Bush commutes sentences of former US border agents

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Let me see if I got the facts right.

Found guilty of shooting an unarmed person in the back?

Tried to cover it up?

I'm absolutely pro-law enforcement...but shooting an unarmed person in the back while they're running from you...I don't think that's something they should be rewarded for.

Note...they weren't pardoned...the facts of the case haven't been disputed...only the sentencing.

Sure, some say they were just doing their job...but in law enforcement, their job is to run after the guy...not to shoot him and cover it up.

These "facts" are not only in dispute, but some have been proven to be just wrong. There was quite a bit of cover up during the less than fair trial where many facts were covered up. For one thing, Davila was armed, he was known to always carry a gun when muleing drugs. He'd be a fool not to. The jury was told that he was only smuggling drugs to help his sick mother get medical aid which was a bald-faced lie. He's been smuggling drugs since he was 14 years old. The bullet in his a$$ wasn't removed for a month after the incident and didn't match the agents ammo. The prosecutor, Johnny Sutton, gave Davila a border pass, and then ignored that he used it to continue to smuggle more drugs across the border.

This was such a wrong headed case from beginning, like how no one questioned that it was another border agent who is FRIENDS with the drug dealing scumbag who dropped a dime on Ramos and Compean. What was considered acceptable in the adjudication of this case should scare anyone who supports law enforcement, there was so much more wrong with it. Bush didn't want to contradict his buddy Sutton, but he shouldn't have waited this long to commute their sentences. Bottom line, they never should have been tried in the first place.

Edited January 20, 2009 by Virtual wife

[john & jean 37]

I am sure they feared for their well being. It is way to hot at one pm to be running, heatstroke an all...

[Ling Ling 22]

Let me see if I got the facts right.

Found guilty of shooting an unarmed person in the back?

Tried to cover it up?

I'm absolutely pro-law enforcement...but shooting an unarmed person in the back while they're running from you...I don't think that's something they should be rewarded for.

Note...they weren't pardoned...the facts of the case haven't been disputed...only the sentencing.

Sure, some say they were just doing their job...but in law enforcement, their job is to run after the guy...not to shoot him and cover it up.

These "facts" are not only in dispute, but some have been proven to be just wrong. There was quite a bit of cover up during the less than fair trial where many facts were covered up. For one thing, Davila was armed, he was known to always carry a gun when muleing drugs. He'd be a fool not to. The jury was told that he was only smuggling drugs to help his sick mother get medical aid which was a bald-faced lie. He's been smuggling drugs since he was 14 years old. The bullet in his a$$ wasn't removed for a month after the incident and didn't match the agents ammo. The prosecutor, Johnny Sutton, gave Davila a border pass, and then ignored that he used it to continue to smuggle more drugs across the border.

This was such a wrong headed case from beginning, like how no one questioned that it was another border agent who is FRIENDS with the drug dealing scumbag who dropped a dime on Ramos and Compean. What was considered acceptable in the adjudication of this case should scare anyone who supports law enforcement, there was so much more wrong with it. Bush didn't want to contradict his buddy Sutton, but he shouldn't have waited this long to commute their sentences. Bottom line, they never should have been tried in the first place.

If these "facts" were proven wrong, why wasn't their appeal granted? If this was improperly adjudicated, then commuting their sentences is only a band-aid for a justice system that needs major surgery. That much I can agree with.

[Ban Hammer 13,977]

I commend those agents. They were obviously trying to save tax dollars. They picked up the spent shell cases. Brass is very expensive!!!

If these guys seriously thought he was a threat, and that they were doing the right thing...they would've gone after him. This occurred at 1pm in the afternoon.

The records show, "After the shooting the officers disposed of their shell casings, made no further attempt to apprehend the suspect, lied to their supervisors, and filed a false investigative report"

These guys were just a couple of lazy bums in uniform. All of their appeals were denied because they got a fair trial, and were found GUILTY.

Now you want to place them as heroes?

reference that in bold - you do know he ran back into mexico and if they'd gone after him, they'd have created an international incident.

[Ling Ling 22]

I commend those agents. They were obviously trying to save tax dollars. They picked up the spent shell cases. Brass is very expensive!!!

If these guys seriously thought he was a threat, and that they were doing the right thing...they would've gone after him. This occurred at 1pm in the afternoon.

The records show, "After the shooting the officers disposed of their shell casings, made no further attempt to apprehend the suspect, lied to their supervisors, and filed a false investigative report"

These guys were just a couple of lazy bums in uniform. All of their appeals were denied because they got a fair trial, and were found GUILTY.

Now you want to place them as heroes?

reference that in bold - you do know he ran back into mexico and if they'd gone after him, they'd have created an international incident.

So...you're saying he just stepped a couple inches over the border-line, and then ran back over?

I don't know enough about this case. What's with the shell casings being picked up? Did they shoot at the guy or not? Did he have a gun or not?

Why is everyone trying to make the agents look bad for doing their jobs?

What kind of country do we live in where a law enforcement officer can't even get a fair trial?

[Ban Hammer 13,977]

So...you're saying he just stepped a couple inches over the border-line, and then ran back over?

um no.

I don't know enough about this case. What's with the shell casings being picked up? Did they shoot at the guy or not? Did he have a gun or not?

Why is everyone trying to make the agents look bad for doing their jobs?

What kind of country do we live in where a law enforcement officer can't even get a fair trial?

my understanding is they did shoot at the guy and allegedly hit him, and that he had a gun. i suppose if one is really interested in finding out what went on, google could help.

[Ling Ling 22]

So...you're saying he just stepped a couple inches over the border-line, and then ran back over?

um no.

I don't know enough about this case. What's with the shell casings being picked up? Did they shoot at the guy or not? Did he have a gun or not?

Why is everyone trying to make the agents look bad for doing their jobs?

What kind of country do we live in where a law enforcement officer can't even get a fair trial?

my understanding is they did shoot at the guy and allegedly hit him, and that he had a gun. i suppose if one is really interested in finding out what went on, google could help.

Checked Wikipedia...but now I'm hearing it's not accurate.

Here are my points...

1. At no time should law enforcement have the ability to act as judge and jury...no matter how guilty you know the person is.

2. If the guys are innocent, they never should've been tried in the first place.

3. If the guys are guilty, they should do their time like everybody else.

4. It saddens me that people only seam to recognize (or even consider) flaws in the justice system, until it affects their politics, agenda, or them personally.

[Addie_Goodvibes 0]

Let me see if I got the facts right.

Found guilty of shooting an unarmed person in the back?

Tried to cover it up?

Note...they weren't pardoned...the facts of the case haven't been disputed...only the sentencing.

Sure, some say they were just doing their job...but in law enforcement, their job is to run after the guy...not to shoot him and cover it up.

They were apprehending and illegal drug smuggler. I agree with you they were in the wrong for the cover up,

And the facts of the case WERE disputed, we have no way of knowing if the suspect pointed a gun at them as he was being aprehended keep in mind this was an illegal alien DRUG smuggler whose only intention was to enter USA illegally and smuggle drugs, the illegal should have been shot at first site of him illegally crossing the border. He was a threat not only to american citizens but to those who risk their lives daily protecting our border from these criminal illegal aliens.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes, shoot on sight I say, innocence be damned!

No one has any business being anywhere near the border, they should declare it all a no go zone, build fences, plant mines and too bad if you have land in the area, suck it up!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Let me see if I got the facts right.

Found guilty of shooting an unarmed person in the back?

Tried to cover it up?

I'm absolutely pro-law enforcement...but shooting an unarmed person in the back while they're running from you...I don't think that's something they should be rewarded for.

Note...they weren't pardoned...the facts of the case haven't been disputed...only the sentencing.

Sure, some say they were just doing their job...but in law enforcement, their job is to run after the guy...not to shoot him and cover it up.

These "facts" are not only in dispute, but some have been proven to be just wrong. There was quite a bit of cover up during the less than fair trial where many facts were covered up. For one thing, Davila was armed, he was known to always carry a gun when muleing drugs. He'd be a fool not to. The jury was told that he was only smuggling drugs to help his sick mother get medical aid which was a bald-faced lie. He's been smuggling drugs since he was 14 years old. The bullet in his a$$ wasn't removed for a month after the incident and didn't match the agents ammo. The prosecutor, Johnny Sutton, gave Davila a border pass, and then ignored that he used it to continue to smuggle more drugs across the border.

This was such a wrong headed case from beginning, like how no one questioned that it was another border agent who is FRIENDS with the drug dealing scumbag who dropped a dime on Ramos and Compean. What was considered acceptable in the adjudication of this case should scare anyone who supports law enforcement, there was so much more wrong with it. Bush didn't want to contradict his buddy Sutton, but he shouldn't have waited this long to commute their sentences. Bottom line, they never should have been tried in the first place.

If these "facts" were proven wrong, why wasn't their appeal granted? If this was improperly adjudicated, then commuting their sentences is only a band-aid for a justice system that needs major surgery. That much I can agree with.

There is an Innocence Project not for nothing.

[Ling Ling 22]

Let me see if I got the facts right.

Found guilty of shooting an unarmed person in the back?

Tried to cover it up?

Note...they weren't pardoned...the facts of the case haven't been disputed...only the sentencing.

Sure, some say they were just doing their job...but in law enforcement, their job is to run after the guy...not to shoot him and cover it up.

They were apprehending and illegal drug smuggler. I agree with you they were in the wrong for the cover up,

And the facts of the case WERE disputed, we have no way of knowing if the suspect pointed a gun at them as he was being aprehended keep in mind this was an illegal alien DRUG smuggler whose only intention was to enter USA illegally and smuggle drugs, the illegal should have been shot at first site of him illegally crossing the border. He was a threat not only to american citizens but to those who risk their lives daily protecting our border from these criminal illegal aliens.

The facts of the case HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED by the President's commuting of their sentence. If the President wanted to dispute the conviction, he would have pardoned them. I completely agree with apprehending illegal drug smugglers, but that's not what they accomplished.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

GWB doesn't dispute the facts, but our wingnut friends here on VJ do

[Sofiyya 1,687]

GWB doesn't dispute the facts, but our wingnut friends here on VJ do

Since when does disagreeing with Bush makes someone a wingnut? That must make Bush haters wingnuts, too. I like that

Edited January 20, 2009 by Virtual wife

[Danno 1,228]

Obviously if they picked up the spent casings and filed no report it was for a reason.

Perhaps they were an area they were not assigned to or any other major/ minor issue.

Clearly Bush did not want to "pardon" them as it would send a message to other agents about firing on illegals assumed to be a danger of some sort.

I think Bush did the right thing. Allowed them to do time in prison, loss of job, criminal record, legal fees was punishment enough.

It would have been much easier to defend these guys as "innocent" if they had not committed the cover-up,... which I suspect, was for a minor issue... which ended up casting doubt on the shooting.