• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Congressman Wants To Pardon Border Agents

Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
2,136
Reaction score
44
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think this is a great idea!


Last-minute pleas are being made in the case of two former Border Patrol agents who are due to report to prison.Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos were convicted in a court in El Paso, Texas, for shooting and wounding a Mexican drug smuggler.

Congressional representatives, including Duncan Hunter and Dana Rohrabacher, have been urging the president to pardon the two.

The agents have been sentenced to serve 11 and 12 years in prison, respectively.

According to the Washington Times, the agents found 743 pounds of marijuana in the smuggler's van.


Congressman Wants To Pardon Border Agents - Local News
 
Is there more to the story? The story doesn't explain what went down.

Was the drug runner armed? Was he threatening them or someone else?

Why did they shoot him? If they shot him in self defense then I don't understand why they were convicted in the first place.
 
They shot an unarmed man in the backside as he was running away, then tried to cover up what they did because they couldn't justify their actions.

They cost the US the case against this drug runner, he is free because these two agents violated his rights.

Why should they be pardoned? Just because they are border patrol agents doesn't give them the right to break the law.

I think it's a terrible idea.
 
If that's the case then I don't think they should be pardoned.

How hard would it be for them to track this guy down, or run after him and tackle him to the ground.

Unless in their minds they truly believed beyond a doubt that the drug runner was armed (which apparently he wasn't) then I can't see why they should be pardoned.

Sounds like a case of excessive force to me.
 
They shot an unarmed man in the backside as he was running away, then tried to cover up what they did because they couldn't justify their actions.

They cost the US the case against this drug runner, he is free because these two agents violated his rights.

Why should they be pardoned? Just because they are border patrol agents doesn't give them the right to break the law.

I think it's a terrible idea.

Okay, so maybe the BPAgents shouldn't be pardoned but the drug smuggler sure as hell shouldn't have been given amnesty. That's ridiculous.
 
Dana Rorhbacher (however you spell his name) is a right-wing lunatic and an embarassment to the state of California. This guy has been around for way too long. How he gets elected is amazing to me....I know that he represents an extremely conservative Republican district.

To pardon these Border Agents would be a slap in the face to all good law enforcement personnel who work hard and honest.

It is amazing to me whenever the public overlooks police misconduct and excessive force. It amazes me even more when police departments cover it up and/or stand behind the officers. The reason why is because the majority of law enforcement personnel are hard working good people.
To condone or excuse behavior like this sends a message that it is ok to engage in illegal/unethical conduct as long as the ends justify the means. It supports the weakest link in the chain and as a result the entire system is weakened.

Criminals are criminals. Just because they carry a badge should not make them immune from punishment.
 
They shot an unarmed man in the backside as he was running away, then tried to cover up what they did because they couldn't justify their actions.
That's a lot of information. Too bad it isn't accompanied by supporting evidence.
 
I did hear about them covering up on the news as well

am i the only one that finds humor in the fact the BPAgents were of hispanic descent?
can you imagine the outcry of the left if the agents were White :shock:
 
can you imagine the outcry of the left if the agents were White :shock:

?? I think that was a pretty baseless statement you just made. There would be an outcry if the smuggler was black and the agents white, but I dont think white on hispanic crime carries the same shock value.
 
Idiots should have at least killed him. Still, no reason to convict them if he was a criminal in the process of commiting the crime of narcotics traffiking. But then I find shooting drug dealers, armed or not, to be a socially beneficial activity.
 
Idiots should have at least killed him. Still, no reason to convict them if he was a criminal in the process of commiting the crime of narcotics traffiking. But then I find shooting drug dealers, armed or not, to be a socially beneficial activity.

Let me be sure I understand your general position:

Do you think it is ok for law enforcement officials to carry out punishment for a crime before the 'criminal' has been convicted?

If you believe it is not ok for law enforcement officials to do this, what methods do you think should be used to deter them from doing so?

If you believe is is ok, what do you think the function of the justice system should be, or is one even necessary?
 
Well I'm running with the assumption, perhaps incorrectly, that they did at least identify this person and discover a quantity of narcotics about his person, thus offering a fairly solid indication that he is involved with trafficking and or dealing said narcotics. In this scenario, he resists arrest, attempts to flee, and apparantly gets shot in the arse. My reaction is 'so what?'. Write up the incident, throw him in a cell and everything's good. It would also be acceptable to run after him, tackle him, and if he struggles grab him by the hair and knock a few teeth out against the pavement. That of course would again see the officer in question being charged and the criminal going free due to the skewed notion of equality of rights between the ordinary citizen and the criminal. As such, seeing as how these gentlemen have ended up with prison sentences for wounding a drugdealer, while he has gone free, they could have at least done society a favour killed him. As it stands, you lose two law enforcers at no cost to the criminal element. Except perhaps a sore arse.
 
They shot an unarmed man in the backside as he was running away, then tried to cover up what they did because they couldn't justify their actions.

They cost the US the case against this drug runner, he is free because these two agents violated his rights.

Why should they be pardoned? Just because they are border patrol agents doesn't give them the right to break the law.

I think it's a terrible idea.

The guy was a ****ing drug runner the only thing they did wrong is that they didn't shoot to kill the scum sucking SOB.
 
Whether or not these two were right or wrong in their actions, I find it appalling that they cut a deal with the drug runner completely pardoning him in order to get this conviction. They should have tried to convict them without the testimony of the runner, if he was going to be that hard on it.

Whoever his public defender was should get a medal for weaseling that one out of the DA.
 
Whether or not these two were right or wrong in their actions, I find it appalling that they cut a deal with the drug runner completely pardoning him in order to get this conviction. They should have tried to convict them without the testimony of the runner, if he was going to be that hard on it.

Whoever his public defender was should get a medal for weaseling that one out of the DA.
still haven't been able to decide if i am going to laugh or puke over your avatar
it is most disturbing :shock::lol:
 
That's a lot of information. Too bad it isn't accompanied by supporting evidence.
Here ya go. There's a lot more to the story than you chose to provide.

Compean and Ramos were convicted by a jury last March of violating the civil rights of Davila when they shot him on Feb. 17, 2005, in Fabens, Texas, about 30 miles east of El Paso, then tampering with evidence by picking up shell casings from the shooting.

The ex-agents say Davila had a gun, and that's why they fired at him, but a gun was never found.

/snip/

White House spokesman Tony Snow last week would not comment specifically on pardon proceedings, but he said the facts presented in court showed that Ramos and Compean tried to cover up what occurred.

U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton issued a statement in response to allegations the agents were prosecuted for "just doing their job," saying "nothing could be further from the truth."

• Click here to read the prosecuting attorney's statement

"These agents shot someone who they knew to be unarmed and running away," Sutton said. "They destroyed evidence, covered up a crime scene and then filed false reports about what happened. It is shocking that there are people who believe it is OK for agents to shoot an unarmed suspect who is running away."

Sutton said that during the two-and-a-half-week trial, evidence showed that around 1 p.m. on Feb. 17, 2005, Davila initially ran from the agents, but tried to surrender with his empty hands raised after Compean pointed a shotgun at him. When Compean tried to push Davila to the ground with his gun, the agent tripped and fell. Davila then ran toward the Rio Grande River and Mexico. Compean chased Davila, firing at him with his pistol 14 times, pausing once to reload, Sutton said. Ramos shot once and struck Davila in the buttocks.

Neither agent made any further effort to apprehend him, Sutton said, and they threw away the fired shell casings and filed a false report omitting the confrontation.

"If Compean and Ramos truly believed Aldrete [Davila] was a threat, why did they abandon him after shooting him?" Sutton asked. "And if they truly believed the shooting was justified, why did they not report it, leave the scene undisturbed, and let the investigation absolve them? The answer to these questions are simple. The agents knew that Aldrete did not pose a threat as he fled, they knew the shooting was unjustified and unlawful, and they knew an investigation would incriminate them. So they chose to cover up their crimes."

Snow and Sutton have both pointed out that at the time Davila was originally pulled over, the agents didn't know he was an illegal alien, nor did they know he had over 700 pounds of marijuana in his truck. The agents also had arms training the day before the incident, so they knew what was required of them in the case of a shooting, they said.

"The facts of this case are such that I would invite everybody to take a full look at the documented record," Snow said. "This is not the case of the United States saying, 'We are not going to support people who go after drug dealers.' Of course, we are. We think it's incumbent to go after drug dealers, and we also think that it's vitally important to make sure that we provide border security so our people are secure.

"We also believe that the people who are working to secure that border themselves obey the law."


FOXNews.com - 2 Border Patrol Agents Turn Themselves in for Shooting Mexican Drug Runner - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News
 
I did hear about them covering up on the news as well

am i the only one that finds humor in the fact the BPAgents were of hispanic descent?
can you imagine the outcry of the left if the agents were White :shock:
What does race have to do with bastards who shoot someone in the back 15 times and then cover up their crime by gathering up all of their shells and lying to their superiors about what happened?

"Federal agents who protect our border deserve our respect, gratitude and trust. It is a difficult and dangerous job," said U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, whose office prosecuted the case. "But when law-enforcement officers use their badge as a shield for carrying out crimes and then engage in a cover-up, we cannot look the other way.
"Agents Compean and Ramos shot an unarmed, fleeing suspect in the back and lied about it," he said.
Source: Border agents sentenced in shooting - Nation/Politics - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

So you're race baiting remark shows us how you think, I guess.
 
still haven't been able to decide if i am going to laugh or puke over your avatar
it is most disturbing :shock::lol:

hahahaha, its called a bondage ducky. sketchiest thing everrrrr
 
Idiots should have at least killed him. Still, no reason to convict them if he was a criminal in the process of commiting the crime of narcotics traffiking. But then I find shooting drug dealers, armed or not, to be a socially beneficial activity.
An important point to remember is that they violated the Border Patrol's rules of engagement by shooting the suspect. They knew the law and broke it, covered it up and lied about it...if that doesn't mandate prison what does?
 
I think this is a great idea!


Last-minute pleas are being made in the case of two former Border Patrol agents who are due to report to prison.Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos were convicted in a court in El Paso, Texas, for shooting and wounding a Mexican drug smuggler.

Congressional representatives, including Duncan Hunter and Dana Rohrabacher, have been urging the president to pardon the two.

The agents have been sentenced to serve 11 and 12 years in prison, respectively.

According to the Washington Times, the agents found 743 pounds of marijuana in the smuggler's van.


Congressman Wants To Pardon Border Agents - Local News

I hope those border patrol agents do get pardoned.I would like to see the rat DA who prosecuted them loose her job and license to practice law.We do not need such traitors working as prosecutors.
 
I hope those border patrol agents do get pardoned.I would like to see the rat DA who prosecuted them loose her job and license to practice law.We do not need such traitors working as prosecutors.

Is this based on anything other than your hatred of Mexicans? If the guy had been a white US citizen, would you feel the same way? Would the DA still be a "traitor" in your eyes?

Why should two random border patrol agents get to be his judge, jury, and executioner? That's why we have courts of law in the first place. The "traitors" are people like you who have nothing but contempt for due process of law.
 
This is much better. The most pertinent fact of the case is this:
...at the time Davila was originally pulled over, the agents didn't know he was an illegal alien, nor did they know he had over 700 pounds of marijuana in his truck.
So he was clearly guilty of two crimes, illegal residency and narcotics dealing, they searched (I have no problem with stop and search incidentally) and discovered this.

Second:
...around 1 p.m. on Feb. 17, 2005, Davila initially ran from the agents, but tried to surrender with his empty hands raised after Compean pointed a shotgun at him. When Compean tried to push Davila to the ground with his gun, the agent tripped and fell. Davila then ran toward the Rio Grande River and Mexico. Compean chased Davila, firing at him with his pistol 14 times, pausing once to reload, Sutton said. Ramos shot once and struck Davila in the buttocks.
He resisted arrest but was demonstrably unarmed. When he made his break for escape they fired. Nothing wrong with that, not only is he a criminal but he is fleeing justice so that he may continue to be a criminal.

This is the point of contention in the case, from my perspective at least:
The agents knew that Aldrete did not pose a threat as he fled, they knew the shooting was unjustified and unlawful, and they knew an investigation would incriminate them.
Unjustified? He is an illegal alien, dealing narcotics in the US (At least he had the decency to run towards his own country.). If he attempts to flee so that he may continue dealing drugs in the US then I would argue that, armed or not, shooting him is a preferential resolution to allowing him his escape. And I think if they had simply followed their procedures from there, without tampering with the crime scene then they would not be being convicted. As it stands however, they screwed themselves by not having the courage of their convictions to stand up in court and say "Yes, we fired upon an unarmed and fleeing Mexican drug dealer." Yes they broke their rules of engagement, (rather odd ones at that) but they would have been in a stronger position to defend themselves had they been honest about their actions. I see little wrong with the shooting, aside from their obvious and worrying lack of accuracy, and instead take issue with their dishonesty.

I suppose the question must be is it acceptable to fire upon a criminal unarmed and fleeing. I would say that it is, for he is fleeing justice and may pose a threat to law and order again in the future. Apply it to another crime, they open the trunk and find an infant bound in there. They attempt to apprehend him but he makes a run for it. Is there not a significant possibility that this man may reoffend? Should he be allowed to simply 'slip the net'? I would argue no. The process of law is all well and good but unfortunately criminals have a tendency to try avoiding it at all costs. Reducing the issue to one of do you want this illegal alien drug dealer free in your country, or dead in the dust?

Thanks to NYStateofMind for the expanded information.
 
Last edited:
They shot the drug runner 15 times in the back, or did they fire off 15 shots?

Either way, that seems a bit excessive don't you think?
 
Is this based on anything other than your hatred of Mexicans? If the guy had been a white US citizen, would you feel the same way? Would the DA still be a "traitor" in your eyes?

Why should two random border patrol agents get to be his judge, jury, and executioner? That's why we have courts of law in the first place. The "traitors" are people like you who have nothing but contempt for due process of law.

Listen you pro-illegal your bogus claim of racism fools no-one.I bet the retards in the pro-illegals camp know the racism claim is only bullshit tool to fool idiots.
 
Listen you pro-illegal your bogus claim of racism fools no-one.I bet the retards in the pro-illegals camp know the racism claim is only bullshit tool to fool idiots.

...this guy wasn't immigrating. He was a drug smuggler. The word "immigration" appears nowhere in this story. And don't even pretend that that isn't what you're talking about.

The fact that you automatically associated this story with illegal immigration shows that you're a racist.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom