Ethics complaint filed in border agents' case

[De Selby]

Do you have any particular portions of the transcripts that you could refer to?  Online copies are on the DOJ's website...http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/index.html

Here's the thing: the guy ran off after they shot him....so if they really believed he was armed, why didn't they report shooting an armed and dangerous attacker and then show off all the evidence to confirm the story? Why on earth would you hide evidence if you were an LEO and actually believed the guy you shot was armed?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I waded through those transcripts once, and I don't feel like doing it again.  Read 'em yourself if you're interested.

There were some half dozen other border patrol agents in the vicinity at the time the shots were fired, including supervisors.  All of them should have heard the gunshots, so the supervisors presumably already knew about the shooting.  Davila was just one more criminal fleeing back into Mexico, hardly an unusual or noteworthy event on our highly secure, well-protected southern border. 

The only evidence hiding was to pick up a few shell casings.  My memory on this is faint, but there was some question as to whether or not picking up your casings was standard procedure, or at the very least, not improper procedure.

I can easily envision a couple of cops saying "screw it, I don't want to deal with the paperwork, pick up those casings and let's go home."  Remember, as far as they knew nobody had been hit and the whole thing was a minor event.

You could make a good case that Ramos and Compean handled the aftermath, the bureaucratic side of the event, very poorly.  Maybe they even handled it criminally.  But it's the deadly assault conviction that mattered, that's what put them away for 10+ years each.  If they had been cconvicted of procedural violations and sentenced accordingly, I doubt anyone would care.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

were both eyes open when you read transcrpts? it wasn't the dope sutmuggler who sank their ship. it was the other agents who testified how the 2 shooters sent em back to recover shell casings. of course originally they said in the heat of the moment the just reverted to training and were policing brass. they mighta had a chance in court but the jury heard about them trying to cover up. and yu don't coverup unless you know you f'd up' they were done  the sentence was too harsh though but it was the producy of those sentence guidline formulas

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-borderagents_19tex.ART.State.Edition1.41f9b80.html

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Did you read what I just wrote?  I said Raomos and Compean handled the aftermath poorly, maybe even criminally.  If they'd been locked up for not following procedure I wouldn't have a gripe. 

That's not what happened.  They were locked up for armed assault, and there wasn't enough evidence to justify that charge.  They should be free now, having served a few months or a year for failing to follow procedure before and after the shooting.  Ramos and Compean are no boyscouts, in fact they're terrible law enforcement officers, but they aren't murderers.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

no one used word murder,  except you,  does have a more dramatic lilt tgo it than the reallity.
if they hadn't got the weapons charge they coulda pulled a year and walked. gotta wonder if they had the right lawyer. or if they over rode the one they had. bet a guilty to the smaller charges looks good now

[Gewehr98]

Ramos and Compean are no boyscouts, clearly.

That much is painfully obvious.  Lessee, unlawful shooting, tampering with evidence after the fact.

Were they cops in a major metropolitan area, they might've gotten let off the hook.   

[De Selby]

Did you read what I just wrote?  I said Raomos and Compean handled the aftermath poorly, maybe even criminally.  If they'd been locked up for not following procedure I wouldn't have a gripe. 

That's not what happened.  They were locked up for armed assault, and there wasn't enough evidence to justify that charge.  They should be free now, having served a few months or a year for failing to follow procedure before and after the shooting.  Ramos and Compean are no boyscouts, in fact they're terrible law enforcement officers, but they aren't murderers.

the bullet hole in the victim seemed to be enough to justify the charge.  I don't think anyone disputes that the guy was shot by the agents.

They committed a federal crime and got the federal penalty, which is draconian.  That's the way the system works, and honestly I can't say I'm troubled...this is how we do things in America, it's a country of law and order and if you don't follow the rules, you answer for it.  We're a nation of professionals who look down on gangsterism and gross disregard for the rules of civil society, and it shows.

[Balog]

Did you read what I just wrote?  I said Raomos and Compean handled the aftermath poorly, maybe even criminally.  If they'd been locked up for not following procedure I wouldn't have a gripe. 

That's not what happened.  They were locked up for armed assault, and there wasn't enough evidence to justify that charge.  They should be free now, having served a few months or a year for failing to follow procedure before and after the shooting.  Ramos and Compean are no boyscouts, in fact they're terrible law enforcement officers, but they aren't murderers.

the bullet hole in the victim seemed to be enough to justify the charge.  I don't think anyone disputes that the guy was shot by the agents.

They committed a federal crime and got the federal penalty, which is draconian.  That's the way the system works, and honestly I can't say I'm troubled...this is how we do things in America, it's a country of law and order and if you don't follow the rules, you answer for it.  We're a nation of professionals who look down on gangsterism and gross disregard for the rules of civil society, and it shows.

Unless the violator is of a protected group.......

[De Selby]

Did you read what I just wrote?  I said Raomos and Compean handled the aftermath poorly, maybe even criminally.  If they'd been locked up for not following procedure I wouldn't have a gripe. 

That's not what happened.  They were locked up for armed assault, and there wasn't enough evidence to justify that charge.  They should be free now, having served a few months or a year for failing to follow procedure before and after the shooting.  Ramos and Compean are no boyscouts, in fact they're terrible law enforcement officers, but they aren't murderers.

the bullet hole in the victim seemed to be enough to justify the charge.  I don't think anyone disputes that the guy was shot by the agents.

They committed a federal crime and got the federal penalty, which is draconian.  That's the way the system works, and honestly I can't say I'm troubled...this is how we do things in America, it's a country of law and order and if you don't follow the rules, you answer for it.  We're a nation of professionals who look down on gangsterism and gross disregard for the rules of civil society, and it shows.

Unless the violator is of a protected group.......

I don't know of any exception in the Federal guidelines for "protected groups"-and it's virtually impossible to escape the guidelines once a conviction is entered.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

the bullet hole in the victim seemed to be enough to justify the charge.  I don't think anyone disputes that the guy was shot by the agents.

They committed a federal crime and got the federal penalty, which is draconian.  That's the way the system works, and honestly I can't say I'm troubled...this is how we do things in America, it's a country of law and order and if you don't follow the rules, you answer for it.  We're a nation of professionals who look down on gangsterism and gross disregard for the rules of civil society, and it shows.

You continue to ignore the fact that the evidence doesn't support the charge of armed assault.  There was no evidence that Davila was unarmed, aside from Davila's own dubious testimony.  There was no evidence that Ramos and Compean knew Davila was unarmed when they shot at him.  They say it was a legitimate self defense shooting, and there isn't sufficient evidence to prove this wrong. 

You can pretend that you know R & C deliberately attacked an unarmed man.  But the fact is that you don't know that.  Be honest enough to acknowledge it.

You seem well versed in our system of law.  Surely you know that our criminal processes are supposed to protect the defendants, too.  It failed abysmally in this case.  The prosecution has the burden to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and they simply didn't do it. 

Some of the jurors who convicted them now say that they regret their decision.  There is speculation some of the jury may have been coerced or lied to in order to get them to convict.  I'm not sure how true any of this is, but having read the transcripts I'm skeptical that 12 honest people would all vote to convict on the assault charges.  It just doesn't seem likely, given the (lack of) evidence and testimony.

If you say we're a nation of laws and rules, then surely this case should alarm you.

[De Selby]

You continue to ignore the fact that the evidence doesn't support the charge of armed assault.  There was no evidence that Davila was unarmed, aside from Davila's own dubious testimony.  There was no evidence that Ramos and Compean knew Davila was unarmed when they shot at him.  They say it was a legitimate self defense shooting, and there isn't sufficient evidence to prove this wrong. 

Wait a second here-eyewitness testimony is certainly evidence.  Just because you don't believe Davila doesn't make his testimony untrue.  Nor does it mean that the jury was wrong to believe his testimony.  That's why they are there in the courtroom, to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses in person.  And then there's the fact that the agents clearly tried to cover up the attack-that is the strongest indicator of guilt.   

You can pretend that you know R & C deliberately attacked an unarmed man.  But the fact is that you don't know that.  Be honest enough to acknowledge it.

You seem well versed in our system of law.  Surely you know that our criminal processes are supposed to protect the defendants, too.  It failed abysmally in this case.  The prosecution has the burden to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and they simply didn't do it. 

I am quite confident that the Border patrol agents who testified in that trial (I read two testimonies already from the agents who described the cover-up activity and the complete failure to report the incident) testified that what they witnessed was deliberate, against policy tampering with evidence and an effort to hide the entire incident. 

I'm also confident that innocent people in these circumstances do not tend to try to hide evidence and pretend the shooting didn't happen, which lends credibility to the victim's account-if he was a threat, they should have said so and reported the shooting and called for an evidence collection unit to document the near fatality.

I'm sorry, but reading what I have already of that trial, it's hard to imagine a more slam dunk case.  You've got the undisputed fact of a shooting and credible eyewitness testimony to indicate that the defendants 1. Knew that what they did was illegal and 2. That they actually did something illegal.

The real world isn't CSI-if you have multiple people saying "Yeah, he lied and covered up the shooting, and no, there was no gun on the other guy" along with the victim himself saying the same thing, that is a conviction waiting to happen, not a "travesty of justice."

I would be stunned if that same evidence had been read and the jury had not convicted-because of the eyewitnesses, this case was arguably much stronger than the case against O.J. Simpson....and no, I'm not one of the "they framed him" kool-aid drinkers.

[Archie]

I suggest anyone interested in this should read an article on the subject in the September 2007 issue of TexasMonthly.com. 

It makes for interesting reading.

For the record, I was a Border Patrol Agent for about six years.  I'm still a federal lawman as I'm writing this.  I think Campeon belongs in prison, I think Ramos belongs in prison and neither of those two should be the crusade of anyone seeking justice.

[MechAg94]

Wasn't there an issue with the prosecution not disclosing what he offered the victim to come back in and testify?  I think the jury wasn't informed of it. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

up to the defense to mention it to the jury

you don't screw up you don't coverup they woulda been in less trouble if they owned up to the initial mistake  they liedthere way into more trouble.