It's just hard to distinguish facts from deliberate misinformation in the utterings of the rightist activist.

That's funny. Why?

Because it's just hard to distinguish facts from deliberate misinformation in the utterings of you, the leftist activist.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

It's just hard to distinguish facts from deliberate misinformation in the utterings of the rightist activist.

That's funny. Why?

Because it's just hard to distinguish facts from deliberate misinformation in the utterings of you, the leftist activist.

The only "information" presented here by the supporters of the presumably trigger-happy border agents came from some rightwing extremist bloggers.
They simply left out all facts not convenient for their "heroes" (and the posters here refused to answer the questions regarding those inconsistencies).

I still wait for the answer why this should go unpunished:

Ramos and Compean were convicted of
* attempting to club the guy in the face with a shotgun, while he was trying to surrender
* shooting a fleeing suspect in the back
* tampering with a crime scene
* neglecting to report the incident

I still wait for the answer why this should go unpunished:

Ramos and Compean were convicted of[quote]

[quote]* attempting to club the guy in the face with a shotgun, while he was trying to surrender

During a physical struggle. The agents stated that they saw something in the ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT DRUG DEALER'S hand and feared that he might have a weapon. That alone justifies using the force necessary to disable the ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT DRUG DEALER

* shooting a fleeing suspect in the back

This is the only one that would seem inexcusable. The problem is that none of us were there to see exactly what transpired.

* tampering with a crime scene

On orders of the immediate supervisor.

* neglecting to report the incident

Again, on orders by their immediate supervisor.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

The only "information" presented here by the supporters of the presumably trigger-happy border agents came from some rightwing extremist bloggers.
They simply left out all facts not convenient for their "heroes" (and the posters here refused to answer the questions regarding those inconsistencies).

Once again, you have no leg to stand on here. If it's wrong for the "rightwing extremist bloggers" to post partisan rhetoric, it's wrong for you to do the same thing.

I still wait for the answer why this should go unpunished:

Ramos and Compean were convicted of
* attempting to club the guy in the face with a shotgun, while he was trying to surrender
* shooting a fleeing suspect in the back
* tampering with a crime scene
* neglecting to report the incident

Ummmm, if the trial was badly flawed and the evidence presented was created out of whole cloth, then they should never have been convicted.

If they should never have been convicted, then they should not be punished. If they are not convicted nor punished, then you have no idea what happened that day. Nor any way to determine the veracity of either side. Posting irrational partisan rhetoric as if you do is just silly, especially since you are doing exactly what you complain of the other side doing.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Ummmm, if the trial was badly flawed and the evidence presented was created out of whole cloth, then they should never have been convicted.
If they should never have been convicted, then they should not be punished. If they are not convicted nor punished, then you have no idea what happened that day. Nor any way to determine the veracity of either side. Posting irrational partisan rhetoric as if you do is just silly, especially since you are doing exactly what you complain of the other side doing.
elrushbo@theobviousadelphia.net
Remove the obvious...

Rush let's have a Trial, I am the Judge, you are the Defendant. I get to say what evidence comes in and what stays out. Okay the Trial begins and the Prosecution says you live in Chicago. I say okay and no evidence to the contrary may be presented. Now come the end of the Trial where will those Jurors think you live? Chicago, because I said NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY MAY BE PRESENTED. I do not care where you REALLY live, I am the Judge and I get to decide those kinds of things. That is what people say happened at the Trial of these 2 guys. The Judge ran it with an iron fist and did not let the Trial be decided by the Jury, except what she wanted the Jury to hear. The Jury had no choice but to convict, they only heard part of the story. At least that is the allegation, and the transcript seems to bear that out. And no I cannot find it on-line, yet.

---

Your wish is my command Mikey...all the transcript links are on the bottom of the page in .pdf.

---

Account frozen...

Rush let's have a Trial, I am the Judge, you are the Defendant. I get to say what evidence comes in and what stays out. Okay the Trial begins and the Prosecution says you live in Chicago. I say okay and no evidence to the contrary may be presented. Now come the end of the Trial where will those Jurors think you live? Chicago, because I said NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY MAY BE PRESENTED. I do not care where you REALLY live, I am the Judge and I get to decide those kinds of things. That is what people say happened at the Trial of these 2 guys. The Judge ran it with an iron fist and did not let the Trial be decided by the Jury, except what she wanted the Jury to hear. The Jury had no choice but to convict, they only heard part of the story. At least that is the allegation, and the transcript seems to bear that out. And no I cannot find it on-line, yet.

The juries ALWAYS only hear part of the story--they weren't there, and not everything is admissible as evidence

But to the example you presented, although judges do have some judicial discretion, there are significant rules they have to follow, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, et cetera.

The judge does not just get to decide such things on a whim. He would have to have a very specific reason to exclude conflicting evidence of my residence when the prosecution raised it as an issue. "Because I said so," doesn't cut it.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Rush let's have a Trial, I am the Judge, you are the Defendant. I get to say what evidence comes in and what stays out. Okay the Trial begins and the Prosecution says you live in Chicago. I say okay and no evidence to the contrary may be presented. Now come the end of the Trial where will those Jurors think you live? Chicago, because I said NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY MAY BE PRESENTED. I do not care where you REALLY live, I am the Judge and I get to decide those kinds of things. That is what people say happened at the Trial of these 2 guys. The Judge ran it with an iron fist and did not let the Trial be decided by the Jury, except what she wanted the Jury to hear. The Jury had no choice but to convict, they only heard part of the story. At least that is the allegation, and the transcript seems to bear that out. And no I cannot find it on-line, yet.

The juries ALWAYS only hear part of the story--they weren't there, and not everything is admissible as evidence

But to the example you presented, although judges do have some judicial discretion, there are significant rules they have to follow, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, et cetera.

The judge does not just get to decide such things on a whim. He would have to have a very specific reason to exclude conflicting evidence of my residence when the prosecution raised it as an issue. "Because I said so," doesn't cut it.

And that is why there are many cases which are reversed on appeal because of judical error. To error is human, when a judge does it there are diasterous results, and those results are visited upon the innocent as well as the guilty.

---

Account frozen...

Politics and justice

No easy answers in Border Patrol case

SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

February 22, 2007

In the case of imprisoned ex-Border Patrol Agents Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos, you have to separate the ancillary issues from the actual legal issues.

In the first camp, you find the chatter that is generating buzz on Internet sites and radio talk shows. They range from concerns that the Mexican government “ordered” the prosecution of Compean and Ramos after they shot and wounded a drug smuggler on the Texas-Mexico border in February 2005 to the troubling admission by Homeland Security Department Inspector General Richard Skinner that members of his staff misinformed lawmakers in telling them that the agency had proof that the two border agents had confessed wrongdoing and were “out to shoot Mexicans.”

This is not to say that these issues aren't important, only that they have no bearing on the bigger questions: Were the former agents wrongly convicted? And, if so, do they deserve a new trial?

If these defendants were treated unfairly, and their defense undermined by underhanded tactics by prosecutors, then that is certainly relevant and it should factor into any decision by the appellate courts as to whether these convictions should be overturned and a new trial ordered.

Which brings us to an actual issue. Ramos' attorney, Mary Stillinger, says prosecutors failed to show the defense a potentially exculpatory piece of evidence – a memo from a DHS investigator that indicates that two supervisors either knew of, or heard about, the shooting. If true, that could undermine a key element of the government's case – that there was a cover-up by Compean and Ramos.

Stillinger claims the memo is “Brady material” that should have been turned over, and she's demanding a new trial.

The term “Brady material” refers to the Supreme Court's 1963 decision, Brady v. Maryland, in which the court ruled that the prosecution must turn over to the defense any information that may be exculpatory to the defendant.

If true, this could amount to a major ethical violation by prosecutors and serve as grounds for an appeal. The problem is that, according to U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, whose office handled this case, the material isn't exculpatory and it was, in fact, available to defense attorneys. That claim becomes more credible when you learn that, according to recent media reports, members of the Compean family say they had that memo in their possession all along and that defense attorneys may have overlooked it.

So what is this about prosecutorial misconduct, or malpractice by defense attorneys? Maybe neither. Sutton insists the memo in question isn't clear about when the supervisors arrived at the scene and, he says, the evidence presented to the jury suggests that at least one of the supervisors arrived after the shooting and knew nothing about the incident until investigators called to ask about it.

If you're looking for easy answers, you won't find any in this case – which is why such matters are tried in courtrooms and not in the press. Let's remember that and allow the system to work without letting politics get in the way.

---

me@rescam.org

The juries ALWAYS only hear part of the story--they weren't there, and not everything is admissible as evidence
But to the example you presented, although judges do have some judicial discretion, there are significant rules they have to follow, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, et cetera.
The judge does not just get to decide such things on a whim. He would have to have a very specific reason to exclude conflicting evidence of my residence when the prosecution raised it as an issue. "Because I said so," doesn't cut it.

And THAT is just PART of the problems with this case. Apparently the Judge went waaaay beyond what is prudent and fair and is being called to account for it. So far she has said little publicly, but what she has said is "I didn't know". She is trying to say that things were presented to her in a one sided manner and that she only ruled based on what she was told, not what she was able to find out on her own, or thru research by her minions.

---

Your wish is my command Mikey...all the transcript links are on the bottom of the page in .pdf.

Thank you VERY much!

---

Following the facts in agents' case

RUBEN NAVARRETTE JR.
THE UNION-TRIBUNE

March 4, 2007

Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz shares with his students a three-pronged strategy for successfully defending cases. If the facts are on your side, Dershowitz says, pound the facts into the table. If the law is on your side, pound the law into the table. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.

And it's not just in a court of law that this happens. Apparently, the same tactics apply in the court of public opinion.

Take those who are rallying around former Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean. The pair became cult heroes with immigration restrictionists after they were convicted of shooting a fleeing drug smuggler on the Texas-Mexico border in February 2005 and then covering it up by tossing the shell casings and not reporting the incident.

It turns out that sort of thing is not only a violation of Border Patrol policy, but it's flat out against the law. Yet Mary Stillinger, the attorney for Ramos, considers the case one of Monday-morning quarterbacking. She told The Associated Press that what's really at issue is the contradiction between “the reality on the riverbank and the bureaucracy of regulations.”

Some Americans agree, including one reader who, after an earlier column on the case, wrote me and suggested: Why not be like Mexico? “They shoot people who invade their territory,” he said, “but we can't?”

No, we can't – because, in these matters and in most things, the United States should strive to achieve a higher standard than Mexico. Thanks to federal sentencing guidelines, Ramos and Compean were handed lengthy prison sentences – 11 years for Ramos and 12 for Compean.

As she seeks to overturn her client's conviction, Stillinger has charged in the media that prosecutors failed to show the defense a potentially exculpatory piece of evidence – a memo from a Department of Homeland Security investigator that says supervisors either knew of, or heard about, the shooting. Stillinger says if supervisors knew about the incident, it could undermine the claim that there was a cover-up. It would also mean the supervisors lied in court when they testified that the first time they heard of the shooting was when Homeland Security investigators showed up and began asking about it.

Stillinger claimed the memo is “Brady material” that should have been provided to the defense, and she's demanding a new trial. The term refers to the Supreme Court's 1963 ruling, in Brady v. Maryland, that the prosecution must turn over to the defense any exculpatory information.

For U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, whose office prosecuted the case against the Border Patrol agents, these types of challenges are to be expected. “It's not uncommon,” he told me, “(for defense attorneys) to say, 'They should have told us this, this is vital, this is Brady, this would have totally changed everything if I had this.' ”

But, Sutton contends, the material in question was provided to defense attorneys. “To our knowledge,” he said, “the United States Attorney's Office complied with all of its discovery obligations in this case. And I believe that we, in fact, on several occasions made that memo available to all defense counsel as well as a great deal of other information in the file.”

Besides, he argued, the memo in question doesn't say what defense attorneys and their supporters claim it says. It reads that the investigation found “that the following BP agents were at the location of the shooting incident, assisted in destroying evidence of the shooting, and/or knew/heard about the shooting” and then includes on the list the names of two supervisors, Robert Arnold and Jonathan Richards.

“Maybe that's an inartful way to put it,” Sutton said of the way the memo is phrased. “I was at the location of the shooting incident as well . . . months and months later, just as Arnold and Richards were at the location of the shooting incident after it was all over.”

He said all the evidence presented at trial – including Compean's handwritten notes and the testimony of fellow agents – confirmed that the supervisors arrived at the scene after the fact.

For Sutton, all this second-guessing comes with the job. “Prosecutors have to follow the facts,” he said, “and sometimes the facts lead to unhappy places to be – like the unhappy place of prosecuting a police officer. Prosecutors never like to do that. It's always uncomfortable. But the fact is, when they violate the law, and it's a provable case, we can't let it slide.”

Why not? I bet they would in Mexico.

---

me@rescam.org