Ethics complaint filed in border agents' case

[Desertdog]

Ethics complaint filed in border agents' case


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.

[Manedwolf]

They got thrown under the bus in the name of international relations. That much was obvious.

[De Selby]

Shooting unarmed people who are running away, and then tampering with the scene to hide the evidence, is every bit as much a crime as drug dealing.

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...

[The Annoyed Man]

Christians Reviving America's Values

There's the (excuse the pun) crux of the problem right there. 

[Gewehr98]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

As much as it pains me to say so, I have to agree with SS. 

[Perd Hapley]

Christians Reviving America's Values

There's the (excuse the pun) crux of the problem right there. 

How so? 

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The prosecutor may or may not have deliberately misled the jury to get a conviction.  Either way, the fact that the complaint comes from a group with "Christians" in it's name shouldn't matter to anyone.  It doesn't change the veracity of the complaint.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

 

[Perd Hapley]

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? 

[roo_ster]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

jfru, if you've actually found the key to Paddy's textual dementia, I'll be very concerned for you.   

[MechAg94]

Whether you think the agents did wrong or not, if the prosecutor screwed up, he should be investigated and/or punished.  Since he is insulated from legal action directly, this is one way to go about it.  I sort of doubt anything will happen though.

[MicroBalrog]

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...

[taurusowner]

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.

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.

[ilbob]

I would not be one bit surprised if a prosecutor in a high profile case cheated a little bit to win. It seems pretty common these days in every thing else. No reason to believe prosecutors are not susceptible to temptation.

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.

[Manedwolf]

The thing is, regardless of the rightness or wrongness, the testimony was dubious and the evidence rather circumstantial. Many cases have been entirely thrown out for far less.

But this one got the maximum penalty. That, to me, was political in nature, nothing to do with the justice system.

[Gewehr98]

Ilbob speaks true.

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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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. 

[Perd Hapley]

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." 

[seeker_two]

How are Christians the arbiters of American values? 

I don't see anyone else stepping up to the plate....

[De Selby]

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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

wasn't part of the severity of sentence due to one of those add on minimum sentence deals?

[doc2rn]

Good enough for the prosecutor that pushed the LaCrosse team rape thing in NC when wrong, good enough for the Texas prosecutor.

The prosecutors need to quit grandstanding and use some common sense.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

My objection isn't to the sentencing, it's to the conviction.  The prosecution didn't prove their case, plain and simple. 

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.