Border Patrol Agents in Jail

This is a thread about Ramos and Campeon, two border patrol agents in jail for shooting someone in the buttocks. The story is outlined (I tried to find the most non-biased source possible) in Goode wants patrolmen released.

Now before my conservative friends get to uptight... I think these two men should have their sentences commuted. However I think that this case has brought out an unwarranted and hysterical reaction that has warped the truth.

Let's look at the facts.

1) These two men were convicted of several crimes. These crimes included unlawful use of deadly force, and the destroying evidence and falsifying reports to cover up the incident.

These are without question crimes under US law.

2) These two men were convicted of this crime in a fair trial. The jury was made up of 12 US citizens who made a unanimous decision. The trial was presided over by a US citizen judge. The prosecutor was a US citizen and all of the witnesses (save one) were US citizens.

The hysterical claims that this verdict was an attack on US citizens is ridiculous... since everyone except for one witness (the guy who was shot) was a US citizen.

Several Border Patrol agents (who are not known to be pro-illegal-immigrant) testified against the defendants for the very reasons I list below.

3) There are good reasons that we pass laws restricting who police officers can shoot.

Our constitution guarantees the rights to due process for everyone in the country (and yes, the Supreme Court has found time and time again that this includes illegal immigrants).

If you allow the police to shoot criminals... you undermine the foundation of our law which calls for due process. The police are allowed to use deadly force in certain circumstances, but the circumstances are strictly regulated by law, and by department policy.

Ramos and Campeon were found by a jury to have broken both department policy, and US law in this matter.

4) Some conservatives are claiming that the fact the guy who was shot was not a very likable fellow means that it was OK for these officers to shoot them.

This of course is silly. Police officers are not allowed to shoot people simply because they are bad people. This is what our legal system is for (see above).

5) There are complaints that the trial was unfair because the jury wasn't told the victim was a bad guy.

Anyone who understands US law knows that this is a fallacious argument. The officers were on trial for a criminal offense (they committed a crime). Who the victim is irrelevant under the law.

If you murder a criminal, you are still a murderer.


Now I did say that I think their crimes should be commuted-- and I mean it. The reason is the one argument that conservatives are making that is correct.

The officers were charged with "use of a handgun during a felony". This is clearly a misuse of the statute to apply this to a law officer in the course of their jobs. This greatly increased the amount of their sentences.

This was clearly a tactic used by the prosecutor to try to get a guilty plea. I think this "tough on crime" things goes too far and these tactics cause undo hardship to people who have been convicted of crimes.

I also think these two have been turned into political pawns which doesn't help the country in this contentious issue.

I would support the commutation of the rest of their sentence.

You may think I am being soft

But, if I insisted on harsh punishment for one group of lawbreakers based on the "rule of law" and then tried to get compassionate treatment for another group simply because of which side of a contentious political debate they were on...

That would be awfully hypocritical.