A different take on the border patrol agents case...

[fuzzis]

The ballad of Ramos and Compean (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/04/ramos_compean/index.html)

How the anti-immigration right -- and Lou Dobbs -- turned two rogue Border Patrol agents into heroes and got Congress on their side.

...Federal prosecutions of law enforcement agents are not undertaken lightly. "No prosecutor ever wants to be in a position of prosecuting a cop or a federal agent," says Johnny Sutton, U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, whose office prosecuted Ramos and Compean. "They're our co-workers, they're our friends, we represent them in court ... But when one steps over the line and commits a serious crime, it's very important that they be held accountable ... [and] most agents would say what these guys did was outrageous."

Prosecutors in Sutton's office considered the conduct of Ramos and Compean outrageous enough that the two men were charged with seven and nine counts, respectively. Both were charged with assault with intent to commit murder. At trial, government prosecutors presented a case, supported by eyewitness testimony, that alleged the following: On Feb. 17, 2005, Aldrete-Davila led Border Patrol agents on a high-speed car chase that ended at a ditch about 120 yards from Mexico. Aldrete-Davila abandoned a van with 743 pounds of marijuana inside and made a dash for the border. Compean, on foot, intercepted Aldrete-Davila, who put his hands in the air to surrender.

At that point, according to trial testimony, Compean tried to hit Aldrete-Davila with the butt of his shotgun, missed, and fell into the 11-foot-deep ditch. Aldrete-Davila took off running. Compean climbed out of the ditch, shot at him 14 times and missed. Ramos, who had watched Compean fall, then fired once. The bullet entered Aldrete-Davila's left buttock, severed his urethra and came to rest in his right thigh. He fell down, but got back up, escaping across the Rio Grande into Mexico. The two agents then covered up the incident. Compean hid some of the shell casings and asked a third agent returning to the scene later that day to dispose of the rest. Neither Ramos nor Compean ever reported the shooting. They were arrested a month later, and then only because America's border with Mexico is like a very long and skinny small town. Aldrete-Davila's mother is friends with the mother-in-law of Rene Sanchez, a Border Patrol agent in Arizona. After hearing about the incident from his mother-in-law, Sanchez sent a report to the Department of Homeland Security in Washington, which then dispatched a special agent to Texas to investigate

At trial in the federal courthouse in El Paso, Border Patrol agents from the Fabens station took the stand to testify against Ramos and Compean. Fellow agents, including one who had observed the shooting, contradicted Compean's story about where he was and how he was positioned when he fired his weapon. The agent who had helped Compean hide shell casings admitted it under oath. Prosecutors showed that Compean had repeatedly changed his story about the shooting and that it didn't match Ramos' account. They were also able to show that although Compean had discussed the shooting with other agents after it happened, it wasn't until his arrest that he began claiming that Aldrete-Davila had had a gun.....

It's a long article but does present a bit of a different spin. Makes me scratch my head.

[bpitt]

So they tried to kill an illegal alien/dope runner/dealer. What's the crime?

[fuzzis]

So they tried to kill an illegal alien/dope runner/dealer. What's the crime?

Maybe nothing except we're supposed to be a nation of laws, governed by such. :smt102

[aquafine]

So they tried to kill an illegal alien/dope runner/dealer. What's the crime?


They shouldn't have covered up. I'm sure he'd be in a lot less trouble if he would have told someone when it happened.

Does sound fishy tho, I bet the guy didn't even have a gun and was just running for it.

[58ford]

So, who gets to keep the dope?

[chaz]

After reading the article, there is one thing that really seems fishy to me. Why did the drug runner's aunt call the Border Patrol? If I knew a member of my family was a criminal I wouldn't try to put retribution on two cops who shot at him. Let sleeping dogs lie.

Maybe the cover-up is that Compean and Ramos were on the take from a rival drug smuggling operation. In all the reporting on this case, I've never seen a motive other than "fear for their life." If it truly was a "bad shoot" then there was no such fear, so why shoot?

[fuzzis]

Why didn't they report it when it happened? That seems easy enough for me. Tell the truth then you don't have to worry about bullshit later on. You don't act guilty...unless you are. Do you?

[58ford]

I wonder how often incidents like this happen on the border, that never get reported?

[CircusRide]

I say shoot all drug runners. Charles Bronson would.

[Honey]

In my mind, I look at it this way. Say for instance, the illegal drug dealers got up on this particular day and put their clothes on and say maybe went to a real job then this would not have happened to them. Let at least a little bit of the blame lie with them please. Now if I worked in the officers position perhaps telling the truth is always the best way but I don't know what it is like to physically fight drug dealers. And I might add, I have NEVER heard of a drug dealer carrying a weapon-that must be a new fade.

[bpitt]

They killed a bad guy, who in turn was aiding in the death of many, and of MY American way, so good riddance to the poor bastard, and God bless the two agents.

[fuzzis]

Don't we teach our children two wrongs don't make a right? One thing doesn't excuse another?

:confused:

[fuzzis]

They killed a bad guy, who in turn was aiding in the death of many, and of MY American way, so good riddance to the poor bastard, and God bless the two agents.

They didn't KILL anyone. They tried...15 times....

[58ford]

They didn't KILL anyone. They tried...15 times....
The guy that fell in the ditch needs to be sentenced to the remedial firing range.
Buddy, the sights are on that gun for a reason.
At least the other guy hit something. Also, I hear the new tactic with feds is to aim for the pelvic girdle first rather than the tried & true COM because so many criminals now have access to bullet resistant armor, pelvic shot is more likely to drop a perpetrator, so at least one of these guys seems to have known what he was doing.

I thought the cops were allowed to shoot a "fleeing felon"?

[threekidspa]

At that point, according to trial testimony, Compean tried to hit Aldrete-Davila with the butt of his shotgun, missed, and fell into the 11-foot-deep ditch. Aldrete-Davila took off running. Compean climbed out of the ditch, shot at him 14 times and missed.

I don't mean to make light of this, but please tell me he wasn't still using a shotgun when he missed 14 times...:smt102

[bpitt]

They didn't KILL anyone. They tried...15 times....
Well they ran his ass back to Mexico. Anyway, there are times, I BELIEVE, when some should just look away, and take care of business, i.e., shoot the bastards coming across OUR borders with drugs.

[CircusRide]

Well, you've got to lead a Mexican a little bit less than the normal criminal. They're usually short and slower. It's like the difference between shooting dove and quail.

[fuzzis]

I thought the cops were allowed to shoot a "fleeing felon"?

That's sort of addressed in the article (page 2).

...If Compean had indeed been lying on the ground when Ramos fired, or if the fleeing suspect had been waving a gun, it's not likely that either Border Patrol agent would be serving more than a decade in federal prison. David Klinger, an associate professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis and an expert in officer-involved shootings, has not formed an opinion on the Ramos-Compean case. He points out, however, that the standard for judging a law enforcement officer's use of deadly force is probable cause. The suspect doesn't actually have to have a gun -- all that matters is that the officer has, as the Supreme Court determined in Tennessee v. Garner (1985), "probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." And, Klinger says, the scenario painted by Carter, with Compean on the ground, could have given Ramos probable cause to shoot if true....

[fuzzis]

Well they ran his ass back to Mexico. Anyway, there are times, I BELIEVE, when some should just look away, and take care of business, i.e., shoot the bastards coming across OUR borders with drugs.

How does that work in the rest of our lives? When do we get to take the law into our own hands? How do we get to claim any sort of moral superiority when we pick and choose when and how to uphold standards of right and wrong? I mean...were the jailers who beat Jesse Lee Williams to death justified? He was in jail, he'd committed a crime.

Where does a line get drawn? Who decides what the line is and where it's placed?

[CircusRide]

I would compare a border guard to the owner of a home. If somebody comes in your home in the middle of the night, you've got the right to blow their crap away. Samething to me.

[58ford]

I don't mean to make light of this, but please tell me he wasn't still using a shotgun when he missed 14 times...:smt102
I don't know of a shotgun with a 14 rnd magazine. The largest I know of is the street sweeper & it only holds 12 (as seen in the motion picture "The Matrix") I think the border patrol's (correct me if I'm wrong) issue riot gun is the Mossberg 500 that only holds 6 cartridges. I assume that the BP's issue sidearm is the Beretta 92 which holds 15 rnds in the mag. So, my assumption would be that he was sprayin' & prayin' with the 9 and he hit exactly what he aimed at.

[bpitt]

How does that work in the rest of our lives? When do we get to take the law into our own hands? How do we get to claim any sort of moral superiority when we pick and choose when and how to uphold standards of right and wrong? I mean...were the jailers who beat Jesse Lee Williams to death justified? He was in jail, he'd committed a crime.

Where does a line get drawn? Who decides what the line is and where it's placed?
Right now we can take the law into our own hands when we feel threatend at our house, our yard, or our place of business. All I gotta do is 'feel' threatened, and I can shoot to kill, it's called the castle law, went into effect last year, I think, in Mississippi.

A citizen can perform a citizens arrest when a felony is observed, it's a right and a freakin' DUTY to our country, just as shooting a damn drug dealer! May they burn in HELL!

[bpitt]

Don't we teach our children two wrongs don't make a right? One thing doesn't excuse another?

:confused:
True, true. However, I teach my kid to take care of things in a responsible fashion, and follow the rules. But, when that doesn't stop it, when the system is broke, you gotta fix it. And you can't fix it till you stop the sumbitches from coming in.

[58ford]

I wasn't there, so I'm going to reserve judgment until I hear how wrong their findings are.

[fuzzis]

Right now we can take the law into our own hands when we feel threatend at our house, our yard, or our place of business. All I gotta do is 'feel' threatened, and I can shoot to kill, it's called the castle law, went into effect last year, I think, in Mississippi.

A citizen can perform a citizens arrest when a felony is observed, it's a right and a freakin' DUTY to our country, just as shooting a damn drug dealer! May they burn in HELL!

Last time I checked, shooting a drug dealer isn't a right or duty in our country. Drug dealers are certainly bad, but I'm not sure that vigilante justice is much better. We have laws and law enforcement officers for a reason. It seems you're headed down a slippery slope...and I'm not sure we're on the right path when we become worse than that which we're fighting.

The trial transcripts (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/index.html) are online. The government's Fact and Myth (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/2007/Compean_Ramos_factsheet1.pdf) sheet is interesting as well.

[chaz]

I don't have time to read all the transcripts, but I keep seeing a lot of dancing around about where the supervisors were. The Facts and Myth sheet says they weren't there "were no supervisors on the scene at the time of the shooting." Is that to say they didn't show up afterwords?

Also, if there were so many other BP agents there during and after this why did none of them report this horrible crime? Shouldn't they be brought up on charges as well? An officer turning his head to a criminal act is also a crime, correct?

I will probably read the transcripts this week. Everytime I watch a piece with Johnny Sutton, I just get more confused.

[Honey]

I say-if you don't apply the law then the law doesn't apply to you! Criminals don't play by the law book and they should not get the same privileges as those who make good decisions and obey the law. I say stop all drug dealers at the border so I want have to deal with them at my house.

[bpitt]

Last time I checked, shooting a drug dealer isn't a right or duty in our country. Drug dealers are certainly bad, but I'm not sure that vigilante justice is much better. We have laws and law enforcement officers for a reason. It seems you're headed down a slippery slope...and I'm not sure we're on the right path when we become worse than that which we're fighting.

The trial transcripts (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/index.html) are online. The government's Fact and Myth (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/2007/Compean_Ramos_factsheet1.pdf) sheet is interesting as well.
Then you are of no citizenship of this country, let me show you to the door, and help you out.

[Honey]

Fuzzis are you saying that you think drug dealers are bad but not bad enough to make them stop?

[bpitt]

Kill them all, let God sort them out.

[fuzzis]

Then you are of no citizenship of this country, let me show you to the door, and help you out.

:laugh:

Born and bred...to legal parents. Sorry, bpitt.

:laugh:

Fuzzis are you saying that you think drug dealers are bad but not bad enough to make them stop?

Not at all.

I believe that we are supposed to be a nation of laws. If we can't follow our own laws, then how can we expect someone else to do so? If we don't have enough respect for our laws to follow them, then how can we get on our high horse and talk about drug dealers not respecting our laws with any semblance of integrity? Our laws aren't just for when it's convenient for us--they're for all of the time. It sucks that there are those who choose not to follow them, but when we *choose* not to follow them, how are we any better than the drug dealers?

The way we do things matters because if we stoop to the level of those who are breaking the law, then we are no better than those who broke the law. We can't beat the criminals by becoming criminals and have any claim to morality. There is inherent hypocrisy in that stance.

Do we teach our children that two wrongs make a right?

[58ford]

Are you threatening me?
I think I feel threatened.
Are you sure you aren't threatening me, cause I'm starting to fee a little threatened over here.
And you know if I feel threatened.......

[Honey]

Okay I can only apply it to something familiar to me. I am a nurse and if thirty nurses are doing something terribly wrong and they get shot or serverely punished. Then chances are good the next thirty won't do wrong. Eventually the word gets out that we as a nation won't allow such terrible behavior. So if we have to change the law for a little while then lets do it. But as it stands right now we are placing the handcuffs on the officers and letting the thugs dictate the law.

[fuzzis]

Okay I can only apply it to something familiar to me. I am a nurse and if thirty nurses are doing something terribly wrong and they get shot or serverely punished. Then chances are good the next thirty won't do wrong. Eventually the word gets out that we as a nation won't allow such terrible behavior. So if we have to change the law for a little while then lets do it. But as it stands right now we are placing the handcuffs on the officers and letting the thugs dictate the law.

You're using a flawed analogy. There's a supervisory process involved with the nurses who are doing something wrong, isn't there? You as another nurse are not the prosecutor, jury, and judge are you? You're not the one who gets to summarily decide who is screwing up and who isn't.

[Honey]

Perhaps not a good way to explain it. So let me try again. If thirty people touch someting hot and get burned badly. Do you think the next thirty in the line will touch it?

[Honey]

Fuzzsi it is in my head just can't explain it well. Sorry about that.

[Honey]

You're using a flawed analogy. There's a supervisory process involved with the nurses who are doing something wrong, isn't there? You as another nurse are not the prosecutor, jury, and judge are you? You're not the one who gets to summarily decide who is screwing up and who isn't.


I don't think I said I was the prosecutor, jury or judge. I was just saying if someone was breaking the law and got punished according to the law.
But I will go back and read what I said again.

[threekidspa]

I believe that we are supposed to be a nation of laws. If we can't follow our own laws, then how can we expect someone else to do so? If we don't have enough respect for our laws to follow them, then how can we get on our high horse and talk about drug dealers not respecting our laws with any semblance of integrity? Our laws aren't just for when it's convenient for us--they're for all of the time. It sucks that there are those who choose not to follow them, but when we *choose* not to follow them, how are we any better than the drug dealers?

The way we do things matters because if we stoop to the level of those who are breaking the law, then we are no better than those who broke the law. We can't beat the criminals by becoming criminals and have any claim to morality. There is inherent hypocrisy in that stance.

Do we teach our children that two wrongs make a right?

I agree with this in principle, but its an unstable horse to ride because its a standard none of us can meet. We all break laws. Most of us only break laws that will only hurt ourselves (we hope). That's what makes us better than drug dealers, even when our choices put us over the line.

Like Ford said, we weren't in the moment, so we can't really judge what the right response should have been. The actions of these guys after the incident do call their character into question (and whether or not they should remain on the Border Patrol).

But no matter what, even with a gunshot wound, this Aldrete-Davila fella got much less than what he deserved....he made many more 'bad choices' over a much longer period of time than the border patrol agents did, which all led directly to him being shot. The responsibility for that happening lies solely with him.

[fuzzis]

I don't think I said I was the prosecutor, jury or judge. I was just saying if someone was breaking the law and got punished according to the law.
But I will go back and read what I said again.

I have no problem with following the law. It doesn't appear that happened in this case.

When you say things like drug dealers don't deserve the protection of the law because they're drug dealers, you're saying something entirely different than what I've quoted here. Either *we* follow the law or we don't. Our behavior should not be predicated on what another person chooses to do or not do. I see shades of gray for most things, but not when it comes to things like this. Either we are a nation of laws, and we believe in following the laws and holding ourselves to those standards, or we are not. There is no straddling a fence here.

[Honey]

Fuzzis,
I tired of arguing. I don't argue this much with my hubby. So I say lets just agree to disagree and try to be friends. Truce?

[fuzzis]

I agree with this in principal, but its an unstable horse to ride because its a standard none of us can meet. We all break laws. Most of us only break laws that will only hurt ourselves (we hope). That's what makes us better than drug dealers, even when our choices put us over the line.

Like Ford said, we weren't in the moment, so we can't really judge what the right response should have been. The actions of these guys after the incident do call their character into question (and whether or not they should remain on the Border Patrol).

But no matter what, even with a gunshot wound, this Aldrete-Davila fella got much less than what he deserved....he made many more 'bad choices' over a much longer period of time than the border patrol agents did, which all led directly to him being shot. The responsibility for that happening lies solely with him.

I don't disagree with you. It does not, though, excuse what they did (or did not do). The agents had choices to make all along the way. They are responsible for those choices...not anyone else. Just like I'm responsible for my decision to speed. When I choose the action, I also choose the consequence.

[gonefishin]

This argument is a complicated one at times. On the one hand you have the theory that criminals can be rehabilitated and be contributors to society. In reality if you check the statistics they will probably show that most criminals are habitual and many don't play their part in the rehabilitation process. Many times this process becomes a waste of time and taxpayer money. On the other hand you have to look and see if the punishment fits the crime. I try to look at it from the standpoint of "what if this were my child or family member." Drug dealers are dirt...there's no argument from me there, but I think at least one chance should be given for them to change. Sex offenders (especially the ones who committ crimes against children) are in my book the lowest scum of society. I have yet to see one who actually changes their thinking and become "normal" members of society. There are many forms of justice that would be sufficient in my book. I know that this post seems like a bunch of rambling, but books have been written on this topic and it's impossible to come up with a "perfect" solution in a short post. I will close out with this food of thought. Early in my career I looked at all law violators as dirtbags. The more contact I've had with criminals I have come to realize that at some point in their lives they were just like me. They had parents, went to high school or college, played sports etc. At some point they took a wrong turn and made some bad decision. I think what we need to do is try and remind them what they had at one time and motivate them to get back to that point. This may not seem feasible to many of you but I think it wouldn't be very responsible for us not to try. How many chances do they get? Which criminals get the most chances? That's a whole different thread!!!

[fuzzis]

Fuzzis,
I tired of arguing. I don't argue this much with my hubby. So I say lets just agree to disagree and try to be friends. Truce?

I wasn't arguing with you, Honey. I don't know you well enough to "argue" with you. I disagree with you (and apparently just about everyone else here on this matter), though.

I don't know whether the agents involved in this were right or wrong. I know that I believe the law applies or it doesn't. We don't get to choose who it applies to...even if we find their behavior reprehensible.

[Honey]

Fuzzis, I see were you like to write. I do too so lets talk about that.