Besides the obvious lawyer plays of getting evidence withheld due to it being prejudicial against the drug dealer; his former dealings including the ONE just before the trial, which happens all the time,the reason the judge was REQUIRED BY LAW to sentence them to more than 10 years for what should have been nothing more than administrative leave, was because SUTTON charged them with “using a firearm in the commission of a crime”.

Let me repeat that: Using a firearm in the commission of a crime. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS CASE TO EACH, EVERY, AND ALL LEO’S??? THEY were NOT committing the crime–Aldrete was committing the crime and Ramos and Compean used their firearms.
The law was written to force judges to sentence criminals to a minimum of ten years when a gun was used IN COMMITTING THE CRIME. It was NOT intended to include the responding LEO. Now do you understand why this situation has totally convoluted this particular law and the future implecations???

Slightly OT: The only person who said Aldrete didn’t have a gun was Aldrete. In an interview with Aldrete-Davila’s mother SHE stated she knew her son was a drug runner and that he ALWAYS carried a small gun with him when he was running drugs.

The doctor that removed the bullet said the trajectory of the bullet indicated that Aldrete was turned to the side when he was shot–why would he do that–because his arm was raised and he had his arm up pointing backwards–gee, do you think that was because he had a gun and was shooting back towards the agents?? nahhhhhh!!! Even looking backwords would NOT have allowed the bullet to enter in the way it did.

By the judge, first, allowing Sutton to charge Ramos and Compean with that law it also opens the door to every other police officer that pulls a gun to protect themselves against criminials. THEN, by sentencing them UNDER that law it further enforces the insane notion that any LEO could be charged with the same “crime”.

God forbid that any BP agent thinks twice about using their weapons, paltry as they are compared to the zetas, because of what happened to Ramos and Compean, because the slightest hesitation will cause somebody’s death!

These men should have never spent one minute in jail let alone in a court room and I hope to God that they will be totally vindicated and their rights restored immediately!!!! Iam so glad they are back with their families again.

On February 17th, 2009 at 8:45 pm, garydt said:Southcoast, I was wondering if the guys had been trained to be out gunned and out numbered? I doubt that was the situation. Their training probably included on what to do on a normal border that is not facing an invasion of drug dealers and illegals everyday.

According to trial testimony, the suspect was unarmed. At the scene after the shooting the defendants made no mention of the shooting or the suspect being armed to the seven other officers responding. Ramos was a trained member of the Sector Evidence Team and a firearms instructor Defendant Ramos was trained member of the Sector Evidence Team and a firearms instructor who teaches the discharge policy.(Which may explain why Ramos hit him with one shot, why Compeon missed with the first 15 who knows). After the stop all the agents new is that the suspect evaded their attempt to stop him, the drugs were found after the shooting. No other weapon was found.
At the time of Ramos shot he clearly new the suspect was not a threat and shot him from the rear, which is a violation of BP policy and federal law.
Both had been requalified in firearms and shooting policy on 02/16/2005, the day before the shooting.

On February 17th, 2009 at 4:26 pm, undresiege said:

In your hilarious search for pointless moral equivalencies you miss the point.
I don’t give a crap about the sentences being commuted. I just can’t believe that many on this thread are defending the shooting of drug dealers in the back/butt, and the subsequent lies and coverup. I see it, but it’s it’s hard to believe. Some of you folks never cease to amaze me.

Your lack of common sense and decency toward your fellow citizenry amazes me. You cannot see the difference between 2 sworn law officers (sworn to uphold and protect the constitution and our laws against the lawless) and a scumbag drug-dealer (who had illegally trespassed into a sovereign nation to commit his felonies by the way). Only after realizing that there may have been some procedural foul-ups, did they make what could be seen as potentially career ending mistakes in not properly documenting their actions. But, convicted felons? On the ‘sworn’ testimony of a piece of $hit drug-dealer who was given immunity! You were not there when the events transpired, nor was the judge or the prosecutor, so no one will ever really know. They should have at the worst had hearings and possibly suspensions or termination, if warranted by departmental rules but not felony convictions.
Personally, I could care less if they had blown his brains out and played slip ‘n’ slide in them. In fact that should be procedure for dealing with any scum-bag caught trying to bring drugs into our country.

Aldrete Davila was the only witness who testified that he was unarmed when the agents claimed he had a gun.

Sutton lied like Osama Obama and yet the appeals up to now have been turned down.

This kind of smarmy behavior is above Sutton’s pay grade. He needed help from above.

On February 17th, 2009 at 7:52 pm, starlightwoman said:

Well, this should continue to play out. If there is anything that I can’t stand it is the pure arrogance of Johnny Sutton.

There is something about his manner that reminds me of Mike Nifong of Duke Lacrosse infamy.

Being one that lives 150 miles from the border – I would rather have agents like these than to have one that is afraid of the consequences to pull the trigger when needed.

Section 11, Subsection A of the firearms policy as followed by the Agents of the U.S. Border Patrol states as follows… Any Service employee who participates in or observes a reportable shooting incident as defined in Subsection 3.H., shall orally report the incident to a Supervisor. Nothing in that policy says that an agent must file a written report with a supervisor.
In fact, the only person who must file a written report, according to the firearms policy is a Supervisory Border Patrol Agent. A non-supervisory agent can be brought up on charges, and
suspended for filing a written report.

Some commenters here have opined that Ramos and Compean deliberately covered this up, but I personally wonder about this section of the BPA handbook. If Ramos and Compean did, in fact, report the shooting to their supervisor and this is the rule (I’m still searching on this)… it does seem to be a bureaucratic issue and not a cover-up.

Also, the prosecution’s witness surgeon (who removed the bullet) testified that Aldrete-Davila was in the bladed position, didn’t he? That seems inconsistent with the “shot in back” argument.

Lastly, why did Mr. Sutton present Adelete as a one-time criminal?

While it seems as though Ramos and Compean could certainly have done a much better job of reporting the incident, it does seem as though they became a scapegoat for the debate over border security.

Should law enforcement be exempt from the law? Certainly not.

However, even the prosecutor has made a statement showing his “highest respect” for the decision to commute their sentence.