  |
|
Lynx
Forum Elder
Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Posts: 1182
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:56 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| So goes the legal system. Sometimes they let one bad guy go free to take down two bad ones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Lester wrote: | | Well technically anym is right, illegal aliens have no rights in america. |
Actually, they do. When it comes to rights, the law doesn't discriminate on the basis of citizenship or legality of residence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Turk
Forum Elder
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 3340
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| exton wrote: | | Lester wrote: | | Well technically anym is right, illegal aliens have no rights in america. |
Actually, they do. When it comes to rights, the law doesn't discriminate on the basis of citizenship or legality of residence. |
They do not have rights here the constitution should never protect the ones that are here illegally, the rights of the constitution should only extend to its citizens period end of arguement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fellfire
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Lynx wrote: | | So goes the legal system. Sometimes they let one bad guy go free to take down two bad ones. |
Who are the bad ones you are referring to? Have you looked at the appeals being pursued in this case?
You have taken Turk to task by stating that these two men shot an unarmed man who was running away. But, neither defendent has been charged with 'illegally "using", "carrying" or "possessing" a firearm in relation to a crime of violence'. They had been charged with 'knowingly discharging a firearm in relation to a crime of violence', but guess what? that is not a crime because, as US Border agents they are allowed to "use" "carry" "possess" and "discharge" firearms in the course of their duties.
The point of this issue is that the prosecutors misdescribed the crime and used that faulty description in the trial. The prosecutors focused the attention the fact that Campean and Ramos 'discharged' their weapons rather then the crime that they "possessed" weapons - which is not illegal for them to possess. The appeal is based on a premise that this forced the jury to ignore the fact that the agents were performing their duty - attempting to apprehend a fleeing suspect.
As for the "unarmed" part of this, the only substantial proof of this is the statement of Atverde - the drug runner. The jury was never informed that he repeatedly ran drugs and was, in fact, arrested for doing so when he agree to testify for immunity in his current case.
SO, you have a misrepresentation to the jury of the crime committed with the only concrete evidence based on a man given immunity for any testimony he gave, testimony, which by the way, is entirely unverifiable. Additionally, you have prosecutors pressing for extremely harsh measures based on very circumstantial evidence.
So, a man was shot while fleeing known US law enforcement while in the commission of a crime. The agents failed to report the matter and attempted to cover up the shooting.
The only concrete evidence is the criminal's word against the agents word that he was unarmed. This case should have been thrown out on the basis of:
a). The drug runner did not have "clean hands" in the case and his testimony was dubious, at best.
b). No one was killed in this matter. Here the court could not prove conclusively that Campean and Ramos did anything wrong except fail to report using their weapons - they certainly did not violate anyone civil rights and criminals that get harmed in the process of a valid attempt at arrest are not typically afforded retribution through the US Federal Prosecutors office. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fellfire
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
They do not have rights here the constitution should never protect the ones that are here illegally, the rights of the constitution should only extend to its citizens period end of arguement.[/quote]
WOOO HOOO!! That means I can smack around all those Canadian tourists that come to visit! And don't get me started on those Danish tourists ... I have some graves to dig!
I mean given that they have no rights in the counrty I can pretty much anything I want to. After all, I am a citizen, I have the rights.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lynx
Forum Elder
Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Posts: 1182
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Who are the bad ones you are referring to? Have you looked at the appeals being pursued in this case? |
It takes a special type of person to cover up something like this. None of these men are good, or at least honest, people.
| Quote: | | You have taken Turk to task by stating that these two men shot an unarmed man who was running away. |
I've done no such thing. What I am taking him to task for is thinking that one side of this case is made up of angels, while the other side is a horrific mongrel.
| Quote: | | The point of this issue is that the prosecutors misdescribed the crime and used that faulty description in the trial. The prosecutors focused the attention the fact that Campean and Ramos 'discharged' their weapons rather then the crime that they "possessed" weapons - which is not illegal for them to possess. The appeal is based on a premise that this forced the jury to ignore the fact that the agents were performing their duty - attempting to apprehend a fleeing suspect. |
I don't believe that for a second. There's no way the defense heard this argument and did nothing about it.
| Quote: | | As for the "unarmed" part of this, the only substantial proof of this is the statement of Atverde - the drug runner. |
Other than the fact, of course, that no weapon has been found, even by the two men that shot him and covered up the evidence.
| Quote: | | The jury was never informed that he repeatedly ran drugs and was, in fact, arrested for doing so when he agree to testify for immunity in his current case. |
I also find this hard to believe. These men have the worst defense team in the world if they did not call into question any of this man's background.
| Quote: | | The only concrete evidence is the criminal's word against the agents word that he was unarmed. |
Again, other than the fact that no weapon was found. You don't think that, after shooting him, these men would think to find the gun he was carrying to have some excuse? Or did that just skip their minds while tidying up the scene?
| Quote: | | a). The drug runner did not have "clean hands" in the case and his testimony was dubious, at best. |
That's obviously something the defense didn't feel was important.
| Quote: | | b). No one was killed in this matter. Here the court could not prove conclusively that Campean and Ramos did anything wrong except fail to report using their weapons - they certainly did not violate anyone civil rights and criminals that get harmed in the process of a valid attempt at arrest are not typically afforded retribution through the US Federal Prosecutors office. |
They knowingly violated Border Patrol policy in pursuing this man. They did not receive supervisor permission to follow, nor did they then report. Add to the fact that they covered up the scene, and you have one convincing argument in a court of law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fellfire
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Lynx wrote: | | Quote: | | You have taken Turk to task by stating that these two men shot an unarmed man who was running away. |
I've done no such thing. What I am taking him to task for is thinking that one side of this case is made up of angels, while the other side is a horrific mongrel. |
Fair enough, but I would include the Federal prosecutors in this dishonorable group.
| Lynx wrote: | | Quote: | | The point of this issue is that the prosecutors misdescribed the crime and used that faulty description in the trial. The prosecutors focused the attention the fact that Campean and Ramos 'discharged' their weapons rather then the crime that they "possessed" weapons - which is not illegal for them to possess. The appeal is based on a premise that this forced the jury to ignore the fact that the agents were performing their duty - attempting to apprehend a fleeing suspect. |
I don't believe that for a second. There's no way the defense heard this argument and did nothing about it. |
Look up the appeal, this is the entire basis of the appeal. That the prosecutors misdescription and subsequent insistance on that "crime" caused substantial prejudice to the case.
| Lynx wrote: | | Quote: | | As for the "unarmed" part of this, the only substantial proof of this is the statement of Atverde - the drug runner. |
Other than the fact, of course, that no weapon has been found, even by the two men that shot him and covered up the evidence. |
Yes, but where did the shooting take place? and where did Atverde show up to become a witness. There was no gun found on the US side of the border. Here is some info on the timeline of the case:
| Quote: | | Hit in the buttocks, the smuggler limped back home to Mexico, where he told his mother what had happened. Small world that it is, it just so happens that the smuggler's mother was a friend of the mother-in-law of the DHS Inspector General in El Paso. Two weeks after the shooting, the smuggler's mother called the Inspector General's mother-in-law |
Two weeks after the shooting. And the only witness prosecution concerning a gun is the guy who is accused of carrying the gun. You are telling me that, given two weeks to get rid of it, that there is ANY chance authorities would find a gun?
| Lynx wrote: | | Quote: | | The jury was never informed that he repeatedly ran drugs and was, in fact, arrested for doing so when he agree to testify for immunity in his current case. |
I also find this hard to believe. These men have the worst defense team in the world if they did not call into question any of this man's background. |
Alright, here I have mistaken the timeline from the reports I read:
| Quote: | Federal prosecutors actually went into Mexico and offered the drug dealer, Osvaldo Aldrete Davila, immunity to testify against Ramos and Campean because they had shot him in the buttocks as he fled south of the border. The agents were subsequently convicted of causing serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon and violating the drug smuggler’s civil rights.
The confident and cocky Davila actually smuggled more than 220 pounds of marijuana through the same El Paso port of entry where Ramos and Campean had previously intercepted his 753-pound stash. The incident occurred months after he testified, protected by immunity, against the imprisoned officers. |
(also, it is "Aldrete" not "Atverde" as I had posted)
The smuggler was caught and indicted for another crime months after he testified. My mistake.
| Lynx wrote: | | Quote: | | The only concrete evidence is the criminal's word against the agents word that he was unarmed. |
Again, other than the fact that no weapon was found. You don't think that, after shooting him, these men would think to find the gun he was carrying to have some excuse? Or did that just skip their minds while tidying up the scene? |
You don't think that the smuggler got away carrying the gun?! Did ya think he might not want to lose his gun and since he was running away, he might just keep a hold of it? Then, of course, he crosses into Mexico (which he, in fact, did) and then the agents couldn't go look for the gun in Mexico. Go figure.
| Lynx wrote: | | Quote: | | a). The drug runner did not have "clean hands" in the case and his testimony was dubious, at best. |
That's obviously something the defense didn't feel was important. |
Which is why the case may win on appeal and these two men may go free. A poor defense is no reason to be locked up for 11 - 12 years. Given the evidence, these man may not have shot an unarmed man
| Lynx wrote: | | Quote: | | b). No one was killed in this matter. Here the court could not prove conclusively that Campean and Ramos did anything wrong except fail to report using their weapons - they certainly did not violate anyone civil rights and criminals that get harmed in the process of a valid attempt at arrest are not typically afforded retribution through the US Federal Prosecutors office. |
They knowingly violated Border Patrol policy in pursuing this man. They did not receive supervisor permission to follow, nor did they then report. Add to the fact that they covered up the scene, and you have one convincing argument in a court of law. |
Violating policies or failing to get supervisory permission are not criminal offenses. Covering up the scene of a crime is evidence tampering and that is a criminal offense. But, the only proof of a "crime" is the word of a drug smuggler against the word of two agents. If the drug smuggler was carrying a gun then no crime was committed.
This case is no different then the Duke University rape case - a case of prosecutorial zeal getting in the way of the evidence. In the Duke University case, a woman was harmed, but not in the way she claimed. Here a man was harmed, but not in the way he claimed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Turk
Forum Elder
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 3340
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Johnny Sutton needs to be disbarred and the agents need to be pardoned |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lynx
Forum Elder
Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Posts: 1182
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| I suppose we'll see what the truth is after the appeals are finished. I simply find it hard to believe that these men would clean up the scene if there was nothing wrong with what they had done. Maybe I've just seen too many movies with various coverups. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Turk wrote: | | exton wrote: |
Actually, they do. When it comes to rights, the law doesn't discriminate on the basis of citizenship or legality of residence. |
They do not have rights here the constitution should never protect the ones that are here illegally, the rights of the constitution should only extend to its citizens period end of arguement. |
But guess what, turk? It does protect their rights. If you don't like that, then you need to get the constitution ammended. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Turk
Forum Elder
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 3340
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| exton wrote: | | Turk wrote: | | exton wrote: |
Actually, they do. When it comes to rights, the law doesn't discriminate on the basis of citizenship or legality of residence. |
They do not have rights here the constitution should never protect the ones that are here illegally, the rights of the constitution should only extend to its citizens period end of arguement. |
But guess what, turk? It does protect their rights. If you don't like that, then you need to get the constitution ammended. |
What they have the same rights as american citizens do even if they are here illegally?
Screw that |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lynx
Forum Elder
Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Posts: 1182
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Turk wrote: | | exton wrote: | | Turk wrote: | | exton wrote: |
Actually, they do. When it comes to rights, the law doesn't discriminate on the basis of citizenship or legality of residence. |
They do not have rights here the constitution should never protect the ones that are here illegally, the rights of the constitution should only extend to its citizens period end of arguement. |
But guess what, turk? It does protect their rights. If you don't like that, then you need to get the constitution ammended. |
What they have the same rights as american citizens do even if they are here illegally?
Screw that |
Yes. Unfortunately, we treat people humanely for the most part. Send illegals to Guantanamo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Turk wrote: | | exton wrote: |
But guess what, turk? It does protect their rights. If you don't like that, then you need to get the constitution ammended. |
What they have the same rights as american citizens do even if they are here illegally?
Screw that |
What's wrong, turk? Don't you like the constitution? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Turk
Forum Elder
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 3340
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| exton wrote: | | Turk wrote: | | exton wrote: |
But guess what, turk? It does protect their rights. If you don't like that, then you need to get the constitution ammended. |
What they have the same rights as american citizens do even if they are here illegally?
Screw that |
What's wrong, turk? Don't you like the constitution? |
The constitution says nothing about illegal immigrants having the rights that we do here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Turk wrote: | | .The constitution says nothing about illegal immigrants having the rights that we do here. |
The constitution enumerates some of the rights that people have, and does not restrict those rights to any particular group of people. That means that all people have those rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
|
|
