Border Patrol Agents in Jail

If the agents felt they were in danger and justified to shoot then why did they lie about the incident?

It is reasonable to conclude the agents didn't feel the shooting was justified which is why they didn't report it correctly. It's one thing to make a snap judgement about whether a perp has a gun. It's something else to cover up the shooting when they were no longer in danger.

That being said, I agree ebrown that if the "use of a handgun in a felony" statute was used it was too much.

Former Chief Patrol Agent of the El Paso Border Patrol Luis Barker, who supervised Ramos and Compean at the time of the shooting, said if the agents had correctly reported the incident, their punishment would have been avoided. Regrettably, Barker said, Ramos and Compean "used deadly force when it should not have been applied; they shot a person in direct violation of firearms policy."

"The agents destroyed evidence, filed an incomplete report on the incident in an effort to keep the shooting and circumstances surrounding it from leadership," Barker said.

The border agents could not have thought they were in danger. The captive was in their custody when he dashed away and was shot. Some threat!

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.

http://www.utexas.edu/police/manual/a12.html

Note this part...

Quote:

Officers may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life, including the officer's own life, or in defense of any person in imminent danger of serious physical injury

.

mysteryman wrote:

http://www.utexas.edu/police/manual/a12.html

Note this part...

Quote:

Officers may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life, including the officer's own life, or in defense of any person in imminent danger of serious physical injury

.

You're using the University of Texas campus police department?

Seriously?


I went to UT, and I think Cyclo did, too.

I can assure you, this is not the cream of the law-enforcement crop.

Remember, "you can't spell stupid without UTPD."

Dont misunderstand me.
My feelings toward drug dealers and drug smugglers are irrelevant in this case.

The 2 USBP officers were,in my opinion,justified in using deadly force because they thought their lives were in danger.
Even if the bad guy is running away,he can still shoot you..

And yes,I have read the transcript of the trial.
I am not saying the 2 agents are blameless,nor am I saying they are perfect officers, but I am saying that based on their testimony I dont think they should have been convicted.

Since neither you or I were there,we must take their word that they felt their lives were threatened and that is why they used deadly force..

I also freely admit that my own political bias might be causing me to reach the conclusion I have,just as you must admit that your political bias has done the same thing.

And you are looking down your nose at him because he dosent wear a suit and a tie maybe.

Factually David, The law says the exact opposite.

That is why these two gentlemen are in jail.