|
The President should pardon them in time to spend Christmas with their families. |
|
|
and pin a medal on their chests after he profusely appologizes for allowing them to be locked up in the first place!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
It's the right thing to do, but unfortunately Bush won't do it. Prosecuting them was a high priority in the administartion and they will not turn around on encouraging illegal aliens. |
|
unfortunately I have no confidence in President Bush anymore. I always defended him and his administration until the financial crisis hit us between the eyes. How could no one around him not see this train wreck coming at us?
Any hope I had of him doing the right thing for the right reasons died when he failed to be honest with those of us who supported him when in retrospect he didn't deserve it. |
|
|
W. It's the right thing to do. |
|
I hope and pray that the President will pardon them.
Unfortunately, I am very doubtful. The President has had any number of opportunities to step in and assist them and has instead done nothing.
I keep asking myself why.
Is it because he thought the Republican nominee would get more Hispanic votes if there was no pardon before the election? If so, how did that work out?
It is quite possible that the President thinks Agents Ramos and Compean deserve to be in prison. |
|
Ramos and Campeon still in prison.
Makes zero sense. |
|
I didn't support the war, but supported the troops. I thought Bush was a righteous, God-fearing Christian with nothing but the best intentions for this country and it's people. I have since changed my mind.
I now believe he is a puppet for the elite, for the very rich, powerful and influential people who ARE the shadow government and who are the ones who actually govern this country.
I believe he and whats-his-name who prosecuted Ramos and Campeon are "in bed" together with a very close, intimate and secret connection and that he will never let those men go free because he doesn't want to lose that 'relationship;' to hell with the lives of those poor men, their families and friends! Bush is the devil in disguise, and will no doubt leave office with the lowest rating of any President ever, and be the most hated man in America............but as long as he can keep his fortune, his secret sevice protection, his 'relationsips' he doesn't give a damn. There is a place for scum like him, and the sooner he goes home to that place, the better. I wouldn't spit on him if he were on fire! |
|
I voted for President Bush twice. However, my confidence in him to do the right thing here is hovering just around zero.
Duncan Hunter stated that this is a no-brainer.
Even if Bush pardons them today, it has already been too long.
|
|
|
I simply cannot understand Bush's position on this. It does seem as if he enjoys seeing these men suffer an obviously unjustifiable amount. No matter what your position is on illegal immigration, even if you believe that the Mexican people have every right to come into the U.S. at will, how can any reasonable person believe these men deserve 12 years in prison? It is a miscarriage of justice plain and simple, and so it seems as if Bush wants to utterly destroy these men because they shot, not just a criminal, but a Mexican criminal. I suppose this is what usually happens when someone goes overboard in trying to prove they are not racist or discriminatory. |
|
For shame, Pres.,Bush knows the American people are angry by the imprisonment of Amos % Campean
but he only cares about the Mexican opinion! Is that also because a mexican is part of his brothers family? Surely, he isn't fond of the runaway drug peddler who was rightly shot? It may take Obama to right this wrong. Bush, once an alcoholic, Obama once a druggie, it could take a rebellious uprising to free the protectors of our borders. Where is the common sense and sense of justice?! Ex Democrat |
|
Let them out, give them credit for time served.
Put them back in their jobs defending our border against criminals who break our laws and disrespect our soverienty.
To digress: if Obama wants to create 2.5 million jobs he can start by deporting the illegals back to their home country, thereby making it possible for American citizens to take their jobs.
JIndal 2012! |
|
|
a message to let those men go? We should get a million signatures or march on Washington or something!! |
|
|
Pardons are long over due, and then go pick-up the drug smuggler that keep getting a free ride, jim harrington and others should be imprisoned for their violations of Constitutional rights. |
|
|
WHAT HAS TAKEN SO LONG, ENOUGH ALREADY BUT THE BEST WAY TO APOLOGIZE IS TO HAVE TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT DIRECTOR JIM HARRINGTON ARRESTED AND CHARGED WITH VIOLATING BOTH OF THE OFFICERS CIVIL RIGHTS, TO PROTECT AN ILLEGAL ALIEN DRUG SMUGGLER. |
|
|
Ramos and Compean were convicted by a jury of extremely serious crimes, and the sympathy for them at townhall is misplaced. Border patrol officers undoubtedly have dangerous and difficult jobs, and deserve admiration for the jobs they do. But those jobs involve the officers carrying firearms, and violations of the incredible trust placed in the officers must be dealt with seriously. What Matt Lewis seems to intentionally avoid here is that Ramos and Compean not only shot an unarmed man, but also destroyed evidence and covered up their crime. It seems difficult to argue that law enforcement officers who deliberately hide their conduct from supervisors have not behaved egregiously. If your concern is the length of the sentences, that is more legitimate. But townhall has never raised similar reservations about the millions of Americans imprisoned under equally harsh sentencing laws -- laws pushed through by conservatives as part of a "tough on crime" strategy. It is hypocritical now to adjust your position, simply because Ramos and Compean represent an establishment (law enforcement) that conservatives unblinkingly support and the victim (a drug smuggler) is not terribly sympathetic. |
|
Ramos and Compean represent decent Law Enforcement Officers trying to accomplish a very tough job. They were convicted by an overzealous prosecutor who purposely withheld pertinent information that the jury never got to hear.
Speaking for myself, I am sick of is Liberals always taking the side against Law Enforcement and those that are trying to protect us.
|
|
...for Ramos and Campeon, we all have to ask why.
Then we all would have to realize that those who classify Bush 43 as the worst President in the history of the USA may have a meritorious arguement. That would be a sad admission. |
|
"Angry customer charged with killing bar clerk"
By Maria Panaritis-Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Writer
Murder charges were filed yesterday against a 35-year-old man who authorities said exacted revenge for being kicked out of a Bensalem bar Saturday night by running down one of the employees with a pickup truck.
Jose Esteban Maldonado-Luzuriaga was in the Bucks County prison on homicide and related charges with bail set at $3 million yesterday morning in the death of William Sullo III, First Assistant District Attorney David Zellis said.
Maldonado-Luzuriaga, an illegal immigrant from Ecuador, got into a 2006 Ford F150, circled the lot a few times, aimed the pickup toward the front of the bar, and gunned it in anger toward Sullo, who stood on the curb watching, authorities said.
Maldonado-Luzuriaga told investigators he had been living in the United States as an illegal immigrant for five or six years, Zellis said. But little else was known about his background or family.
Sullo, of the Parkwood section of Northeast Philadelphia, was pinned against the exterior wall of the bar authorities said.
Maldonado-Luzuriaga worked as a landscaper and was driving a truck that belonged to his boss, Bensalem Police Sgt. Andrew Aninsman said.
He lived at Bucks Meadows Apartments in the 3100 block of Knights Road. Some of his neighbors - fellow Spanish speakers - were in the bar that night, Aninsman said.
Zellis said Bensalem police would be responsible for notifying federal authorities about the suspect's questionable immigration status. Prosecutors would nonetheless press forward with their case, and a preliminary hearing could take place in the next 10 days, Zellis said.
Maldonado-Luzuriaga is charged with criminal homicide, attempted homicide, reckless endangerment, and causing death while being an unlicensed driver. |
|
|
The border patrol agents have been punished enough for any cover up they engaged in. No doubt they realized an unwarranted, one sided mexican defense would be in play, so they did what they had to do to survive. By the way, what punishment did the runaway illegal crook get, who would harm our country and probably still does? What a sad state of affairs! Lets picket the Mexican Embassy and if Obama fails to do what cowardly Bush has and free the im-prisoned Amos & Campean, lets protest at the White House! Time for action! |
|
MY COMMENT/POST AT 1:39PM STATES THE HEADLINE IN THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER TODAY READS "CUSTOMER CHARGED WITH KILLING BAR CLERK".
The newspaper aricle in section B today does not mention his illegal immigrant status until the sixth paragraph.
The headline should have read: "Illegal Immigrant Charged With Killing Bar Clerk". However the Philadelphia Inquirer is a liberal biased newspaper and would never write anything that might offend those that break our laws.
Illegal is illegal, I say deport the illegals and let American citizens with proper documentation take their jobs.
The looming long recession, layoffs, and climbing unemployment benefit applications
dictate that these jobs that illegals currently hold must be replaced by U.S. taxpaying citizens!
Got it Obama?
OR IS THAT ABOVE YOUR PAYGRADE TOO?
|
|
Have you even followed this case from the beginning like most of us here at Townhall? Are you unaware that Johnny Sutton withheld information from the jury that the man they shot was trying to bring in 700 pounds of marijuana? Are you aware that the alleged "victim" was only grazed in the buttocks by Ramos and Compean?
Are you aware that only weeks later the same alleged "victim" was (finally)arrested bringing in another 700 pounds of marijuana? Are you aware that Ramos and Compean's own supervisors told them to gather up all the casings from the bullets?
One last question for you, who in your mind is a more credible witness? A known and repeated drug smuggler or two of the finest Border Patrol Agents on the force?
Hopefully now, you are more aware of what really went on. If not, try a Google search, there are hundreds of documents available to do your own research on this miscarriage of justice.
Free Ramos & Compean! |
|
They admitted to hiding evidence,and
obstructing justice. They shot an unarmed
man in the back (we found out who he was
after the fact), and they were offered
plea deals before trial.
Sorry, their own employment record with
the Border Patrol is spotty, they had
problems before this.
They are not innocent of wrongdoing. I've
never bought into their poster child
reputation for the big, bad federal system
out to get them. The facts, not the talk
show hysteria, depict a case that was worthy
of trial. Just because the person shot was
a total dirtbag and illegal, doesn't excuse
the crime.
However, none of that excuses the harsh
sentence they both got. Which was
mandated by federal sentencing guidelines,
not Bush or the prosection. The judge had
to follow the guideline.
They've served enough time though.
More than enough.
Time to let them go.
Commute their sentences.
I hope he does.
|
|
Not an excuse for these two former officers to
do what they did.
Anyone who lives in So.Cal., knows how bad
the illegal alien crime problem is. It's in
our faces every day.
That's still not a reason to allow an officer
to shoot someone in the back, or hide evidence or
obstruct justice.
It isn't.
They've served enough time.
I hope the President does commute their
sentences. |
|
Kathy: Have you even followed this case from the beginning like most of us here at Townhall? Are you unaware that Johnny Sutton withheld information from the jury that the man they shot was trying to bring in 700 pounds of marijuana? Are you aware that the alleged "victim" was only grazed in the buttocks by Ramos and Compean?
I don't see why either question is relevant. The man they shot is a criminal, but that doesn't justify shooting him while unarmed and running away (that's not just my moral judgment, it's evidently department protocol). You may doubt he was in fact unarmed and running away, but that's a factual question for the jury -- which undoubtedly had more information than either of us.
Are you aware that only weeks later the same alleged "victim" was (finally)arrested bringing in another 700 pounds of marijuana?
Again, his arrest means he's a criminal, as are many people law enforcement agents interact with on a daily basis. Certainly you wouldn't contend that gives law enforcement license to shoot them. Government agents still have to respond proportionally and responsibly, even when interacting with people we may not like.
One last question for you, who in your mind is a more credible witness? A known and repeated drug smuggler or two of the finest Border Patrol Agents on the force?
Between a drug smuggler and two law enforcement agents who covered up their actions, I think it's a question for a jury. The jury evidently believed the drug smuggler. Unless you want to totally immunize law enforcement from arrest when the only witnesses are criminals, I don't see why what you're arguing is relevant.
|
|
|
As I mentioned previously, I'm willing to agree that 12 years seems long for what the two men did (though I certainly think a substantial prison term is warranted). However, Townhall commenters and other conservatives seem to miss the obvious fact that the Ramos and Compean sentence is the symptom, not the disease. In the Ramos and Compean sentences, conservatives are noticing what has been apparent to most people who closely follow criminal justice for years -- that sentences in general are too long. |
|
These two agents were trying to protect the border while Bushes plan is to eliminate the border all together without the American people knowing about it, calling it the North American Union.
I doubt he will go easy on these American Patriots. |
|
|
Unless some of you posters have been on the borders you don't know a thing about the situation. I lived in Texas when this was going on and Sutton is a jerk of the highest form. The battle down on the border is awful. We have lost so many people who will never been heard from again. And now The Messiah has put Munoz, who is part of La Raza, in his Cabinet. They are going to do a big push for "open Bordes". If you care about this Country at all go to ALIPAC and NumbersUSA and keep on your Representatives backs. We stopped a lot of Bills from going through last year. There is going to be a big push after the 1st of the year for open Borders again. |
|
that the man was "unarmed"?
What proof is there? |
|
Folks, ignore penn yanker. He/she/it is the typical bleeding heart, and will always side with the criminal over law enforcement.
.....probably thinks willie horton was just a poor victim of a racist society.
If pardoned, and they should be, both agents need an additional punishment.....100 hours on the shooting range.
For missing. |
|
As someone who lives in New Mexico and has the opportunity to see the mass invasion at our Southern border, I congratulate Ramon and Compean for attempting to uphold and enforce American laws. I could go on and on about the illegal immigration problems we face, but I won't. The fine media isn't reporting the drug wars occuring daily in the border towns (on both sides), but it's muy malo' to go anywhere near the border now.
They should never have been locked-up; they should be released immediately with a full pardon and given medals.
|
|
I’m sure it’s comforting to pigeon-hole me, but you actually couldn’t be more wrong. Actually, I have worked with a large number of diligent and capable law enforcement officers in investigating and prosecuting criminals. Like most people here, I tend to naturally trust law enforcement, and to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, the trust that the badge confers on men like Ramos and Compean makes their violations of the law all the more egregious. Their attempts to cover up their shooting shamefully damages the credibility of all their colleagues – the vast majority of whom are conscientious about the awesome responsibility they are given.
Conservatives have truly lost their way when any expression of concern about abusive behavior by law enforcement officers makes one a “bleeding heart.” The Founders understood that accused criminals are an especially vulnerable population – likely to find few political allies and especially at risk from demagoguery like the kind displayed here. That is why four of the amendments in the Bill of Rights deal specifically with protections for the accused. The Constitution protects all people within the United States, including those here illegally. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has properly found that shooting an unarmed person who poses no threat to the shooter violated the person’s Fourth Amendment rights. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). Ramos and Compean were given all of their Constitutional rights – even after they tried to deny those rights to another - and were found guilty by a jury of their peers. Posters here should show more deference to that jury, and less to the men who disgraced their oaths to uphold the law.
|
|
What part of that word don't you get? The Constitution was written for CITIZENS!
|
|
The Due Process clause reads:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
As you can see, the Constitution clearly distinguishes between rights that apply to “persons” and those that only apply to “citizens.” Both the Fourteenth Amendment and Fifth Amendment clearly state that the government may not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that non-citizens, including illegal aliens, are entitled to due process protection. If you don’t believe me, you can look at Zadvydas v. Davis, Phyler v. Doe, Mathews v. Diaz, Hai Chew v. Colding, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, or Wong Wing v. United States. And just to preemptively cut off any claim that these are just decisions by modern “activist judges,” please note that Yick Wo was decided in 1886, and Wong Wing in 1896.
If you want to continue arguing this point, I'd be happy to. But how about next round you bring something to back you up other than capital letters and an exclamation point?
|
|
I still think that the two would get off too lightly if they were released now, and that there are many in America's massive prison system far more deserving of having their sentences commuted. And I maintain that the overly long sentences for Ramos and Compean are the symptoms, not the disease -- and that conservatives who are outraged about the sentences should rethink their "tough on crime" stances more broadly.
However, I at least think your position -- compared to the claims many are making here that the men are heroes and shouldn't be punished at all -- is a starting point for serious discussion. |
|
This is a clear case of a president and vindictive prosecutor so in love with illegal immigration that they will find any excuse to punish those trying to seal the border. This obsession led to giving a dangerous drug smuggler immunity from prosecution and permission to cross the border at will.
In a miscarriage of justice, the jury was barred from hearing any evidence about Aldrete-Davila’s second drug load. Instead, the prosecutor was able to argue in closing statements that Aldrete-Davila had run from border agents just because he wanted to get home.
Even liberal Dianne Feinstein said it was crass that prosecutor Sutton thinks that patrol officers should not shoot a dangerous criminal who refuses orders to halt. Why bother having guns at all?
Judge E. Grady Jolly questioned whether the two agents would have been charged if they had reported the shooting. "For some reason, this one got out of hand, it seems to me," Jolly said of the agents' prosecution. He said it seems "that the government overreacted".
They also should be compensated for the brutal assault they suffered from other inmates, because the prison guards failed in their basic duty of care. But instead of proper proection or moving to a lower security prison, they are now in harsh solitary confinement, on top of the injustice of a long prison sentence. What sort of justice is this, for actions that deserved at worst an administrative reprimand. |
|
Penn Yankee
What part of evidence was witheld from their trial do you not understand?
This sentence does not fit the crime and you know it.
Liberals like you always side with criminals.
This is just another classic example of the govt protecting illegal aliens. |
|
Penn Yankee
What part of evidence was witheld from their trial do you not understand?
This sentence does not fit the crime and you know it.
Liberals like you always side with criminals.
This is just another classic example of the govt protecting illegal aliens. |
|
Liberal love selective application of the law.
That's why we have hate crime laws because some victims are more equal than others.
|
|
|
I am thoroughly disgusted with the President. He has really screwed this up. |
|
After reading all of pennsyvania yankees posts that he would refer to terrorists as "freedom fighters" too. How ridiculous and typical of the liberal mind set in this country...always justify and find excuses for bad behavior.
I guess in the mind of the liberals out there, I should just tell my two family members that are a state trooper and county deputy to just give it up and let the criminals have their way, because God forbid in todays world, they would end up serving prison time for fighting crime and the criminals would be running the prison.
Good grief! |
|
"Liberal love selective application of the law."
Maybe I forgot what side I was on, but I think you guys were the ones essentially arguing that law enforcement agents who break the law should not be prosecuted.
"That's why we have hate crime laws because some victims are more equal than others."
Again, I think I was the one arguing that -- even when the victim is an illegal alien and criminal -- he is still entitled to Constitutional protection (and not entitled to get shot while unarmed). Arguing otherwise suggests that some victims are more equal than others.
|
|
|
President Bush, please pardon these two men and allow them to go home to their families before Christmas. They have served enough time and you have the power to do this. I can't believe they are still in prison today. |
|
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
President Bush, you need to pardon these men right away. It is disgusting that they even went to prison. Set them free!!!!! |
|
Amen to that!! They should be pardoned immediately~given a HUGE presidential apology,the medal of Freedom and enough money to keep them comfortable the rest of their lives. Unlike the madeup tales about a blemishes on America this is a true blemish and should be corrected today.
God bless both these brave men always.
Sharon Knopping
Lewes,De |
|
|
A handfull of Texas Rangers were able to guard the border successfully back in the 19th century. They had different rules of engagement. Now, if a Border Patrol thinks the escaping illegal is about to shoot at him, the Border Patrol agent has to duck for cover or risk jail time. Times may have changed but there are elements of the old days that had merit. |
|
I think that those of you who are calling Pennsylvania Yankee a liberal are wrong. I would bet you anything he is even worse than that. He sounds like a lawyer. He thinks he is smarter than everyone else here because he knows what the law says. But he can't see injustice when it is staring him in the face. Drug smuglers deserve to be shot or put in prison. Lawmen who protect us from them do not. If the law says otherwise then it is the law is wrong; not us.
If the President has one once of decency he will pardon them. But we all know that if he did we would not be writing about this case in the first place. |
|
Heaven forfend, a commenter who "knows what the law says," and thinks it is in any way relevant to a discussion of who should go to prison! I must defeat this scurrilous accusation against me at once!
The advantage of starting with the law is that it assumes that we must create rules of general applicability -- that is, in essence, what a law is. Many posters here have essentially suggested that law enforcement officers should never be prosecuted for acts perpetrated against criminals, but surely they don't actually believe that. Criminal laws can't only apply when the victim is sympathetic. Drug smugglers absolutely deserve to go to jail, but the prosecutors in this case decided -- I think correctly -- that Ramos and Compean's reckless actions violated the public trust, and that their prosecution was more important. They acted like vigilantes, and suggested that they were above the laws they swore to uphold.
And I'd like to think I'm in good company when I express concern about the rights of accused criminals. As I noted before, the Founders understood that accused criminals are an especially vulnerable population, and one unlikely to win much support through democratic means. That is why four of the amendments in the Bill of Rights deal specifically with protections for the accused.
There's plenty wrong with the law, but commenters here should consider giving it more thought. It is the law that keeps us from acting as a mob, deciding ad hoc who should be punished and who set free. |
|
|
This is so overdue. Release these two men, re-instate them and give them back pay. And THEN they should sure everyone that was involved in this case. |
|
Since G suggests I'm the only one here who cares about "what the law says," I was wondering what you think Ramos and Compean could sue for? What claim would they bring, and against whom?
Not to rain on your parade, but prosecutors cannot be sued for actions performed in their role as advocates, even if their conduct is malicious and intentional. Judges also enjoy absolute immunity. And while police do not, they do enjoy qualified immunity, and could only be sued if Ramos and Compean had their convictions overturned. A pardon would not qualify, since it would not mean that their conviction was erroneous.
And before you object to these limits, remember my prior point about rules of general applicability. It is generally conservatives who have pushed to make it so difficult for someone who has been prosecuted to sue government officials. As Oscar Wilde said, in this world there are only two tragedies. One is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it.
|
|
Add me to the list of those who support the idea of pardoning these two border patrol agents.
John of East Bridgewater, MA |
|
Bush can save his presidential legacy in my mind if he were to pardon the border agents. I have lost all respect for him over this issue alone.
He's already pardoned drug dealers, thieves and various other crooks, in the past month.
His legacy will always be of disgrace, as far as I'm concerned, if he doesn't pardon them. |
|
twice for him and he lost me when he pushed so hard for open borders, going to Mexico to campaign for amnesty, making the foreign citizens of a FOREIGN country promises meanwhile calling American Patriots that want secure borders, "vigilantes". Add the Ramo/Campeon
miscarriage of justice and as far as I'm concerned he's waited too long to ever redeem himself in my eyes. These men are pawns and were used to send a message to the rest of the Border Patrol. I'm wondering the Open Border
pushers, are just that, in bed with the Drug Cartels..$$$$$$ going to corruption in high places. It's pretty sad when the President of the U.S. and half the Congress and most of the Senate are against We The People..tell me they aren't getting payoffs and kickbacks. That's criminal however if the NAU is in the mix, that's treason. |
|
The North American Union is just more paranoid nativism from the right wing fringe. See here:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2007/11/25 /the_amero_conspiracy/
Or, for a source on your side of the aisle:
http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/b4119746-9434-4f7b -a4fe-7caa91fee062
America should naturally pursue a close relationship and coordinate plans with its neighbors to the north and south. Politics in Canada and Mexico do not align perfectly with our own, but those countries are both long allies of the United States. Indeed, it seems to only be conservatives who expect foreign countries to comply immediately with our every request, while expecting the United States to forcefully resist even the most benign request for America to be similarly cooperative.
How about we make a bet? In 30 years, you will pay me 100 American dollars (if such a currency still exists) or I will pay you the equivalent in Ameros (if such a currency comes to exist). Any takers? I'll throw in a tinfoil hat if you win. |
|
|
Treason probably isn't one of those words you should just be throwing around. |
|
I did not imply that Pennsylvania commie was the only one who cares about the law. I said he is the only one who does not care about justice. The rest of us intelligently ask the question; if the a law does not serve the ends of justice then what good is it? He can't even wrap his head around that idea.
As for "violating the public trust". Can he read? We are the public and we clearly don't feel violated by lawmen who shoot criminals. If anyone violated our trust it was the President that we elected and who swore an oath to defend our country and then betrayed us.
And who here wants to bet a $100 that He is not only a lawyer but he probably has alot in common his hero Oscar Wilde too. I will even throw in a pink purse for free if you win.
|
|
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to accuse me of being gay for quoting Oscar Wilde (looking for knee-jerk gay panic on Townhall is like shooting fish in a barrel). I can tell you who doesn't have much in common with Oscar Wilde -- Ramos and Compean.
Of the three, only Wilde can claim to have been unjustly imprisoned.
As I said, I start with the law because it grounds the discussion in trying to formulate rules. If you really are fine with "lawmen who shoot criminals" in all circumstances, then argue for that as a rule, but I don't think you'll find much support.
And contrary to your claim, I do care about justice, which is why I think two border guards firing on an unarmed man and then covering up the evidence is extremely dangerous, and deserving of harsh punishment. Besides the obvious loss of human life, one tragedy of fatal shootings by law enforcement is that they deny a suspected criminal the right to defend himself at trial. Trials are not only good for the accused, they are good for the public. Through the jury, the public gets to scrutinize how law enforcement is behaving, and to punish them (by acquitting the accused) if they feel that the evidence introduced is suspect.
Again, the law isn't perfect, and I'm always open to people arguing it should be changed. But that's not what you're arguing for -- you are looking for special treatment for these two because you like them and hate the victim of their reckless behavior. And I'm sorry, but I can't in good conscience support that. |
|
And just because it's fun to stir up knee-jerk homophobia, here's another Oscar Wilde quote, which I think applies especially well to the posters here:
"Whenever people agree with me, I always feel I must be wrong." |
|
|
I can't believe I missed the fact that G also called me a communist (Communists, apparently, being notorious around here for the excessive number of rights that they felt should be given to accused criminals, and the strong concerns they had about abusive police). |
|
Penn Yank... HERE it is.... Apparently NO ONE else is willing to say it. I WILL:
WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN ANYMORE ABOUT "YOUR BLESSED" CRIMINALS "RIGHTS" -- GOT IT ?? WE DON'T CARE ANYMORE. HE'S A DRUG DEALER. WE DON'T CARE WHETHER HIS CIVIL RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT ON THE BORDER WHILE HE'S TRYING TO SMUGGLE MORE DRUGS INTO THE US.
GOT IT YET, D-HEAD ?? Luck you ( rhymes with )& YOUR NORTHEAST BULLHIT ( rhymes with ).
OUR GOVERNMENT SUX, FOLKS. BUY GUNS WHILE YOU STILL CAN - IT'S YOUR RIGHT UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT. |
|
Now I've been called a Communist, a homosexual, and a Northeast elitist. I win Townhall bingo for the day!
Chet, It's funny that you assert your rights under the Second Amendment while disdaining the rights in the Bill of Rights pertaining to suspected criminals. The Constitution has survived Washington D.C. being burned, a Civil War, and the president being threatened with impeachment. I don't think we need to throw it out because of comparatively minor concerns about the border.
And can we please shelve the "Obama's going to take away your gun" talk. He's shown no evidence of such an interest, and gun control seems about as far away from the Democrats' list of priorities as bringing back the gold standard. Nor, for that matter, is Obama going to form a North American Union. Engaging in that kind of paranoid hyperbole simply cheapens the discourse. So does using Caps Lock and thinly-disguised profanities. I haven't engaged in any of those behaviors, despite disagreeing with practically every commenter here. It seems strange that you can get so incensed while surrounded by people who "get [your] bottom line." |
|
|
People keep saying that Ramos and Compeon fired on an unarmed drug dealing, illegal allien. In fact, they thought that he turned and was about to shoot them. After the self defense shooting, Ramos and Compeon probably knew that they would face bureaucratic skewering, if they reported the shooting, so they cleaned up the evidence. They should have reported the shooting and they would have been slapped on the wrist. The attempt at cover up cost them 10 - 11 years in the slammer. My view is that the rules of engagement should be changed to protect the Border Patrol agents. |
|
Your "fact" -- that the victim here turned and was about to shoot them -- is simply Ramos and Compeon's version of the shooting. It's a version that wasn't believed by those who investigated the shooting, wasn't believed by the prosecutor, and -- most importantly -- wasn't believed by the jury.
It's also the less credible version. Under your theory, Ramos and Compean committed a completely legal shooting (shooting an armed man who was turning) and somehow decided that it made sense to cover up this completely legal act. Even legal shootings by border agents undoubtedly involve a lot of bureaucratic red tape, but it's hard to imagine two men would cover up a shooting they legitimately believed was legal just to avoid some paperwork.
Under my theory (and the prosecutor's, and -- since they were convicted -- the official facts of the case), Ramos and Compean committed a reckless, illegal act -- shooting an unarmed, fleeing man. Under this scenario, doesn't it seem more likely that they would feel that they needed to cover up the shooting? |
|
You're definately entitled to your opinion.
From everything I've learned about the case, it seems that the only testimony the jury had to go by was that of the smuggler.
He said he was unarmed. The defense was not able to mention that he was a career smuggler and had indeed smuggled again between the time of the shooting and the time of the trial, which would have gone a long way to shoot down any credibility of the guy. Gee, would somebody who constantly breaks the law tell a lie? Hmm.
The coverup came when the agents were left with the impression that the smuggler was not hit by any of their bullets... usually a safe assumption when somebody keeps running after being shot at with .40 caliber anti-personnel rounds. It wasn't the first time a government agent covered up a discharge and won't be the last.
In later interviews with friends and family of the smuggler, it was indicated that he NEVER went on a run unarmed. He has a dangerous "job", smugglers generally carry weapons of some sort. BP agents have been shot at increasingly over the last few years, so chances are very safe he was armed.
Anyhow, he's still alive and free. He's smuggling even more since he's learned that it has it's rewards. Two agents are in prison. Justice served? Not really. |
|
|
There are many instances in police work where officers think they are about to be shot and are required to make a split second decision. Sometimes it turns out that the criminal was not armed, sometimes it turns out that the criminal was armed. My advice to criminals is that if they are caught perpetrating crime, they give up and allow the legal system to work. It is not reasonable that Border Patrol agents should duck and cover. The rules of engagement need to be modified to allow Border Patrol agents to protect the border. |
|
|
You're right that law enforcement involves split-second decisions, and that sometimes those decisions are mistaken. I have no problem with being understanding when law enforcement makes resonable mistakes. But Ramos and Compean never claimed that that's what happened. I'm far less likely to give the benefit of the doubt to law enforcement agents who have covered up their actions, because that is clear evidence that they knew they did something wrong. |
|
The main witness was the known drug dealer!!!
Prosecutor Johnny Sutton pursued him into Mexico - to give him immunity to testify against our Border Patrol!!!! Holy Cow Batman, those Republicans are really some law and order types!?!?!?! |
|
Charges of misconduct by law enforcement are almost always going to be made by known criminals, and they often will be the only witness (Law enforcement officers, like everyone else, prefer to do their misdeeds in relative privacy). Do you really think that law enforcement officers should never be charged with misconduct when the alleged victim is a criminal?
And prosecutors make deals with criminals to get them to testify against others all the time. In fact, it is a critical part of securing prosecutions. No one -- including the prosecutors themselves -- like giving deals to criminals, but we don't live in a perfect world, and have to muddle through the best we can. Ramos and Compean could not have been convicted without the testimony of a criminal, and that criminal (surprise, surprise) was not going to testify in open court about an incident in which he was smuggling drugs without a deal. Convicting two reckless border officers was more important than convicting one petty drug smuggler. Not perfect, but the best result possible. |
|
Everytime I see a Border Patrol recruiting ad on TV, I laugh. Who would take the kind of job where DOING your duties gets you thrown in prison by YOUR OWN GOV'T?!? To hell with that, and to hell with our corrupt government.
Ramos and Compean need to be pardoned right away, and compensated for being imprisoned unjustly. |
|
To Pennsylvania Yankee:
The known drug runner who testified against Ramos and Compean was at the time carrying over 700 pounds of illegal drugs. He had already assaulted one of the agents and was fleeing despite being warned repeatedly. He was fleeing towards other drug runners across the border in Mexico. Drug runners tend to be armed, they tend to be dangerous. They work for cartels who will kill you and all of your family if they even think you have crossed them. He was shot in the butt. Let me repeat: HE WAS SHOT IN THE BUTT. If the agents broke laws, they can be punished. My argument is that 11 and 12 year prison terms are severe - by any standard! People who have taken lives in this country often serve less than this!
Commute their sentences to time served. Bush has already pardoned people who have committed various crimes. |
|
|
The spirited exchange in this thread led me to lookup the DHS’s Office of Inspector General Report of Investigation on Ignacio Ramos & Jose Compean, et al. A quick review of the report might surprise and enlighten some. I don’t think anyone takes for granted the high-pressure, high-risk duty Border Patrol Agents perform. I also expect any law enforcement officer to adhere to departmental policy, to include reporting the use of firearms. It is troubling to know two agents were convicted and given long prison terms. However, they were imprisoned as a result of their actions--serious crimes. With that said, my personal experience leads me to support a presidential reprieve. |
|
|
As I've said several times on this thread, I'd agree with you that Ramos and Compean's sentences seem long. But they are the symptom, not the disease. Sentences are horrifically long for a large number of federal crimes -- largely because of conservative "tough on crime" politicians. A pardon or commutation treats Ramos and Compean like their sentences were the exception, when they are in fact the rule. Posters here who are upset by the length of the sentences should reconsider their views about sentencing in general -- rather than seek special treatment for two people with whom they sympathize. |
|
"He needed killing, Your Honor."
When I lived in Refugio, Texas, that was a justifiable defense for shooting someone(of course, none needed if the victim was an Aggie).
I believe you held true to your principles and kept this country safe from attack ever since 9/11. And I thank you deeply.
Whatever your principles are in this case, they can still be pardoned by you and released from jail. Justice has been served.
The best way to protect our borders after you leave office and to let those know who mean harm to us, is to release these two men.
Give them a job protecting you on the ranch. Man, I could sleep at night knowing they were out there protecting me!
Thank you for your time.
George C. Markos, Sr. |
|
|
Change the rules of engagement for the Border Patrol. Allow them to protect the border, not protect the well being of infiltrators into the USA. |
|
|
And how would you want those rules of engagement changed? It's easy enough to say "change them," but you have to come up with rules that will work in different situations. |
|
I m CONSERVATIVE whos not TREASON and make sense , he is MADMAN TRAITOR try to sell out PORT merger 3 country ,LIER ABOUT IRAQ Throw away american jobs as long he is filty ruch just like clinton ,and should be join with LIBERAL love anarchy anything goes. IF he is be president in 1800 US army alradey HANG HIM ,,because charge with TREASON ..now his brother want run for office too and he know ameircan have dwarf memory ...we need test IQ and LIE DETECTOR FOR whos someone want run for OFFICE .
He love drug dealer and love illegal ,,,anything smell mexicans mean smell like rose for him.
I dont thing he is get to YALE and Graduate with HONESTLY because he is not the type even graudated from elementary school,his father help him ..where is Brian ross should be investigation thsi treason 8 years ago? |
|
Rule 1:
If any infiltrator appears as though he is about to shoot you, try and shoot him first.
Rule 2:
If infiltrators are discovered and they do not obey commands and are fleeing, deadly force is appropriate if they flee in the direction of the USA. |
|