2006-09-12 11:53:59 · 14 answers · asked by Zoe 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
shy_angeleyes01 I saw that to. That it looked more liked she worked for Mexico 21 congressmen are calling for reopening the case. Hard to believe still they hail this drug smuggler as hero. Next they will want a national holiday. And Smugglers Best Beer coming next
2006-09-12 12:46:42 · update #1
Zoe I saw a story about this on CNN just tonight. Three Congressman are DEMANDING that the case be re-opened. Two are from Texas and one was from I believe N. Carolina. They said and I quote the Border guards should have been given MEDALS and returned to duty to capture More Illegals. They said the way this case looked. It appeared more like the Government was Working for Mexico rather than it's US citizens. I do believe this case will be re-opened and the Verdict tossed out.
2006-09-12 12:35:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Last I heard, about a week ago, Congress was calling for an investigation not only of the case, but of Border Patrol policies regarding pursuit.
http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_4303234
"At a news conference in Washington, Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., and five other congressional representatives asked U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to reopen the case of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean and delay the agents' Oct. 18 sentencing hearing.
Ramos and Compean are facing up to 20 years in prison for their role in the shooting of Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, who ran away from the agents after trying to enter the United States from Mexico with a van load of marijuana. Aldrete-Davila was not seriously wounded in the shooting.
Jones said the convictions could have an adverse effect on Border Patrol agents and national security for years to come."
I have to agree with Cora to some extent. I don't know the facts and even border patrol officers CAN do wrong. However, the idea that there was a 'don't pursue drug smugglers' policy definitely warrants looking into, in my opinion. There is no reason Congress can't look for further facts that might be reason for the court to overturn its judgment.
2006-09-12 19:06:11 · answer #2 · answered by DAR 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
EL PASO, Texas - Border Patrol Agent Ignacio Ramos could hear his heart racing. He could feel the dry, hot dust burning against his skin as he chased a drug trafficker trying to flee back into Mexico.
Ramos' fellow agent, Jose Alonso Compean, was lying on the ground behind him, banged up and bloody from a scuffle with the much-bigger smuggler moments earlier.
Suddenly the smuggler turned toward the pursuing Ramos, gun in hand. Ramos, his own weapon already drawn, shot at him, though the man was able to flee into the brush and escape the agents.
Now, nearly 18 months after that violent encounter, Ramos and Compean are facing 20 years in federal prison for their actions.
Why?
According to the U.S. attorney who successfully prosecuted the agents, the man they were chasing didn't actually have a gun, shooting him in the back violated his civil rights, the agents didn't know for a fact that he was a drug smuggler, and they broke Border Patrol rules about discharging their weapons and preserving a crime scene.
Even more broadly, Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof said, Ramos and Compean had no business chasing someone in the first place.
"It is a violation of Border Patrol regulations to go after someone who is fleeing," she said. "The Border Patrol pursuit policy prohibits the pursuit of someone."
Her arguments, along with testimony from other agents on the scene and that of the smuggler himself, swayed a jury. It was a crushing blow to Compean and Ramos, both of whom had pursued suspects along the border as a regular part of their job.
It also appears to fly in the face of the Border Patrol's own edicts, which include "detouring illegal entries through improved enforcement" and "apprehending and detouring smugglers of humans, drugs and other contraband."
The smuggler was given full immunity to testify against the agents and complete medical care at William Beaumont Army
The smuggler was caught with over 700 lbs of weed.
But several US Congressmen are demanding that they do not go to jail,and have started a campaign to delay and eventually stop the agents from going to jail .Its a terrible miscarriage of justice
2006-09-12 19:07:29 · answer #3 · answered by Yakuza 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
They should throw out the conviction. They gave a drug smuggler immunity for crying out loud! I'm sorry but people who bring drugs into this country should NEVER be considered credible witnesses under ANY circumstance. It's horrible and nauseating.
2006-09-12 19:17:42 · answer #4 · answered by Kris B 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
YES!
thoes men are 100% innosent! They were doing thier job's!
That illegal is the one who should get the punnishment.
A congressman commented on the case and said that "the border patrol agents should not have shot him in the butt, they should have shot him in the head!"
2006-09-12 19:01:57 · answer #5 · answered by Surf n' Snow 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
So, after a formal proper trial, and a conviction by a jury, and beyond whatever appeals the system normally allows....
I find it troubling that so much of this country has pretty much abandoned any respect for the laws. Elected officials can break the laws at will without repercussions, the holdings of federal judges are discounted as invalid if people don't like who appointed them, and people want to overturn jury verdicts based purely on what they've heard in the media.
No. The government should not re-open the case. Once the jury has ruled, and sentence imposed, the proper procedure is an appeal if there are legal grounds. Stop messing with the system.
2006-09-12 18:57:05 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 8⤋
Absolutely and they should investigate the US Attorney Deborah Knopf. This was the biggest miscarriage of justice since the OJ Trial.
2006-09-12 19:01:00 · answer #7 · answered by yes_its_me 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
OH YEAHHHHH, please add details on this! Who was that Federal Prosecuter getting her orders from? THAT will be very interesting for the people to find out!
2006-09-12 19:29:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
They were doing their job.
They should get medals.
2006-09-12 18:55:27 · answer #9 · answered by newt_peabody 5 · 6⤊ 2⤋
I'm not familiar with this case.
2006-09-12 18:55:16 · answer #10 · answered by tina m 6 · 0⤊ 5⤋