It's ALMOST Pardon time

[Flash]

Second guessing someone who puts up with that shit everyday= Monday Morning QB. I don't trust the AUSA. BP needs to back up their agents, not question everything action they take. DHS OIG= PC at its finest. Let CBP/BP do their job and protect themselves, screw the politics.

The AUSA screwed them and let off a drug smuggler - who was caught AGAIN shortly after the trial.

Don't give me that bullshit, I will quote my XO who once said about a Prowler mishap "Now I am not going to second guess these guys.....but I am, and they were idiots". And yes, the pilot was an idiot in that case. Same with these guys.

Saying that they should not 'second guess' these guys is a pathetic excuse for a pair of professional law enforcement officers who violated not only the rules and regs of their agency but also the law. So why the hell should their agency back them up if they did? If you can't trust them to follow the rules/law this time, when can you? I am all for backing your fellow sailors/aircrew/officers/etc up but there is definitely a limit. If I can't trust the guy flying next to me, how the hell can I do my job? Violate that kind of trust in the military and see how long you last.

Law enforcement officers, just like military officers, are held to a higher standard, rightfully so. To have a pair of officers so blatantly do bad, not only failing to report the incident but also picking up the shell casings (why?) when they knew that both were violations of the rules and regs shows a complete lack of integrity that is absolutely necessary for people in their position. If they knew they were right, why did they go to such lengths to hide the entire incident? Why did it take the drug smuggler reporting it for it to become known? And they were found guilty by a jury, not the US Attorney, with the sentences held up on appeals. Are the judges screwed up too?

And as distasteful as it is, sometimes it is necessary to deal with people like the drug runner in order to find justice or complete a mission. Law enforcement and the military deal with people like that every day, it sucks but is necessary. The drug runner got his due in the end.

 

[Bevo16]

They were idiots, but the jail term that they got was stupid. They should have gotten a repremand. Jail? For shooting a drug runner and not doing the paperwork? Sorry, our justice system must need to be down-sized if it really has the time to deal with this kind of crap.

 

[mmx1]

They were idiots, but the jail term that they got was stupid. They should have gotten a repremand. Jail? For shooting a drug runner and not doing the paperwork? Sorry, our justice system must need to be down-sized if it really has the time to deal with this kind of crap.

Shooting an unarmed criminal, and then leaving him to die to cover it up.

Oh yeah, just slap them on the wrist. Shoot the next one center of mass and there won't be any silly paperwork to worry about.

 

[mmx1]

Duke = SECNAV, who better :icon_zbee

Defense spending is bloated and out of control, and you think we should put a guy that took bribes in charge.

This is hero worship gone out of control.

 

[Flash]

They were idiots, but the jail term that they got was stupid. They should have gotten a repremand. Jail? For shooting a drug runner and not doing the paperwork? Sorry, our justice system must need to be down-sized if it really has the time to deal with this kind of crap.

They didn't just fail to do the paperwork, they deliberately covered up the entire shooting. The jail sentence is a bit harsh, but they took the risk when they declined to plea bargain.

 

[MPH]

...Why did it take the drug smuggler reporting it for it to become known? And they were found guilty by a jury, not the US Attorney, with the sentences held up on appeals. Are the judges screwed up too?

Funny you mention the smuggler reporting it. The one you neglected to mention was busted smuggling while under government custody and still allowed to testify.

Even worse, the fact he was caught smuggling AGAIN was concealed from the jury during the trial. Several jury members have since said if they had known that, they would have reversed their decision.

That trial was based around the credibility of a drug dealer. Who broke the law on taxpayer time and the government hid it from the jury. Sounds "screwed up" to me.

It's not limited to the Ramos and Compean case either.

I know of a BP agent who was observing a bunch of illegals crossing a river. He threw dirt clump at them to get their attention. They continued crossing the river and eventually they took several into custody.

The illegal reported his "civil rights" were abused.

The agent was fired. And he lost his pension.

Because he threw a dirt clod.

Welcome to America.

And as distasteful as it is, sometimes it is necessary to deal with people like the drug runner in order to find justice or complete a mission. Law enforcement and the military deal with people like that every day, it sucks but is necessary.

The duplicate argument could be made for the agents under the assumption they were even guilty in the first place:

And as distasteful as it is, sometimes it is necessary to deal with agents who shoot criminals in order to find justice or complete a mission. Law enforcement and the military deal with people like that every day, it sucks but is necessary.

 

[helmet91]

The DoJ and DoS are more concerned with what the Mexican Consulate thinks than with getting the job done and that's bullshit.

I'm in no way saying they were 100% in the right. MPH brings up some very good points...

 

[Redux]

Did he or did he not do wrong? Why does he deserve a pardon? In appreciation for his kills over VN 40 years ago?

Shit, I'm going jets then if making ace is a get out of jail free card.

Relax already, did I say Cunningham SHOULD be pardoned? Nope, Id let the two border agents go first, did they fuck up? Yup, sure did they IMO beautified America just a tad. Illegal drug smuggler shot in the ass. Hell call them the Ray Lewis of law enforcement.

 

[wink]

Even worse, the fact he was caught smuggling AGAIN was concealed from the jury during the trial. Several jury members have since said if they had known that, they would have reversed their decision.

There is a very sound legal principle behind the judge's ruling to disallow that information. It is applied hundreds of times a day throughout the US. That is why it was upheld on appeal.

That trial was based around the credibility of a drug dealer. Who broke the law on taxpayer time and the government hid it from the jury. Sounds "screwed up" to me.

The trial was not "based" on the credibility of the illegal alien. There was plenty of physical evidence.

These agents fvcked up. If they had done it by the book, even after the shooting, they would have gotten a reprimand and kept their jobs. The agents got a harsh sentence because of mandatory sentencing guidelines that most tough law and order types, like you I bet, (and me) typically support. They leave little wiggle room for the judge to make allowances for cases like this. And all the carping I heard about them being in "solitary confinement" on talk radio is out context. It wasn't solitary, it was protective custody. It was for their protection. I am sure if they could talk to a talk radio host bitching about their confinement they would ask them to NOT plea for the general population for them! These guys do not deserve a pardon, maybe executive clemency to shorten the prison term.

 

[Flash]

Funny you mention the smuggler reporting it. The one you neglected to mention was busted smuggling while under government custody and still allowed to testify.

Even worse, the fact he was caught smuggling AGAIN was concealed from the jury during the trial. Several jury members have since said if they had known that, they would have reversed their decision.

That trial was based around the credibility of a drug dealer. Who broke the law on taxpayer time and the government hid it from the jury. Sounds "screwed up" to me.

Based on just the testimony of a smuggler or on all the evidence presented? There was plenty of it, including the bullet taken out of the smuggler, shell casings that were thrown away at the scene along with the testimony of their fellow agents. We could go on all day about that but a key question remains, why did the agents actively cover up what they had done? They shot at someone, and yet they didn't bother to report it and specifically picked up the shell casings? How the hell do they explain that? That, more than anything, tells me the former agents character than anything else.

I know of a BP agent who was observing a bunch of illegals crossing a river. He threw dirt clump at them to get their attention. They continued crossing the river and eventually they took several into custody.

The illegal reported his "civil rights" were abused.

The agent was fired. And he lost his pension.

Because he threw a dirt clod.

And every drunk pulled over has just had 'just two beers'. I have no first hand knowledge of the incident but I would be very surprised if it was not more than just that.

The duplicate argument could be made for the agents under the assumption they were even guilty in the first place:

And as distasteful as it is, sometimes it is necessary to deal with agents who shoot criminals in order to find justice or complete a mission. Law enforcement and the military deal with people like that every day, it sucks but is necessary.

Really, I never knew that, thanks for cluing me in on that. :icon_roll

From some info I read about the trial there have been scores of instances where Border Patrol Agents have fired their weapons. In every case a shooting incident was reported the agents were found to be justified. If these agents had merely done what they were supposed to I would bet that they never would have been disciplined at all, much less be sitting in jail.

To consciously cover up shooting a person when you are a police officer, no matter who that person is or what the circumstances, shows a fundamental character flaw that should not be tolerated. I have seen similar situations in the military, where people showed a lack of integrity, and all were harshly dealt with by superiors with little sympathy for the offenders. I have just as little sympathy for these two, they dug their own graves.

 

[picklesuit]

To consciously cover up shooting a person when you are a police officer, no matter who that person is or what the circumstances, shows a fundamental character flaw that should not be tolerated. I have seen similar situations in the military, where people showed a lack of integrity, and all were harshly dealt with by superiors with little sympathy for the offenders. I have just as little sympathy for these two, they dug their own graves.

God it burns my ass, but I agree with Flash...these guys flaunted the laws they were protecting, they, of all people, should know better. That is why we (the military we) get fucked if we so much as get in a shouting match at a bar and the police get called. Every civvy jackass can go to work the next day after a DUI and still have his job (most of the time) but we are looking for work. Higher standards are a bitch, but they exist for a reason...

 

[MPH]

There is a very sound legal principle behind the judge's ruling to disallow that information. It is applied hundreds of times a day throughout the US. That is why it was upheld on appeal.

Well then, the law is crazy!

The trial was not "based" on the credibility of the illegal alien. There was plenty of physical evidence.

This is true, granted. But the case was built at least partially upon the testimony of that scumbag. If I recall, the prosecution told the jury he wasn't a smuggler. The government knew that was a lie.

If we're going to speak of higher standards what about the standards prosecutors are held to? Their role is to seek the truth. I abhor the fact they lied to win. They subverted the truth to get the conviction they desired.

These agents fvcked up. If they had done it by the book, even after the shooting, they would have gotten a reprimand and kept their jobs. The agents got a harsh sentence because of mandatory sentencing guidelines that most tough law and order types, like you I bet, (and me) typically support.

I'm no lawyer, and I don't pretend to know what's right all the time. They certainly screwed the pooch big time, but I do not believe they had the intent to commit murder either.

I simply have a hard time imagining them discharging the weapon unless they felt they were endangered. Maybe that's a blind spot for me, but do you think they went to work that day thinking they were going to shoot an illegal in cold blood? Do you think it was their good fortune he was a smuggler?

I give cops the benefit of the doubt in ALL cases. Especially when held up against the word of an illegal alien drug smuggler.

 

[wink]

Well then, the law is crazy!

Not so fast. The rules of evidence protect a lot of innocent people and make the prosecutor work for a conviction. They keep the state's power in check. This anology is not exactly on point but it is the very basis for the judge's ruling. Every trial, every accusation by the state against a defendant, must stand on its own merits. There are lots of limits to what can be brought up in trial about the past. If you were convicted for a crime and then got Jesus and rejected your felonious past would it be fair for someone to disregard your later testimony in a trial? If you were convicted of a crime, paid your debt to society and went straight, would you want your past to be used against you if you were wrongly accused of a crime by the government. Our would you want them to put up the evidence of what they claim you did this time? The issue for the jury is what happened during the actual alleged crime. The courts are not a grade school play ground where you call names.

This is true, granted. But the case was built at least partially upon the testimony of that scumbag. If I recall, the prosecution told the jury he wasn't a smuggler. The government knew that was a lie.

If we're going to speak of higher standards what about the standards prosecutors are held to? Their role is to seek the truth. I abhor the fact they lied to win. They subverted the truth to get the conviction they desired.

The scumbag testified that he was shot and proved it by the very fact he was in court with a bullet wound from the agent's gun. That is what he was there for. How does the fact that he smuggled drugs impugn that testimony. You do agree he was shot, right? They didn't lie. You can read it for yourself if you want to do the research. The prosecutor had a great reputation as being anti drug and anti illegal immigration. His conviction record in drug crimes made him the darling of the Border Patrol agents in that sector. He is not a liberal do good anti law enforcement type.

I'm no lawyer, and I don't pretend to know what's right all the time. They certainly screwed the pooch big time, but I do not believe they had the intent to commit murder either.

I simply have a hard time imagining them discharging the weapon unless they felt they were endangered. Maybe that's a blind spot for me, but do you think they went to work that day thinking they were going to shoot an illegal in cold blood? Do you think it was their good fortune he was a smuggler?

The jury and prosecutor didn't think their intent was to commit a murder either. They were convicted on charges of causing serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence and a civil rights violation. Before you get bent about the civil rights of a smuggler the law says you can not shoot someone fleeing (suspect was shot in the ass) unless you have reason to believe they are a proximate deadly danger to another person. In this case the jury clearly did not believe that was the case since he was fleeing to Mexico where an accomplice the agents could see waited to further aid escape. You simply can't shoot people to stop them from running away.

I give cops the benefit of the doubt in ALL cases. Especially when held up against the word of an illegal alien drug smuggler.

As someone that actually wears a badge and carries a gun, and has a spouse that has spent a career defending cops in court accused of wrongful shootings and use of force, I can appreciate that point. Thank you. But, I encourage you to be just a bit more discriminating. At what point are the cops not allowed the benefit of your doubt? When you witness their mistakes, when your mother is the witness, a video tape, how much physical evidence, just when? Cops are human. They make mistakes. And, a very few (not these agents, I believe) are real criminals. At some point you have to get on the integrity wagon for the benefit of all law enforcement and the safety of your community.

 

[FLYTPAY]

They didn't just fail to do the paperwork, they deliberately covered up the entire shooting. The jail sentence is a bit harsh, but they took the risk when they declined to plea bargain.

Agree....although I think the sentence is appropriate. They tried to batter an unarmed smuggler. They failed to make an arrest after shooting said unarmed smuggler when he was semi-mobile. The moral of the story is, get your TPS reports done, do not cover them up, and shoot to kill.

 

[Malo83]

Defense spending is bloated and out of control, and you think we should put a guy that took bribes in charge.

This is hero worship gone out of control.

:icon_zbee