Senator questions Border Patrol policy on deadly force

[nevadamedic]

Story Highlights

Senate Judiciary Committee hears testimony on jailed agents' case
Agents jailed after shooting a fleeing, unarmed drug trafficker
Former agents Ignacio Ramos and Alonso Compean are media cause celebre

"Why is it wrong to shoot the [trafficker] after he's been told to stop?" asked Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/17/border.agents.ap/index.html

That makes perfect sense. This is a perfect example of a witch hunt. This prosecutor was just trying to make a name for himself which he did. Even Democratic representatives are saying he over reacted. What id the problem here? why can't they just pardon these officers since the courts wont do what is right? I think the guards should have shoot to kill orders. The guy was given an order and he fled. He also was trafficking drugs in and had a large amount on him. They officers should have recieved an award not a prison sentance.

[Gaffer]

At least these guys should have got a three day suspension for not completing the paper work. At best they should have got a medal. The prosecutor needs to join nafong.

[nevadamedic]

At least these guys should have got a three day suspension for not completing the paper work. At best they should have got a medal. The prosecutor needs to join nafong.

I think this prosecutor needs to be evaluated. He has gone after three law enforcement agents for defending our Boarders against illegal immigrants and it's wrong. I wish President Bush would step up and pardon these three people.

This Senator has it right, we should be able to shoot at anyone coming into this country illegally.

[gabosaurus]

The laws are clear on using deadly force. If an officer is not threatened, they do not have the right to use deadly force. You can't just shoot someone because you want to. This is a product of the gun culture society that would rather shoot someone than look at them twice.

[nevadamedic]

The laws are clear on using deadly force. If an officer is not threatened, they do not have the right to use deadly force. You can't just shoot someone because you want to. This is a product of the gun culture society that would rather shoot someone than look at them twice.

The people coming over the border are commiting a crime and it is a national security issue. Under those guidelines law enforcement are allowed to use deadly force and should every time.

[glockmail]

The people coming over the border are commiting a crime and it is a national security issue. Under those guidelines law enforcement are allowed to use deadly force and should every time.
Gabby has a point, but as usual goes over the top afterwards.

Jusyt because someone commits a crime does not give you, I or the border agents license to kill. But they can respond with deadly force if they percieve their lives are threatened. As I recall in this case the perps were running away.

[waterrescuedude2000]

Hmm sorry but this is a matter of national security. The day after 9-11 we should have either erected sniper towers, Or you can issue hunting license for the illegals call them immigrant tags. There should be no bag limit either.
I also thought that land mines would be a good idea but i dont want to see any of our border patrol agents killed by our mines either so that one is out the window. How else do you think the terrorists are going to bring weapons of mass destruction and nukes into our country?? Its possible for them with the way our borders are now.

[nevadamedic]

Hmm sorry but this is a matter of national security. The day after 9-11 we should have either erected sniper towers, Or you can issue hunting license for the illegals call them immigrant tags. There should be no bag limit either.
I also thought that land mines would be a good idea but i dont want to see any of our border patrol agents killed by our mines either so that one is out the window. How else do you think the terrorists are going to bring weapons of mass destruction and nukes into our country?? Its possible for them with the way our borders are now.

Actually they think they are going to hijack at tanker and get it into one of our ports and they said that would be the equilivant of a nuclear bomb. It was on this pirates documentary about current pirates on the history channel.

[nevadamedic]

Gabby has a point, but as usual goes over the top afterwards.

Jusyt because someone commits a crime does not give you, I or the border agents license to kill. But they can respond with deadly force if they percieve their lives are threatened. As I recall in this case the perps were running away.

What? Gabby over the top? When does that ever happen?!?!? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[glockmail]

Hmm sorry but this is a matter of national security. The day after 9-11 we should have either erected sniper towers, Or you can issue hunting license for the illegals call them immigrant tags. There should be no bag limit either.
I also thought that land mines would be a good idea but i dont want to see any of our border patrol agents killed by our mines either so that one is out the window. How else do you think the terrorists are going to bring weapons of mass destruction and nukes into our country?? Its possible for them with the way our borders are now.


Maybe you forget but I'm the one advocating two rows of razor wire 400 yards apart with a free fire zone in between. But we don't have the Presidential Order for that, or a declaration of war on Mexico, so unfortunately the border agents have to live by the current rules, crappy as they are.

[nevadamedic]

Maybe you forget but I'm the one advocating two rows of razor wire 400 yards apart with a free fire zone in between. But we don't have the Presidential Order for that, or a declaration of war on Mexico, so unfortunately the border agents have to live by the current rules, crappy as they are.

That's what happens when you have Liberals in office.

[waterrescuedude2000]

We need to free our border patrol agents!! They were just doing their job. They should be given medals not put in prison. The border insecurity is a matter of national security. We have terrorists and illegals crossing our borders. SECURE OUR BORDERS!
Please sign this petition to free our border patrol agents
http://www.grassfire.org/142/petition.asp

[nevadamedic]

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein will preside over a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing examining the prosecution of former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.

The hearing is scheduled for Tuesday at 10 a.m.

Since the public outcry over the Ramos and Compean convictions, the man who prosecuted them, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, has been conducting a non-stop media blitz to convince the public that Ramos and Compean lied, destroyed evidence and intentionally shot an unarmed Mexican who was running for his life.

Sutton has been allowed to repeat his assertions without being forced to be responsive to new evidence and documents produced since the trial by investigative journalists.

Hopefully, the committee hearing scheduled for next Tuesday will press Sutton on contradictions and inconsistencies between his account of the case and the developing public record.

The following 15 questions are offered in the hope that next week's Senate hearing will not simply become yet one more Sutton press opportunity.


Sutton says Ramos and Compean fired after Mexican Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, who Sutton stresses was an "unarmed" drug smuggler. Davila escaped from the scene back into Mexico. Since he was never apprehended or frisked, no one will ever know for certain if Davila was armed or not.
Question: What definitive proof, besides circumstantial arguments about the behavior of participants at the scene, does Sutton have to prove conclusively that Davila was unarmed?


Sutton claims the jury convicted Ramos and Compean after a trial, arguing this alone establishes conclusively the men's guilt. Yet, WND has documented that Sutton and prosecutor Debra Kanof withheld from the jury information about Davila's second drug bust while Davila was under immunity and had a border-crossing pass signed by a DHS agent. WND has also reported that withholding key information is a repeating pattern in Border Patrol agent prosecutions. In the decision to grant Border Patrol Agent David Sipe a new trial, the prosecution's withholding of evidence was a main factor. In his retrial, Sipe was acquitted, but the experience cost him seven years of his life, his life's savings and his marriage.
Questions: If Sutton and Kanof withheld material information about the prosecution's key witness from the jury, why should we assume the jury's verdict was conclusive on the issue of Ramos and Compean's guilt? What was Sutton's motive in withholding information about Davila's second drug load from the jury? Was Sutton only interested in winning the prosecution against Ramos and Compean, even if it meant withholding from the jury material truths that would have damaged the prosecutions case?


Sutton and Kanof allowed Davila to testify on the stand that he was an inexperienced drug smuggler who only committed this one offense, because his commercial driver's license in Mexico had expired and he needed money, supposedly to buy medicine for his sick mother. Yet, as WND reported, Sutton and Kanof knew Davila was lying on key material points, especially since his "second load" demonstrated that Davila knew how to find a safe house in Clint, Texas, without being led there by a lead car (as Davila testified was the set-up in the Ramos-Compean load). Davila's testimony at the Ramos-Compean trial that he was unarmed was central to the prosecution's argument. Yet, the Ramos-Compean defense was prevented from probing the second drug load with questions that most likely would have undermined Davila's credibility.
Questions: Why did Sutton and Kanof prevent the defense from questioning Davila about the second drug load? Were Sutton and Kanof convinced that the jury would vote for acquittal if they knew Davila had smuggled a second load of drugs across the border while he was under immunity for the first drug load?


At trial, the prosecution argued that Davila tried to surrender and only fled because he was in fear of his life. The defense argued Davila was armed and that both Ramos and Compean feel he reached back at them with an object they perceived to be a weapon. Davila was wounded in the left buttocks, with the bullet traversing his groin, ending up lodged in his right thigh. The doctor who removed the bullet testified at the trial that the evidence of the wound was consistent with a "bladed movement," with Davila reaching his left hand back toward the officers as he was running away. The doctor testimony about the wound was consistent with the argument that Davila may have reached back with a gun while escaping.
Questions: Why does Sutton continue to claim Davila was shot in the back? Is Sutton's intent to characterize the wound incorrectly? Is Sutton's real intent in characterizing Davila's wound as "a shot in the back" to reinforce his argument that Davila was an unarmed victim who was shot maliciously by rogue Border Patrol agents who refused to arrest him, preferring to shoot him as he fled defenselessly for safety?


Sutton consistently says he does not have enough information to indict and prosecute Davila for the second load. Yet, WND has reported that both a DHS and DEA investigative report exist naming Davila as bringing the second drug load in October 2005 to a safe house operated by Cipriano Ortiz-Hernandez.
Questions: If DHS and DEA reports exist naming Davila in this second drug load, is Sutton hiding behind the cloak of "an ongoing investigation" or "insufficient information," when his true intent is to protect his key witness against Ramos and Compean from prosecution for subsequent drug offenses? Why doesn't Sutton prosecute Davila? Has Sutton revealed the full extent of payments or other "deals" that Davila was offered in exchange for his sworn testimony at trial against Ramos and Compean?


WND reported Sutton's office has arrested and indicted Cipriano Ortiz-Hernandez for drug offenses involved in the Davila "second load" case.
Questions: Does Sutton intend to extend the immunity granted Davila to this second load? Does Sutton intend to call Davila to testify in Ortiz-Hernandez's case? Would Sutton seek to block the defense at the Ortiz-Hernandez case from calling Davila to testify?


DHS Inspector General Richard L. Skinner, before the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee Feb. 6, 2006, admitted that officials of his agency misrepresented DHS reports when they told Congress Ramos and Compean were "rogue cops" who had confessed to knowingly shooting at an unarmed suspect. The DHS investigators further misrepresented that their reports stated the day of the incident Ramos and Compean said they "wanted to shoot a Mexican."
Question: Why does Sutton continue to rely on unsubstantiated DHS allegations when the DHS inspector general under oath to Congress has admitted these misrepresentations?


WND published for the first time a DHS investigative report written April 12, 2005, that documented seven additional Border Patrol agents and two supervisors were present at the scene of the shooting for which Ramos and Compean are imprisoned. The memo stated these agents and supervisors "assisted in destroying evidence of the shooting, and/or knew/heard about the shooting." The memo also states all the agents and supervisors on the scene were equally guilty for not filing a written report.
Question: Why didn't Sutton prosecute any of these additional seven agents and two supervisors who were present on the scene of the Davila drug smuggling incident?


In an exclusive interview with WND, Sutton claimed he learned of Davila's identity after Davila came forward through a Mexican lawyer who offered to identify his client in exchange for immunity. WND subsequently reported a March 14, 2005, DHS memo shows that within one month of the shooting, government investigators had identified the drug smuggler as Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila. The information came from Border Patrol Agent Rene Sanchez who grew up with Davila in Mexico.
Question: Why did Sutton lie about how the government identified the escaped drug smuggler as Davila?


WND has also reported that Agent Sanchez telephoned Border Patrol Agent Nolan Blanchett in the Ysleta BP Station in Texas with unusually accurate advance information about drug deliveries scheduled to cross the Mexican border.
Question: How close was Rene Sanchez to Davila's drug cartel associates? Why didn't Sutton's office look into back-channel communications with Mexican drug cartels suggested by Rene Sanchez's unusually accurate information regarding scheduled drug deliveries and his boyhood friend, Davila?


In an exclusive interview with WND, Sutton claimed there was no evidence on the scene that could be used to identify Davila as the drug smuggler. Yet, WND has reported that fingerprints were discovered on the abandoned drug van and a cell phone was left in the van by the fleeing drug smuggler.
Question: Was this evidence at the scene ignored because prosecutors determined that the target of their investigation was the law enforcement officers, not the drug-smuggler Davila?


A May 15, 2005, memo filed by a DHS agent reports on a transcript of a hearing held by Compean with El Paso Border Patrol Sector Chief Louis Barker. The transcript documents that Compean made a complete, in-person verbal report to the supervisors at the scene immediately following the shooting incident with Davila. This memo, plus the April 12, 2005, DHS investigative memo suggests that either the supervisors at the scene knew a shooting had occurred or were themselves negligent.
Question: Why does Sutton maintain Ramos and Compean were the only agents who committed a crime by not filling out reports about the shooting incident involving Davila?


The penalty for failing to report a discharge of a weapon, as specified by the Border Patrol manual, is at most an administrative penalty of a few days' suspension without pay. Yet, as WND reported, Sutton prosecuted Ramos and Compean under the wrong law, 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c), a statute written to impose a mandatory 10-year sentence when a violent criminal, such as a drug trafficker or a rapist, carries or uses a weapon during the commission of a crime. Ramos and Compean have been sentenced to 11- and 12-year prison terms, respectively. They are both currently being held in solitary confinement in medium-security federal prisons.
Questions: Did Sutton prosecute Ramos and Compean under the wrong law knowingly, with the punitive goal of increasing the severity pf the sentence should they be found guilty? Was Sutton punishing Ramos and Compean for refusing to accept a negotiated deal to plead guilty? Was Sutton trying to send a message to law enforcement on the border to "back off" illegal aliens, even if the illegal aliens were caught in the act of drug smuggling?


WND has previously reported Ramos and Compean were not under investigation for criminal prosecution until after the Mexican consulate found Davila and demanded that the Border Patrol agents involved in his shooting be prosecuted.
Question: Have Sutton's office and the office of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales released completely all communications with Mexican consular officials regarding the prosecution of Ramos and Compean?


Rocksprings Deputy Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez was prosecuted by Sutton even after Hernandez made an immediate and complete report that he had discharged his weapon after a fleeing van of illegal aliens that he believed had tried to run him over. In this case, the Texas Rangers investigated and concluded that Hernandez had done nothing wrong. Sutton's prosecution of Hernandez began only after the Mexican consulate wrote letters demanding that he be prosecuted.
Questions: Is Sutton's claim that Ramos and Compean were prosecuted because they failed to fill out reports only an excuse, especially when Sutton prosecuted Hernandez who had filled out immediately all required reports? In both cases, was the real motive to prosecute a desire by Sutton's office to satisfy the Mexican consulate, favoring the "civil rights" of Mexican nationals illegally in the U.S. over the rights of law enforcement officers who believed they were doing their jobs?

To ask the hard questions and not simply accept Sutton's often rehearsed answers, the committee staff will have to work diligently to make sure questioning senators are well aware of the more documentary evidence and testimony that contradict Sutton's one-sided explanation of the case.

These questions have been shared by e-mail with Laura Wilkinson, deputy press secretary to Feinstein, and Scott Gerber, legislative assistant to Feinstein.

The questions have also been shared with Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum, who is also pressing for a tough cross-examination of the prosecutors by the Senate committee.


Great article. This attorney needs to lose his job. He also has put a Sheriff in jail for the same thing. He needs to be stopped.

[waterrescuedude2000]

Should be kicked out of office and he should be the one in prison. He is the one lieing to try and cover himself

[nevadamedic]

We need to free our border patrol agents!! They were just doing their job. They should be given medals not put in prison. The border insecurity is a matter of national security. We have terrorists and illegals crossing our borders. SECURE OUR BORDERS!
Please sign this petition to free our border patrol agents
http://www.grassfire.org/142/petition.asp

I just signed it.

[gabosaurus]

This would mean that the Border Patrol can kill people whenever they want? Add this to the idiots who believe that the military have the right to kill whoever they want.
The ConReps are freakin lunatics.

[nevadamedic]

This would mean that the Border Patrol can kill people whenever they want? Add this to the idiots who believe that the military have the right to kill whoever they want.
The ConReps are freakin lunatics.

Gabby, are you off your medication again?

[waterrescuedude2000]

This would mean that the Border Patrol can kill people whenever they want? Add this to the idiots who believe that the military have the right to kill whoever they want.
The ConReps are freakin lunatics.

Well we need to toughen up borders not loosen them more.
Read My siggies.

[gabosaurus]

Well we need to toughen up borders not loosen them more.

I feel sorry for your family.

[waterrescuedude2000]

Well gabby what about all of the illegal criminals?? We have illegals in here wanted for murder in their countries. So why not just rid the world of these idiots? I mean ok they took a life and would probably not hesitate to do so again. Why should they be alive? I have no problems with self defence. There was an 11 year old girl last year that shot and killed 2 illegals that broke into her home she was a skeet shooter grabbed her dads 12 guage took a kneeling position and as soon as he was up the stairs she shot him at near point blank range got him in the chest and crotch. She killed them both good riddance to those illegals. One of them was in possesion of a stolen handgun. They probably would have shot her if she hadnt done so to them first!

[nevadamedic]

Well gabby what about all of the illegal criminals?? We have illegals in here wanted for murder in their countries. So why not just rid the world of these idiots? I mean ok they took a life and would probably not hesitate to do so again. Why should they be alive? I have no problems with self defence. There was an 11 year old girl last year that shot and killed 2 illegals that broke into her home she was a skeet shooter grabbed her dads 12 guage took a kneeling position and as soon as he was up the stairs she shot him at near point blank range got him in the chest and crotch. She killed them both good riddance to those illegals. One of them was in possesion of a stolen handgun. They probably would have shot her if she hadnt done so to them first!

Actually they probably would have gang raped her. That's those illegal Mexicans favorite thing to do molest little kida those damn sick bastards.

[waterrescuedude2000]

Yes they probably would have even greater she hit one of them in the groin. Thankfully she was responsible with a gun and knew how to use it.

[nevadamedic]

Yes they probably would have even greater she hit one of them in the groin. Thankfully she was responsible with a gun and knew how to use it.

Yea well 2 down 11,999,997 to go.................

[waterrescuedude2000]

I feel sorry for your family.

How about I am out there defending my family. I am a veteran. I was in both under Clinton And Bush. And i will tel you we were treated much better with Bush in office. I hate the liberals that try and get rid of our military they are almost as bad as the green party. :fu: Thanks to the liberals we have lost alot of gun rights.

[nevadamedic]

How about I am out there defending my family. I am a veteran. I was in both under Clinton And Bush. And i will tel you we were treated much better with Bush in office. I hate the liberals that try and get rid of our military they are almost as bad as the green party. :fu: Thanks to the liberals we have lost alot of gun rights.

Thank's to Liberal's we have lost a lot of right's in general. They kinda of remind me or a political party that took control of Germany in the early 1900's and lasted through the early 1940's.