DOJ responds on border agent controversy
by David Benzion · 01/17/2007 3:14 pmAcross the country–and right here in Texas, Houston specifically—an outcry has been reaching fever pitch about the jailing today of former Border Control agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean.
For background on the story and a sense of the passions it has stirred, click here and here.
My take on this story from the start has been this:
- Two border patrol agents shot a drug smuggler in the ass;
- A lot of people are glad that they did and wish it would happen more often;
- Doing it happens to be against the law.
If you are a right-wing conservative grumpy talk-radio listener—some of whom are my very best friends in the world–you care more about point #2 than point #3.
If you AREN’T a right-wing conservative grumpy talk-radio listener, or you are an elected official, chances are that you consider point #3 to be pretty important, regardless of how you feel about point #2.
Here is what I do know–this debate has reached insane levels of “more heat than light.”
So in the interest of spreading information and encouraging thoughtful, constructive consideration of the issues, I am reposting in full a press release just sent out by the office of US Western District of Texas Attorney Johnny Sutton.
I know this is long, but I want to encourage commenters to focus on facts, not (just) emotion, so I’m going to reproduce the entire thing.
Give it a read–maybe you’ll be persuaded, maybe you won’t.
—————
United States Attorney Johnny Sutton, Western District of Texas
MYTH VS. REALITY–THE FACTS OF WHY THE GOVERNMENT PROSECUTED AGENTS COMPEAN AND RAMOS
—————
Myth: THE AGENTS WERE JUST DOING THEIR JOBS
Reality: Securing our nation’s borders can be a tough and dangerous job. Often, Border Patrol agents find themselves in difficult and dangerous situations. We give them guns and allow them to defend themselves. Border Patrol training allows for the use of deadly force when an agent reasonably fears imminent bodily injury or death. An agent is not permitted to shoot an unarmed suspect who is running away.
There was no credible evidence that the agents were in a life-threatening situation or that Aldrete, the Mexican alien, had a weapon that would justify the use of deadly force. In fact, Border Patrol Agent Juarez, who was at the scene, testified at trial that he did not draw his pistol because he did not believe there was a threat. He also testified that Aldrete did not have a weapon and was almost to Mexico when Agent Compean began firing at him.
In America, law enforcement officers do not get to shoot unarmed suspects who are running away, lie about it to their supervisors and file official reports that are false. That is a crime and prosecutors cannot look the other way.
—————
Myth: THE GOVERNMENT LET A DRUG SMUGGLER GO FREE
Reality: My office would have much preferred to see Aldrete convicted and sent to prison for his crimes. We are in the business of putting guys like Aldrete behind bars. In fact, this office leads the nation in the number of drug smuggling cases we prosecute. Because the agents could not identify him, found no fingerprints, could not tie him to the van and did not apprehend him after shooting him, the case against Aldrete could not be proven.
—————
Myth: THESE BORDER PATROL AGENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED
Reality: The crimes committed by these agents rise to the level of felonies and are not mere administrative oversights. This was not a simple case of discharge of a firearm that was not reported. The truth of this case is that Agents Compean and Ramos shot 15 times at an unarmed man who was running away from them and who posed no threat.
This office cannot ignore these agents’ crimes just because the person they shot turned out to be a drug smuggler. Our system of justice requires that a person be tried in a court of law before he is punished. We do not permit police officers to summarily punish those whom the officers think have committed crimes. A police officer cannot shoot at an unarmed suspect who does not pose an immediate serious threat to the life of the officer or a bystander.
In order to maintain the rule of law, federal prosecutors cannot look the other way when law enforcement officers shoot unarmed suspects who are running away, then lie about it to their supervisors and file official reports that are false.
—————
Myth: ALDRETE HAS BEEN ARRESTED FOR SMUGGLING MORE DRUGS INTO THE UNITED STATES
Reality: Aldrete has not been subsequently arrested for drug smuggling. Our office is in the business of prosecuting drug traffickers and alien smugglers. We are on the front lines of this battle and we aggressively prosecute these criminals every day in court. In fact, the Western District of Texas leads the nation in the number of individuals we prosecute for illegally smuggling drugs into this country. If we had a provable case against Aldrete, we would prosecute him.
—————
Myth: THE GOVERNMENT GAVE ALDRETE BLANKET IMMUNITY FOR HIS CRIMES
Reality: Agent Compean failed to arrest Aldrete when he attempted to surrender; instead, Compean tried to hit Aldrete with the butt of his shotgun, at which time Aldrete began to run towards the border. The agents shot at him 15 times, hitting him once, knocking Aldrete to the ground.
Compean and Ramos chose not to walk over to the wounded Aldrete and arrest him; rather, they re-holstered their guns, turned around and left the scene. When Aldrete then got back to Mexico without having been apprehended and identified, there was no longer any way to tie him to the load of marijuana, except through his own admissions.
Prosecutors promised Aldrete they would not use his truthful statements and testimony to prosecute him for the events that occurred on Feb. 17, 2005. Prosecutors around the country routinely make similar representations to obtain crucial testimony. This type of “use immunity” does not give blanket immunity for any crimes he may have committed or may commit in the future. If there were other admissible evidence besides his own statements sufficient to convict him, he could be prosecuted for the offense he describes.
As a practical matter, the promise to Aldrete gave up very little since the case against him was not prosecutable. There was no way to prosecute Aldrete while he was in Mexico. He could not have forced him to come back to the United States to be prosecuted, and there was no evidence against him until he agreed to cooperate.
—————
Myth: ALDRETE HAD A GUN AND THE AGENTS ONLY FIRED IN SELF DEFENSE
Reality: Trial testimony from other Border Patrol agents who were at the scene and who arrived shortly after the shooting shows that this is not true. Testimony further revealed that Agents Compean and Ramos never took cover nor did they ever warn the other agents to take cover. This action demonstrates that they did not perceive a threat.
In his statement to investigators, Compean admitted that Aldrete had attempted to surrender with both hands open and in the air.
Had Agents Compean and Ramos truly believed Aldrete was a threat, they would not have abandoned him after the shooting and they would have warned their fellow agents who arrived at the scene to stay out of the open while an armed suspect was on the loose. If the agents had believed that the shooting was justified then they would have left the crime scene undisturbed and let the investigation absolve them.
The agents knew that Aldrete did not have a weapon and they knew he posed no threat to them as he fled. Agent Juarez also testified that Aldrete was surrendering to Compean with his hands open and empty palms turned to Compean.
—————
Myth: THE AGENTS WERE NOT SURE OF WHAT THEY SAW BECAUSE IT WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT
Reality: The events of Feb. 17, 2005, occurred at approximately 1:00 P.M MT.
—————
Myth: JOHNNY SUTTON IS AN OVERZEALOUS PROSECUTOR WHO IS ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE LAW
Reality: These agents were found guilty by a unanimous jury in a United States District Court after a trial that lasted more than two and a half weeks.
The two agents were represented by experienced and aggressive trial attorneys, both of whom vigorously challenged the Government’s evidence through cross examination.
Both agents told their stories from the witness stand and had full opportunities to explain their version of events and to offer their own evidence. The jury heard everything including the defendants’ claims of self defense. The problem for Agents Compean and Ramos is that the jury did not believe their stories because they were not true.
—————
Myth: THESE AGENTS ARE FACING TOO MUCH TIME IN FEDERAL PRISON
Reality: Congress determined the penalties imposed on Compean and Ramos by setting the punishment for discharging a firearm during a crime of violence at a mandatory minimum of ten years (on top of any other sentence imposed). Congress did not make an exception for law enforcement officers.
—————
Myth: THE DRUG SMUGGLER WAS AWARDED A GREEN CARD
Reality: Aldrete was not given a green card which would enable him to have permanent legal resident status in this country. A military physician in the United States removed the bullet from Aldrete because it was an important piece of evidence and because the law requires the government to render such assistance. In order to have the bullet removed, meet with federal investigators and to testify in court in El Paso, he was entitled to come into the United States on a limited basis within a limited geographical area and only for those purposes. The last time he was legally allowed to enter the United States was in February 2006.
—————
Myth: ALDRETE NEVER HAD HIS HANDS UP AND WAS NOT ATTEMPTING TO SURRENDER
Reality: In their sworn testimony, Agent Compean and Agent Juarez both testified that Aldrete did have his hands in the air in an effort to surrender.
—————
Myth: COMPEAN WAS BLOODIED FROM A STRUGGLE WITH ALDRETE
Reality: Trial testimony showed that the only blood on Agent Compean was between his thumb and forefinger and was a result of him improperly holding his weapon. When asked if he was injured, he said “no” and when further asked if he wanted to file a report for his injury, he again said “no.”
—————
Myth: THESE AGENTS DID NOT REPORT THE SHOOTING TO SUPERVISORS BECAUSE THE SUPERVISORS WERE ON THE SCENE OF THE SHOOTING
Reality: The trial testimony of the defendants, fellow Border Patrol agents who were on the scene and who arrived shortly thereafter, as well as taped radio communications showed that there were no supervisors at the scene at the time of the shooting. The agents knew they must report any discharge of a firearm and had just received training to this effect the day before this shooting. Further, Agent Ramos was a Border Patrol firearms instructor and a member of the evidence recovery team. He was well aware of this requirement as he had taught this to other agents. They did not report the discharge
because they knew the shooting was not justified.Furthermore, based on their training and experience, they were aware of what law enforcement resources would be dispatched to the crime scene to investigate a shooting, including sector evidence team, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and state and local law enforcement.
—————
Myth: ILLEGAL ALIENS DO NOT HAVE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Reality: The courts have held that the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protects all persons in the United States whether they are here legally or illegally. It is a violation of the 4th Amendment to shoot an unarmed person who poses no threat to the shooter. This law applies regardless of immigration status.
—————
Myth: AGENT RAMOS CLAIMS THAT THE BULLET EXTRACTED FROM ALDRETE MIGHT NOT HAVE COME FROM HIS SERVICE REVOLVER
Reality: Agent Ramos stipulated and agreed before trial that the bullet extracted from Aldrete came from his service weapon. Independent forensic analysis also showed that the bullet extracted from Aldrete matched Agent Ramos’ weapon.
—————
Myth: AGENT RAMOS WAS BORDER PATROL AGENT OF THE YEAR
Reality: Agent Ramos has never received any formal recognition or award for being the Border Patrol Agent of the year. In fact, he has been arrested on at least two occasions for domestic abuse and was formally disciplined for conduct unbecoming a federal officer.
—————
There you go–tell us what you think.
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
I guess I’m a grumpy talk-radio listener..
“ILLEGAL ALIENS DO NOT HAVE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS”
I know the “courts” think this is false. But I think the courts are false. Just as the 9th circus court was wrong in letting go the millennium bomber. Everything now is a interpretation of the constitution rather than the constitution speaking for itself. “We the people of the United States….” Not the “We the people of the United States and illegal aliens..”
I digress. So to be fair and balanced, where is the defense’s press release?
Reading over this, there is a problem with consistency. At times, there are other officers present during and after the incident. But the two convicted officers left before crossed back Aldrete to Mexico. Even though other officers were present, none offered aid to the injured Aldrete, even though they saw him and knew he was injured (at least from the shotgun butt). None of these officers placed the two defendants under arrest immediately, or stoopped them from tampering with evidence. If what the AG says is true, apparently we have an entire border patrol group that has no clue how to follow procedure, lend assistance to an injured person, or enforce the law.
#1 Zippy-slug– like I said, some of my best friends.
If defenders of the agents want to write a sober response to the points made in the DOJ release, I’ll be happy to post that too.
But this controversy needs to start being grounded in fact, not allegation, and not just emotion.
Call me “The Honest Broker.”
The US Attorney Johnny Sutton states as “fact” the drug smuggler’s testimony as to the occurances that day when 2 Border Patrol Agents confronted him and he resisted arrest and allegedly pointed a gun at them. In the US Atty handbook the attorneys are cautioned to not give a witness immunity unless they have been charged with a crime. No charges ever brought against this thug. Why does the US Attorney take the word of a drug smuggler whom he gave immunity over the word of two US Border Patrol Agents?
Next question - did the smuggler get arrested a 2nd time with 1000# of drugs while under the first immunity deal or not? Cong. Ted Poe has stated time and time again that is the case - so is it true or not?
Next question - did US Attorney Suttons office also prosecute a Rock Springs Texas Deputy for “civil rights violations” when he fired on a car driven by a coyote. After conviction the US Atty demanded the deputy be held without bond for 4 months till he was sentenced.
This deal stinks from one end to the other. Wake up and smell the coffee.
And how does he figure 15 shots? If they did shoot 15 times, please send them back to the range after thier release. They need more practice!!!
Anyone want to volutneer to create a timeline of events from the press release to help us make sense of this?
There are too many inconsistencies in this press release. It also does not explain why Sutton will not turn information over to our Congressmen. If it is as simple as Sutton says, then just turn this stuff over. He’s covering his ass big time and others are helping him do so, IMHO.
What would have happened if the drug smuggler had shot one of the border patrol officers? Would the prosecution been as vigorous with pursuit of this illegal alien? Something smells to high heaven and unless the prosecutor’s explain their side of the story better, we are going to assume it’s all political and unfortunately two good officers paid the price. It’s any wonder anybody would want to protect the border with results like this.
#3 David: Agreed..
Can’t get the linky to the DOJ to work.. but there was a pre-sentence release.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/2006/compeanramosfinal.pdf
Sounds strangely the same.
Benzene-
Let us know when Congressman McCaul comes forward with requested documents.
I suspect (don’t know for sure) that at least one representative of Sutton’s office is monitoring this thread.
So it might be useful if, in addition to everything else, people craft very specific and sober questions they would like Sutton’s office to answer.
#10 Shannon– you are correct; link not working, so I removed it; will add back when it can be fixed.
I think it is very interesting that the Border Patrol agents can be prosecuted based on what went down before other agents arrived–i.e. hitting Aldrete with the butt of a gun and shooting him. This means that Aldrete’s account of what happened can be used in court against the agents. Yet, Sutton claims that Aldrete cannot be prosecuted for the drug smuggling. Huh? Why can’t the word of two agents be used for prosecution of a drug smuggler, but the word of one drug smuggler HAS BEEN used to prosecute two agents? Am I missing something on this point, as I have not read the entire court transcripts . . . yet?
David;
Thank you for posting this. If you could, the trial transcript would also be effective, but two and a half weeks worth is probably too large to post.
Here’s an observation:
15 shots from two service revolvers requires a reload of at least one of them. When I first heard the reports of 15 shots fired, I assumed it was from high capacity semi autos of the thype the NYC police have used (where peopple have said the fired too many times—which is crap when 5 guys have weapons that fire 15-18 rounds each).
But two revolvers and 15 shots requires a reload. somebody had time to stop and think about wat he was doing.
It would also indicate that if one guy reloaded, he was the one who removed his shell casings from the scene—and that the other guy simply holstered an empty revolver with the casings still inside. Had no other officers shown up, even those casings would have, literally, walked away from the crime scene.
If there is something smelly in the punishment, or the granting of immunity, there is soemthing just as smelly with a member of the evidence recovery team allowing evidence to be removed from the scene, and failure to report the discharge of a firearm in an officer involved shooting that involved an action which required at least one reload of one weapon.
It has been reported that some of the jourors only voted guilty because they were told a hung jury would not be allowed.
http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4508579
Is there any truth to this, and if so, wouldn’t this be cause for a mistrial?
The most obvious question is the one Neo posted in #7. Why not turn over the information to COngressman Poe? If it’s as simple a case of myth vs. reality as Sutton claims, then turning the information over to Ted Poe would only strengthen the case against Compean and Ramos. If there is some logic in not turning the information over, I’d like to know what it is.
Unless he was carrying his brain in hs a–, I don’t think shooting him there was deadly force, it didn’t even stop him from running back to Mexico. The fact that the law prevents us from shooting trespassers is just wrong law and needs changed. Our border patrol needs to mirror the rules of the Mexican border patrol on their Southern border. How do we know that a known tresspasser and apparant drug smuggler was even telling a bit of the truth. Why wansn’t the venue changed to Dallas or somewhere else where a neutral jury who is not hispanic or dependent on the illegals would judge them. How is it that murder in Tx carries a less stiff penalty than 10 years, but shooting 15 warning shots that graze a butt is deadly force. You cannot convince me that these people should spend one day behind bars. they are the kind we need on the border. Give ‘em back their guns and change the rules of engagement
All I know of this controversy is what I have heard and read, all of which were second hand accounts. So now we have a first hand statement, full of represenations, from the prosecutor. They are surely subject to confirmation or refutation.
This release clearly states that no blanket immunity has been given this Aldrete, and that not only did he not get immunity for a second drug offense, but he was never arrested for any offense.
This is contrary to what has been stated repeatedly on you know who’s radio show and this blog.
So someone is lying. Did he get immunity for a subsequent smuggling incident or not? If so, the prosecutor is dishonest and ought to be dealt with. If not, Mssrs Hendee and Poe are dishonest (or at least reckless with the facts).
This would be a matter of public record. The prosecutor said it didn’t happen. Where’s the evidence it did?
The answer to this question will go a long way in establishing which side is more credible on this entire debate.
removed double post
The Moderator
Don’t be fooled by what THEY want you to think.
The Truth is Out There.
Like Mulder and Scully, I’m sure Hendee and Gray will get to the bottom of this massive government conspiracy and coverup. In fact, I can’t think of two people in town who are better suited for it!
Sorry for the double post. Accident. Like my life.
The law prevents the use of deadly force if you are not in fear of your life. Anyone who has taken a CHL course will tell you that.
I know Edd has taken a CHL class. he should therfore know thaty firing at a fleeing person is against the law—no matter who does it.
Here’s another statement of fact that can be used to separate the wheat from the chaff:
Sutton claims that this illegal alien has not been subsequently arrested for drug smuggling. Hendee says: “did the smuggler get arrested a 2nd time with 1000# of drugs while under the first immunity deal or not? Cong. Ted Poe has stated time and time again that is the case - so is it true or not?”
Indeed, true or not? If it is true, there is a record. Maybe Edd should ask Poe to prove his claims. If Poe does, strike two against the prosecutor. If he doesn’t, . . .
With a little bit of re-wording, here are the most concise and relevant questions for US Attorney Sutton I’ve seen posed here thus far–
QUESTION 1: Why did you take the word of a drug smuggler over the word of two US Border Patrol Agents? (eddhendee)
QUESTION 2: Was the smuggler ever arrested a second time with approximately 1,000 pounds of drugs while under immunity, or not? (eddhendee)
QUESTION 3: Why will you not turn over to Congressman Poe the information he has requested? (Neocon)
Feel free to submit more.
Please note:
Sutton states: “Aldrete has not been subsequently arrested for drug smuggling…..If we had a provable case against Aldrete, we would prosecute him.”
Uh-huh.
Italics mine.
I will respectfully submit that
Is only germaine if they were convicted soley on the testimony of the drug smuggler. the fact that his brother LEOs as well as the accused all testified abrogates any responsbility to answer that question as it implies that other testimony and evidence was not offered.
This question only applies to the failure to prosecute the second crime–unless it can somwhow be proven that some larger conspricay exists.
If that is being alleged, I would hope that somebody would have the courage of thier convictions enough to tell me what, exactly, they think this conspiracy entails.
What information is Poe looking for—that’s gotten lost in al the BHH, at least for me.
Shannon;
If there was an arrest, there would be a record of it.
Is there?
I doubt that the gentleman would say there was none if he knew there was a record of it somewhere.
#22
This isn’t to get nit-picky or technical, but info for the readers. You are also allowed to used deadly force in defense of a 3rd person (you witnessing your neighbor being assaulted, robbed, etc.) and to prevent theft at night and you believe that the stolen goods will have no other way of being found. NOW, I wouldn’t recommend killing someone because they’re running off with your TV at night. While the law may say it’s illegal, I would venture to say that the TV isn’t worth taking a life OR the possible costs of a defense just in case you’re charged.
#26 sargevining– I’m not saying any particular question has (or doesn’t have) merit; the point is, Sutton should be able to respond even more easily than you, if there are good answers.
One thing I’ve learned about the blogsphere - never, ever let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy. It’s just plain wrong to do that. Wouldn’t be anything to type and gripe about.
24
I never heard of this prosecutor and don’t know him from Adam’s off ox. I have no idea what his response will be to Question No. 1, but part of it might be this from his press release:
“In fact, Border Patrol Agent Juarez, who was at the scene, testified at trial that he did not draw his pistol because he did not believe there was a threat. He also testified that Aldrete did not have a weapon and was almost to Mexico when Agent Compean began firing at him.”
I don’t know if the convicted agents claimed Aldrete had a weapon or not. If they did so claim, I would be interested in why Juarez would be interested in testifying against his fellows.
As for question number 2, I thought Sutton addressed that by saying Aldrete had NOT been subsequently arrested. Is your question 2 different from that? If not, then this should be something Poe should have to prove. How would you expect Sutton to prove a negative (ie, someone was not arrested), rather than Poe proving an affirmative representation on his part?
Sandy Burglar steals top secret government records and misleads the 9-11 committee possibly putting the USA in danger from terrorists. He gets a fine and community service.
2 border patrol agents shoot a Mexican drug smuggler in the ass and they get 10 years in Fed prison.
26
Isn’t it interesting that Edd Hendee’s question ignored the fact that other agents were prosecution witnesses? Now why would he ignore that fact?
Sorry Sarge, I was unclear with my insinuation.
The fact that the man was not arrested does not preclude the possibilty that he was apprehended with drugs.
Shannon;
Now let me get this straight:
You’re saying that he was “apprehended” (not arrestred) with drugs and then let go, correct?
Even if this were true, the prosecutor would have no knowledge of it (unless you’re claiming he was there), and therefore aboslutely no bearing on any of the facts of teh case, or any of the subsequent controversy
#26 Sarge
Far be it from me to rely on memory of what I’ve heard Rep. Poe say on the radio - here is one of the things that he specifically has requested:
As I recall, the other allegation was that Homeland Security, et al, had a sworn statement from the border agents that they knew Aldrete was not armed. To the best of my recollection, these two sworn statements are at least a part of what Rep. Poe has requested that has not been provided. He (in the article above linked) also asks why this evidence was not used in the trial.
34
But Poe says he was arrested. Shouldn’t he be required to back his statements up? If he does, he can torpedo this prosecutor. Poe seems pretty responsible - I’m sure he will come up with the goods.
QUESTION 4: US Attorney Sutton, you’ve stated that the Mexican national who had been shot by the agents was not subsequently arrested for smuggling more drugs. But is that because he was under immunity already in regards to the shooting incident? Has he ever been apprehended for smuggling drugs after your office granted him immunity in regards to the shooting incident?
Rick
Edd and all the others can be excused, IMHO. Ther is no evidecne of a conspiracy on HIS part either.
I would postulate that this is simliar to when Truthout.org reported that Karl ove had actually been indicted in the Plame case. Folks who beleived that Rove had anything to do with it WANTED it to be true.
This thing plays into so mnay of the things most of us BELIEVE is about the Border that we don;t look close enough or ask enough questions.
here’s one:
Why, if two officers felt threatened enough to fire their revolvers enough times to have to reload at least once not report that fact to thier superiors?
That alone has got me puzzled—
38
That is an excellent formulation of questions. If he answers yes to either, then he has clearly been playing word games and is being evasive, which would say a lot. However, he claims that the immunity was use immunity only, not blanket immunity, so it surely would not have applied to some subsequent offense.
I hope Sutton’s office is monitoring thise because answers to these two questions would say a lot.
39
Good point. Still, such selective disclosure is part of the legitimate crticism of conservative talk radio, which I think is critical given what I believe to be the left-leaning print and TV media.
Nonetheless, zeal should not overtake responsibility.
Rewritten and reordered for clarity.
QUESTION 1: Why did you take the word of a drug smuggler over the word of two US Border Patrol Agents? (eddhendee)
QUESTION 2: Was the smuggler ever arrested a second time with approximately 1,000 pounds of drugs while under immunity, or not? (eddhendee)
QUESTION 3: If your claim is that he was never “arrested” a second time, is that because he was already under immunity as part of your prosecution of the shooting incident? Please don’t play word games–we want to know if Aldrete was ever caught smuggling additional shipments of drugs after your office granted him immunity. (Inspired by various comments)
QUESTION 4: Why will you not turn over to Congressman Poe the information he has requested? (Neocon)
David;
What is the information that Poe is asking for?
I am unaware of the legal differences between “aprehesion” and “arrest.” My beleif is that they are interchangeable. If there is a difference, does “apprehension” require notification of prosecutors, as arrests do?
In other words, as stated before, are you asking him to prove a negative, or to testify to something he’d have no way of knowing had he not been present?
One piece of evidence that Sutton is playing word games, He states that the myth is that Ramos was Border Agent of the year, but all reports I have read say he was NOMINATED, but I have not seen it stated he won, although I have not seen a year reported, so it is hard to look up.
#42
As stated before, David, sutton has already stated that the immunity granted was “use immunity” only. Asking him anything about any subsequent alleged arrest or apprehension only asks him to answer a question he has already answered.
I’m also going to point out that he is a US District Attorney and would have no knowledge if some podunk town sherrif arrested the guy and let him go-immunity or not.
The other thing is, because I now know that this was prosecuted in Federal court, the allegations that the jury pool was tainted by people who would not give these guys a fair trial is bogus.
44
I could have sworn that I heard claims on the radio that one of them (I don’t know which) had been named Agent of the Year. But I have no transcripts and my memory, like other things, is not what it used to be.
42
Thank you for rewriting question #4.
Some of believe it is indeed pertinent to this investigation.
48
some of us*
Sarge, why are Federal jury selections somehow above reproach and non-federal jury selections are not?
48 Darn it, I meant to say questions in #4 are indeed pertinent.
The question should be asked this way:
CONGRESSMAN POE AND MR. HENDEE. You allege that the gentaleman was subsequently arrested and let go under the conditions of his immunity agreement. The Federal Prosecutor says he was granted “use immunity” only and that he was not arrested after the immunity agreement. What proof do you have that this is true?
the fact that arrest records are public informationm and the the Congressman can “make it happen” ought to clear this on up most ricky tick.
Question Three Three Three!!!!
Geez, sorry.
53
Third time’s a charm. Have a drink and relax. I knew what you meant.
#43 sargevining– I am trying to get a copy of Poe’s letter.
As for “proving negatives,” what I’m trying to do here is create some coherence. One thing at a time. Spotlight now is on Sutton, because presumably he has the most information. We’ll ask him questions. Based on his office’s responses, we’ll ask questions of those criticizing him.
Everybody will get their turn.
I don’t want to write questions to both Sutton and Edd at the same time. All that does is continue the confusing crosstalk.
One side at a time. Line up your best questions for Sutton. Make them specific, informed and fair. Give him a chance to respond. If he won’t, that speaks for itself. If he does, ask his critics to reply in turn.
Light, not heat.
That being the case, he’s had his turn answering that particular question.
Sarge, you are incorrect, the charge is that the jury may have been tainted by people in the area that might be more likely to side with illegals than with border patrol agents, being from the whole district does not invalidate this. And again I note that it has been reported that some of the jury members were coerced into voting guilty because they were told by other jury members that the judge would not accept a hung jury.
I believe that Agent Ramos was up for the award, but did not get it. Still searching notes.
I’m sorry, but something smells like cow poop.
was up for nomination. Sorry.
Who claimed Aldrete was given a green card? This is another clear factual dispute that can show which side is credible.
#58 sargevining– I just want to give him one last chance to clarify. The simple fact is, answered or not, the message isn’t getting through and many people aren’t believing him.
If he already answered it, he can answer it again. This time it will be “official,” because I will have submitted the question, and I am the final arbiter or reality.
Benzion:
Perhaps something else which should be asked is who is responsible for making the statements which Sutton calls “MYTHS”? Surely Sutton has news clippings, transcripts, tapes, etc. of the people making the allegations.
If he is simply setting up his own straw men to knock down, then he is despicable. If he has a record of these claims being made, maybe those making the claims ought to be asked a few questions also.
#64–RickG I’ll consider it, but to be honest, I’ve heard all of the “myths” Sutton lists, both on local/national talk-radio and in the blogosphere.
IMHO, a US Attorney wouldn’t issue press releases defending their actions in this much detail unless they are getting beat up, repeatedly, with a particular accusation.
That being the case, mybe the wording of this one:
Ought to be “cooled down” a bit.
Pderhaps
“Did the word of the ddrug smuggle receive more, less, or equal wieght when compared to all the other testimony given,. including the other Law Enforcement Officers”
And here’s a question I want answered:
“Did you first learn of this shooting from the drug smuggler, other Law Enforcement Officers, or other witnesses? What was it that caused you to seek the testimony of this drug smuggler?
Sarge, my understanding is that the investigation was started due to complaints from the drug smuggler’s mother.
Fwiw, looking at Poe’s website, I’m seeing lots of letters– to Bush requesting a pardon, to Sensenbrenner requesting hearings, to the AG asking that the agents be allowed to remain free on bond; but I don’t see any letter sent by Poe or others to Sutton or DHS asking for specific bits of information.
Can anyone clarify?
65 - David
I just thought if Sutton turns out to be telling the truth, then maybe the politicians or talk show people (local or national) who made the false statements ought to be taken to task. Surely it’s not okay to let those people mislead with impunity.
Moose;
All due respect—I want to know from the source. Something prompted an ivestigation, I want to know what it was. I also want to know who was interviewed and in what order.
What question #1 implies, as it is worderd now, is that the investigation and subsequent conviction was based only on the allegations and testimony of the smuggler.
Details of how the investigation was conducted would be very enlightening.
35
A immunized federal witness is apprehended with drugs, and the prosecutor is not informed?
/cue the Flying Nun music
I’m still looking for a specific list of concisely worded questions for “official” submission to Attorney Sutton.
70
Especially since the press release mentions at least one other agent who testified the scumbag drug dealer was not armed and was almost to the border when he was shot. I guess that agent was involved in the conspiracy also.
72
Your most recent rewrite is fine with me. I’ll refrain from sniping at Sarge so others can submit theirs.
Some other time, sarge.
Sahannon;
You seem to know:
what’s the legal difference between “apprehended” and “arrested” and why would ther be no record of an “apprehension”
Sarge, Here is a report from worldnetdaily
“Over two weeks after the incident, Christopher Sanchez, an investigator with the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General, received a call from a Border Patrol agent in Wilcox, Ariz. The agent’s mother-in-law had received a call from Aldrete-Davila’s mother in Mexico telling her that her son had been wounded in the buttocks in the shooting.
Sanchez followed up with a call of his own to the smuggler in Mexico. ”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51417
A message to Sutton:
When you go to Church on Sunday I hope you can look your maker square in the eyes and convince him that you are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
David,
Here by the Design of God
All due respect, Moose, that does not tell me what I think we need to know. Although ti does sound like it was an LEO who first brought it to the attention of DHS investigators. It looks to me that the BP agent thought there was enough credibility in his mother in law’s story to report it to them.
David;
Please ask how the investigation came about. ESPECIALLY if any LEO’s were interviewed before the smuggler was.
The story makes it look like the very first phone call made was to the smuggler and that prosecution followed as soon as the phone was hung up.
Sarge sides with Mexican drug smugglers.
Is also anti American Border Patrol. And, wants Mexican drug smugglers to have the ability to cross the US border without fear of being shot.
You borderphobe. Hate border patrol monger.
Does anyone besides me find it odd that white conservatives are taking the same position on this “injustice” as Al Sharpton has on the recent shooting in New York?
#80
Hit submit too quick - the last line should read with the blatant exception of Sarge? DB? RickG?
Great thread and am learning a lot - thank you.
Much better than the panda love thingie.
Dangitall Hal! You ate my post again. I had completely solved this controversy. But I am NOT going to try and recreate my previous elaborate and acurate post. I had so suscincty and carefully measured the evidence or lack thereof, reasoned out all possible scenarios and posted the solution for all of you to read and comprehend. Besides, supper’s ready!
Have a blessed and warm evening!
Moderators Note:
Ummm Hal ain’t got it either.
Jolly;
I beleive that’s because they come from basically the same place in the human mind—and is then played upon by people with agendas.
Sharpton feeds on, encourages, and over blows such things because he knows there is a certain number of people who will beleive because they WANT to beleive.
We have a similar case here with Border SEcurity ideologes.
The difference in this case and the one Sharpton has most recent wrapped his lips around is his assertion that “too many rounds” were fired. There were (I beleive) 5 polcie officers each aremd with high ccap 9mm handguns. 65 rounds were fired, which only tells me that each officer did what I would do if I was threatened and full of adrenaline: keep pulling the trigger until the weapon gos “click”—which would result in 65 or so shots being fired.
In this case, we have 15 royunds being fired, one man aremed with a service revolver, another with a shotgun. The combined total of rounds that could have been held in these weapons could be no more than 12or 13 rounds MAX, and that would be if the man armed with the revlover was in the habit of carrying the piece with a round under the hammer, which many folks regard as being an unsafe carry.
Somebody took the time to reload and continue firing.
83 malcolm
You owe it to posterity to recreate your masterpiece, whatever the personal cost. Now, snap to, son!
#84 sargevining
Exactly. Few people (and I’m not one of them) can talk about the border rationally. I try but then get caught up in the emotion, mostly around the cost of health care and schools. And then say stupid things.
In this case, people are blinded by this issue. I’ll go with the government on this one. If I don’t, I have to add the judiciary to the “gov’t/military/media complex” that conspiracy folks are talking about.
And on the shots fired, I think the facts are that the one guy that missed fired 14 shots, pausing to reload, the other guy one and hit. I want the second guy on my team.
86 bigjolly
On your last point, perhaps the BP needs to require more target practice.
The hit on the butt was probably from the shotgun…..
Awfully hard to hit a running target with a handgun at just about any range.
But I just did have a thought:
The guy was knocked down and the agent tried to hit him with the butt of his shotgun, but got away.
the guy with the shotgun should have been able to blow his butt to smithereens unless he fired at a range of more than 40 yards or so for the pattern to be spread that far. The fact that the guy ran after being hit and then got into a van on the other side. This argues to his being hit by a shotgun pellet at long range, because a round in the butt from a .38 is generally disabling.
Sarge
Once again you failed to read the material presented and decide to throw your own spin on what really happened.
From the story above
I will refrain from gratuitous personal attack till later.
It is muddled speculation from self proclaimed experts that cause unfortunate situations like this one to be blown further out of the bounds of sensibility.
Granted these two used very bad judgement in their actions. However IN TEXAS we give people convicted of “Burglary of a Habitation” PROBATION, We have been known to give people convicted of possession of ONE joint (which was unproducable in court, because the actor and agent smoked it) (Lee Otis Johnson) LIFE in prison
However the courts give amnesty to a drug dealer and 10 years or more for bad judgement to the BP agents. And now the smuggler gets to sue the US for whatever they want.
Something is wrong with this system
/putting on my Shakey suit
Last chance Sarge. Would you care to actually respond to my #71??? Here it is again:
#89
Well there ya go…
It must have hit the fleshy part.
those are generally not disabling unless it’s the fleshy part of the heart.
Will meekly submit to subsequent personal attack.
Well somewhat sheeplishly acknowledge that I allowed you to make my point using me as an example.
90 SQK
Yeah, but otherwise you’d be shooting portraits, or working on some other endeavor you love.
Bwahahahahhahahahaha
That is crappola also. Wanna go shooting?
(2
Sahnnon;
Until yo0u can tell me waht the feaking difference between apprehand and arrest is, I can’t answer your question.
You claim he’s using tricky words…I want to know the difference.
Sutton has already said he WAS GIVEN “USE” IMMUNITY which would not make him an “immunized” witness as you claim.
BTW;
I’ve already tried a google search to find out, and there isn’t anything that’s showed up yet.
Shannon
LOL yeppers
#95
You do the running first.
As alluded to earlier, the President is unlikely to overrule this Sutton fellow’s judgment without overwhelming proof he was wrong. I didn’t realize this, but Sutton has been in one G.W. Bush administration or another since 1995, when he joined then-Gov. Bush’s administration. He was on the Bush-Cheney transition team, then joined the Bush Justice Department, then received the appointment to US Attorney and was confirmed in Fall 2001.
By the way, before being hired by Bush in 1995, he served 8 years as a Harris County ADA, where he apparently had worked since he graduated from UT Law in 1987. He also went to undergrad at UT, where his biography claims he was the starting left-fielder on the ‘Horns 1983 national championship team.
95
SQK, I gotta agree with Sarge on this one. Just how good do you think (or know) you are at hitting a running target with a 38 revolver at, say, 50 or even 25 yards????
arrest = The act of detaining in legal custody
apprehend = To take into custody; arrest
Now stop splitting hairs and answer Shannons question
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/
Oh, well, he’s inviolved with Bush.
Never mind, that means there’s a conspiracy to overthrow the gummint going on.
It’s all Smackie’s wife’s bush’s fault.