Is anyone else annoyed that Bush won't pardon the border agents?

[hsmith]

That shot and wounded a drug smuggler that got IMMUNITY to testify against the agents?

MND/BlogWonks: Your Alternate Daily » Confused Bush Helps Put Fence Around The Border Patrol Instead of the Border

Confused Bush Helps Put Fence Around The Border Patrol Instead of the Border

January 17, 2007
Vox Populi, Doug Powers, Current Events, Politics There are times when those who defend us need and deserve a better defense from us in return. It’s the least we can do. This is, once again, one of those times. The police, military and border patrol risk their lives every day, but often the biggest danger they face comes from idiocy within.
I was hoping this defense would come straight from the top, in public and in smackdown fashion, but that doesn’t yet appear to be the case.
Rarely a day goes by when something that defies logic, not to mention sanity, arises.
From WorldNetDaily:

Amid protests and a flurry of last-minute efforts by congressmen, two border patrol agents are scheduled today to begin long prison sentences for shooting and wounding a Mexican drug smuggler who was given immunity to testify against them.
In an interview with WND, an angry Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., called President Bush a “disgrace” for refusing to pardon Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos, who were sentenced to 12 years and 11 years, respectively, in October. With hopes for a presidential pardon dwindling, the lawmakers had requested that Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez assist in a motion to keep the agents free on bond during the appeals process. But late yesterday, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone in El Paso, Texas, ruled the men must surrender to federal marshals at 2 p.m. Mountain Time today.

In the meantime, a petition calling for a presidential pardon for the border officers was delivered to the White House. The petition had over 225,000 signatures, but unless any of the names sound Saudi or happen to be “Vicente Fox,” don’t expect any action on the part of the president.
For these border agents who are facing over a decade in prison for stopping a criminal from entering America, I’d like to recommend what amounts to a good defense. This is what I suggest that soldiers, who are occasionally court-martialed for the grievous crime of harming an enemy combatant in a war, do in order to get more politicians on their side and calling for their release. Here are five ways to do that:

1. Convert to Islam.
2. “Leak” a secret to the New York Times.
3. Compare George W. Bush to Hitler (take a number and patiently wait your turn).
4. Convert to Islam again, just so the people who missed it the first time have a chance to see it.
5. Call for eco-friendly hybrid patrol vehicles.

It’s painfully obvious that when the president speaks of “securing our borders,” he misunderestimated that and heard it as “securing border security.”
And to think that I was naive enough to assume that when, late last year, President Bush signed the bill authorizing 700 miles of new fence, it would be used to prevent illegal entry into the country, and not just erected around some border agents. Go figure.
Of course, the fence bill was “bipartisan,” which means that once construction is completed, ladders will be distributed to Mexicans (the more sporting types will be sent to “Bruce Jenner’s Caracas Pole-Vault Camp”) and the fence will be named after Senator Robert Byrd.
People often say that illegals will “do the work that Americans won’t.” Well, if we keep up with the aforementioned type of idiocy, one of those “jobs Americans won’t do” will be “border patrol agent” — and I don’t blame them at all.

can we all not agree this is a bit out of hand? 3 congressmen from the area want him pardoned, for DOING THEIR JOB and he won't?

[ballz2wallz]

I am!

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I am!

i can't even conceive what they were sentenced to a decade in jail for

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I am!

Me too!

[Kytro]

While I don't agree with what happened to the border agents, I am strongly opposed to the use of pardons by presidents.

The concept is so bad. It is tantamount to declaring the president is above the law.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by hsmith

i can't even conceive what they were sentenced to a decade in jail for

Me neither.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Kytro

The concept is so bad. It is tantamount to declaring the president is above the law.

they are.

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

they are.

[7960]

Not all is as it may seem........

“These agents shot someone who they knew to be unarmed and running away.” He said they also “destroyed evidence, covered up a crime scene and then filed false reports about what happened.”

I understand the frustration in the first post, but does that give border patrol the right to shoot an unarmed guy in the back and lie about it?

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by 7960

Not all is as it may seem........

“These agents shot someone who they knew to be unarmed and running away.” He said they also “destroyed evidence, covered up a crime scene and then filed false reports about what happened.”

I understand the frustration in the first post, but does that give border patrol the right to shoot an unarmed guy in the back and lie about it?

I would be pissed if Bush pardonned these guys. Police should be held to a higher standard than the general public, not a lower one.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

the president can overrule the entire judicary branch on criminal convictions just because that is what he wants to do. That is above the law.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by 7960

Not all is as it may seem........

“These agents shot someone who they knew to be unarmed and running away.” He said they also “destroyed evidence, covered up a crime scene and then filed false reports about what happened.”

I understand the frustration in the first post, but does that give border patrol the right to shoot an unarmed guy in the back and lie about it?

Do you not remember this situation?

The guy was a known and wanted drug dealer. The guy was running away when he turned and pointed something at the officer, which he thought was a gun, and he fired. He hit the guy in the back, but did not kill him. Are they to blame for doing their job?

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by 7960

Not all is as it may seem........

“These agents shot someone who they knew to be unarmed and running away.” He said they also “destroyed evidence, covered up a crime scene and then filed false reports about what happened.”

I understand the frustration in the first post, but does that give border patrol the right to shoot an unarmed guy in the back and lie about it?

but on the flip side, is the testimony from the drug smuggler that was given immunity?

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by hsmith

but on the flip side, is the testimony from the drug smuggler that was given immunity?

vs. the testimony of the cops who lied and tried to hide evidence?

They shot an unarmed man in the back. They tried to cover up the shooting by disrupting the scene before investigators arrived. I can't imagine any reason for sympathy for these guys other than hate for the victim.

[7960]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Do you not remember this situation?

I remember it. I remember there being two stories to it, too.

The guy was a known and wanted drug dealer.

So? That means they can shoot him in the back?

The guy was running away when he turned and pointed something at the officer, which he thought was a gun, and he fired.

Wait...he was running away and he knew he didn't have a gun but he turned and pointed something at the cops to make them think he had a gun? Does that pass the laugh test??

He hit the guy in the back, but did not kill him. Are they to blame for doing their job?

Their job is to shoot unarmed people in the back? Does "wanted drug dealer" mean "ok to kill"? If it happened in chicago or boston or denver those cops would have been tried, too. Maybe they would have been smart enough to kill the guy and plant a throw-away on him so the "turned and pointed something at me" story made sense.

[7960]

Originally Posted by hsmith

but on the flip side, is the testimony from the drug smuggler that was given immunity?

I don't know the entire situation but if his testimony corroborate the phyisical evidence then yes, he may be a more credible witness than two cops who shot a guy in the back and then tampered with the scene and destroyed/damaged/changed evidence to make it seem otherwise.



I know this opinion is not going to be popular but the cops aren't innocent in this and don't deserve a pardon.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by 7960

I remember it. I remember there being two stories to it, too.

Yeah, a drug dealer's, and the cops.

So? That means they can shoot him in the back?

No, but that means he's a bad man, and they were trying to apprehend them.
[quoteWait...he was running away and he knew he didn't have a gun but he turned and pointed something at the cops to make them think he had a gun? Does that pass the laugh test??[/quote]That means they have the authority to shoot if they think their life is in danger. If they thought he pointed a gun at them, whether it was a stick to 'threaten' them or his hand to wave them off, they thought he had a gun.

Their job is to shoot unarmed people in the back? Does "wanted drug dealer" mean "ok to kill"? If it happened in chicago or boston or denver those cops would have been tried, too. Maybe they would have been smart enough to kill the guy and plant a throw-away on him so the "turned and pointed something at me" story made sense.

That means that if they shoot in self-defense, and he turns at the right instant, or whatever (a hundred scenarios could be given to how that may happen) the fact is, they could very easily be doing their job and accidentally shoot someone. These things are not uncommon.

Seriously, why would you be defending this guy? Why would you prefer to lock up some cop who mistakenly shot someone out of assumed self-defense rather than lock up a known and wanted drug dealer because he was injured while breaking the law? This is an example of what's exactly wrong with this country...there's more sympathy for wanted drug dealers than there is from cops who make mistakes. Get used to it, cops are humans too, and they make mistakes. But no, we'd prefer to punish them. We expect nothing but perfection.

[7960]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Yeah, a drug dealer's, and the cops.

As Phantom said, "cops who lied and tried to hide evidence"?

No, but that means he's a bad man, and they were trying to apprehend them.

Last i checked "shoot in the back" isn't on the list of approved ways to apprehend someone.

That means they have the authority to shoot if they think their life is in danger. If they thought he pointed a gun at them, whether it was a stick to 'threaten' them or his hand to wave them off, they thought he had a gun.

My laugh test was "he's running away, he knows he doesn't have a gun, he knows they DO have guns, his back is to them, and he decides to make them think he has a gun but they still somehow managed to shoot him in the back." ?? Come on.

That means that if they shoot in self-defense, and he turns at the right instant, or whatever (a hundred scenarios could be given to how that may happen) the fact is, they could very easily be doing their job and accidentally shoot someone. These things are not uncommon.

And cops going to jail for tampering with evidence and crime scene isn't uncommon, either.

Seriously, why would you be defending this guy?

I'm not. I think he should be in jail. Where did you get the idea that I think he's not a bad guy? I've been talking about the cops, not the guy.

Why would you prefer to lock up some cop who mistakenly shot someone out of assumed self-defense rather than lock up a known and wanted drug dealer because he was injured while breaking the law? This is an example of what's exactly wrong with this country...there's more sympathy for wanted drug dealers than there is from cops who make mistakes. Get used to it, cops are humans too, and they make mistakes. But no, we'd prefer to punish them. We expect nothing but perfection.

Oh fuck, here it comes....... "this is what's wrong with this country..............."

You want to know what's wrong with this country? The fact that you're on here every day arguing about rights, and then when someone's rights are violated you want to ignore it because you don't like the guy. Sure he was illegal, sure he was a known drug dealer. That does not mean he has no rights and that does not mean we should say "oh well" when two cops violate those rights.

AND!!!!!!!!!! I'd be a lot more inclined to give the cops the benefit of the doubt if they didn't CHOOSE TO "destroy evidence, cover up a crime scene and then file false reports about what happened." Call the shooting a mistake if you want, but what happened afterward was well thought out. You think it's ok for cops to do that??

WTF. Talk about what's wrong with this country. Apparently (according to you) if you kill someone and the next day the cops see you in a car driving away they're allowed to shoot you in order to make you stop. I mean, you were a "bad man" and police were trying to "apprehend you."

No, I don't expect cops to be perfect. Yes, I understand police make mistakes. But what they did after the shooting makes them just as "bad" as the drug dealer.