Sunday, December 3, 2006

Review of the Ramos-Compean Incident

How is it that our president will sign a bill that provides amnesty for illegal aliens, but will let two Border Patrol agents go to prison for performing their duty?

Ignacios Ramos and Jose Compean are going to have to serve prison time if the President doesn’t give them pardons, and this will occur again if the system is not changed concerning rules of engagement for those who are guarding our borders.

In case you have forgotten, here are the facts:

1 - On February 17th, 2006, Border Patrol agents Ignacios Ramos and Jose Compean noticed a suspicious van near the Rio Grande river.

2 - The van was being driven by Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, a Mexican national illegally crossing our border and smuggling 743 pounds of marijuana into the United States.

3 - When the illegal drug smuggler saw agents Ramos and Compean, he ran for the border. The agents heard gun shots while pursuing Davila on foot.

4 - According to media reports, Davila at one point turned toward the pursuing agents and pointed what appeared to be a gun. The border agents fired their weapons at the fleeing drug smuggler.

5 - Davila was hit in the buttocks, although Compean and Ramos did not know it at the time because Davila didn’t even slow down. He jumped into a waiting van and sped off in the night.

What happened next should enrage all Americans, and as The New American stated:

Incredibly, while agents Ramos and Compean and their families face economic ruin, emotional devastation, and real physical danger, as a result of that 15-minute chase, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila – an admitted felon and drug smuggler – has not only gotten off scot-free, he stands to become a rich man, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers.

In a seemingly unbelievable turn of events, agents for the U.S. Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security contacted the smuggler in Mexico and offered him complete immunity if he would testify that the Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean had violated his civil rights.

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction, and this story is a prime example. Johnny Sutton, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas, charged the two law enforcement officers with (1) Causing serious bodily injury; (2) Assault with a deadly weapon; (3) Discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence; (4) violating the civil rights of an illegal immigrant.

At the trial, the prosecutor dismissed Ramos’ testimonly that he saw “something shiny” in Davila’s hand. She, the prosecutor, then stated:

…couldn’t be sure it was a gun he had seen.

In other words, law enforcement officers are to wait until they are shot at, injured, before they are allowed to use their firearms?

Also, the prosecutor said it was a violation of a Border Patrol policy for agents to pursue dope dealers on the run. She explained this statement:

Agents are not allowed to pursue. In order to exceed the speed limit, you have to get supervisor approval, and they did not.

What?!?

Agent Ramos had an excellent record during his ten-year service as a Border Patrol officer and was nominated for the Agent of the Year award, and stated:

How are we supposed to follow the Border Patrol strategy of apprehending terrorists or drug smugglers if we aren’t supposed to pursue fleeing people? Everybody who’s breaking the law flees from us. What are we supposed to do? Do they want us to catch them or not?

Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean deserve to be commended, not charged by our government with violating civil rights of a non-citizen and drug smuggler. Our system is bankrupt and it is time to fix it, as well as our nonsensical foreign policy with Mexico.

And, did the jury of 12 decide they were guilty? The answer is no. Three jurors stated after the trial that their choice was not guilty. Robert Gourley, Claudia Torres and Edine Woods say they were told the verdict had to be unanimous, which was false.

The three jurors signed sworn affidavits that they had been incorrectly instructed as jurors. In addition, other jurors intimidated jurors to change their votes. One juror said he thought that 10 years in prison was excessive punishment. Another mentioned the jury foreman:

I felt like he knew something about the judge that we did not know. I did not think that Mr. Ramos or Mr. Compean was guilty of the assaults and civil rights violations.

Defense attorney, Mary Stillinger, after finding out about the statements made by the jurors, asked that the verdict be set aside, but the judge denied the motion.

The plight of these agents is not over. Please click here to send an e-mail the President and tell him to use his power of presidential pardon, per the United States Constitution in Article II, Section 2, to pardon agents Ramos and Compean.

The American people must not tolerate the imprisonment of two patrol agents who did nothing more than their job. This is a wrong that must be made right. In addition to the pardon, we should demand that those agents receive any back pay due and be reinstated in their position as agents for their pain and unnecessary suffering of themselves and their families.

Please take a moment from your lives and help these two fellow Americans. If you have noticed, they both have last names that are Spanish and they represent the melting pot of immigrants and ancestry that represents the good side of immigration – legal immigration. We must not turn our backs on them or forget them. The agents are American citizens, fellow Americans, who require our support.

16 comments:

minord said...

The alleged "felons" (the "threat")were fleeing the scene. I am a gun owner, and a concealed weapons card holder. One of the stipulations, conditions, however you want to put it, is when using my weapon in self defense, is that I'm defending myself. If I fire at a fleeing attacker (even though I be attacked and bloody) and happen to hit him, I can be arrested, convicted, and subsequently sued for assault with a deadly weapon.

Supposedly they "heard" gunshots, but provide no evidence of same. Why should these men be exonerated, when a regular citizen would not? I don't necessarily agree with the law, but what's good for one (the citizen) needs to be good for the "public servant".

Bottom line, they used excessive force, and should suffer the consequences.

minord said...

The alleged "felons" (the "threat")were fleeing the scene. I am a gun owner, and a concealed weapons card holder. One of the stipulations, conditions, however you want to put it, is when using my weapon in self defense, is that I'm defending myself. If I fire at a fleeing attacker (even though I be attacked and bloody) and happen to hit him, I can be arrested, convicted, and subsequently sued for assault with a deadly weapon.

Supposedly they "heard" gunshots, but provide no evidence of same. Why should these men be exonerated, when a regular citizen would not? I don't necessarily agree with the law, but what's good for one (the citizen) needs to be good for the "public servant".

Bottom line, they used excessive force, and should suffer the consequences.

minord said...

The alleged "felons" (the "threat")were fleeing the scene. I am a gun owner, and a concealed weapons card holder. One of the stipulations, conditions, however you want to put it, is when using my weapon in self defense, is that I'm defending myself. If I fire at a fleeing attacker (even though I be attacked and bloody) and happen to hit him, I can be arrested, convicted, and subsequently sued for assault with a deadly weapon.

Supposedly they "heard" gunshots, but provide no evidence of same. Why should these men be exonerated, when a regular citizen would not? I don't necessarily agree with the law, but what's good for one (the citizen) needs to be good for the "public servant".

Bottom line, they used excessive force, and should suffer the consequences.

minord said...

The alleged "felons" (the "threat")were fleeing the scene. I am a gun owner, and a concealed weapons card holder. One of the stipulations, conditions, however you want to put it, is when using my weapon in self defense, is that I'm defending myself. If I fire at a fleeing attacker (even though I be attacked and bloody) and happen to hit him, I can be arrested, convicted, and subsequently sued for assault with a deadly weapon.

Supposedly they "heard" gunshots, but provide no evidence of same. Why should these men be exonerated, when a regular citizen would not? I don't necessarily agree with the law, but what's good for one (the citizen) needs to be good for the "public servant".

Bottom line, they used excessive force, and should suffer the consequences.

Dave

oscar said...

I was under the impression that what really got these two officers in trouble was that they did not report the shooting or atleast that they had exchanged gunfire with a drug smuggler. When I heard that no report was filed and that this case developed because the smuggler showed up somewhere shot, The officers lost credibility

minord said...

Good observation Oscar. This is a typical of any government agency who gets caught with their "hand in the cookie jar" so to speak. In their collective Amoral opinion, the end justifies the means.

What they don't realize is that their vary actions (enforcing drug laws) is Immoral. I believe that removing all drug laws would end the drug "problem", which is a health issue in the first place, not a legislative one. Did we not learn anything in the 30's from prohibition?

Black markets are created buy immoral fascist laws, CREATING a whole new class of criminal where there was none before. The government (whoever it may be) creates the bad guys, then it's right there with the fascist might to crush the threat (but not kill it, after all it is a "cash cow") making itself indispensable to the fearing "sheeple".

I say castrate these a$$holes....and the government they represent.

Dave

oscar said...

One of the things I've never had anybody explain to me is why marijuana is illegal and tabacco and alcohol are not. I agree with minor on this point, marijuana is not more deadly or addictive than alcohol and tabacco, so why is it illegal? I honestly believe it is illegal because you can grow it anywhere(it's called weed for a reason) and therefore not a source of funds for the government. Tabacco is a known carcinogenic to the smoker and the second hand smoker. This means that tabacco will kill you and the guy sitting next to you. If this type of highly addictive cancer causing plant can be legal why not weed? I've heard the whole gateway drug theory, but if it is true it should apply to alcohol and tabacco right? I'm not advocating making all drugs legal and no, I'm not a pot head, but how about using some common sense when we make laws. This reminds me of the whole idea that you can charge a 16 year old minor as an adult, but a eighteen year old faces prison time if his girlfriend is seventeen. Sorry for all of this minor got me going and I had to vent.

minord said...

Great question Oscar. The whole issue behind many ancient remedies being illegal goes back to the 20's and 30's When JD Rockefeller decided there HAD to be a way to profit from the myriad or byproducts produced when refining petroleum. Yes, petroleum.

The modern "pharmaceutical" industry was born. Did people embrace this? HELL NO! Then began the propaganda campaign to demonize all previously revered natural remedies, in favor of JD's new poison. Sound far fetched? Do some research on the Rockefeller Dynasty, and you will come across this fact.

So anyway, Weed, cocaine, heroin, and many others were all collected into and controlled by the "controlled substances act".

So you see, without government strong arm tactics, Rockefeller could have never sold his poison, and that's why weed and other beneficial remedies are illegal and alcohol and tobacco are not. Those things were never considered truly "medicinal", and posed no threat to the pharmaceutical industry.

Mary Bailey said...

minord, Private citizens with
a concealed weapon charge is NOT the same as a federal agent with the sworn duty to protect our country. If you can't even support our agents, then leave the country! You make me angry! Our borders can not be protected, and our agents are afraid to do their job because of this incident, yet we will have everyone complain that they illegals are taking over the country.

NitemareTD said...

Minord you disgust me. I have never been so angry in my life! You are an ignorant piece of garbage and do not deserve to live in North America. The trash you spout is everything that is wrong with America today. Too many nutjobs that love to ramble on, spreading lies and spitting treasonous venom. I can't believe they would let a moron like you own a gun. AAARRGGGHHH I am so mad! I can't believe there are garbage human beings like you in the world!

NitemareTD said...

And those government agents that offered an ILLEGAL ALIEN money to testify against AMERICAN HEROES should be charged with treason and HUNG!

minord said...

Nightmare....You certainly are a nightmare. How can you call yourself a moral person. The issue surrounding these two "gentlemen" is NOT that they were doing their job. The issue is that they OVERSTEPPED their authority. It is NEVER moral to shoot someone in the back. The only moral justification for killing another human being is either mercy, or self defense.

Neither of these two officers can claim either one. They shot an unarmed man. Do you consider that to be justified? If you do, then YOU are part of the problem. I will not stoop to your level (name calling) but I will say this: You need to think before you type. Violence only begets more violence. Fascism in this country is at an all time high, and I promise you it will only get worse, if people like yourself don't wake up and realize you have been lulled to sleep by the beast called government.

minord said...

Mary Baily...

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here, But I think you mean "permit" and not "charge". And you are incorrect. It is never OK to shoot someone in the back who is fleeing, and this is why: Morally, the only justification for taking someone's life, is self defense, or mercy. Neither of these men can claim this in this case. Agents "doing their job" is not the issue here. If they were simply doing their job, they would have captured the suspect, and "due process" would have decided the outcome, not two hot-headed individuals like these officers, and yourself.

Dave

oscar said...

Minor you better be careful these guys and gal are crazy. They actually believe even after seeing where our country is, that we should all bow down to government.I always find it humorous(in a tragic sort of way)that so many will part with their rights and worse the rights of others when they are scared. The last time we gave blank checks out we ended up in Iraq and we mortgaged our country. I wouldn't worry about illegal aliens very much, they are a distraction. Who has our military over extended? Who looked the other way while our financial futures and maybe those of our children were looted? Who is at the table asking us to share our scraps? Hasn't the government and big business taken enough and is it to much to ask for people of authority to behave honorably? I see these agents as part of a much larger problem of corruption and abuse of power. If so many people can be so upset over two officers shooting a man in the back, lying about it, and destroying evidence, why are we surprised. Even when we are faced with the facts, we choose to ignore them. We are truly sheep, so you have a choice shut up and follow the herd or think for yourself and not always of just yourself.

qwen said...

minord, I find it scary that you have a gun, yet lack common sense. First it is not necessarily true that you would be convicted depending on the circumstances. Second being an Officer (Public Servant) is differenct than a normal citizen due to the danger they are in on a regular basis and they are trained for this type of work. What do you think will stop the criminal if he knows the Officer cannot fire at him? They will all try to run! This criminal jumped into a car after he got it in the @!!. If citizens had the same rights as Police Officers with regards to firing a gun and arresting people we'd be in trouble. Not that there aren't some bad apples in the bunch, but, taking away the right to shoot will not solve that. It will only endanger the Officer and the public.

minord said...

Gwen...You are obviously a product of the system.