Former border agent beaten in prison, family and congressman say

[Sarge]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8N4DND82.html



A former U.S. Border Patrol agent who was convicted of shooting a drug smuggling suspect and then lying about it was beaten by fellow inmates in prison, his relatives and a congressman said Tuesday.

Prison officials did not immediately confirm the beating of Ignacio Ramos, whose conviction along with that of fellow former agent Jose Alonso Compean sparked outcry from critics alleging the men were merely doing their job defending the border against criminals.

Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, a vocal supporter of the agents and opponent of illegal immigration, criticized the Bush administration for failing to protect Ramos and demanded a full presidential pardon for them.

"Not only did the administration choose the side of a foreign dope runner over the agents who stopped him from smuggling a load of drugs into the county — now they've failed to protect that agent while his case is on appeal," he said in a statement.

Tancredo issued his statement after reports that Ramos was severely beaten by inmates at the Yazoo City federal prison, a medium- and low-security facility near Jackson, Miss.

The agents were convicted last year of shooting Osvaldo Aldrete Davila in 2005 at a rural area near El Paso and then trying to cover up the incident. Davila was shot once in the buttocks.

Ramos and Compean, who reported to prison in January, were each sentenced to more than a decade behind bars. Compean is serving his sentence at the Elkton Federal Correctional Institution, a low-security prison in Ohio. There have been no reports of problems with his detention.

According to Tancredo's statement, Ramos' relatives told him of the weekend beating Monday.

Monica Ramos, the agent's wife, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he called her on his 38th birthday and said: "They got me. They got me good."

She said her husband described being attacked late Saturday, when he "let his guard down" and went to his bed. The attackers, Monica Ramos said, kicked and stomped him for several minutes before running away.

Ignacio Ramos was able to identify one man in the group and is now pursuing criminal charges, Monica Ramos said.

Officials with the Federal Bureau of Prisons did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment Tuesday.

Carlos Espinosa, a spokesman for Tancredo, said federal prison officials have confirmed that the assault took place. Details of the incident were not available, he said.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Well I'm sure he'll have fun sitting in PC. Seriously they should have saw this coming.

Not sure I really believe it though. Low/Medium federal prisons are pretty soft. Plus any phsycial incidents means you automatically go to the hole while it's under investigation and since they don't mention that well.........

[B.Lloyd]

he shouldn't be there right now. he did his job and this is what he is repaid with...pathetic.

[RabidFan]

a decade for shooting a drug runner in the butt? wow

[Buford]

Whenever they do one of those specials about behind the scenes from whatever prision on MSNBC. I always wonder if the ex-cops/ex-military folks are given some sort of fake story to keep them alive in there.

[dfitzo53]

I wonder why they felt the need to cover it up.

[DCsportsfan53]

A convicted criminal got beaten up in prison. Big deal, happens every day at every prison. This isn't news. It's being made into news because the anti-immigration crowd will never believe a border patrol agent was in the wrong. Deal with it. He lied about it, tried to cover it up and was convicted by a jury of Americans. Therefore, a convicted criminal got beaten in prison, like happens all the time, get over it.

[DCsportsfan53]

I'm also curious to know how many feel symapthy for the drug user who grew up on the streets and is in jail for possession and violating probation by using again. I want to see your outcry when he gets raped.

Also, how many of you would be ready to go to war if a Federali shot an American entering Mexico illegally to get a hooker in Tijauna? Answer those questions before you decry the conditions that an AMERICAN JURY placed this guy in.

[Enter Apotheosis]

I'm also curious to know how many feel symapthy for the drug user who grew up on the streets and is in jail for possession and violating probation by using again. I want to see your outcry when he gets raped.

Also, how many of you would be ready to go to war if a Federali shot an American entering Mexico illegally to get a hooker in Tijauna? Answer those questions before you decry the conditions that an AMERICAN JURY placed this guy in.

http://www.kamikazemicrowave.com/andrew_ftp/pwnd/you%20gonna%20get%20raped.jpg

[Popeman38]

I'll play.
I'm also curious to know how many feel symapthy for the drug user who grew up on the streets and is in jail for possession and violating probation by using again. I want to see your outcry when he gets raped.I have no sympathy for the drug dealer. He broke the law repeatedly and is in prison. Like Chris Rock says, "You're not SIPPOSED to go to jail".
Also, how many of you would be ready to go to war if a Federali shot an American entering Mexico illegally to get a hooker in Tijauna? Answer those questions before you decry the conditions that an AMERICAN JURY placed this guy in.So, the American walks across the border into Tijauana (which is perfectly legal) to indulge in prostitution (again, perfectly legal). And this is comparable to the border situation how? Now, if you said a Federali shot an American who drove a vehicle full of illegal substance "x" across the border, then tried to flee the Federalis, I think we would have a comparison. And the context of the shooting is the key.

[dreamingwolf]

I'm also curious to know how many feel symapthy for the drug user who grew up on the streets and is in jail for possession and violating probation by using again. I want to see your outcry when he gets raped.

Also, how many of you would be ready to go to war if a Federali shot an American entering Mexico illegally to get a hooker in Tijauna? Answer those questions before you decry the conditions that an AMERICAN JURY placed this guy in.

my sympathy goes out to anyone sent to our dispicable prison system, I have long been an opponent of our "rehabilitation" style of incarcination which allows for the freedom for inmates to harm and rape each other. A stricter, less free, incarceration would not provide inmates the oppurtunity to form gangs, attack, and rape other inmates.

To mexico federali's shooting and killing Americans, I would be suprised if we as a people would ever find out about it. Mexico is the leading latin country in the death and disappearance of journalists, if a journalist did get a hold of the story he probably would vanish before he compiled it. It would just go down as another American dead or missing in mexico. Theres a reason why there is always a travel advisory for Americans to mexico, and why its important not to venture outside of tourist areas.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/pa/pa_2100.html



Mexico

The Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression is alarmed by the extreme vulnerability of journalists in Mexico. During the especially tragic fourth quarter of 2006, the following journalists were murdered: Brad Will, Misael Tamayo Hernández, José Manuel Nava Sánchez, Roberto Marcos García, Adolfo Sánchez Guzmán, Raúl Marcial Pérez, and journalist José Antonio García Apac disappeared.

The Office of the Special Rapporteur urges the new government to give maximum priority to prevent that these and previously committed murders go unpunished, given that impunity encourages new murders to be perpetrated as well as self-censorship situations as a result of the absense of guarantees for the rights to life and to freedom of expression.

http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/7838/54/

[DCsportsfan53]

my sympathy goes out to anyone sent to our dispicable prison system, I have long been an opponent of our "rehabilitation" style of incarcination which allows for the freedom for inmates to harm and rape each other. A stricter, less free, incarceration would not provide inmates the oppurtunity to form gangs, attack, and rape other inmates.

Excellent points. I do as well, I especially feel for the non-violent criminals. There should almost be a separation of violent and non-violent criminals within the system.


To mexico federali's shooting and killing Americans, I would be suprised if we as a people would ever find out about it. Mexico is the leading latin country in the death and disappearance of journalists, if a journalist did get a hold of the story he probably would vanish before he compiled it. It would just go down as another American dead or missing in mexico. Theres a reason why there is always a travel advisory for Americans to mexico, and why its important not to venture outside of tourist areas.

Another good point. Hypothetically though, were the situation the same and the smuggler was American, I think there'd be a lot of people upset about it in this country.

[DCsportsfan53]

I'll play.I have no sympathy for the drug dealer. He broke the law repeatedly and is in prison. Like Chris Rock says, "You're not SIPPOSED to go to jail". So, the American walks across the border into Tijauana (which is perfectly legal) to indulge in prostitution (again, perfectly legal). And this is comparable to the border situation how? Now, if you said a Federali shot an American who drove a vehicle full of illegal substance "x" across the border, then tried to flee the Federalis, I think we would have a comparison. And the context of the shooting is the key.

I said USER not DEALER. Big difference.

As far as the second part, you're right, bad example on my part. Let's just say the situation is exactly the same only flop the countries. How would you feel about it then?

[dreamingwolf]

Excellent points. I do as well, I especially feel for the non-violent criminals. There should almost be a separation of violent and non-violent criminals within the system.

If our prisons were not sub-societies, it wouldnt matter who was who cause they would have zero interaction with each other.




Another good point. Hypothetically though, were the situation the same and the smuggler was American, I think there'd be a lot of people upset about it in this country.

if it happend in reverse our smuggler would keep his mouth shut, get an underground doc to patch him up and recover and continue. He would know that a) the mexican people wouldnt give two :pooh: 's about him getting shot, b) the mexican government would deny it, c) who would report it, and d) most Americans would probably feel like he was a criminal in their country trying to bring drugs back here regardless of what he was trying to do and would not get support from the US population against a foreign nation.

A good example of d) is the mix mash of support Dog got in grabbing that guy in mexico. The only reason the Right was throwing support at Dog is cause hes a bounty hunter doing what our own law enforcement couldnt, but the left was up in arms about him not respecting mexico's laws. A smuggler would lose the Rights support, and I dont think he would gain the lefts.

[Popeman38]

I said USER not DEALER. Big difference.My bad, was reading a little too fast I suppose. In order for the user to have done hard time, they probably committed another crime on top of possession. Burglary, robbery....In those situations they technically are considered violent offendors. The others that get locked up for simple possession is due to the horrible mandatory minimums that have been put in place. I have no problem with mandatory min sentences or the three strikes rule for violent crimes. but possession of a joint should not receive a heavier sentence than manslaughter, no matter how many times they have been caught.
As far as the second part, you're right, bad example on my part. Let's just say the situation is exactly the same only flop the countries. How would you feel about it then?I think Dreamingwolf gave a very good assessment of what would happen were the roles reversed.

[DCsportsfan53]

My bad, was reading a little too fast I suppose. In order for the user to have done hard time, they probably committed another crime on top of possession. Burglary, robbery....In those situations they technically are considered violent offendors. The others that get locked up for simple possession is due to the horrible mandatory minimums that have been put in place. I have no problem with mandatory min sentences or the three strikes rule for violent crimes. but possession of a joint should not receive a heavier sentence than manslaughter, no matter how many times they have been caught.I think Dreamingwolf gave a very good assessment of what would happen were the roles reversed.


While fully admitting it would be stupid on the part of the user, you could definitely wind up in jail for getting possession charges and then failing mulitple piss tests or not showing up to meet the probation officer. Again, stupidity on the individual's part but they do end up in prison and they shouldn't. You don't hear too much made about that or sympathy for that. It happens more frequently than you'd think.

As far the second, I retract it, I think Dreamingwolf is right :)

[rictus58]

As far as the second part, you're right, bad example on my part. Let's just say the situation is exactly the same only flop the countries. How would you feel about it then?

I would be happy that mexico had to pay for the price of the bullet and not our government.

[Sarge]

I'm also curious to know how many feel symapthy for the drug user who grew up on the streets and is in jail for possession and violating probation by using again. I want to see your outcry when he gets raped.

Also, how many of you would be ready to go to war if a Federali shot an American entering Mexico illegally to get a hooker in Tijauna? Answer those questions before you decry the conditions that an AMERICAN JURY placed this guy in.

I feel no sypathy at all. Ass raping would BE the sentence for drug dealers if I were in charge

[MikeInJc aka M.I.A.]

A convicted criminal got beaten up in prison. Big deal, happens every day at every prison. This isn't news. It's being made into news because the anti-immigration crowd will never believe a border patrol agent was in the wrong. Deal with it. He lied about it, tried to cover it up and was convicted by a jury of Americans. Therefore, a convicted criminal got beaten in prison, like happens all the time, get over it.

I think you should take the word "criminal" of convicted and replace it with "person". These two should have never been convicted in the first place and in my mind they are not criminals. Shame on the prison guards for letting one of their own (law enforcement) get beaten like this. I kind of sensed though that it would happen, I'm just kind of suprised he is still alive. Law Enforcement or any government employee when they get sent to prison gets it the worst.

As far with "deal with it", screw you. Obviously you have no respect for law enforcement and their profession. It's a damn shame that this happened. Now maybe if it was a murderer or a pedophile then I wouldn't have any sympathy for them, becuase those types deserve, but not these guys. Come on man, get a f'n grip.

[DCsportsfan53]

I think you should take the word "criminal" of convicted and replace it with "person". These two should have never been convicted in the first place and in my mind they are not criminals. Shame on the prison guards for letting one of their own (law enforcement) get beaten like this. I kind of sensed though that it would happen, I'm just kind of suprised he is still alive. Law Enforcement or any government employee when they get sent to prison gets it the worst.

As far with "deal with it", screw you. Obviously you have no respect for law enforcement and their profession. It's a damn shame that this happened. Now maybe if it was a murderer or a pedophile then I wouldn't have any sympathy for them, becuase those types deserve, but not these guys. Come on man, get a f'n grip.

It's ok, I knew I'd get this response. That was exactly my point. No matter the fact that he was convicted by Americans, deemed guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt, conservative/anti-immigration/ultra-pro law enforcement types would never accept his guilt. Breaking the law is breaking the law (as you types LOVE to remind us liberals) so I feel no sympathy if a law enforcement type gets convicted. He should expect the same treatment as any convicted criminal gets in prison. If I'm not supposed to feel sympathy for "regular" criminals in prison, why would I feel it for a former law enforcement type? They both broke the law and both were convicted. I'm simply exposing the fact that because he's law enforcement and because his job was to patrol the border, in the conservative mindset, he could've done no wrong and didn't deserve the treatment other people convicted of the same crime would.

As I used as an example, were this a drug USER (not dealer) who was stupid, failed a bunch of piss tests and got raped in prison (as Sarge, wonderfully, demonstrated for me) we'd have seen YOU, Sarge and the conservative crew give the IDENTICAL response I did. I thought it'd be funny to see those people squirm when I gave that response for this guy, purposely denoting him as a criminal not a person, just as Sarge or others would've done in the situation I brought up. Wether you like it or not, in the eyes of this country and our laws, this border patrol agent IS a criminal and was convicted by our fellow countrymen. Thanks for giving the exact hypocritical response I was looking for.

[Destino]

I think you should take the word "criminal" of convicted and replace it with "person". These two should have never been convicted in the first place and in my mind they are not criminals. Shame on the prison guards for letting one of their own (law enforcement) get beaten like this. I kind of sensed though that it would happen, I'm just kind of suprised he is still alive. Law Enforcement or any government employee when they get sent to prison gets it the worst.

As far with "deal with it", screw you. Obviously you have no respect for law enforcement and their profession. It's a damn shame that this happened. Now maybe if it was a murderer or a pedophile then I wouldn't have any sympathy for them, becuase those types deserve, but not these guys. Come on man, get a f'n grip.

I really hate the attitude that views people in law enforcement as being above everybody else. They're not. It's that simple. Some are slime, most are looking out for themselves first, and a few are wonderful. Same applies to just about every group of people.

Also, even I would hesitate to lump prison guards in the same group with law enforcement.

[Destino]

It's ok, I knew I'd get this response. That was exactly my point. No matter the fact that he was convicted by Americans, deemed guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt, conservative/anti-immigration/ultra-pro law enforcement types would never accept his guilt.
that's because anybody that has a job requiring them to use a weapon is above everyone else. Weren't you told that you were just a civilian yet? Jeez pal get the with the program. You should thank the brave men and women of <insert violent goverment job here> for allowing you to live.

[Larry]

he shouldn't be there right now. he did his job and this is what he is repaid with...pathetic.


A former U.S. Border Patrol agent who was convicted of shooting a drug smuggling suspect and then lying about it was beaten by fellow inmates in prison, his relatives and a congressman said Tuesday.

You mean, folks in prison have a "thing" for cops who lie and tamper with evidence? Who'da thunk it?

[DCsportsfan53]

that's because anybody that has a job requiring them to use a weapon is above everyone else. Weren't you told that you were just a civilian yet? Jeez pal get the with the program. You should thank the brave men and women of <insert violent goverment job here> for allowing you to live.


What was I thinking? I must've skipped that school day.... :laugh:

[Predicto]

Right wingers are certain this guy is innocent solely BECAUSE he was in immigration law enforcement. If immigrants are involved, then the immigrants must be the bad guys, ergo, he is innocent.

It's just like the ultra-lefties who rant that Mumia Abu-Jamal is innocent of shooting that police officer in Philly. Police are bad, ergo, Mumia is innocent.

Facts and verdicts no longer matter in these cases.

[Larry]

Right wingers are certain this guy is innocent solely BECAUSE he was in immigration law enforcement. If immigrants are involved, then the immigrants must be the bad guys, ergo, he is innocent.

It's just like the ultra-lefties who rant that Mumia Abu-Jamal is innocent of shooting that police officer in Philly. Police are bad, ergo, Mumia is innocent.

Facts and verdicts no longer matter in these cases.

I've noticed that tendency, myself. (Also, on both sides.)

I label it "affirmative justice". Slap a label on somebody, then feel free to vent your opinions about the label.

You liberal, you.

:)

-----

Edit:

BTW:


Right wingers are certain this guy is innocent solely BECAUSE he was in immigration law enforcement.

You forgot "And (according to them) the only reason people could possibly disagree, is because the other side likes drug smugglers and hates cops."

[MikeInJc aka M.I.A.]

Right wingers are certain this guy is innocent solely BECAUSE he was in immigration law enforcement. If immigrants are involved, then the immigrants must be the bad guys, ergo, he is innocent.

It's just like the ultra-lefties who rant that Mumia Abu-Jamal is innocent of shooting that police officer in Philly. Police are bad, ergo, Mumia is innocent.

Facts and verdicts no longer matter in these cases.

No it's not because he was an immigrant, he wasn't even trying to stay in the country. He was delivering DRUGS. So scratch out immigrant and please replace it with illegal drug runner. That's why we have a problem with it. If an officer told me to stop and get on the ground I would, but if I decided to run and get shot then it's my own damn fault for not obeying the officers orders. he has no idea what I'm going to do: am I going to pick up my gun out of my car or house, am I going to lead him into a trap? Who knows, so I don't fault them, especially for who they shot was a drug runner, who knows what they will do to avoid arrest.

[Larry]

No it's not because he was an immigrant, he wasn't even trying to stay in the country. He was delivering DRUGS. So scratch out immigrant and please replace it with illegal drug runner. That's why we have a problem with it. If an officer told me to stop and get on the ground I would, but if I decided to run and get shot then it's my own damn fault for not obeying the officers orders. he has no idea what I'm going to do: am I going to pick up my gun out of my car or house, am I going to lead him into a trap? Who knows, so I don't fault them, especially for who they shot was a drug runner, who knows what they will do to avoid arrest.

You're right.

From now on, all suspected criminals should be shot on sight.

After all, they might have a weapon somewhere. They might, at some later date, threaten someone.

Heck, they might get acquitted.

No telling what might happen. Obviously, what's needed is a National Policy that the punishment for doing anything that any law enforcement officer dislikes is death.

-----

Who needs facts when you've got "might have"s?

Folks, here are the facts.


The suspected smuggler (at the time of the shooting, they didn't know what was in the truck) got shot in the behind.
At the time of the shooting, the target was far enough away that even with a bullet in him, the cop couldn't catch him. (This also causes me to conclude, that the cop didn't even try to catch him.)
After shooting at the suspect, and the arrival of more officers, the cops decided that the appropriate response was to get rid of the evidence and lie about it in their reports. (This causes me to conclude that the shooter didn't give the other cops a reason to chase the suspect, either. And it makes me suspect that the shooter told the other cops that he hadn't hit the suspect, since I think the cops are a lot more likely to cover up shots that missed than they are to cover up shots that hit.) (This, in turn, reinforces my conclusion that the suspect was some distance away from the shooter, since the shooter didn't even know he'd hit the guy.)
After shooting (at) the fleeing suspect, and after deciding to cover up the shooting, they find out what he was smuggling.

All of this makes me suspect (I certainly hope there's a lot more evidence here than just the three things I've listed) that what happened here, was cops stop van, driver bails out and starts running South, and cop hires a few rounds in his general direction to encourage him to run faster. (Never knowing that he "got lucky" with one round.)

So forgive me if I've had it up to my eyeballs with "well, the smuggler might have been running towards a cactus, and maybe he snuck across the border a week earlier, and hid a gun behind the cactus, just in case he happened to get stopped in that exact spot, and he was running towards a gun that he'd hidden there in advance, and when he got there he would have used it. (But since he caught one in the behind, suddenly there was no reason to look for either the weapon or the suspect.)"

If you're going to invent a "maybe", at least try to come up with one that fits the facts.

[Fred Jones]

You're right.

From now on, all suspected criminals should be shot on sight.

After all, they might have a weapon somewhere. They might, at some later date, threaten someone.

Heck, they might get acquitted.

No telling what might happen. Obviously, what's needed is a National Policy that the punishment for doing anything that any law enforcement officer dislikes is death.



Must be tough being a law enforcement officer. The person has to make tough choices. Does the subject have a gun? Is the subject reaching for a gun? Is the subject simply trying to get their identification to demonstrate they are a citizen, have valid identification and have done nothing wrong.

Not really commenting about this case, just your comment. I was talking to a cop I know a couple of weeks ago. He did a high-risk search warrant with his fellow officers. They found some wanted individuals inside a house. One of them started reaching for a couch. The officer told him to stop. The subject stopped. The officer didn't see anything, know what was on the coach or under it. The subject didn't have a weapon on him or displayed a weapon. The person was arrested and everyone went on with their lives. The search later revealed a loaded handgun at the location the subject was reaching for. Of course, there are plenty more examples. I just used a recent one.

[Larry]

Must be tough being a law enforcement officer. The person has to make tough choices. Does the subject have a gun? Is the subject reaching for a gun? Is the subject simply trying to get their identification to demonstrate they are a citizen, have valid identification and have done nothing wrong.

Not really commenting about this case, just your comment. I was talking to a cop I know a couple of weeks ago. He did a high-risk search warrant with his fellow officers. They found some wanted individuals inside a house. One of them started reaching for a couch. The officer told him to stop. The subject stopped. The officer didn't see anything, know what was on the coach or under it. The subject didn't have a weapon on him or displayed a weapon. The person was arrested and everyone went on with their lives. The search later revealed a loaded handgun at the location the subject was reaching for. Of course, there are plenty more examples. I just used a recent one.

Oh, I agree.

I remember a long time ago (around '70?) Time did an article about cops killed in the line of duty. (Among other things, they listed, by name, every cop killed in the Line in the previous year.)

Two things I remember from that article:

Under "What was the cop doing when he was killed?", the #1 answer was:

Traffic Stop.

More cops died during traffic stops than any other police activity. One reason they gave for that was that, to the cop, a traffic stop is a routine event that happens every day, but the cop is walking into a "situation" where the suspect may have a concealed weapon. And, while the cop is walking towards a "failure to fully stop", the suspect may well have just killed a liquor store owner and the cop doesn't know about it yet.

The other thing that surprised me: Under "Most dangerous police call" (in terms of "most cops killed per number of calls"):

Domestic Disturbance.

In those situations, the cop's in a "situation" where both participants think the cop's invaded "their" space. And he's in a location where there may be dozens of weapons, and both participants know where they are.

-----

That said, there's a big difference between telling a suspect to keep his hands visible, and shooting a fleeing suspect in the butt and not bothering to even chase him. (And then covering it up).

[DC_Native,NC_Fan]

I'm also curious to know how many feel symapthy for the drug user who grew up on the streets and is in jail for possession and violating probation by using again. I want to see your outcry when he gets raped.

Also, how many of you would be ready to go to war if a Federali shot an American entering Mexico illegally to get a hooker in Tijauna? Answer those questions before you decry the conditions that an AMERICAN JURY placed this guy in.

I smell a tree-hugging sheeple. :wavetowel

[LeesburgSkinFan]

Apparently they're getting some bi-partisan support: By the way, anyone know of any organizations that are offering financial support for these guys and their families? I'd contribute.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070208/D8N58LF00.html

By ALICIA A. CALDWELL and SUZANNE GAMBOA

EL PASO, Texas (AP) - A federal report released Wednesday on the shooting of a suspected drug smuggler by Border Patrol agents concurs with prosecutors that the men failed to report the shooting, destroyed evidence and lied to investigators.

Some members of Congress have criticized the case against Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, who were fired after their obstruction of justice convictions and have each been sentenced to more than a decade in federal prison.

Congressional critics, who say the men were doing their jobs when they injured Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila in 2005 near El Paso, had sought the release of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security report.

The report "has just emboldened our position because there is nothing in there that indicates these agents were not justified in shooting this individual," said Tara Setmayer, a spokeswoman for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. "This finally sheds some light on what these agents were thinking."

She pointed to a written statement by Compean in which she said reflects that he "clearly believed the drug smuggler had a weapon and feared for his life."

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., agreed Wednesday to allow Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to hold a hearing on the case, as she requested.

"I strongly believe that the sentences in this case are too extreme, given the criminal nature of the defendant and his possession of large quantities of drugs," Feinstein said in a statement. "These men were given sentences that some individuals who are convicted of murder wouldn't receive."

The heavily redacted, 77-page report, drafted last year, offers few new details. It primarily outlines what Aldrete said happened on Feb. 17, 2005, as he tried to run from Border Patrol agents after trying to elude them in a van loaded with marijuana.

According to the report, Aldrete, who was given immunity and has filed a multimillion-dollar claim against the federal government, told investigators he was unarmed and was shot as he ran from Compean and other agents. He said he tried to surrender and ran again after Compean slipped while trying to hit him with the butt of a shotgun.

The report also notes that other agents on the scene that day could not confirm whether Aldrete was armed and initially lied about whether they were aware of the shooting. They later cooperated with authorities. Those agents, whose names were removed from the report, were not prosecuted.

In a statement issued Wednesday afternoon, Rep. John Culberson, a Texas Democrat, said Ramos and Compean "may not have followed proper procedure following the shooting, which at most should have resulted in their suspension from the force, but not criminal procedure."

A spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, whose office prosecuted the case and who has been widely criticized for pursing the agents and not the drug dealer shot, declined to comment.

Lawyers for Ramos and Compean did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment.

The former agents were sentenced in October and reported to prison in January. Federal prison officials confirmed Tuesday that Ramos was attacked in a Mississippi prison after the airing of an episode of "America's Most Wanted" that highlighted his case.

Rohrabacher and other supporters of the agents have criticized President Bush for not pardoning them.

---

Associated Press writer Suzanne Gamboa reported from Washington, D.C.

[9_to_42_td]

Also, even I would hesitate to lump prison guards in the same group with law enforcement.

[Larry]

Congressional critics, who say the men were doing their jobs when they shot a fleeing man in the butt and then covered it up, had sought the release of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security report.

The report "has just emboldened our position because there is nothing in there that indicates these agents were not justified in shooting this individual in the butt, then didn't even bother to chase him, and covered up the shooting" said Tara Setmayer, a spokeswoman for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. "This finally sheds some light on what these agents were thinking."

She pointed to a written statement by Compean in which she said reflects that he "clearly believed the drug smuggler had a weapon and feared for his life.", so he shot him in the butt, didn't bother to chase him, didn't even know whether he hit the guy or not, and then covered up the shooting.

Funny what a difference it makes when you Just Add Facts.

[Predicto]

The facts really just don't matter. These are the GOOD guys. Drug dealers are BAD. MMMkay?

[Sarge]

The facts really just don't matter. These are the GOOD guys. Drug dealers are BAD. MMMkay?

Tha's pretty black and white for a liberal :laugh:

But you are correct

American cop= Good

Illeagal Mexican drug dealer who should have no standing or rights in out legal system but does because of whiney, sypathetic liberals= Bad


There's hope for you yet :D

[Redskins Diehard]

The facts really just don't matter. These are the GOOD guys. Drug dealers are BAD. MMMkay?


Funny what a difference it makes when you Just Add Facts.

I'm curious as to how you both are so sure you know ALL the facts of the case.

You don't even know if the guy was armed or not(well except that he said he wasn't...and some guys who equally didn't report the incident but were given immunity in exchange for the testimony)

Larry, nice touch calling the "illegal cross border drug smuggler" the "fleeing man"

[Predicto]

I'm curious as to how you both are so sure you know ALL the facts of the case.



I know for the same reason that I know that Mumia shot the cop in Philly. Because a jury of his peers found him guilty beyone a reasonable doubt, and in particular because he got nailed lying and covering up about the incident.

Now it is true that jury verdicts are sometimes mistaken (OJ Simpson being a prime example) but in order for this apply, you have to show me WHY, with specificity. Here, all I see is people saying that we have to support this guy because he wears a white hat and goes after the bad guys. I don't agree. Cops are the good guys, but some cops are bad.

[Larry]

Larry, nice touch calling the "illegal cross border drug smuggler" the "fleeing man"

Fact: He got shot in the behind.

Conclusion: Either he was attacking the cop butt-first, or he was running away.

Fact: With a bullet in his butt, he got away.

Conclusion: He was far enough away from the cop that the cop couldn't catch a fleeing, wounded man. And/or, the cop didn't try to catch him.

Fact: The cops (all of them) didn't think the incident was important.

Conclusion: They didn't know the suspect had been hit. (See, I tend to assume that cops are relatively honest, so it's easier for me to imagine them covering up an accidental discharge if they think nobody got hit.)

Conclusion, part 2: This also reinforces my conclusion that the suspect was a ways away from the shooter, since it then becomes easier to believe that the cop didn't know he'd hit the guy.

[Redskins Diehard]

Fact: He got shot in the behind.

Conclusion: Either he was attacking the cop butt-first, or he was running away. Or he turned at some point in time between the first shot and the one that struck him, or... there are plenty of other scenarios

Fact: With a bullet in his butt, he got away.

Conclusion: He was far enough away from the cop that the cop couldn't catch a fleeing, wounded man. And/or, the cop didn't try to catch him. Or He wasn't wounded bad enough to really slow him down. Add in the adrenaline factor and the "wounding" may have had no negative impact on his ability to get away

Fact: The cops (all of them) didn't think the incident was important.

Conclusion: They didn't know the suspect had been hit. (See, I tend to assume that cops are relatively honest, so it's easier for me to imagine them covering up an accidental discharge (this type of incident is very different then what is typically considered and accidental discharge) if they think nobody got hit.)

Conclusion, part 2: This also reinforces my conclusion that the suspect was a ways away from the shooter, since it then becomes easier to believe that the cop didn't know he'd hit the guy.Not sure of the point here. If the bad guy was in range of the good guys gun then the opposite is likely true(recognize we probably have a different definition of the "good guy" and "bad guy" in this situaiton

[Seabee1973]

a decade for shooting a drug runner in the butt? wow

and the drug runner gets immunity for testifying agaisnt them

[twa]

and the drug runner gets immunity for testifying agaisnt them

Of course...What do you expect?

I am sure there are plenty of righteous civil rights workers making sure he is well represented in his latest drug bust too, even if they couldn't swing immunity in this latest case.

Added: testimony on the butt shot

But according to TJ Bonner, the Army doctor who treated Aldrete-Davila (on the taxpayer's dime), that story doesn't hold water. According to Bonner, Aldrete-Davila's entrance wound was on the left side of his left buttock and the bullet was found in his right side.

That entry wound is not consistent with someone fleeing. Rather, it looks like someone taking the "bladed stance," i.e., pointing a gun at someone. The stance would come from somenone firing a gun in his left hand. Bonner says Aldrete-Davila is, in fact, left-handed. Still, the prosecutor, described by Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas), as overzealous, continued to believe Aldrete-Davila's scenario.
http://www.amw.com/features/feature_story_detail.cfm?id=1369

[twa]

Interesting

http://euphoricreality.com/2007/01/22/guard-the-borders-blogburst-jan-22-07/

Furthermore, Aldrete-Davila was given a green card AND a car, at American taxpayer expense, so that he could drive back and forth between Mexico. Aldrete-Davila later broke his immunity agreement in October 2005, when officers say he attempted to smuggle 1,000 pounds of marijuana into America, while driving this tax-payer funded vehicle! U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton further extended immunity to this additional felony and sealed the indictment from jurors. Aldrete-Davila’s arrest record was expunged, and a gag order was issued. The jury was not informed of the second smuggling arrest, and Sutton issued a public statement that Aldrete-Davila was “never arrested” on drug charges.

[Popeman38]

Interesting
http://euphoricreality.com/2007/01/22/guard-the-borders-blogburst-jan-22-07/
Furthermore, Aldrete-Davila was given a green card AND a car, at American taxpayer expense, so that he could drive back and forth between Mexico. Aldrete-Davila later broke his immunity agreement in October 2005, when officers say he attempted to smuggle 1,000 pounds of marijuana into America, while driving this tax-payer funded vehicle! U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton further extended immunity to this additional felony and sealed the indictment from jurors. Aldrete-Davila’s arrest record was expunged, and a gag order was issued. The jury was not informed of the second smuggling arrest, and Sutton issued a public statement that Aldrete-Davila was “never arrested” on drug charges.This is interseting. On the Glen Beck show last evening, they had a legal expert from CNN on. The reasons given for the expunging of the arrest was that if the second arrest for smuggling was made public, the prosecution would lose their only witness because he would be deemed unreliable. In my opinion, his testimony should be thrown out.
Also, he was given a green card as well as was the rest of his family. He was placed on the path to citizenship by the the US taxpayers and given immunity in return for his testimony against border patrol agents. Conflict of interest? I would say so.
Also, his mother called the mother of a border patrol agent to complain about the shooting. Why? Because he had been friends with the border patrol agent while growing up in Mexico.
In addition, the legal expert said covering up a shooting was punishable by 5 unpaid days off, but the agents got 12 and 11 years in prison. This has the makings of a major ring of corruption. I am not one to jump to conclusions, but it seems like these two were sacrificial lambs.

[Chief skin]

COUNTRY HAS GONE TO HELL , A man does his job and is thrown in jail. The USA is crumbling from within. Our enemies are bigger fools then us, all they have to do is wait and watch us destroy ourselves

[Larry]

Re: Covering up the "victim's" record:

I know there are rules about things that can and can't be brought up in court. For example, it was explained to me that if, say, you're on trial, accused of smuggling drugs, the prosecution can't mention that you've been previously convicted of the same thing four times, because that information might prejudice the jury, and those previous convictions don't bear on whether you were smuggling this time.

I've never heard of a rule that prosecution witnesses can have their convictions hidden from the jury, though. (Maybe they were hidden because they happened after the incident being tried.)

Re: "five days suspension"

If you folks really want to claim that the standard punishment for a police officer committing a felony in front of other police officers, and then covering it up, is five days pay, then maybe I'll believe you, but all that will mean is that, IMO, there need to be a lot of Border Patrol "officers" behind bars.

[Redskins Diehard]

Re: Covering up the "victim's" record:

I know there are rules about things that can and can't be brought up in court. For example, it was explained to me that if, say, you're on trial, accused of smuggling drugs, the prosecution can't mention that you've been previously convicted of the same thing four times, because that information might prejudice the jury, and those previous convictions don't bear on whether you were smuggling this time.

I've never heard of a rule that prosecution witnesses can have their convictions hidden from the jury, though. (Maybe they were hidden because they happened after the incident being tried.)

Re: "five days suspension"

If you folks really want to claim that the standard punishment for a police officer committing a felony in front of other police officers, and then covering it up, is five days pay, then maybe I'll believe you, but all that will mean is that, IMO, there need to be a lot of Border Patrol "officers" behind bars.

What punishment do you advocate for the supervisors that "covered it up" as well? Oh wait, they said there was no gun so no punishment for them. Of course their story is corroborated by the guy with a van full of illegal drugs entering the country illegally who also happens to get no punishment for any of his misdeeds...but let me guess, he is just doing a job that Americans won't do in order to provide for his poor family.

[Larry]

What punishment do you advocate for the supervisors that "covered it up" as well? Oh wait, they said there was no gun so no punishment for them. Of course their story is corroborated by the guy with a van full of illegal drugs entering the country illegally who also happens to get no punishment for any of his misdeeds...but let me guess, he is just doing a job that Americans won't do in order to provide for his poor family.

I think they should be punished, too.

Unfortunately, (as I understand it), the prosecutor had to give them immunity on their lesser offenses to get them to testify against the people who committed the greater offenses.

Sometimes street-level drug dealers "get a walk" if they testify against their suppliers. It would be nice if they got punished, too, but sometimes that's the deal.

(But just because the lower level dealer got immunity, doesn't mean the supplier is being treated unfairly, or that he should get immunity, too.)

[Redskins Diehard]

I think they should be punished, too.

Unfortunately, (as I understand it), the prosecutor had to give them immunity on their lesser offenses to get them to testify against the people who committed the greater offenses.

Sometimes street-level drug dealers "get a walk" if they testify against their suppliers. It would be nice if they got punished, too, but sometimes that's the deal.

(But just because the lower level dealer got immunity, doesn't mean the supplier is being treated unfairly, or that he should get immunity, too.)

Well it seems to me that IF the illegal cross border drug smuggler had a gun then the shooting would have been justified...or even if the man charged with protecting our border THOUGHT he had a gun, then the shooting was justified. Right now the only people who are saying that there was no gun are the aforementioned illegal cross border drug smuggler(who was given immunity from the various felonies HE was committing) and the other agents on the scene who were MORE culpable of a cover up(as they were supervisors and we typically expect more from those in charge).

I am not one of those that believes that every illegal immigrant should be shot on sight. I do recognize when police go overboard(Rodney King and Abner Louima for example).

[Sarge]

There was some Border Patrol union official on the news last night who said that the most these guys should have gotten was 5 days of un paid leave for their infractions

But Goerge wants to smooth relations for his "One North America" scheme

[Redskins Diehard]

There was some Border Patrol union official on the news last night who said that the most these guys should have gotten was 5 days of un paid leave for their infractions

But Goerge wants to smooth relations for his "One North America" scheme

It seems to me that they should be punished for their "cover up" (which in my opinion is really more along the lines of "failure to report") and that is about it. I'm not sure what the standard punishment is for such actions but I imagine it should be higher for the supervisors that were also there.