The WHOLE story about the two border patrol agents who were sent to prison

[ck4829]

The RW media, WorldNutDaily being one of the groups doing it, is running with a story that two border patrol agents shot and incapacitated an illegal immigrant who was running drugs, and the Agents got sent to jail.

Apparently, they're not telling us the whole story.

The two agents tried to cover something up when they retrieved the casings used in the incident and they failed to file an incident report.

The RW Media is also telling us that they are being put into solitary confinement in order to treat them as though they were serial murderers, when in fact it is standard procedure to put law enforcement agents into solitary confinement for their own protection.

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2007/borderpatrol.html

[ms liberty]

1. What else the RW doesn't mention is...

that the officers didn't know that he was doing anything illegal when they shot him - in the BACK - as he ran from them, IIRC.

[eagler]

2. Sorry but you lose me on this one guys

It's quite obvious that the guy was breaking the law when he was shot. the two guards were put in with the general population and beat by inmates.

[wildbilln864]

4. exactly!

Pardon them Bush!

[Bandit]

5. If it is so obvious maybe you could explain the Law that was so obviously broken

running from someone holding a gun is not illegal. They were obviously ashamed of what they had done because they tried very hard to cover their tracks. They picked up all empty cartridges and did not file any report of the incident.The man shot in the back was a "suspected" illegal alien. After he was killed they threw in "suspected" drug runner although there was absolutely no evidence to support that claim.

[eagler]

6. running from the law is illegal

[Bandit]

7. Even if that is true which I am not sure of , it doesn't call for a

Summary execution. The person was not armed or threatening yet they shot him in the back anyway...They should spend the rest of their years in prison thinking about the value of human life...

[Richard Steele]

8. So you support these agent's actions that day, then?

[eagler]

10. if the person was crossing the border illegally and he refused to stop

yes I support their actions

[Richard Steele]

11. But that's not what happened. I wasn't asking about some "what if" scenario.

I'm asking if you approve of WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED there that day.

[eagler]

12. the guy was a known drug trafficer and he refused to stop

[Richard Steele]

14. No, that's not even close to what actually happened.

[Done]

13. There are different reports of what happened...

Shot in the back...shot in the butt?
Suspect had a gun...suspect didn't have a gun?
Collected the shells...so what the shells have value - no cover up
Didn't file a report...not unusual
Suspect had drugs...suspect didn't have drugs

You can say that one version is the truth and the other version comes from the RW MSM, but how do you explain that bush is against the RW MSM?

[Richard Steele]

15. This is not an unknown "differing report" situation. The FACTS are known.

-He was shot in the butt.

-Officers never saw any weapon.

-Admitted they collected the shells to conceal the shooting.

-Didn't file a report- Not just "unusual", illegal. They are
required to file a report any time they discharge their weapon.

-Suspect had drugs, and the officers DID NOT know that
when they shot him.

These things are not "reports", they are the established FACTS
of the case. Any opinion which conflicts with these facts is
inherently incorrect.

[eagler]

16. if he was in the process of breaking the law and he refused to

stop,they had the right to fire. that's the way it appears to me.Sad but true.

[Richard Steele]

18. "Stop" what exactly? Running away from someone who was shooting at him?

I'm just grateful that the LAWS of our nation do
not agree with you, and do not give our police the
'right' to shoot unarmed persons which you think they have.

They had no RIGHT to do what they did. That's not
my opinion, it's the LAW. And it's why they are
both in prison today.

[eagler]

19. If you are in the process of commiting a crime and you are told to stop

and you fail to heed, an officer has the right to shoot. That is the law everywhere I know of.

[Richard Steele]

23. That is the law NOWHERE in this nation. Period. nm

[SemperEadem]

26. a lot of ifs going on with each of your posts

ifs are a sign of fantasy and wishful thinking. Stick to facts and state them without the fantasy qualifier of 'if'.

[Done]

20. Did the officers admit to collecting the shells...

or did they admit to collecting the shells in order to conceal the shooting? What I asking is, did they admit to their motive for collecting the shells? I find it unusual that someone would try to cover something up, and then freely admit to trying to cover it up. If they're going to make such an admission, what's the point in trying to cover it up?

It is also my understanding that the suspect didn't stop when he was shot in the buttocks. This indicates that the officers could not have known their bullet had struck the suspect. If that's the case, why the cover up? They pursued a suspect...fired some bullets...didn't hit anything. Why the cover up?

[Richard Steele]

24. They didn't admit it IMMEDIATELY, of course.

They LIED their asses off IMMEDIATELY.
They didn't start telling any TRUTH until
their lies were exposed and they were facing charges.

It was another Agent who testified that Agent Compean
had asked him to find and dispose of five shell casings
that Compean himself had been unable to locate.

I think a great deal of time could be saved here
if you check out this explanation of the case:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:cw3Qvy0SdoEJ:narcosphere.narconews.com/userfiles/70/BorderAgents2.pdf+www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

It seems that a lot of what you've heard about this
has been a product of the rumorfest which surrounded
the case. The link above discusses the actual EVIDENCE and
SWORN TESTIMONY which was presented at the trial.

I think you'll find that the evidence and testimony
are VERY different from the stories being spouted
by these agents' fans and defenders.

[eagler]

25. dicksteele, you are right. He tried to surrender

and they wouldn't let him. If that's the case then the agents deserve their punishment.

[Richard Steele]

30. What's struck me as most sadly ironic....

...is that, if these two Agents had actually just done
the boring, routine duty they were sworn to do, they would
have had 15 minutes of fame as HEROS.

You know darn well that arresting a guy smuggling over 700
pounds of pot into the USA would have gotten a few
mentions in the major newspapers. MORE than a few, if
the Border Patrol wanted to make a big PR deal out of
it, or even if it was just a 'slow news week'.

A newsworthy arrest like that can be a real 'career-changer',
it's a well-established way to get bumped to the top of
ANY agency's 'promotion list'.

Even more 'career-changing' for Agent Ramos, since his chances for advancement
had previously been reduced to ZERO when he was formally disciplined
for "Conduct Unbecoming a Federal Officer".

A newsworthy "major bust" like this could have balanced out that black mark,
and given his career a fresh start from square one.

I bet that's gonna be what gnaws at him the MOST over
the next couple years. He had a brief window of opportunity
where ALL of his 'potential futures' fell into two distinct groups:
"Redeemed Hero" and "Convicted Felon".

He chose POORLY.

[JacksonWest]

28. I don't think they were ashamed. They were sort of screwed.

And they made it worse. If you work in law enforcement, you're not supposed to shoot people in the back. It can be justifiable, and a lot of times it is. But, as a matter of policy and publicity, you're not supposed to do it. It's ok to shoot someone who's running away-given the nature of the crime they have committed(or ar reasonably suspected of). Generally, if the suspect is non-violent and unarmed, you can't shoot them. Sort of makes sense, eh?

So, they shoot this guy. They covered it up. I'm not sure why they shot them-it doesn't matter. What matters is they covered it up after the fact. That is why they're in prison. I think it's a tough sentence....but they definitely deserve to be punished. The beating was ridiculous, and shouldn't have happened. The ironic thing is that a FOX show-America's most Wanted- did a feature on the two ex-cops, and they played that program in the prison. So, now, Fox news is leading the charge to "pardon" these men.

It's a sad case. I don't support the unjust imprisonment of anyone. The fact that they were not placed apart or kept apart is a disgrace. I don't think a pardon is the way to go though.

[me b zola]

22. Do you have any kids?

So if one of them breaks the law it would be okay for a cop to shoot them in the back in cold blood?

This type of behavior by police/booader cops is not the sign of a healthy society.


As for the brutality of our prisons, another sign of an unhealthy society. Do you work for better prison conditions in general, or only when criminal cops feels that pain?


:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[bleedingheart]

3. Do you realize that there are GOPers threatening to impeach Bush over this?

my husband read me an article yesterday...and we said "Oh..an illegal war is not impeachable but sending these two yahoos to jail and not pardoning them is impeachable?"

[ourbluenation]

9. I heard wingnut Tancredo say yesterday that if * doesn't pardon them he wants him impeached.

fabulous...DO IT!

[Edweird]

17. Great. they want to impeach him over the border guards,

we want to impeach him over... well, just about everything. So surely we can come to some kind of agreement. We pardon the border guards if they help us impeach the chimp. Sounds fair.

[Toots]

29. Way I heard it was the Republicans are pretty much offering a reward to the prison population

The Republicans say if the border guards are killed while in prison they will start impeachment proceedings. Sounds like they want those border guards offed ASAP otherwise why promise something most want so badly?

[UTUSN]

21. K&R n/t

[Jed Dilligan]

27. Looks to me like these guys were

a. working for another trafficker or

b. intent on stealing the drugs for themselves.

They should face the same consequences as anyone who shoots an unarmed person under extremely suspicious circumstances. The fact that they wore badges while doing this makes me less sympathetic than I would be for your average thug.