Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

You have a duty to sign this...

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • You have a duty to sign this...

    As far as im concerned EVERY American has a duty to sign this (especially if your an LEO)...

    LINK TO THE PETITION TO PARDON THE BORDER PATROL AGENTS WHO WERE IMPRISONED:

    Petition Link:
    http://www.grassfire.org/142/petition.asp?PID=12008997

    LETTER FROM AGENT RAMOS' WIFE:
    Dear Grassfire,

    Thank you very much for all your help. I wish I could have
    met you and Steve yesterday in DC. My time there was very
    productive and full of information. I do want to speak to
    all of your team about my husband.

    He is VERY grateful for all that you and your team have done
    and continue to do on his and Jose’s behalf. I will have the
    opportunity to see him tomorrow for about an hour to share
    my experiences in Washington. So much is going on, and the
    momentum continues to build. PLEASE DO NOT LET THIS DIE!!!

    Both of our families are suffering tremendously from the
    void of our spouses and the children are the innocent ones
    here. They simply cannot grasp what has happened to their
    fathers. My children are anxious to see their daddy, but
    I am hesitant to take them because words cannot adequately
    prepare them for what they will see... him shackled--like
    a hardcore criminal. It is sickening, Ron.

    Again, I am so grateful for the money that was sent. It has
    been a great blessing to help him maintain in prison.
    Commissary is not cheap. Snacks, phone cards, and paper
    to write the children is costly. Thank you, and thank you
    Grassfire team members.

    Your support is a godsend to us, and WE ARE ALL SO APPRECIATIVE.
    Please continue fighting for my husband. He is a good and
    honorable man.

    Thank you again.

    Monica Ramos

  • #2
    Read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal Friday Jan26, 2007, before you sign this.
    You can now follow me on twitter.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by SlowDownThere
      Read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal Friday Jan26, 2007, before you sign this.
      After reading the article, and assuming it is accurate, there is no way I would sign the petition. Their conduct was unprofessional and some of their actions were criminal. However, I would say they had reasonable cause to believe the suspect was an illegal based on his actions.

      Bonkers at the Border
      Lou Dobbs and some Republicans pull an Al Sharpton.

      Friday, January 26, 2007 12:01 a.m.

      Most people would consider corrupt border patrol agents to be part of the illegal immigration problem, not the solution. So it's passing strange that anti-immigration Republicans in Congress are calling for the federal government to release Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, two former border guards from Texas who were sent to prison last week for shooting an unarmed man in the back and then trying to cover up their crime.
      Several GOP lawmakers, including outspoken restrictionists like Congressmen Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, have hailed the ex-agents as American heroes. President Bush is even being urged to pardon Ramos and Compean, who received sentences of 11 years and 12 years, respectively. GOP Representative Dana Rohrabacher has gone so far as to accuse Mr. Bush of being "on the side of [America's] enemies" for allowing the men to go to jail.

      CNN's Lou Dobbs has also weighed in repeatedly with pseudo-reporting designed to rile up his viewers rather than inform them of the facts. Speaking of facts, they are as follows, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Texas and evidence presented at the ex-agents' jury trial:

      Agents Ramos and Compean were guarding the Mexican border near El Paso, Texas, on Feb. 17, 2005, when they encountered a van driven by Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila. When the driver saw the agents he sped off, eventually abandoning the vehicle and fleeing toward the border on foot. At one point, Aldrete-Davila stopped running and raised his empty hands to surrender. But when the first border agent to approach him stumbled, Aldrete-Davila took off again toward the Rio Grande.

      At this point, Agents Ramos and Compean opened fire, shooting at the back of a suspect who they knew was unarmed. They fired 14 rounds in all--Agent Compean even paused to reload--finally hitting Aldrete-Davila in the buttocks. The suspect was wounded but still managed to make it across the border and escape.

      It later was determined that Aldrete-Davila was in the country illegally and smuggling drugs. Nearly 750 pounds of marijuana were found in the van. But Ramos and Compean didn't know the suspect's immigration status when they shot him. Nor did they know the contents of the vehicle he was driving. What the agents did know is that they had broken any number of border patrol policies.
      So Compean and another agent returned to the scene to gather shell casings and discard them in a drainage ditch. Compean and Ramos, who'd been disciplined for past conduct unbecoming a federal officer, then filed a false report. The only reason their cover-up didn't succeed is because an honest border agent who learned of the shooting eventually reported it.

      After a trial lasting nearly three weeks, a federal jury in El Paso convicted both agents on charges including assault with a deadly weapon and obstruction of justice. As Johnny Sutton, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas, put it: "The simple truth of this case is that former Agents Compean and Ramos shot 15 times at an unarmed man who was running away from them and posed no threat. They lied about what happened, covered up the shooting, conspired to destroy the evidence and then proceeded to write up and file a false report."

      The Congressmen who are exploiting the episode haven't made an issue of the agents' guilt, which is by and large conceded. Rather, the restrictionists argue that Compean and Ramos should be given a pass because the victim of their crime was a drug-smuggling illegal alien.

      This is an odd argument coming from immigration hard-liners, who typically say that while they love legal immigrants the U.S. must "enforce the law" on the border. That the agents have been held accountable for misconduct shows that no one is above the law. Letting the agents off the hook would also send a terrible message to honest border agents who perform a difficult and dangerous job.

      Turning felons into political causes is the kind of stunt usually pulled by the likes of Al Sharpton. That Republicans would now stoop to it shows how immigration has caused some on the right to lose their political bearings. First they gave up their belief in free labor markets, and now they're discarding their law enforcement credentials.
      And these are the same folks who assail Mr. Bush's guest-worker proposal as "amnesty." The irony is that if Mr. Bush's plan were in place and there were more legal ways to enter the U.S., border agents would have more time and resources to chase down people like Aldrete-Davila and apprehend them properly.
      Retired

      Comment


      • #4
        Most of these articles are getting their information from the prosecution's case. Now THIS union rebuttal to the prosecution's statements is an interesting read:

        http://www.nbpc.net/ramos_compean/re..._to_sutton.pdf
        "You don't want the truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall... I have neither the time, nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by retired
          After reading the article, and assuming it is accurate, there is no way I would sign the petition. Their conduct was unprofessional and some of their actions were criminal. However, I would say they had reasonable cause to believe the suspect was an illegal based on his actions.
          They had reasonable suspicion for more than just being here illegally. It's hard to give a good example for PD guys. However, Imagine you had streets in your city/state where the only traffic that goes through is either PD or armed bank robbers. You see a vehicle which is obviously not PD and attempt a stop. The vehicle takes off on you and after a chase it finally stops. Are you going to treat this as a regular vehicle stop or as a felony stop? It is also worthwhile to mention that proximity to the border is a stated factor for use of force escalation in our model. Also remember, that the only proof that the bg didn't have a gun is... his word.

          Please read the union's rebuttal from the link I posted above. I am not saying the agents' actions were 100% on the money here. I guarantee you though, that had they put in a shooting memo, they would have been cleared of any wrong doing. Now that is the rub. If a memo would have made this go away from the get go, it should be an administrative violation and not criminal.
          "You don't want the truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall... I have neither the time, nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by yellowreef
            They had reasonable suspicion for more than just being here illegally. It's hard to give a good example for PD guys. However, Imagine you had streets in your city/state where the only traffic that goes through is either PD or armed bank robbers. You see a vehicle which is obviously not PD and attempt a stop. The vehicle takes off on you and after a chase it finally stops. Are you going to treat this as a regular vehicle stop or as a felony stop? It is also worthwhile to mention that proximity to the border is a stated factor for use of force escalation in our model. Also remember, that the only proof that the bg didn't have a gun is... his word.

            Please read the union's rebuttal from the link I posted above. I am not saying the agents' actions were 100% on the money here. I guarantee you though, that had they put in a shooting memo, they would have been cleared of any wrong doing. Now that is the rub. If a memo would have made this go away from the get go, it should be an administrative violation and not criminal.
            You'll note that I said "assuming the article is accurate".
            Retired

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by SlowDownThere
              Read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal Friday Jan26, 2007, before you sign this.
              You mean the most liberal, anti-law enforcement publication in the US, Wall Street Journal?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by biggreen
                You mean the most liberal, anti-law enforcement publication in the US, Wall Street Journal?
                Does that mean that what they report is false?
                Retired

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by jmat1980
                  As far as im concerned EVERY American has a duty to sign this (especially if your an LEO)...
                  Setting aside any issues of guilt or innocence on the part of the BP agents, I'm offended when some stranger decides that he gets to define what my duties are as an American and as a cop.
                  Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Correct, which is why their publication is going in the toilet, as it should.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      They have been convicted in a court of law. I have read both sides, and wonder why, if the union's rebuttal is true, they were ever convicted. In LE, the truth is usually somewhere between the two stories. If they are exhonerated on appeal, I will be happy because they are my colleagues in LE. If their convictions are confirmed, I will be satisfied that they are guilty and deserve what they got.

                      Bottom line is, let the system work. It's not that I am okay with injustice. It's just that after my short time in LE, I don't trust ANYBODY to tell the truth if their ***** is on the line. That includes the media, the unions, the lawyers, and cops. I trust my word and my wife's word. That's it. I have placed my faith in the American justice system. Let it work.
                      If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.

                      ---Jack Handey

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by biggreen
                        Correct, which is why their publication is going in the toilet, as it should.
                        I'm just curious how you determined that everything they publish is false. And by the way, I'm not a fan of the WSJ.
                        Retired

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by biggreen
                          You mean the most liberal, anti-law enforcement publication in the US, Wall Street Journal?
                          The editorial aspect of the WSJ is considered to be one of the most conservative in the nation.
                          The Republicans need to shrug off this Christian Coalition noose it has placed around its own neck and recognize the fact that, though they may not realize it, the majority of Americans are actually quite libertarian in their philosophy. They also need to learn to fight once in a while. What a bunch of wimps.
                          -Neal Boortz

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by biggreen
                            You mean the most liberal, anti-law enforcement publication in the US, Wall Street Journal?

                            Huh? Liberal?

                            You obviously don't read the WSJ if you think it's liberal. It the only major daily newspaper in America that is convervative (editorial page). And it's hardly anti-law enforcement.
                            You can now follow me on twitter.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by SlowDownThere
                              Huh? Liberal?

                              You obviously don't read the WSJ if you think it's liberal. It the only major daily newspaper in America that is convervative (editorial page). And it's hardly anti-law enforcement.
                              If they have changed, I am wrong and I apologize, but nearly all of the articles I have read by them in the past have been otherwise.

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 7536 users online. 402 members and 7134 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 19,482 at 12:44 PM on 09-29-2011.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X