Post by: Desertdog on May 19, 2008, 12:29:21 PM
Ethics complaint filed in border agents' case
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=117646
An ethics complaint has been filed with the Texas Bar Association against a federal prosecutor.
The Christian organization Reviving America's Values filed the complaint after two U.S. Border Patrol agents were convicted in the shooting of a fleeing drug suspect. The suspect's injuries were not life-threatening.
Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean are serving 11- and 12-year sentences, respectively, after a federal jury convicted them of assault, obstruction of justice, and civil rights violations in the wounding of Osvaldo Aldrete Davila on the Texas border near El Paso in 2005.
But Don Swarthout, president of Christians Reviving America's Values, believes prosecutor Johnny Sutton's office willfully misled the jury in order to convict the two agents for simply doing their jobs. Swarthout says the prosecutor made Davila look like an "innocent bystander" who "took a load of drugs because he needed the money."
"... [A]nd the truth of the matter is that there were almost a million dollars worth of marijuana in the back of his vehicle," he points out. And yet Sutton took the word of this smuggler over the testimony of two distinguished U.S. Border Patrol agents, says Swarthout.
The Reviving America's Values spokesman notes that both agents had "exemplary backgrounds, and that Ramos was nominated for Border [Patrol] agent of the year."
During Sutton's prosecution of Ramos and Compean, Davila was in fact involved in a second drug delivery to the United States -- a fact Swarthout says was covered up by the prosecutor's office. The Christian activist says the facts are abundantly clear, so the Texas Bar Association should investigate Sutton.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 19, 2008, 12:31:21 PM
Post by: De Selby on May 19, 2008, 12:35:32 PM
These guys got tossed in jail for attempting to murder someone and the related activity of hiding the evidence of the attempted murder. Can't do the time, don't do the crime...
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 19, 2008, 01:12:49 PM
Quote
Christians Reviving America's Values
There's the (excuse the pun) crux of the problem right there.
Post by: Gewehr98 on May 19, 2008, 01:19:51 PM
As much as it pains me to say so, I have to agree with SS.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 19, 2008, 01:20:39 PM
Quote
Christians Reviving America's Values
There's the (excuse the pun) crux of the problem right there.
How so?
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 19, 2008, 02:06:48 PM
Quote
How so?
How are Christians the arbiters of American values? Do American values apply only to Christians? Do the founding documents say this is a 'Christian nation'? Do we live in a theocracy? And finally, who cares whether or not those persons are Christian?
Only televangelists and their sycophants, I'd say.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on May 19, 2008, 03:15:09 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on May 19, 2008, 03:15:40 PM
And finally, who cares whether or not those persons are Christian?
You do, apparently. You're the one who made an issue out of it.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 19, 2008, 03:20:45 PM
Quote
How so?
How are Christians the arbiters of American values? Do American values apply only to Christians? Do the founding documents say this is a 'Christian nation'? Do we live in a theocracy?
Hmm. "Christians Reviving America's Values." And you found all of that stuff in those four words?
Post by: roo_ster on May 19, 2008, 03:37:18 PM
Quote
How so?
How are Christians the arbiters of American values? Do American values apply only to Christians? Do the founding documents say this is a 'Christian nation'? Do we live in a theocracy?
Hmm. "Christians Reviving America's Values." And you found all of that stuff in those four words?
Think of the four words as a textual (vs visual) Rorschach test.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 19, 2008, 03:44:16 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on May 19, 2008, 03:49:50 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 19, 2008, 05:51:21 PM
Quote
How so?
How are Christians the arbiters of American values? Do American values apply only to Christians? Do the founding documents say this is a 'Christian nation'? Do we live in a theocracy? And finally, who cares whether or not those persons are Christian?
Only televangelists and their sycophants, I'd say.
You do of course know that not all is that simple...
Post by: taurusowner on May 19, 2008, 09:27:39 PM
Quote
How are Christians the arbiters of American values? Do American values apply only to Christians? Do the founding documents say this is a 'Christian nation'? Do we live in a theocracy? And finally, who cares whether or not those persons are Christian?
Only televangelists and their sycophants, I'd say.
Only televangelists and their sycophants, I'd say.
That's reading a lot. So Christians trying to revive American values has to imply that they want it only to apply to them? I'd bet that if it said Motorcyclists Reviving America values you would not have jumped to the conclusion that said Motorcyclists wanted the values to only apply to them. Or maybe Pediatricians Reviving American Values. Or how about Punk Rock Fans Reviving American Values?
No, Paddy, the fact is, you read all that into the name of their organization because of a bias against Christians inside you. Not because of anything they stand for, claim to stand for, or actually did or said.
Post by: ilbob on May 20, 2008, 12:32:19 PM
That being said, i am not sure it makes any real difference.
What really matters to me is "was the shooting justified"? It appears to me to be very dubious.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 20, 2008, 12:37:18 PM
But this one got the maximum penalty. That, to me, was political in nature, nothing to do with the justice system.
Post by: Gewehr98 on May 20, 2008, 01:29:11 PM
Drug suspect's vocation? Reprehensible, but not a capitol offense, last I heard.
Our two Border Patrol agents shooting him as he fled? Not their job to be judge, jury, and executioner - something they're probably well aware of now.
If it was a justifiable shooting, the courts would've said so.
They didn't, and tampering with the evidence didn't help them any, either.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on May 20, 2008, 03:07:14 PM
What really matters to me is "was the shooting justified"? It appears to me to be very dubious.
Dubious is probably the best way to describe the shooting. I skimmed the transcript of that trial. The agents' version of events was questionable and largely unsubstantiated by facts. The prosecutor's version of events was also questionable and largely unsubstantiated by the evidence.
Dubious indeed, and that's what bothers me. "Dubious" is the opposite of "beyond a reasonable doubt", almost by definition. Ramos and Compean clearly aren't boy scouts, but neither should they be locked away for 10+ years, not based on that evidence and that trial.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 20, 2008, 03:29:21 PM
No, Paddy, the fact is, you read all that into the name of their organization because of a bias against Christians inside you. Not because of anything they stand for, claim to stand for, or actually did or said.
He's a Catholic, so I don't know if it's a bias against Christians, so much as a persistent, hyperactive, negative over-reaction to the "religious right."
Post by: seeker_two on May 20, 2008, 03:45:18 PM
How are Christians the arbiters of American values?
I don't see anyone else stepping up to the plate....
Post by: De Selby on May 20, 2008, 04:09:11 PM
What really matters to me is "was the shooting justified"? It appears to me to be very dubious.
Dubious is probably the best way to describe the shooting. I skimmed the transcript of that trial. The agents' version of events was questionable and largely unsubstantiated by facts. The prosecutor's version of events was also questionable and largely unsubstantiated by the evidence.
Dubious indeed, and that's what bothers me. "Dubious" is the opposite of "beyond a reasonable doubt", almost by definition. Ramos and Compean clearly aren't boy scouts, but neither should they be locked away for 10+ years, not based on that evidence and that trial.
The length of the punishment has no bearing on whether or not the conduct met the elements of the offense.
To be honest, from all available information, the case looks terribly clear cut-there is no dispute that the victim was unarmed at the time he was shot, and he was obviously shot while running away. The agents tampered with the evidence on top of it.
The penalties for wrongfully using a firearm against another person are tough-tougher than many drug penalties, even.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 20, 2008, 05:01:51 PM
Post by: doc2rn on May 20, 2008, 06:21:29 PM
The prosecutors need to quit grandstanding and use some common sense.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on May 20, 2008, 07:01:30 PM
What really matters to me is "was the shooting justified"? It appears to me to be very dubious.
Dubious is probably the best way to describe the shooting. I skimmed the transcript of that trial. The agents' version of events was questionable and largely unsubstantiated by facts. The prosecutor's version of events was also questionable and largely unsubstantiated by the evidence.
Dubious indeed, and that's what bothers me. "Dubious" is the opposite of "beyond a reasonable doubt", almost by definition. Ramos and Compean clearly aren't boy scouts, but neither should they be locked away for 10+ years, not based on that evidence and that trial.
The length of the punishment has no bearing on whether or not the conduct met the elements of the offense.
To be honest, from all available information, the case looks terribly clear cut-there is no dispute that the victim was unarmed at the time he was shot, and he was obviously shot while running away. The agents tampered with the evidence on top of it.
The penalties for wrongfully using a firearm against another person are tough-tougher than many drug penalties, even.
Ramos and Compean are no boyscouts, clearly. But having read the transcript of the trial, I don't think the prosecution's version of events was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence was thin, and the testimony (we're supposed to believe the testimony of Davila, a man who was caught smuggling drugs AGAIN just before the trial?!) was weak.
It is entirely possible that Ramos and Compean really did think Davilla was armed. If I recall correctly, only three people testified about whether or not there was something in Davilla's hand: Ramos, Compean, and Davilla.
Who should we believe? The border patrol agents who are trying to keep their asses out of jail? The habitual drug smuggler who is trying to push a $5 million civil suit against the US Gov? It was never proven either way that Davila was armed or unarmed. He ran off into Mexico after the shooting, and he well could have had a weapon the entire time. Or not.
Anyway, I figure the odds are maybe 50/50 that Ramos and Compean really thought Davila was armed vs them knowing Davila was unarmed and shooting anyway. A 50/50 chance isn't good enough to convict on.
I dunno. Read the transcripts for yourself. Form your own opinion.
Post by: De Selby on May 20, 2008, 07:22:15 PM
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?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on May 20, 2008, 07:33:48 PM
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.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 20, 2008, 08:25:39 PM
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-borderagents_19tex.ART.State.Edition1.41f9b80.html
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on May 21, 2008, 04:58:44 AM
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.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 21, 2008, 05:28:52 AM
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
Post by: Gewehr98 on May 21, 2008, 08:40:05 AM
Quote
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.
Post by: De Selby on May 21, 2008, 10:46:12 AM
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.
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.
Post by: Balog on May 21, 2008, 11:27:38 AM
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.
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.......
Post by: De Selby on May 21, 2008, 11:35:28 AM
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.
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.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on May 21, 2008, 12:30:01 PM
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.
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.
Post by: De Selby on May 21, 2008, 12:36:36 PM
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.
Quote
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.
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.
Post by: Archie on May 21, 2008, 05:23:14 PM
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.
Post by: MechAg94 on May 22, 2008, 04:24:30 AM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 22, 2008, 01:22:01 PM
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.