Thread: Our View: Border Patrol agents deserve jail, but not this

Our View: Border Patrol agents deserve jail, but not this
Comments 0 | Recommend 1
August 05, 2008 12:01:00 AM
Appeal-Democrat

The case of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean — Border Patrol agents in Texas convicted in 2006 of shooting an illegal-immigrant drug smuggler as he headed back toward Mexico, and sentenced to 11-year and 12-year prison terms, respectively — has become a cause célèbre for conservative activists, especially those concerned about illegal immigration. Supporters of the two men had hoped that the courts would throw out their convictions, but last week the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal upheld most of the convictions, which leaves them lobbying the Bush administration for pardons or commutations.

Messrs. Ramos and Compean were prosecuted under federal statutes by the U.S. attorney's office, so few expect the administration to do anything here, which has only ratcheted up the emotions surrounding this case. To the agents' supporters, the case is an example of the U.S. government's refusal to take seriously illegal-immigration issues. People are outraged that those patrolling the border have been prosecuted for shooting (nonfatally) a drug smuggler, and that the U.S. government actually gave that smuggler immunity to testify against the agents.

But if one gets past the emotions and looks at the specifics of the case, it's hard to draw broader immigration-policy issues from the prosecution or to be too critical of the government's prosecution here. We agree that the prison terms are excessive, but that's a function of the mandatory minimum sentences Congress approved for the specific gun crime for which the two men were prosecuted.

The two agents chased a man near the Mexico-Texas border. As the smuggler headed back to Mexico, the court explained that "the agents gave chase, fired their weapons at him several times, and hit him once, but the wound did not prevent his escape into Mexico. After the incident, there was a 'cover-up' — including a cleanup of the area of spent shells and failure by the two agents to report the weapon-firing incident, as plainly required by well-established Border Patrol policies. ... It is well-established that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not permit officers to shoot a fleeing suspect unless the suspect poses a threat to the physical safety of the officers or to the public."

The agents argued that they felt threatened, but the jury didn't buy the argument. The case ultimately centered on which version of events the jury believed. So the court found no reason to overturn the convictions, although it did vacate one lesser conviction for tampering with an official proceeding. The courts understand that it would be a dangerous precedent to allow Border Patrol agents, police, deputies or federal officers to fire at fleeing suspects and to cover up evidence. In reality, this issue doesn't have much to say about immigration policy, although it touches on the topic of mandatory minimum sentences.

We'd therefore support a commutation of their sentences, but certainly not a pardon.


http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles ... order.html

I don't even believe they deserve jail.....this isn't breaking a LAW...it's breaking POLICY.

But we muddy up the waters with that. What is LAW and what is POLICY?

And when they change POLICY, is it breaking the LAW?

Example.....Is it stealing when someone takes something from a dumpster? Is garbage picking a crime? Is it stealing when an employee takes something from a dumpster? Off hours. Supposidy once it is in a dumpster, it's being thrown out. If it's OK for a non-employee to take from a dumpster.....then why is it theft from a company when they do the same thing? Is it theft of property when someone picks through my garbage?

I registered and wrote a reply to this.
called whoever wrote it stupid and mis informed

Where do you draw the line between garbage being set out and a bike left on the lawn? Is an employee stealing "old pizza" left on the lunchroom table, 2 hr's after lunch? Is it stealing when you put bolts in your pocket before you left the store....or after? Is it stealing to sample grapes in a sealed and priced bag as long as you don't leave the store.....or when you stuff the empty bag on a shelf or when security has you on camera consuming something before you paid for it? Does merely sticking your hands in your pocket determine theft or what is missing? We have garage sales here.....people sell things out of their garage, but it doesn't mean everything including the garage is for sale.

Seriously I am so ticked about these guys. They did nothing wrong., It's like me....being cute and hot...serving a bunch of drunk men. My boss says, company policy is you don't have to tolerate that. Which goes with government rule. But I get a group....they are vile verbally....even so much as physical assult.....but after cries to the owners and everyone else....nothing is done...so I dump an ICE COLD pitcher of beer on your groin......and now I'm charged with assult. And racism.....

Sorry.....don't buy that.

This guy needs to read this topic:

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-126375-arguments.html

Just one of the issues this guy doesn't get:

2. The fact that they didn't report the shooting is often cited by U.S. Attorney, Johnny Sutton and repeated often in the press. However, filing a written report is NOT required, and there were 15 agents, including three supervisors on the scene by the end of the incident. It was well known to their supervisors. The disposing of the shell casings was a departmental problem...NOT a crime. A suspension or even dismissal from their positions should have been the harshest punishment they faced; not 11 & 12 YEARS in Federal Prison. No one even KNEW that the illegal alien smuggler had been hit by their fire.

more at topic

Heads up....ABUSE is now "hurting someones feelings".

Someone wrote exactly what I wrote and it was acceptable.....they had a hispanic name....mine wasn't.

Thank heavens it was a hispanic who did it.....otherwise the message wouldn't be out there. I'm saying the hispanic agreed with us......but she wan't punished....I was.

Originally Posted by crazybird

Heads up....ABUSE is now "hurting someones feelings".

Someone wrote exactly what I wrote and it was acceptable.....they had a hispanic name....mine wasn't.

Thank heavens it was a hispanic who did it.....otherwise the message wouldn't be out there. I'm saying the hispanic agreed with us......but she wan't punished....I was.

Not sure what you're saying. You mean in the article or a comment to the article?

Originally Posted by Gogo

This guy needs to read this topic:

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-126375-arguments.html
more at topic

so i cut and pasted the four arguments to the editorial

Originally Posted by jamesw62

Originally Posted by Gogo

This guy needs to read this topic:

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-126375-arguments.html
more at topic

so i cut and pasted the four arguments to the editorial

I tried to register but it never went through.