I see that President Bush has commuted the sentences of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. According to a CNN report:
On his final full day in office, President Bush issued commutations for two former U.S. Border Patrol agents convicted in 2006 of shooting and wounding an unarmed illegal immigrant -- suspected of drug smuggling at the time -- and then covering it up.
The prison sentences of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean will now end March 20.
Ramos had received an 11-year prison sentence; Compean had received a 12-year term. They began serving their sentences in January 2007.
. . .
The head of the labor union representing Border Patrol agents told CNN Radio he was "grateful" that Bush commuted the sentences but questioned why the prison terms won't end until March 20.
"I would be quite curious to learn why they have to wait another two months for an unjust sentence," said Rich Pierce, president of the National Border Patrol Council.
He said the union's ultimate goal would be for the men to get their Border Patrol jobs back.
There are those (including some of my friends) who are not satisfied with the President's decision. They want a full pardon for Ramos and Compean. However, I'm afraid I can't agree. I think President Bush's decision to commute their sentences, rather than pardon them outright, was precisely correct.
I've been very disturbed by the hype surrounding Ramos and Compean, and I regard it as unreasoned and illogical, for two reasons:
- They admitted to shooting a fugitive while he was fleeing from them, not offering them any threat, and with no weapon visible on his person;
- They admitted to covering up their actions by removing evidence (i.e. cartridge cases) and falsifying written reports.
I'm sorry, but those are felony offenses. They're not minor misdemeanors that can be shrugged off as 'no big deal'. A felony crime is a big deal - and both Ramos and Compean, by their own admission, were guilty of felony crimes.
There are those who maintain that these two Border Patrol agents were 'legally lynched', in an attempt by the Bush administration to demonstrate even-handedness to the Mexican government and to the millions of illegal immigrants already in this country. I don't see that. I accept that the two men - like all other Border Patrol agents - were under enormous stress, overworked, and in many cases lacking the support they deserved from the higher echelons of the executive: but that still doesn't excuse the commission of felony crimes.
I also fear that there are elements of racism in many of the individuals and organizations supporting Ramos and Compean. The undercurrent I detect is, "Well, he was just an illegal Mexican immigrant, and a drug smuggler to boot. What's his life worth versus the lives of two loyal supporters of the United States?"
To that, my only answer is, "Are we equal under the law, or are we not?" If we're equal under the law, then let's face it: that Mexican was not found guilty by any court of law of being either an illegal immigrant, or a drug smuggler. He's innocent until proven guilty. He may well have been as guilty as sin: but unless and until he's found guilty by a court of law, that remains speculation rather than fact. In the same way, Ramos and Compean were in positions of authority, and they abused those positions. If they'd shot an innocent US citizen, and tried to cover up their actions by doing precisely what they did, I'm pretty sure many of those calling for their pardon would instead be calling for a rope, and talking about 'jack-booted thugs' and the evils of a 'police state'.
The law is the law. Ramos and Compean, by their own admission, broke it, not once, but multiple times. Their offense was compounded by the fact that they were officers of the law, to whom we are supposed to look for even-handed, fair, impartial enforcement.
Yes, I believe that the sheer pressure of their jobs, and the thankless nature of their work, and the constant danger to which they were exposed, all constitute extenuating circumstances: and on those grounds, I'm grateful to President Bush for commuting their sentences. However, those who are not satisfied with this, and want a full pardon, are, I suspect, not looking at the full picture.
EDITED TO ADD: I see that Marko has weighed in on this subject as well, in his usual well-reasoned and soundly-argued way. Go read.
Peter
7 comments:
I agree Peter, when it's all said and done, they DID commit multiple felonies, regardless of who supposedly ordered/covered it up...
Point well made. Thank-You
I would argue that the SCOTUS recognizes three situations where deadly force may be used. To defend your own life, to defend the life of another human being and to stop a fleeing felon.
.
In that regard, I believe the shooting was legal. Their subsequent actions to cover up the shooting, however, was not.
.
That said, my training officer advised us to avoid using deadly force in the third situation except in extreme circumstances.
.
Jerry in Detroit
One side note Peter...he WAS a convicted drug smuggler. He had previous convictions but, the point still stands. These two men acted wrong.
I've had personal contact with the prosecutor in this case and even he felt the sentences were too harsh. He did feel they deserved punishment but, not those heavy sentences.
However, due to the MANDATORY sentencing guidelines, the judge didn't have alot of manuvering room and as the man told me,
"My job is not to do the sentencing, my job is to get the conviction if I feel the defendants are guilty."
The fact that people are complaining that these two have to wait to get out of jail early just seems ungrateful to me. President Bush could have simply let them serve thier full terms after all.
He has been very cautious with his powers in this area. Reagan, Bush senior and Clinton had about 300-400 pardons and 150-200 communions.
Bush junior (this one) had about 200 pardons and only 9..yes 9..communions counting these two in 8 yaers according to reports.
Huge difference.
I'm very disappointed in your article here.
"They admitted to shooting a fugitive while he was fleeing from them, not offering them any threat, and with no weapon visible on his person;"
Untrue, they have said all along that the suspect turned back toward them and appeared to be pointing a weapon at them, the wound he received is consistent with that posture. Since he got away at that time, there is no one besides the convicted drug runner to say that he was unarmed. Why anyone would take his word over two LEOs I don't understand.
"They admitted to covering up their actions by removing evidence (i.e. cartridge cases) and falsifying written reports."
Also partially untrue. While they did pick up shell casings there was no attempt to cover up the incident since 3 supervisors responded to the scene and were fully aware of what had happened.
As far as the prosecutor in the case it was his decision to charge them with using a gone in the commission of a felony, a law passed to use against criminals and never before used in the prosecution of a LEO, that brought the mandatory 10 year sentence into play. To imply that he had no choice is disingenuous at best.
The trial was a kangaroo court, read the transcripts. The defendents were asked questions, and as they replied, interrupted and asked another question. This was repeated. They had a group of people to testify for them, until apparently they were told, they too could have a U.S. Marshall's visit to them (this is just rumor). There was no introduction of the problems with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome to account for a difference in interviews, or that they had been trained, physically, to pick up brass after shooting, but told in lectures to preserve the scene (what training is followed under stress?). The key to seeing this as a political conviction is in the multiple charges for the same incident, particularly the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony which was supposed to bury them away from the eyes of the public. They WERE going to be sacrificed to satisfy the crocodile tears of an offended Mexico, a country whose citizens only have rights in proportion to how far they are over the US border, much as Marines and other combat troops are commonly sacrificed to show how tough we are on "war crimes".
Witness the arrest and conviction of Deputy Gilmer Hernandez by the same "Justice" Department team, for a shooting cleared by both his agency and an outside agency. When Mexico complained, he was arrested, for violating the rights of a woman hidden in a wheel well wounded by bullet fragments from a bullet aimed at a wheel. The attempt here is to send the message to LE to turn their heads.
I should also comment on the fleeing felon aspect. Deadly force can be used to arrest a armed, person who committed a violent felony and is likely to be a danger to the community if they escape, i.e. someone who has just attempted to murder a police officer. This is a loose rendering of Tennessee vs Garner. In the Hernandez case the federal prosecutor pretended she didn't know anything about that when she announced he was wrong for shooting at a vehicle that was no longer a danger to him (it wasn't self defense!). But lawyers aren't under oath. And she had to get a conviction. The coyote's bosses would be calling to check.
Post a Comment