probably never would have gone to trial, because there was neither guilt nor evidence. An indictment is little more than a vote of confidence.
As to the "sealed indictment" of Davila, that is the term of law used for MANY cases that begin with a Grand Jury, rather than the Courts (especially drug conspiracy cases which inevitably cast a large net). The prosecutor or magistrate "seals" the indictment until such time as the defendant(s) are apprehended, so as not to tip their hand. The prosecutor will not necessarily charge all of those indicted, once all of the investigative work is in.
In this case, the Web sites would have you believe that sealed meant "quashed". BIG difference.
Rich
invention_45
New member
You know what they say about being able to indict a ham sandwich. Once an information is sent, you can consider yourself indicted. The prosecutor runs the process and isn't going out of his way to locate exculpatory facts for you.
Ausserordeutlich
Moderator
I don't know whether the perp had a weapon or not, but if he did, why didn't the agents produce it? Couldn't have gone too far. If the prosecutor's accounts of other border agents' testifying against the two who were convicted are true, then I suppose the transcripts will reveal whether other border patrol agents saw a weapon in the perp's possession.