Thank you for pointing out that I'm not a lemming.

 

Do you care to explain why these guys should not be in jail based on the facts of the case and the law or do you, like some others, just base it on the law you WISH would be in place?

The president's power to pardon and commute sentences based on the facts as he sees them is almost absolute. These guys should be freed because it is the right thing and the lawful thing to do. It is a shame that they will probably remain behind bars in solitary confinement until March. If Bush is expecting a hug and a heartfelt thank you from these guys, then he may be disappointed.

The president's power to pardon and commute sentences based on the facts as he sees them is almost absolute. These guys should be freed because it is the right thing and the lawful thing to do. It is a shame that they will probably remain behind bars in solitary confinement until March. If Bush is expecting a hug and a heartfelt thank you from these guys, then he may be disappointed.

 

You're speaking in generalities.

 

We know the president has absolute power. No one is debating that power.

 

"Right thing to do " is nebulous as is "lawful thing to do."

 

No where in this thread have you once disputed that these guys lied, shot an unarmed man, tried to cover it up, had their own fellow border patrol agents testify against them, screwed up the chance to bust a drug dealer, and were generally incompetent.

 

Telling.

You're speaking in generalities.

 

We know the president has absolute power. No one is debating that power.

 

"Right thing to do " is nebulous as is "lawful thing to do."

 

No where in this thread have you once disputed that these guys lied, shot an unarmed man, tried to cover it up, had their own fellow border patrol agents testify against them, screwed up the chance to bust a drug dealer, and were generally incompetent.

 

Telling.

What is "telling" is that you insist on simply regurgitating the prosecutor's claims in the case. The prosecutor relied on the testimony of a big-time Mexican drug dealer over the words of two US border agents who deserved the benefit of doubt.

 

Releasing these two men is the right thing to do because the president has exercised his lawful right to commute their sentences. There is no need to rehash a trial that should never had taken place. The border guards will soon be free and Republicans and even some Democrats worked hard to persuade Bush to commute their sentences.

 

Mexican drug lords and the Mexican military should stay on their side of the border. If they don't, then they should be shot dead unless they refuse to surrender peacefully when confronted by US law enforcement officials.

I am very proud that apparently President Bush is leaving office without the "pardon bus" making a last minute stop. I don't mind a President using his pardon powers but to do a large number on his last day in office reeks to me of cowardice. If Mr Bush's pardons were more politcally motivated Scooter Libby would be celebrating today.

 

Of course, his term isn't over yet.

I am very proud that apparently President Bush is leaving office without the "pardon bus" making a last minute stop. I don't mind a President using his pardon powers but to do a large number on his last day in office reeks to me of cowardice. If Mr Bush's pardons were more politcally motivated Scooter Libby would be celebrating today.

 

Of course, his term isn't over yet.

Scooter Libby should be pardoned, IMO. He was also the victim of a prosecution that should never have taken place. Fitzgerald already had the information that he was hired to discover and continued to compel testimony from people who were not involved in the alleged leak.

Thank you for pointing out that I'm not a lemming.

 

Do you care to explain why these guys should not be in jail based on the facts of the case and the law or do you, like some others, just base it on the law you WISH would be in place?

So everyone on this board except you is a lemming?

What is "telling" is that you insist on simply regurgitating the prosecutor's claims in the case. The prosecutor relied on the testimony of a big-time Mexican drug dealer over the words of two US border agents who deserved the benefit of doubt.

 

Releasing these two men is the right thing to do because the president has exercised his lawful right to commute their sentences. There is no need to rehash a trial that should never had taken place. The border guards will soon be free and Republicans and even some Democrats worked hard to persuade Bush to commute their sentences.

 

Mexican drug lords and the Mexican military should stay on their side of the border. If they don't, then they should be shot dead unless they refuse to surrender peacefully when confronted by US law enforcement officials.

 

Hoot, either you haven't read the facts of this case or you're glossing over them. These facts are not figments of the prosecutor's imagination.

 

Why did he use the drug dealer to testify? He used him because the inept gunslingers blew any chance of convicting this scumbag by their lies and actions. So, he tried these two because they broke the law. We don't grant exceptions for the law to people wearing a badge and because the victim of the crime is a Mexican.

 

You say he took the word of drug dealer over the word of the agents themselves. Not true. The "word" he got from the agents changed so often and conflicted with each other that the truth was difficult to ascertain. You also ignore the fact that fellow agents testified that the "word of the agents" was nothing more than lies. You ignore that they were being charged with shooting at an unarmed person which the agents were caught lying about as far as him having a gun. These guys hid the fact that they shot 14 times. You also ignore that they blew the chance of convicting a drug dealer that had been wanted.

 

I could go on but its futile since you ignore the facts.

So everyone on this board except you is a lemming?

 

Depends.

 

If you simply have a knee jerk reaction without looking at the case and speak in platitudes and generalities then if the shoe fits....

 

Too many people are so tied up emotionally with the immigration issue that they are unable to take a step back in cases like this where immigration has nothing to do with it.

 

No one yet has pointed to a valid legal reason that these two guys are not guilty much less the implication that they are heroes.

 

If you look at the case and the law and then make a decision one way or the other, no.

 

Each of us will have to make that call.

Hoot, either you haven't read the facts of this case or you're glossing over them. These facts are not figments of the prosecutor's imagination.

 

Why did he use the drug dealer to testify? He used him because the inept gunslingers blew any chance of convicting this scumbag by their lies and actions. So, he tried these two because they broke the law. We don't grant exceptions for the law to people wearing a badge and because the victim of the crime is a Mexican.

The drug dealer made a safe getaway to a van that was awaiting him on the Mexican side of the border. He was enticed to return to the US to testify against Compean and Ramos by the grant of immunity from prosecution for his crimes. The only real mistake the agents made was not immobilizing the drug trafficker (whose van was carrying 743 pounds of marijuana) further to prevent his escape. No prosecution was imminent because the "scumbag" escaped. The border agents' actions had nothing to do with the government's failure to prosecute Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila because he was never apprehended in the first place.

 

Current regulations require border agents to get permission from their superiors before pursuing a suspect. No wonder not many are caught.

I could go on but its futile since you ignore the facts.

:lol: See above. This seems to be a clear cut case of a pot calling a kettle black.

The drug dealer made a safe getaway to a van that was awaiting him on the Mexican side of the border. He was enticed to return to the US to testify against Compean and Ramos by the grant of immunity from prosecution for his crimes. The only real mistake the agents made was not immobilizing the drug trafficker (whose van was carrying 743 pounds of marijuana) further to prevent his escape. No prosecution was imminent because the "scumbag" escaped. The border agents' actions had nothing to do with the government's failure to prosecute Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila because he was never apprehended in the first place.

 

Current regulations require border agents to get permission from their superiors before pursuing a suspect. No wonder not many are caught.

:lol: See above. This seems to be a clear cut case of a pot calling a kettle black.

 

 

 

The drug dealer got away , once again, because of ineptitude. From the prosecutor:

 

Aldrete was not prosecuted for the drugs he had on February 17,

2005, because of the conduct of Agents Ramos and Compean. Instead of arresting Aldrete as he attempted to

surrender, Agent Compean tried to strike Aldrete with the butt of his shotgun. Vol. VIII, p. 174-175; Vol. IX,

p. 13; Vol. VII, p.107. When Agent Compean missed, lost his balance and fell into a ditch, Aldrete ran around

him and toward Mexico. Vol. VIII, pp. 176-178. Compean got up, ran after Aldrete, and fired at him fourteen

times as Aldrete ran away. Vol. XIII, pp. 161-164; Vasquez Transcript, pp.37-38; Vol. XIV, p. 153. When

Compean stopped shooting, Ramos fired once, Vol. XII, p. 209, and struck Aldrete in the buttocks. Vol. VII,

pp. 117-122. Aldrete fell to the ground and waited for the agents to arrest him. Vol. VII, pp. 122, 133.

According to Aldrete, when he saw the agents had turned and walked away, making no effort to apprehend

him, he crossed the river into Mexico. Vol. VII, pp. 123-125, 133.

Because the agents failed to apprehend him, and because they later lied about the shooting, there was no way

to prove Aldrete’s involvement except through Aldrete’s own admissions and cooperation. Even Ramos

admitted that by not reporting the shooting, he prevented the recovery of evidence that would have made it

possible to prove the marijuana case against Aldrete. Vol. XIII, p. 88.

With respect to the immunity offered to Aldrete, it is not unusual for prosecutors to give immunity to

witnesses, victims and even defendants suspected of criminal activity, in order to secure testimony, evidence,

or other participation in a case. Given Ramos’ and Compean’s criminal conduct in this case, there was

insufficient, legally admissible, competent evidence to prosecute Aldrete in this case, Vol. XIII, p. 88; Vol.

XIV, pp. 70-71, and we could not force him to return to the United States through extradition. His testimony

and evidence were needed to investigate and prosecute violent criminal activity by federal agents.

Accordingly, in exchange for his agreement to come to the United States and testify truthfully about the events

that occurred on February 17, 2005, Aldrete was promised that he would not be prosecuted for offenses he

disclosed that he committed on that date. This immunity, as a practical matter, gave up very little, since the

case against him was not prosecutable.

 

 

 

So you see, Hoot, they did indeed immobilize him. However, because they knew they broke the law they didn't go get him even though he was lying on the ground. So you're line of "no prosecution...because he escaped" is , again, misleading and ignoring of facts.

 

Your last allegation that agents are required to notify supervisors BEFORE they pursue is apparently without merit. The real policy is that they are required to file a report of any shooting 1 HR AFTER the event occurs. These 2 yahoos didn't file the report at all because they knew they were in trouble.

 

What else?

So...the two border agents that shot the guy and covered up the evidence are heros. Does that make the two agents that testified against him traitors?

The drug dealer got away , once again, because of ineptitude. From the prosecutor:

 

Aldrete was not prosecuted for the drugs he had on February 17,

2005, because of the conduct of Agents Ramos and Compean. Instead of arresting Aldrete as he attempted to

surrender, Agent Compean tried to strike Aldrete with the butt of his shotgun. Vol. VIII, p. 174-175; Vol. IX,

p. 13; Vol. VII, p.107. When Agent Compean missed, lost his balance and fell into a ditch, Aldrete ran around

him and toward Mexico. Vol. VIII, pp. 176-178. Compean got up, ran after Aldrete, and fired at him fourteen

times as Aldrete ran away. Vol. XIII, pp. 161-164; Vasquez Transcript, pp.37-38; Vol. XIV, p. 153. When

Compean stopped shooting, Ramos fired once, Vol. XII, p. 209, and struck Aldrete in the buttocks. Vol. VII,

pp. 117-122. Aldrete fell to the ground and waited for the agents to arrest him. Vol. VII, pp. 122, 133.

According to Aldrete, when he saw the agents had turned and walked away, making no effort to apprehend

him, he crossed the river into Mexico. Vol. VII, pp. 123-125, 133.

And you believe that Aldrete, the Mexican drug thug, was a credible witness why?

Because the agents failed to apprehend him, and because they later lied about the shooting, there was no way

to prove Aldrete’s involvement except through Aldrete’s own admissions and cooperation. Even Ramos

admitted that by not reporting the shooting, he prevented the recovery of evidence that would have made it

possible to prove the marijuana case against Aldrete. Vol. XIII, p. 88.

With respect to the immunity offered to Aldrete, it is not unusual for prosecutors to give immunity to

witnesses, victims and even defendants suspected of criminal activity, in order to secure testimony, evidence,

or other participation in a case.

Is it not unusual for the federal government to entice a Mexican criminal to return to the US in exchange for immunity to testify against a border agent? How often has this ever happened, since you believe that this was not an unusual occurrance.

So you see, Hoot, they did indeed immobilize him. However, because they knew they broke the law they didn't go get him even though he was lying on the ground. So you're line of "no prosecution...because he escaped" is , again, misleading and ignoring of facts.

 

Your last allegation that agents are required to notify supervisors BEFORE they pursue is apparently without merit. The real policy is that they are required to file a report of any shooting 1 HR AFTER the event occurs. These 2 yahoos didn't file the report at all because they knew they were in trouble.

See below. What were you saying about ignoring facts and being misleading? Who is right about the rules on pursuing a suspect, you or the prosecutor?

In pursuit of justice

Two Border Patrol agents face 20-year prison sentences

 

The version of events presented by the U.S. Attorney's Office during the agents' trial differed markedly from Ramos'.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it is a violation of someone's Fourth Amendment rights to shoot them in the back while fleeing if you don't know who they are and/or if you don't know they have a weapon," said Kanof, the assistant U.S. attorney.

 

Ramos testified during the trial that he saw Aldrete-Davila with something "shiny" in his hand, she said, and though Ramos said in the interview for this report he thought it was a gun, he couldn't be sure, she said.

 

Moreover, the agents "did not know who this individual was or what he had in the van," Kanof said. "They just decided or guessed."

 

She then reiterated her contention that pursuing Aldrete-Davila or anyone else fleeing border agents is not part of the Border Patrol's job.

 

"Agents are not allowed to pursue. In order to exceed the speed limit, you have to get supervisor approval, and they did not," she said.

What else?

Who knows? Do you have any other statements by the prosecutor that you wish to share? Nobody has claimed that the border agents acted properly in this case. However, charging them with attempted murder and granting a convicted Mexican drug dealer immunity in this case in exchange for his tainted testimony was not justified. If their goal had been to kill this guy, they would have simply finished him off before he crossed the river instead of shooting him in the rear end. This was a clear case of an overzealous prosecutor not recognizing the real bad guy from the good (or at least much better) guys.

 

I am happy to know that most jurors are unwilling to take the prosecution's charges while dismissing the defense's case the way that you are doing. Thank God for the common sense displayed in this case by the jurors in finding the defendants in this case not guilty of attempted murder. It is too bad the jurors were not fully informed about the character of the government's star witness, Senior Aldrete-Davila.

So...the two border agents that shot the guy and covered up the evidence are heros. Does that make the two agents that testified against him traitors?

Who said they were heroes? A wide gulf separates heroes and those unfairly charged with attempted murder.

The drug dealer got away , once again, because of ineptitude. From the prosecutor:

 

Aldrete was not prosecuted for the drugs he had on February 17,

2005, because of the conduct of Agents Ramos and Compean. Instead of arresting Aldrete as he attempted to

surrender, Agent Compean tried to strike Aldrete with the butt of his shotgun. Vol. VIII, p. 174-175; Vol. IX,

p. 13; Vol. VII, p.107. When Agent Compean missed, lost his balance and fell into a ditch, Aldrete ran around

him and toward Mexico. Vol. VIII, pp. 176-178. Compean got up, ran after Aldrete, and fired at him fourteen

times as Aldrete ran away. Vol. XIII, pp. 161-164; Vasquez Transcript, pp.37-38; Vol. XIV, p. 153. When

Compean stopped shooting, Ramos fired once, Vol. XII, p. 209, and struck Aldrete in the buttocks. Vol. VII,

pp. 117-122. Aldrete fell to the ground and waited for the agents to arrest him. Vol. VII, pp. 122, 133.

According to Aldrete, when he saw the agents had turned and walked away, making no effort to apprehend

him, he crossed the river into Mexico. Vol. VII, pp. 123-125, 133.

Because the agents failed to apprehend him, and because they later lied about the shooting, there was no way

to prove Aldrete’s involvement except through Aldrete’s own admissions and cooperation. Even Ramos

admitted that by not reporting the shooting, he prevented the recovery of evidence that would have made it

possible to prove the marijuana case against Aldrete. Vol. XIII, p. 88.

With respect to the immunity offered to Aldrete, it is not unusual for prosecutors to give immunity to

witnesses, victims and even defendants suspected of criminal activity, in order to secure testimony, evidence,

or other participation in a case. Given Ramos’ and Compean’s criminal conduct in this case, there was

insufficient, legally admissible, competent evidence to prosecute Aldrete in this case, Vol. XIII, p. 88; Vol.

XIV, pp. 70-71, and we could not force him to return to the United States through extradition. His testimony

and evidence were needed to investigate and prosecute violent criminal activity by federal agents.

Accordingly, in exchange for his agreement to come to the United States and testify truthfully about the events

that occurred on February 17, 2005, Aldrete was promised that he would not be prosecuted for offenses he

disclosed that he committed on that date. This immunity, as a practical matter, gave up very little, since the

case against him was not prosecutable.

 

 

 

So you see, Hoot, they did indeed immobilize him. However, because they knew they broke the law they didn't go get him even though he was lying on the ground. So you're line of "no prosecution...because he escaped" is , again, misleading and ignoring of facts.

 

Your last allegation that agents are required to notify supervisors BEFORE they pursue is apparently without merit. The real policy is that they are required to file a report of any shooting 1 HR AFTER the event occurs. These 2 yahoos didn't file the report at all because they knew they were in trouble.

 

What else?

Was this Aldrete's side of the story? Did the two agents agree that this is what happen? Was there another witness that supported this account? Or is this a he said / he said? I am asking because I really don't know.

Was this Aldrete's side of the story? Did the two agents agree that this is what happen? Was there another witness that supported this account? Or is this a he said / he said? I am asking because I really don't know.

 

No, it was not just a he said/she said. The story comes from other agents. The story also comes from all of the testimony of the two agents.