Thread: US Dept of Justice and Border Agents Ramos and Compean

Originally Posted by Mayday

Does anyone here find it the least bit suspicous that the drug dealers mother just happened to have a friend who had a son in law that's a border patrol agent?

how do you think it got to the DHS investigator in the first place.
hes the one who went to mexico.

YES its suspicious becaise they are childhood friends. and i bet i know where his loyalties lie.

Tancredo said on the john and ken show the other day that after having meetings with TJ Bonner and some others in regard to the trial and jail time that they believe the BP AGENT gave the friend, the drug runner, the money to file the lawsuit FOR A CUT OF THE AWARD

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On C-span this morning I heard and it is my understanding that the border agents were well within the law when they shot the fleeing drug smuggler. Drug smugglers have been shot before. But, where they broke the law is when they lied and tried to cover it up by not reporting the incident and getting rid of the shell casings. It was on this evidence that they were found guilty. Now that I’ve heard the evidence that convicted them, they should be in prison. Especially because they are on the border as law enforcers and should be held at a higher standard than any other law breakers. I do not know if the sentence fit the crime or not.

MY QUESTION IS WHY DID THEY COVER IT UP? IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THEIR WORD AGAINST THE SMUGGLER IF THEY THOUGHT HE WAS ARMED.
U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Western District of Texas
Johnny Sutton, U.S. Attorney FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Shana Jones, Special Assistant October 23, 2006 Daryl Fields, Public Information Officer (210) 384-7452 RESPONSE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY JOHNNY SUTTON TO SENTENCING OF BORDER PATROL AGENTS COMPEAN AND RAMOS In my opinion, United States Border Patrol agents are some of America’s most unsung heroes. They have an enormously difficult job. They routinely go up against drug traffickers and alien smugglers often in the middle of the night in some of the most remote and inhospitable areas of the United States. At times, they face great danger. The law recognizes that agents will make mistakes, and the government takes responsibility for good faith mistakes made in the line of duty. But no agent is given license to willfully shoot an unarmed, fleeing suspect in the back simply because the job is difficult, dangerous, or important. The simple truth of this case is that Agents Compean and Ramos shot 15 times at an unarmed man who was running away from them and posed no threat. They lied about what happened, covered up the shooting, conspired to destroy the evidence and then proceeded to write up and file a false report. Agent Compean and Ramos were not railroaded by some over-zealous prosecutor, they were unanimously found guilty by a jury in a United States Federal District Court after a trial that lasted more than two and a half weeks. The two agents were represented by experienced and aggressive trial attorneys, both of whom vigorously challenged the Government’s evidence through cross examination. Both agents told their stories from the witness stand and had full opportunities to explain their version of events and to offer their own evidence. The jury heard everything including the defendant’s claims of self defense. The problem for Mr. Compean and Mr. Ramos is that the jury did not believe their stories because they were not true. The trial evidence showed that around 1:00 p.m. Aldrete (the Mexican alien) initially ran from the agents, but surrendered with his empty hands raised over his head after Agent Compean pointed his shotgun at him. As Agent Compean tried to push Aldrete down to the ground with the butt of his shotgun, Compean tripped and fell and Aldrete took off again toward the Rio Grande River and Mexico. Compean chased Aldrete firing at him with his pistol fourteen times, pausing once to reload and then shoot some more. Agent Ramos shot once and struck Aldrete in the buttocks. Neither agent made any further effort to apprehend him. After the shooting, Compean and Ramos decided to lie to their supervisors about the shooting and picked up and threw away the fired shell casings. Next they filed a false investigative report leaving out any mention of the confrontation with the alien. – more –
Sutton statement – Ramos and Compean sentencing October 23, 2006 Page 2 If Compean and Ramos truly believed Aldrete was a threat, why did they abandon him after shooting him? And if they truly believed the shooting was justified, why did they not report it, leave the scene undisturbed, and let the investigation absolve them? The answers to these questions are simple. The agents knew that Aldrete did not pose a threat as he fled, they knew the shooting was unjustified and unlawful, and they knew an investigation would incriminate them. So they chose to cover up their crime. In America, law enforcement officers do not get to shoot unarmed suspects who are running away, lie about it to their supervisors and file official reports that are false. That is a crime and prosecutors cannot look the other way. My office would have much preferred to see Aldrete convicted and sent to prison for his crimes. We are in the business of putting guys like him in the penitentiary. We do it every day. But since the agents could not identify him, found no fingerprints, could not tie him to the van and did not apprehend him after shooting him, the case against Aldrete could not be proved. The agents' criminal behavior, lies and efforts to conceal their crime destroyed their credibility before any jury. Confronted with the willful and illegal use of deadly force by experienced Border Patrol agents, and insufficient evidence to prosecute the marijuana violation, prosecutors promised Aldrete they would not use his truthful statements and testimony to prosecute him. This type of “use immunity” is authorized by federal statute, and federal prosecutors around the country routinely make similar representations to obtain crucial testimony. As a practical matter, the promise to Aldrete gave up very little, but allowed us to investigate a serious crime of violence. Contrary to the claims of Compean, Ramos and others, this does not make the border less secure. Allowing lawless and wanton violence by even two Border Patrol agents to go unaddressed only invites further escalation of violence along the border. Finally, Congress determined the penalties imposed on Compean and Ramos, by setting the punishment for discharging a firearm during a crime of violence at imprisonment for at least ten years, on top of any other sentence imposed. Although the penalty is stiff, Congress intended to deter and severely punish the unlawful use of guns and made no exception for law enforcement officers. If we are to demand that the laws be followed on our Southwest border we must be prepared to apply them to our own agents when they willfully and intentionally violate them. ###

Originally Posted by dyehard39

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On C-span this morning I heard and it is my understanding that the border agents were well within the law when they shot the fleeing drug smuggler. Drug smugglers have been shot before. But, where they broke the law is when they lied and tried to cover it up by not reporting the incident and getting rid of the shell casings. It was on this evidence that they were found guilty. Now that I’ve heard the evidence that convicted them, they should be in prison. Especially because they are on the border as law enforcers and should be held at a higher standard than any other law breakers. I do not know if the sentence fit the crime or not.

MY QUESTION IS WHY DID THEY COVER IT UP? IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THEIR WORD AGAINST THE SMUGGLER IF THEY THOUGHT HE WAS ARMED.
U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Western District of Texas
Johnny Sutton, U.S. Attorney FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Shana Jones, Special Assistant October 23, 2006 Daryl Fields, Public Information Officer (210) 384-7452 RESPONSE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY JOHNNY SUTTON TO SENTENCING OF BORDER PATROL AGENTS COMPEAN AND RAMOS In my opinion, United States Border Patrol agents are some of America’s most unsung heroes. They have an enormously difficult job. They routinely go up against drug traffickers and alien smugglers often in the middle of the night in some of the most remote and inhospitable areas of the United States. At times, they face great danger. The law recognizes that agents will make mistakes, and the government takes responsibility for good faith mistakes made in the line of duty. But no agent is given license to willfully shoot an unarmed, fleeing suspect in the back simply because the job is difficult, dangerous, or important. The simple truth of this case is that Agents Compean and Ramos shot 15 times at an unarmed man who was running away from them and posed no threat. They lied about what happened, covered up the shooting, conspired to destroy the evidence and then proceeded to write up and file a false report. Agent Compean and Ramos were not railroaded by some over-zealous prosecutor, they were unanimously found guilty by a jury in a United States Federal District Court after a trial that lasted more than two and a half weeks. The two agents were represented by experienced and aggressive trial attorneys, both of whom vigorously challenged the Government’s evidence through cross examination. Both agents told their stories from the witness stand and had full opportunities to explain their version of events and to offer their own evidence. The jury heard everything including the defendant’s claims of self defense. The problem for Mr. Compean and Mr. Ramos is that the jury did not believe their stories because they were not true. The trial evidence showed that around 1:00 p.m. Aldrete (the Mexican alien) initially ran from the agents, but surrendered with his empty hands raised over his head after Agent Compean pointed his shotgun at him. As Agent Compean tried to push Aldrete down to the ground with the butt of his shotgun, Compean tripped and fell and Aldrete took off again toward the Rio Grande River and Mexico. Compean chased Aldrete firing at him with his pistol fourteen times, pausing once to reload and then shoot some more. Agent Ramos shot once and struck Aldrete in the buttocks. Neither agent made any further effort to apprehend him. After the shooting, Compean and Ramos decided to lie to their supervisors about the shooting and picked up and threw away the fired shell casings. Next they filed a false investigative report leaving out any mention of the confrontation with the alien. – more –
Sutton statement – Ramos and Compean sentencing October 23, 2006 Page 2 If Compean and Ramos truly believed Aldrete was a threat, why did they abandon him after shooting him? And if they truly believed the shooting was justified, why did they not report it, leave the scene undisturbed, and let the investigation absolve them? The answers to these questions are simple. The agents knew that Aldrete did not pose a threat as he fled, they knew the shooting was unjustified and unlawful, and they knew an investigation would incriminate them. So they chose to cover up their crime. In America, law enforcement officers do not get to shoot unarmed suspects who are running away, lie about it to their supervisors and file official reports that are false. That is a crime and prosecutors cannot look the other way. My office would have much preferred to see Aldrete convicted and sent to prison for his crimes. We are in the business of putting guys like him in the penitentiary. We do it every day. But since the agents could not identify him, found no fingerprints, could not tie him to the van and did not apprehend him after shooting him, the case against Aldrete could not be proved. The agents' criminal behavior, lies and efforts to conceal their crime destroyed their credibility before any jury. Confronted with the willful and illegal use of deadly force by experienced Border Patrol agents, and insufficient evidence to prosecute the marijuana violation, prosecutors promised Aldrete they would not use his truthful statements and testimony to prosecute him. This type of “use immunity” is authorized by federal statute, and federal prosecutors around the country routinely make similar representations to obtain crucial testimony. As a practical matter, the promise to Aldrete gave up very little, but allowed us to investigate a serious crime of violence. Contrary to the claims of Compean, Ramos and others, this does not make the border less secure. Allowing lawless and wanton violence by even two Border Patrol agents to go unaddressed only invites further escalation of violence along the border. Finally, Congress determined the penalties imposed on Compean and Ramos, by setting the punishment for discharging a firearm during a crime of violence at imprisonment for at least ten years, on top of any other sentence imposed. Although the penalty is stiff, Congress intended to deter and severely punish the unlawful use of guns and made no exception for law enforcement officers. If we are to demand that the laws be followed on our Southwest border we must be prepared to apply them to our own agents when they willfully and intentionally violate them. ###

I agree with some of your comments. I am against drug smuggling and illegal immigration but I cannot overlook the fact that these agents wrote a false report. The part that gets me is that they did not mention the encounter with the illegal alien at all.

I will say that they shot him in self defense and that the illegal deserved to be shot, but to conceal the events opens the door to a lot of other issues that I do not want to get into.

Like I said, they should be put on leave without pay for some time and then allowed to return to work. This punishment in my view would fit the 'crime'.

I have not been able to read the defense made in this case. If they felt the smuggler had a gun and a threat, and they had made a report of the incident, they would not be in this situation. It would have been their word against the smuggler that they felt he had a weapon. The really had nothing to hide. It was a very stupid of them not to file a complete report.

Originally Posted by melanie

I agree with some of your comments. I am against drug smuggling and illegal immigration but I cannot overlook the fact that these agents wrote a false report. The part that gets me is that they did not mention the encounter with the illegal alien at all.

I will say that they shot him in self defense and that the illegal deserved to be shot, but to conceal the events opens the door to a lot of other issues that I do not want to get into.

Like I said, they should be put on leave without pay for some time and then allowed to return to work. This punishment in my view would fit the 'crime'.

I agree with you Melanie. That is the one fact that I can't get past. Why did they file a false report? If they had just told the truth, I wonder if any of this would have happened. And by saying that, I am still not convinced that they are guilty. Certainly, I don't think the sentences fit the crime.

The one piece of evidence which I think would be damming for the prosecution is the medical testimony/report. Has anyone seen it? Everyone keeps referencing it, but I haven't seen it. TJ Bonner said the other night that the medical testimony clearly shows that the smuggler was turning with his hand extended towards the agents (with a gun). If that is true, these men should be pardoned in my opinion because it clearly proves that the smuggler was not fleeing. Or if he was fleeing, he was also turning to fire at the same time.

Originally Posted by dyehard39

I have not been able to read the defense made in this case. If they felt the smuggler had a gun and a threat, and they had made a report of the incident, they would not be in this situation. It would have been their word against the smuggler that they felt he had a weapon. The really had nothing to hide. It was a very stupid of them not to file a complete report.

Exactly!

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by dyehard39

I have not been able to read the defense made in this case. If they felt the smuggler had a gun and a threat, and they had made a report of the incident, they would not be in this situation. It would have been their word against the smuggler that they felt he had a weapon. The really had nothing to hide. It was a very stupid of them not to file a complete report.

Exactly!

Crocket and Dye- I agree with both of you. But have either of you heard anything about the medical evidence? See my post above.

Originally Posted by anniealone

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by dyehard39

I have not been able to read the defense made in this case. If they felt the smuggler had a gun and a threat, and they had made a report of the incident, they would not be in this situation. It would have been their word against the smuggler that they felt he had a weapon. The really had nothing to hide. It was a very stupid of them not to file a complete report.

Exactly!

Crocket and Dye- I agree with both of you. But have either of you heard anything about the medical evidence? See my post above.

You mean the gunshot wound channel? That evidence is less than compelling. There are any of a number of reasons that the suspect may have turned back toward the agents. Besides, this has no bearing on the agents' otherwise inexplicable attempt to cover up the details of the incident.

[quote="CrocketsGhost
You mean the gunshot wound channel? .[/quote]

No. I don't mean the gunshot wound channel.

Like I said, I agree. The report is a critical piece to all of this.

Originally Posted by anniealone

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

You mean the gunshot wound channel? .

No. I don't mean the gunshot wound channel.

Like I said, I agree. The report is a critical piece to all of this.

Actually, you do mean the wound channel, you just don't know that it's what you mean.

The medical evidence was that the wound channel indicated that the suspect's body was "clocked" toward the officers. The defense tried to claim that this could only mean that the suspect had turned with his arm extended toward the officers as if pointing a gun, and they had an expert witness testify that the wound angle was "consistent with" such a motion. The trouble, of course, is that the wound angle was ALSO consistent with all sorts of actions that do not include pointing a gun. It's a fairly typical desperate ploy and usage of paid "experts."

What I'm saying is that being "consistent with" a given action does not connote exclusivity. What the expert was saying was that IF the guy was turning to point a gun, this particular wound channel would be created. The wound channel, however, in no way speaks to the existence of a weapon nor does it preclude such other actions as clocking the body to see where the pursuing agents were.

I am again concerned about the extent to which posters here are taking the claims of the agents' defenders at face value to the extent that they are citing evidence whose nature they do not even understand.