Bush Commutes Sentences for Border Patrol Agents
Monday, January 19, 2009 at 06:18PM President Bush finally commuted the sentences of two border patrol agents incarcerated for shooting a professional Mexican drug smuggler in the rear end while he fled the law after trying to smuggle 743 lbs. of marijuana into the United States.
On his last full day in office, President Bush commuted the controversial sentences of two former Border Patrol agents convicted of shooting a Mexican drug runner in 2005.
The imprisonment of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean had sparked outcry from critics who said the men were just doing their jobs and were punished too harshly. They had been sentenced to 11- and 12-year sentences, respectively.
Their sentences will now expire on March 20 of this year.
Trackback URL: http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/2868774
Bush, Immigration 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (8)
I hope and pray that their lives will get back in order...
They most likely will not get their jobs back...
IMHO...I think they should be promoted to the Chief of The Border Patrol with full retroactive back pay...but we know that isn't gojng to happen...
I've already suggested (via his friends) that they write a book on their ordeal.
Even though they are free, they'll need lots of financial help and a book might bring in some income...
Meanwhile, I thank the Good Lord for their freedom.
Pres. Bush said that they are guilty of a crime but that the punishment is excessive. I don't know all the legalities of the cases but have read some court documents that lead me to believe that the charge should have been thrown out and a the agents should have been charged with a lesser crime.
Technically it seems to be a crime, but technically in some states it is murder to kill an intruder breaking into your home wanting to cause you harm. This is one of those types of moral dilemas.
I agree. I think they should write a book and that would help their livelihood. I know I would buy a copy.
It seems there were some issues claiming cover up of the shooting and so on. However, like you, Amy, the punishment they received was along the lines of "cruel and unnusual" for the supposed crime committed. Funny how that constitutional thing keeps cropping up. A drug dealer/murderer in the process of committing his drug crimes can get immunity to testify against law enforcement but law enforcement doing something wrong gets sentenced to 12 years solitary confinement.
That's the future. I thought humanity had evolved beyond such things but apparently we're in de-evolution and heading back to the middle ages and over time probably back to the Dark Ages or earlier.
Hi Amy,
I don't recall all the facts of the cases, but like has been said above there was some cover up and technically when they shot does constitute a crime...real basically, when an assault or crime has ceased, you can't keep shooting. That's a real basic interpretation though.
I do think a crime was commited. Not sure why they felt the need to cover anything up if they knew (or even thought they knew) they acted properly. That's what gets me more than the actual shooting to be honest.
I don't know of any state where if someone enters your home, with the intent to cause you bodily harm, you can't defend yourself. Again, real basic, you are not allowed to use deadly force to defend property. You can't go rig your house to electrocute people while your gone and you can't shoot someone for busting up your mailbox.
But, once an intruder enter your home, and you are in it, you can logically and reasonable infer they are there to do you harm (not the house) and you can use force to defend yourself. Technically, the force used should be the lowest level necessary...if he's hitting you with pillow, you shouldn't technically shoot him...but truly, I think you could shoot someone in your home doing you any kind of harm.
I do think it gets all muddled, especially by lawyers! I used to be one and we can talk and talk and talk....
Sharon
Look at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Compean_Ramos_factsheet1.pdf.
They shot 15 times at an unarmed man who was running away from them after he tried to surrender to them during the middle of the day. They were nowhere near their houses.
They bungled the marijuana arrest because they left the scene rather than apprehending the guy they shot at, which meant he was able to get back to Mexico without having any physical evidence tying him to the crime.
They did not report to superiors that they fired their guns (one of them was a instructor who told other agents this requirement and both of them had training on this requirement the prior day) and then subsequently lied about it.
They received an additional mandatory ten year sentence because of a mandatory sentencing law passed by Congress at the urging of the White House. (They were not charged with attempted murder, which would have meant an even longer term).
They were found guilty by a US jury's unanimous verdict.
good, i followed the case, and they should this should have been commuted. I'm glad he did. Many boarder agents quite carrying guns in fear they may be framed as these two boarder agents.
"Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Ramos-Compean treatment has border agents hesitating to fire
On December 1 south of Tucson, Arizona, drug smugglers unloaded $1 million in drugs across the U.S. border and sprayed bullets at U.S. Border Patrol agents with automatic weapons. The agents did not return fire. They fear losing their jobs or ending up behind bars like agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. "
lol, jim admits that some democrats are stupid.....ha ha ha ..
"A large number of senators and representatives, both Republicans and Democrats, had supported clemency for the two men. A Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 2007 emphasized that the drug dealer had crossed the United States-Mexican border illegally and drove a van containing 743 pounds of marijuana worth almost $1 million."
"Feinstein to Bush: Free Ramos, Compean"
""Rep. William Delahunt, a Massachusetts liberal, is leading the bipartisan push for clemency ...""
"Aldrete Dávila [ the illegal drug pusher/transporter] has filed a $5 million lawsuit against the U.S. government, claiming that his civil rights were violated.
{Seper, Jerry (2006-08-23). "Lawmakers seek review of border agent case", The Washington Times. Retrieved on 14 December 2006.}
lol, jim, you support drug dealers who are not citizens having the same rights as US citizens. So the guy has tons and tons of dope and a huge van in which armed bandits could be ready to jump out and ambush, and you want wimps to guard the boarders against drug dealers and killers . That drug dealer knew the laws, hence his flight. He should have known better. It is a dangerous job and you treat it as a champion of drug dealing culture. And democrats are for the boarder agents and you are not but think the dems are for the drug dealers. ha ha ha hah aha hhaa
http://ramos-compean.blogspot.com/
Gold, if you don't like the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, then successfully change the US Constitution.
And I'm sorry that other border agents apparently think that it's okay to shoot people for grins and lie about it. Perhaps they are not qualified for their position.
The two border agents didn't think they were at danger. If they did, then why did they fail to take cover, fail to warn the other agents who were also in the open to take cover and fail to apprehend the drug dealer? It was their incompetency that screwed up the case against the drug dealer.
Those border agents shot the man as he was running away, unarmed. Pretty bad, but hey, he's a drug smuggler.
The problem the court had was with what those agents did next, which was to throw the shell casings into the river so they could not be found... and then failing to report the shooting properly.
Those agents made a mistake (and to me a justifiable one) but then they compounded it by lying.