BajaNomad - Ramos & Campean commutation

Ramos & Campean commutation

Oso - 1-19-2009 at 11:46 AM

Still Prez on his last day, W has commuted the sentences of the two BP agents. They'll be out March 20.

[Edited on 1-19-2009 by Oso]

elgatoloco - 1-19-2009 at 11:47 AM

:smug:

Taco de Baja - 1-19-2009 at 11:49 AM

About time.

Bajahowodd - 1-19-2009 at 11:52 AM

A commuted sentence is not a pardon. Hence they still have a criminal record.

Oso - 1-19-2009 at 12:15 PM

I may have gotten something wrong. I just heard it on CNN a few minutes ago.

Oso - 1-19-2009 at 12:21 PM

Sorry, not pardoned. Sentences commuted.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/19/bush.commute/index.ht...

I've also seen Joe's name spelled Compean and Campean.

[Edited on 1-19-2009 by Oso]

elgatoloco - 1-19-2009 at 12:26 PM

Bush commutes sentences of former Border Patrol agents
Story Highlights
NEW: Bush believes "the sentences they received are too harsh," official says

President Bush commutes sentences of Ignacio Ramos and Joe Compean

Ex-Border Patrol agents will be released March 20

Pair convicted of shooting undocumented immigrant who was running drugs

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On his final full day in office, President Bush issued commutations for two former border patrol agents convicted in 2006 of shooting an undocumented immigrant who was smuggling drugs at the time.

The prison sentences of Ignacio Ramos and Joe Compean will now end March 20.

Ramos had received an 11-year prison sentence; Compean had received a 12-year sentence.

"The president has reviewed the circumstances of this case as a whole and the conditions of confinement and believes the sentences they received are too harsh and that they, and their families, have suffered enough for their crimes," a senior administration official said.

"Commuting their sentences does not diminish the seriousness of their crimes. Ramos and Compean are convicted felons who violated their oaths to uphold the law and have been severely punished," the official stated.

"This commutation gives them an opportunity to return to their families and communities, but both men will have to carry the burden of being convicted felons and the shame of violating their oaths for the rest of their lives."

The official noted that both Democratic and Republican members of Congress have supported a commutation, including President-elect Barack Obama's incoming White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, and Texas GOP Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn.

BajaGringo - 1-19-2009 at 12:29 PM

I agree that they received too harsh a sentence but I don't think they deserved to be pardoned.

Taco de Baja - 1-19-2009 at 12:33 PM

Quote:

The official noted that both Democratic and Republican members of Congress have supported a commutation, including President-elect Barack Obama's incoming White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, and Texas GOP Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn.

So reading between the lines, it looks as though bushy waited until his final seconds in office to do this, so that Obama would not get credit for the commutation.... :rolleyes:

BajaGringo - 1-19-2009 at 12:38 PM

Politics...

:rolleyes:

elgatoloco - 1-19-2009 at 12:48 PM

I think it may be more of a case where Obama told Bush to do it now so he could go out on a high note? :rolleyes:

I think that the sentence was a bit harsh but they did break the law and we are after all a nation of laws.

Commutation was the right thing to do.

This might read better for some. :dudette:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/19/bush-commutes-sen...

Woooosh - 1-19-2009 at 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by elgatoloco
I think it may be more of a case where Obama told Bush to do it now so he could go out on a high note? :rolleyes:

I think that the sentence was a bit harsh but they did break the law and we are after all a nation of laws.

Commutation was the right thing to do.

This might read better for some. :dudette:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/19/bush-commutes-sen...

That whole incident was sad from many perspectives. Commuting the sentence takes them out of jail- where they likely would have been killed with time. Not pardoning them keeps their felony criminal records intact. I think it's a fair resolution that keeps them alive and limits their career potentials - yet prevents them from being made heroes.

(The reporter who threw his shoes at Bush in that Iraqi news conference is now asking for asylum in Switzerland- what a crazy world huh?)

[Edited on 1-19-2009 by Woooosh]

DENNIS - 1-19-2009 at 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Woooosh
(The reporter who threw his shoes at Bush in that Iraqi news conference is now asking for asylum in Switzerland- what a crazy world huh?)

Who would be after him? Blackwater? Can't imagine the Iraqi government would want to persecute him unless the U.S. government is squeezing them so they don't make a hero out of him.

Packoderm - 1-19-2009 at 01:36 PM

I'm thinking about how their infraction fits in the the scheme of things in Texas. It seems that these to agents basically shot a man in the back. If they had sniper's orders that would be one thing if such a thing exists. If the concern is based on transporting drugs, then how would things go if an officer shot a Humboldt pot grower in the back while fleeing? If this is a border issue, then shooting people sneaking across the border is semi against the rules? I can more understand the making these two men heroes if this is a race issue, but these men appear to be Latino. Perhaps it is the frustration of our porous border. I'd be willing to listen to whoever has a reason why Ramos and Compean would be considered by some as deserving of hero status.

ELINVESTIG8R - 1-19-2009 at 01:41 PM

I am happy President Bush finally came through!

Shooting an illegal

Bajajack - 1-19-2009 at 01:49 PM

did'nt really cause much concern. The fact that they lied and started covering up evidence immediately after the fact is what
got the snowball rolling.

Bajahowodd - 1-19-2009 at 04:37 PM

Actually, it's almost out of character for Bush to have cut the baby in half, inasmuch as he's always been so black and white. It was the right decision. However, even those who agree that it was a harsh sentence, may also agree that two years is a little short. Any sighting of a Scooter Libby pardon yet?

BajaGringo - 1-19-2009 at 04:56 PM

No but I heard that there's an ex-congressman from San Diego standing by a pay phone at a minimum security facility in Tucson...

:rolleyes:

Taco de Baja - 1-19-2009 at 05:04 PM

What about that old football player from USC? Surely he's waiting for a call too…. :rolleyes:

BajaGringo - 1-19-2009 at 05:07 PM

:lol:

News Bulletin!!!! Hell is freezing over! Story at 11:00...

surfer jim - 1-19-2009 at 05:52 PM

After 8 years he finally got one thing right......

DENNIS - 1-19-2009 at 06:24 PM

Did they or did they not break a law which, by the book, earned them the sentance recieved?
I don't know. Did they or didn't they?
Is their commutation of sentance a statement that the law doesn't apply to them?
I don't know. Does, or doesn't it?
Does the emotional sentiment evident in this case preclude the letter of the law and, if so, what good is the letter of the law? Furthermore, what good is law?

These men are caught up in this question. We also have to be caught up in this question........right or wrong.

What is it?

Doing the Right Thing

MrBillM - 1-19-2009 at 06:45 PM

In my opinion, that would have been a pardon, but at least the commutation gives them freedom.

Hopefully, they'll find a benefactor in the private sector and can put their lives back together.

Too bad they didn't kill the drug-smuggler they shot. It would have worked out better for everyone including them. The shoot probably would have been written off.

I saw the other day (Saturday) that Iraqi Shoe Man was still in prison according to his Lawyer and has received some fairly rough treatment. He may be a hero to some, but, at least, they've beat him to crap a few times to show him the error of his ways.

Bajahowodd - 1-19-2009 at 07:03 PM

The Iraqi shoe thrower is a hero to many. It sums up frustration with Bush's policies. It's not like he had a grenade, or was wearing explosives. Worst he could've done was bruise Bush. To me, it was an appropriate coda to the past eight years.

Things DID work out for the best.

MrBillM - 1-19-2009 at 07:12 PM

The shoes missed, the HERO got beaten up and is still in jail.

Can't ask for better.

We need a few more such results. I can think of a few (Hundred) Code Pinkos that I'd like to see the Iraqis mistreat. Cindy Scheisse with a pulpy bleeding face is a thought worth imagining.

Bajahowodd - 1-19-2009 at 07:46 PM

Wow. Sounds more like hate speech than opinion. Pinko is so last century. And perhaps you should get detention for cursing.

David K - 1-19-2009 at 07:55 PM

Didn't they get charged for something rediculous like firearm possesion? They carry firearms as part of their job!

I think they mis-reported what happened, and that cost them their jobs... They did America a favor by shooting a drug dealer heading back into Mexico to escape prosecusion? To bad they hit him in the butt instead of the head! Think of the good they did over the rules they didn't follow.

People that hurt our kids should be stopped at all costs. Those trying to stop the drug trafficing should not be punished that hard on a technicality.

DENNIS - 1-19-2009 at 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS
Did they or did they not break a law which, by the book, earned them the sentance recieved?
I don't know. Did they or didn't they?
Is their commutation of sentance a statement that the law doesn't apply to them?
I don't know. Does, or doesn't it?
Does the emotional sentiment evident in this case preclude the letter of the law and, if so, what good is the letter of the law? Furthermore, what good is law?

These men are caught up in this question. We also have to be caught up in this question........right or wrong.

What is it?

I want answers. You gosh darn numbnuts that speak to every ***in meaningless thing that comes up on this board have to acknowledge a serious question when it's asked. Let's godamn hear something that resembles meaningful thought.

Respectfully yours, Dennis

The Gull - 1-19-2009 at 08:23 PM

Calmate, Mennis, Calmate!!!!

BajaGringo - 1-19-2009 at 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS
I want answers. You gosh darn numbnuts that speak to every ***in meaningless thing that comes up on this board have to acknowledge a serious question when it's asked. Let's godamn hear something that resembles meaningful thought.

Respectfully yours, Dennis

I agree Dennis, and it is a topic worth having a serious discussion...

The law isn't just for the criminals, it is for all. Cops/CBP/FBI are not above the law. If anything they should be held to a higher standard. In law enforcement you spend a good portion of your time dealing with the criminal element and what made the US different was our constitution and bill of rights. Nobody in law enforcement gets a free pass and the fact that these guys lied about what happened, filed a false report and more only goes to show that they knew they were in the wrong. The fact that the guy was a scumbag does not forgive them that fact. If we allow that we begin heading down a very slippery slope. When we let those with the guns and badges also become judges and executioners we might as well abandon our entire legal system.

You can't have it both ways...

:rolleyes:

[Edited on 1-20-2009 by BajaGringo]

The Gull - 1-19-2009 at 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaGringo
No but I heard that there's an ex-congressman from San Diego standing by a pay phone at a minimum security facility in Tucson...

There may be a shoe tapping Senator from Idaho looking for a Presidential pardon or asylum in Switzerland along with the show thrower

Bajahowodd - 1-19-2009 at 08:53 PM

"Me first!" -Scooter

Packoderm - 1-19-2009 at 09:13 PM

What I would like to hear is how people justify their assertions one way or the other. Law vs. emotion? Extreme action for extremism's sake such as saying "shoot the bastards" - whomever the bastards are and for whatever they've done? Interpretation of the law as in belief that agents are actually allowed by law to shoot unarmed, fleeing suspects? Or could it be we just like to be on the cops' side whether they're right or wrong? Worry that our agents won't be respected if they are dragged out when wrongdoing is suspected - sweep it under the rug? I really don't know. Everybody is keeping mum except for what appears to be offhand remarks.

DENNIS - 1-19-2009 at 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaGringo

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS
You can't have it both ways...

Thanks Ron.

You too, Gull. I appreciate the "calmates." I was having a med-malfunction moment for which I apologize to all.

Sorry again...I lost my talent for the quote box.

[Edited on 1-20-2009 by DENNIS]

Packoderm - 1-19-2009 at 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K I think they mis-reported what happened, and that cost them their jobs... They did America a favor by shooting a drug dealer heading back into Mexico to escape prosecusion? To bad they hit him in the butt instead of the head! Think of the good they did over the rules they didn't follow.

People that hurt our kids should be stopped at all costs. Those trying to stop the drug trafficing should not be punished that hard on a technicality.

The guy was only smuggling marijuana - something less toxic than cigarettes and even the Pacifico and Tecate so many of us profess to love. He was breaking the law and should have owned up to that and allow the agents to arrest him. However, sneaking marijuana is not a capital offense. Even sneaking across the border is not a capital offense. If we want to militarize the border and pass laws allowing the shooting of all transgressors, then one side's (mine) goes out the window. I just don't like vagueness of law and dishonesty.

But shooting an unarmed, fleeing suspect is not according to the law. Is that part concerning the law clear, or is there contention with that assertion?

BajaGringo - 1-19-2009 at 09:26 PM

It is a tough subject Dennis and one that is easy to get your emotions going but that is why our legal system is designed to NOT empower those in law enforcement to also act as judge, jury and executioner. They are caught up in the emotion and heat of the moment. These agents knew they had crossed the line and that is why they lied about it and filed false reports.

Besides, if we are going to start shooting drug runners there are some CIA employees that might start feeling bit nervous about that policy...

:rolleyes:

Bajafun777 - 1-19-2009 at 09:30 PM

OK, I will give the version that I have heard and seems to be pretty close to the truth, as the consequences revolve around these actions by the officers. First, these two officers were working at night in an area where a lot of drugs and assualts on officers occur. Ramos was given a commendation a year or so ago before his incident. Both officers had good evaluations and good things said by everyone in their communities about them also before this night. During this night a van was seen entering in an area that is known for trafficers entering. The officers were not together at the moment of the enter or chase but in fact in different vehicles. When the chase occurred Ramos was behind Campean a few minutes. Both were in radio contact as this van was trying to elude them on these dirt roads and this crook who in fact had done drug and illegal immigrant running several times before and awaiting court on one he just did. So, back to Campean getting in foot pursuit after this crook in the dark and finally caught up to him and the fight to avoid arrest started. Ramos arrived knowing his fellow officer was involved in a foot pursuit and last radio contact was for assistance. According to Ramos as he was running calling to Campean and then Campean was in a life and death struggle with the crook over his weapon he was trying to take from him. The crook got the weapon out of Campean's holster and a shot rang out in the dark. This gave a better direction to Ramos still running to Campean's aid. The crook got away by punching Campean in the face as he had both hands back on his weapon and the crook after punching him ran off with the weapon. Officer Ramos saw his fellow officer on the ground and this crook running off so as he yelled for him to stop the crook turned and Ramos saw a weapon and fired. The guy ran into Mexico by then and Ramos stopped giving chase as he could not enter Mexico. He thought he had missed because the crook kept running he went back to his fellow officer. They called in to their supervisor and here is where the story gets crossed over as to what happened. They said they left but since nobody in custody and his fellow officer had been banged around they did not make a report. This was very bad as we all know if you do not document it then be prepared to have any and all things said to which you will surely face the fire for not writing a report. Now, the next thing is that the next day during the daylight these two officers went back to the scene walked it and during their walk around they picked up their brass, shells, and said to each other since nothing happened as to an arrest or serious injury we will not do a report. Now, they say the supervisors let this happen on a regular basis but supervisors say not when shots fired. So, the crook did get hit and it appears in the butt but did not tell authorities about this until his next arrest for smuggling either illegals or drugs. The Mexican Counsel files a complaint when he tells them this and the investigation ended with the two officers charged in Federal Court. The court would not let the officers attorneys tell the jury this crook had a history of drug and illegal immigrant smuggling as it would make the jury think bad of him and thus the guilty verdicts. Too bad and if anything comes of any good on this all officers see just how important any incident even if just verbal should be document on any shift they work. The damn crook is still in custody from the last arrest he got caught while running drugs while the investigation was going on with the two border patrol officers. Too bad and 12 years was way off base but unfortunately some of these Federal Judges that get to serve for life and don't think certain Federal Judges do not come from the "stupid end" remember they were attorneys and attorney jokes are so real in most cases. Again too bad but at least they get another chance in life, hope they make it. One bad decision by an officer is one too many just the way it is and you know it going into this line of work. So, tell anyone you know in law enforcement document, document, document even if your supervisor says not too just an email addressing your version of the incident and your understanding an official report not needed. Yea, you know it, it will become necessary very quickly. Now, that is as close to what I have heard this incident is about and who knows for sure but one thing is for sure this crook has done this numerous times and as the jail time becomes more in the making for prison time this crook will end up killing one of these officers or they will kill him and God save the officer that does kill him as he will be going to Federal Court. Later====bajafun777

BajaGringo - 1-19-2009 at 09:37 PM

It should make zero difference if the guy was a crook or a choir boy. Law enforcement has to toe the legal line, just as we are required to do. The version you quoted is the one they presented some time later to cover up why they had filed a false report in the first place. I talked to family of mine in law enforcement and all agreed that when your weapon is fired a report is made. They also agreed that while they had sympathy for these guys, it definitely sounded like they were just covering their tracks. The struggle for the gun thing is what gave it away for them. They all agreed that is an officers standard cover for questionable shooting situations.

tigerdog - 1-19-2009 at 09:59 PM

Quote:

Not really sure I have any answers, but I do have some facts and a few more questions.

The drug smuggler was not shot in the back. He was shot in the left buttock and the bullet passed through to lodge in his right thigh. The trajectory, according to expert testimony at the trial, indicates that his body was turned at a leftward angle toward the agents at the time, which COULD (I said COULD ) support their statement that they thought he was pointing a gun at them (the smuggler is left handed).

DID he have a gun? Only 3 people will ever know the truth of that: the agents and the smuggler, because contrary to testimony given by another agent at the trial it has been pretty authoritatively demonstrated that no one else was in a position to see what happened at the time.

The smuggler, BTW, was caught smuggling something like $1 million worth of drugs while he was waiting to testify against the agents. He was tried and convicted to several years in prison in 2006, following the conviction of the agents. He had been given freedom to cross into the USA pretty much at will as part of his agreement to testify.

There are also some legitimate questions regarding whether or not the charges of filing false reports, etc. really hold water. The Border Patrol, of course, has their own explanations for that and I'm making no judgment about it since they are biased in favor of the agents. You can see their position here, if you're interested. http://rohrabacher.house.gov/UploadedFiles/NBPC%20rebuttal_to_sutton.pdf

You might also be interested in the prosecuting attorney. That would be Johnny Sutton, a US Attorney General for the Western District of Texas, a friend of Bush and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. He was appointed by Bush. For what it's worth, I remember some time back when a reporter asked Bush if he was going to look into the case and Bush essentially said no, because Sutton was his friend and he trusted his judgment. Given that, it's particularly interesting that he commuted their sentences. Maybe a nod to pressure from Congress, while not completely going against his friend Sutton?

Anyhow, Sutton doesn't look any too clean if you really dig into his history a bit. Here are some rather interesting links that you all might find intriguing:

Link # 1

Link # 2

Link # 3

I'm not actually defending the agents, but there has always been something hinky about that case. Why do I think so? Because I was curious about it and just anal retentive enough to dig for information that never made it to the MSM. :biggrin:

The Sculpin - 1-19-2009 at 10:09 PM

I don't care who they are or who they shot. They lied, pure and simple, and for that they are paying the price, as well they should!!!!! If I lied in my job, not only would I lose my job, I probably would go to jail for awhile. Why should they be any different? They know the rules.
The gun charge seemed over the top, and Bush corrected that, so I guess all is well.
As for all those who are screaming pardon, do you really understand what you are asking? To be pardoned, you have to admit guilt. These guys have their case under appeal and think they have a chance at overturning the verdict. They do not want a pardon! Crikey - now that's what I call real life poker!!!!
Tomorrow is a new day.................

tigerdog - 1-19-2009 at 10:10 PM

BajaGringo, you are dead right when you say "It should make zero difference if the guy was a crook or a choir boy. Law enforcement has to toe the legal line, just as we are required to do." Recognizing that two wrongs do not make a right, I do have some reservations as to whether or not law enforcement as represented by Johnny Sutton was toeing the legal line, though.

BajaGringo - 1-19-2009 at 10:12 PM

That is why I think that this is working out about the way it should. These guys were wrong but they don't deserve to spend 10 years either.

Bajafun777 - 1-19-2009 at 10:17 PM

BajaGringo, I am not excusing their actions of not reporting and if they had they would have been OK on this. However, once something comes out from the crook,because that is what he is,without an officer's report being timely filed the crooks version becomes the real deal no matter what was real or not. Now, as to the crook going for the gun in fight situation this is usually true. The bad guy has decided to fight an officer and just seems to be the next stupid thing they do thinking it puts them in charge if they can get it. That is why new hosters have a thumb down movement pushing motion that most crooks do not know to prevent the officers weapon from being taken, hopefully. What happens most of the time in a struggle for a weapon out of an officer's hoster is the officer is usually in a life and death struggle and that officers wants that weapon to end up in their hand as quickly as possible. Most officers talk "war stories" on these life and death struggles but all of them involved in them have that very quite moment to themselves once it is all over and nobody is watching. Most officers go their whole careers without ever shooting anyone but I will say most have drawn that weapon more times than they care to remember. I guess what I am trying to say is, again not excusing the officers not reporting, those split second decisions officers have to make day after day take a dramatic toll not just on the officers but their families. They do not get a Monday Quarterback day but again that is what goes with being an officer, so again document, document, document and do the right thing even if it becomes the wrong thing after some Monday Night Quarterback reviews it. You are right BajaGringo we have a right to expect each and every time that officers follow the same laws they enforce. Still hope these guys get a chance to turn their lives around for their sake and their families sake. I also hope this crook when he gets out does not get successful in killing one of these officers, especially one of the young officers still learning from experiences in the field. Later------bajafun777

fishbuck - 1-19-2009 at 10:20 PM

I'm happy the were commuted. Ya, they made mistakes. Marbe they should have been reprimanded or fired. But a jail sentence seemed very wrong and sent a bad message to all the border jumpers.
Number 1 important thing is protect the border at any cost.
And ya they shot him in the ass as he was running away, but maybe he was shooting at them when he was shot.
They say yes, he says no. I'll give our guys the benefit of the doubt.
Don't cross the border illegally and you won't get shot.

BajaGringo - 1-19-2009 at 10:24 PM

I am just passing along what family in law enforcement has shared with me. They all sympathize with the officers but what smelled rotten to them was not reporting the incident. Struggling with a suspect for your gun with shots fired and you don't even report the incident???

Not a one of them believed the officers but they also didn't want to see them get 10 years either.

I doubt we will ever know what really happened but I will bet a month of dinners the truth is not in the officers "corrected" report either. That is why law enforcement has procedures and ALL reports of such incidents are to be reported immediately and made in a sworn statement. Courts give cops a lot of leeway and an officer's sworn statement is considered heavy evidence in court. When they pull shenanigans like this is does smell to high hell and that is why they are in the position they are in.

I am glad to see that they got their sentences commuted but I don't want them wearing a badge and gun again either. They will probably both make a fortune anyway with a movie and a couple of books...

:rolleyes:

Fishy MISinformation

MrBillM - 1-19-2009 at 10:39 PM

Thorny Fish (Sculpin) says that "To be pardoned, you have to admit guilt".

HUH ?

There are NO conditions required for a pardon. Beyond that, there have been myriad "preemptory" pardons issued over the years to preclude prosecutions for political or other venal purposes.

The pardon power, where granted to a State Official, is unconditional.

In theory, GWB "could" issue pardons to EVERY member of his administration, including himself, before leaving office. Given Nasty Nancy's posturing yesterday regarding Congressional Investigations of the Bushies, that might be a good idea.

BajaGringo - 1-19-2009 at 10:51 PM

I think that they do that anyway, by in large but not via a pardon but with a lot of back stage deals. Most of which we will never know...

Bajahowodd - 1-20-2009 at 12:16 AM

I don't know if there is any stomach within the incoming administration to go after the lawbreakers who condoned and committed torture in violation of international law. But, if no effort is made, then this stands as precedent for future administrations. That being said, probably the real culprit in the Border officer's case is the "tough on crime frenzy". Much like the California three strikes law that does no real good, in 1986, Congress passed legislation for Federal Mandatory Minimum sentences, tying the hands of Federal judges. In this case, there was an automatic mandatory 10 year sentence added for the commision of a crime while using a firearm. So one or two year sentences were automatically 11 and 12.

BajaGringo - 1-20-2009 at 12:35 AM

Good point...

DENNIS - 1-20-2009 at 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBillM
"To be pardoned, you have to admit guilt".

I believe that meant to say, "To accept a pardon is a tacit admission of guilt." But, who wouldn't accept a pardon when freedom comes with it.
I believe this case tests the moral convictions of our society. Our definition of right and wrong and when it's acceptable to ignore those standards, if ever. I have trouble with this.

The Sculpin - 1-20-2009 at 08:01 AM

Thank you Dennis for clarifying. And thank you Mr. Bill for agreeing with me on all but a technical point! It really is a new day!

BajaDove - 1-20-2009 at 08:09 AM

If they were bad guys they would have a colored report on file Bad guys know first plea get the credit.
As a police friend told me about the beating of a man caught after a chase. "You don't know why he's running and after a fast chase you get pumped."
I agree I don't want to meet them when they have a gun Enforcers should control that pumped feeling.

BajaGringo - 1-20-2009 at 10:11 AM

As Dennis said, many of us have struggled with this one - we want to see the scumbag drug runner gone but at the same time we want the law to be followed, by ALL.

It is a slippery subject and one in which our constitutional rights are hanging. I suppose if I really wanted to, I could make a case to convince myself either way on this one if I follow the law on one hand, and emotions on the other...

BajaDove - 1-20-2009 at 05:29 PM

Is that why we all have duel personalities.

Bajahowodd - 1-20-2009 at 05:41 PM

BG- the dichotomy is no more evident with the Federal Minimum Mandatory sentencing. We pay Federal Judges a decent salary. They are appointed, albeit with some political consideration, having to have certain qualifications. To take judgment of considering factors other than the crime itself out of the hands of the judges, is ludicrous. One of the underlying factors in the push for the existing guidelines was to serve harsh sentences to drug offenders. Wow. Look at what we got. The United States has more people in prison than any country in the world except Russia. Great company, huh?

Oso - 1-20-2009 at 06:28 PM

BajaFun 777,
Speed kills...

BajaGringo - 1-20-2009 at 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
The United States has more people in prison than any country in the world except Russia. Great company, huh?

Obviously that strategy has worked well...

:rolleyes:

Mango - 1-20-2009 at 11:38 PM

OK.. I'm going to officially have a Baja Nomad tizzy fit!

This shooting occurred near El Paso, Texas!

Nowhere near Baja!!! OMFG!!! What is Mexico news doing in a Baja, Mexico forum!

OK... this post is all satire.. posted for a grumpy old bird..

Carry on.. and right on..

Remember.. Baja IS part of Mexico..

Bajafun777 - 1-20-2009 at 11:46 PM

Oso, so does letting drug runners put our citizens at risk driving at high speeds and the wrong way on a freeway. Not reporting and lying are different animals. Not reporting is a policy break and lying brings about the old law phrase of "You lie You Die," especially when going before a court or your supervisors. Again, I do not excuse their not reporting but as to lying I do not what happened that night. Further, I also know that this crook has a continuing drug running crimes along with eluding and fighting with officers. So, we lock up the officers for 11 and 12 years and this crook will be out shortly just wait and see. Bush needed to commute their sentences over his buddy's desire to bury them. Again, hopefully letting this crook of again will not be at the expense of an officer"s life or any of our citizens lives when he does as he pleases racing down the road with his illegal drugs or illegal immigrants he is running. Easy to say to hell with the officers but their line of work is very tough, dangerous, stressful, and sometimes in those moments bad decisions are made. I would be holding some supervisors responsible for not demanding a report before these officers went off duty that night, especially due to all of the radio traffic on this situation. Later-------- bajafun777

The Gull - 1-21-2009 at 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mango
OK.. I'm going to officially have a Baja Nomad tizzy fit!

This shooting occurred near El Paso, Texas!

Nowhere near Baja!!! OMFG!!! What is Mexico news doing in a Baja, Mexico forum!

OK... this post is all satire.. posted for a grumpy old bird..

Remember.. Baja IS part of Mexico..

...and Mexico is part of the world, and the world is part of the universe, and what planet are you from?

BajaDove - 1-21-2009 at 08:09 AM

Anything involving border guards affects all of us. We use the border
We're getting older and harder of hearing. I sometime fear someone will yell stop and we won't hear.

Yeah, you just never Know....................

MrBillM - 1-21-2009 at 10:24 AM

When one of us old geezers might be running through the desert along the border, see some "official"-looking people and (not hearing their shouts) run AWAY. Another innocent soul lost to the Police state.

Heck, I read about that happening all the time. ALL of those innocents trampled by reckless out-of-control law officer thugs.

Yeah, Right.

Cite an example once in awhile when decrying all of this "Our Civil Rights in Tatters" BS.

BajaDove - 1-21-2009 at 11:22 AM

I didn't say guards shouldn't defend themselves. I would just like some sort of check too be sure the strain of the job is not putting a twitch on the trigger finger.

DENNIS - 1-21-2009 at 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaDove
I didn't say guards shouldn't defend themselves. I would just like some sort of check too be sure the strain of the job is not putting a twitch on the trigger finger.

Judgeing from the senseless butt shot, I'd say the trigger finger should spend a bit more time at the range.

Bajafun777 - 1-21-2009 at 12:49 PM

Dennis, at night time and if 30 to 50 yards while both are running shots could go downward very easy. I love to shoot and in these type of situations don't think shots can go exactly to the target area you are shooting for. Think about it ground is uneven, gear on and depending how far you have run breathing affects your shot too, so I do not think the shot was due to someone a$$ing around :cool:

Take care======bajafun777

DENNIS - 1-21-2009 at 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajafun777
Dennis, at night time and if 30 to 50 yards while both are running shots could go downward very easy. I love to shoot and in these type of situations don't think shots can go exactly to the target area you are shooting for. Think about it ground is uneven, gear on and depending how far you have run breathing affects your shot too, so I do not think the shot was due to someone a$$ing around :cool:

Take care======bajafun777

Thanks 777. I see your point. I guess these front line guys should have suitable armament such as a machine gun. My point is, never shoot to wound....always shoot to kill. That's what they would do to you.