About Damn Time!

[FastCargo 412]

10 and 11 years in prison for what should be, at worst, an administrative offense?

 

Deliberate falsification of records? Think VERY hard about what you just said.

 

You're saying a police officer can basically make something up in order to get you arrested, jailed, etc and the worst they'll suffer for it is an administrative punishment.

 

I can see you're taking advice from the North Korean police.

 

FC

[+Typhoid 231]

"I can see you're taking advice from the North Korean police."

 

and the Gestapo, KGB, NKVD, etc., etc., etc....................

[column5 63]

Can someone link up an explanation of what this falsification of records was, before we accept it as fact?

[+Typhoid 231]

Can someone link up an explanation of what this falsification of records was, before we accept it as fact?

 

 

ok.

 

First link is the USDOJ fact file on the case which, of course, is the US Attorney's view of the situation. We can view this with some skeptisism, I won't argue that. In this;

 

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releas..._factsheet1.pdf

 

you will find the key point;

 

"In America, law enforcement officers do not get to shoot unarmed suspects who are running

away, lie about it to their supervisors and file official reports that are false." (I've added the bold print)

 

from the Wall Street Journal;

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110009579

 

the key paragraph;

 

"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."

 

That's where I have a problem with these guys. These guys are not the blameless heroes they've been portrayed as. I agree there are issues with the prosecution and with the specific charges filed against them. But I have a big, big problem with tampering with evidence and filing false reports.

 

I've seen guys hung for that, and have hung one or two myself back in the day. When we start giving a free pass for this kind of abuse, then we are headed down a dark, dark road to tyranny.

 

In my view, no pardon is justified.

[column5 63]

That's where I have a problem with these guys. These guys are not the blameless heroes they've been portrayed as. I agree there are issues with the prosecution and with the specific charges filed against them. But I have a big, big problem with tampering with evidence and filing false reports.

 

The facts of what happened with respect to tampering with evidence seem murky. It doesn't sound like we know enough about what actually happened after the fact.

 

 

I've seen guys hung for that, and have hung one or two myself back in the day. When we start giving a free pass for this kind of abuse, then we are headed down a dark, dark road to tyranny.

 

I got news for you brother: we are already living under tyranny. Like a frog in a pot we were brought to a boil slow. Now its too late to do anything about it--the government at all levels is completely out of control, and no election or change of party is going change it.

[+Typhoid 231]

The facts of what happened with respect to tampering with evidence seem murky. It doesn't sound like we know enough about what actually happened after the fact.

 

 

 

I got news for you brother: we are already living under tyranny. Like a frog in a pot we were brought to a boil slow. Now its too late to do anything about it--the government at all levels is completely out of control, and no election or change of party is going change it.

 

not sure what you mean by your first comment. In my view - the tampering with evidence is what they should have been charged with. That was part of the trial and presented in court. Its not really in dispute.

 

 

to some extent, I agree. But that is why the opposition is gearing up for the fight and why I spend too much of my free time engaged in some of those activities - to stop this insanity and ensure we get the right people - regardless of party - into elected positions.

Edited February 19, 2009 by Typhoid

[column5 63]

to some extent, I agree. But that is why the opposition is gearing up for the fight and why I spend too much of my free time engaged in some of those activities - to stop this insanity and ensure we get the right people - regardless of party - into elected positions.

 

I hope you don't really believe that. There is no opposition. Pretending that we have two parties is delusional--they are one and the same. The last election should be proof enough.

[column5 63]

not sure what you mean by your first comment. In my view - the tampering with evidence is what they should have been charged with. That was part of the trial and presented in court. Its not really in dispute.

 

Right but they weren't charged and weren't tried for that as far as I know, so all we have is an allegation by a corrupt prosecutor and a witness that may or may not be credible.

[+Typhoid 231]

Right but they weren't charged and weren't tried for that as far as I know, so all we have is an allegation by a corrupt prosecutor and a witness that may or may not be credible.

 

 

no. That was all evidence presented in court and cross examined. There is no dispute that they filed a false report and attempted to hide their shell casings, which is tampering with evidence. The "witness who may not be credible" is the Border Patrol Agent who blew the whistle on them for failing to report the gunfight and filing a false report.

 

I agree that the prosecution was flawed and the sentencing was out of line. I do not agree that these guys are blameless and should be treated as heroes.

[+Typhoid 231]

I hope you don't really believe that. There is no opposition. Pretending that we have two parties is delusional--they are one and the same. The last election should be proof enough.

 

we will have to agree to disagree on that point. I am very much involved in trying to fix one of the parties, at least here on the local and state level, and work with my Congressman to feed him point papers and position recommendations.

 

but we are drifting into a political dogfight so I will disengage on this line of discussion.

[column5 63]

but we are drifting into a political dogfight so I will disengage on this line of discussion.

 

The irony is that you've summed up the pathetic Republican Party strategy in one sentence.

[column5 63]

I agree that the prosecution was flawed and the sentencing was out of line. I do not agree that these guys are blameless and should be treated as heroes.

 

Doesn't matter whether they are blameless or heroes. What matters is that the prosecution was an abomination that should never have occurred. I would say that you can't have your cake and eat it to, but Mr. Bush proved otherwise.

[+Typhoid 231]

The irony is that you've summed up the pathetic Republican Party strategy in one sentence.

 

well, no. I am adhering to the no politics rule here.

 

I am quite willing to engage in a political debate and do so quite regularly. Just not here.

[+Typhoid 231]

Doesn't matter whether they are blameless or heroes. What matters is that the prosecution was an abomination that should never have occurred. I would say that you can't have your cake and eat it to, but Mr. Bush proved otherwise.

 

the prosecution focused on the wrong charges. In that, we agree.

 

But in the course of the trial it was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that they tampered with evidence and deliberately filed a false report. That was quite probably a key factor in the jury convicting them.

 

besides shooting the drug runner in the @$$, they shot themselves in the foot with a howitzer.

 

that is what got them convicted.

 

no matter what you might say about how screwed up the prosecution was - you cannot avoid that clear and undisputed fact clearly proven in a court of law -

as sworn officers of the law, they tampered with evidence and filed a false report. That is an unpardonable sin as a sworn officer.

[GreyCap 0]

the prosecution focused on the wrong charges. In that, we agree.

 

But in the course of the trial it was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that they tampered with evidence and deliberately filed a false report. That was quite probably a key factor in the jury convicting them.

 

besides shooting the drug runner in the @$, they shot themselves in the foot with a howitzer.

 

that is what got them convicted.

 

no matter what you might say about how screwed up the prosecution was - you cannot avoid that clear and undisputed fact clearly proven in a court of law -

as sworn officers of the law, they tampered with evidence and filed a false report. That is an unpardonable sin as a sworn officer.

 

Typhoid for the win!

[column5 63]

well, no. I am adhering to the no politics rule here.

 

I am quite willing to engage in a political debate and do so quite regularly. Just not here.

 

Now you're acting like a Republican senator!

[column5 63]

no matter what you might say about how screwed up the prosecution was - you cannot avoid that clear and undisputed fact clearly proven in a court of law -

as sworn officers of the law, they tampered with evidence and filed a false report. That is an unpardonable sin as a sworn officer.

 

I absolutely can, and do, state that a screwed up prosecution prevents there being any indisputable facts as regards this case. I shouldn't have to remind you that the rights of two American citizens--regardless of their status as law enforcement officers-- to a clean, fair trial trumps all other considerations.

[+Typhoid 231]

Now you're acting like a Republican senator!

 

har de har har

 

 

sadly - point taken...............

[+Typhoid 231]

I absolutely can, and do, state that a screwed up prosecution prevents there being any indisputable facts as regards this case. I shouldn't have to remind you that the rights of two American citizens--regardless of their status as law enforcement officers-- to a clean, fair trial trumps all other considerations.

 

on that, we will have to agree to disagree.

 

I yield my five minutes to the Gentleman from Tennessee

Edited February 19, 2009 by Typhoid

[column5 63]

on that, we will have to agree to disagree.

 

Yes, we will, because I'll never concede to you that there is a circumstance in which an American citizen should receive anything less that a completely fair trial. Any prosecutor and the case they create must be held to the highest standards. And if they can't meet those standards, there is no case.

[serverandenforcer 33]

Typhoid for the win!

 

I don't think it was a contest on who is right or wrong. I think it was a sharing of info to further help understand one's side of the debate.

 

In a sense I understand where column5 is getting at, but on another sense, as a military cop, I understand and agree on what Typhoid is talking about.

 

If those guys did not falsify their report, this situation would not have been as bad as it turned out. This is why it is so important to be as honest as possible when filing reports. Their is no excuse for covering up evidence, especially if it's the cop's spent ammunition to cover up a shoot-out. Why the hell would a cop do that? If the shooting was right, there shouldn't be a problem. If the shooting was wrong, you're only going to make things worse. Besides, in a situation involving a drug runner, armed, crossing over our borders illegally, that can be sorted out without being dishonest about the facts. When an officer lies about a report, in the company of other officers, that dishonest cop is placing those other officers in a prickly situation. The other cops are now face with a matter of integrity. Should they back up and support their friend, in which if the truth of the matter is found out, they can be punished as accomplices too?... or should they "rat" on the guy, screwing his career and life over? I agree that punishing them (and the way they were punished) solely on the shooting, and not on the covering-up of evidence was wrong. But these guys are not saints in any shape, way, or form. What they got from all of this is enough. They definately do not deseve a full pardon. As a cop, I would feel very uncomfortable if that had happened, becaus essentially, that says these guys are not guility and is now possible for them to retain the jobs that they lost. If I was the cop that reported on them, I would be very concerned for my own well being. It also discourages other cops from reporting on other bad cops, thus fueling corruption within the law-enforcement community. Cops are held to a higher standards, and to stronger concesquences due to the job that they perform. It has to be like that to encourage and grow integrity within the law-enforcement community. Does it suck... yeah, kind of, but such is life.

Edited February 19, 2009 by serverandenforcer

[column5 63]

I don't think it was a contest on who is right or wrong. I think it was a sharing of info to further help understand one's side of the debate.

 

Yeah just in the interest of full disclosure I love to argue and I think as you distill an argument you usually get to a juicy center. In this case it seems to me the key philosophical difference is that Typhoid thinks law enforcement officials should be held to a higher standard in court where I think that everyone should be held to the same standard, especially in court.

[GreyCap 0]

I don't think it was a contest on who is right or wrong. I think it was a sharing of info to further help understand one's side of the debate.

 

Oh I know. That was just my way to say I fully agreed with what Typhoid said, and that was the best point I read so far.

[serverandenforcer 33]

Yeah just in the interest of full disclosure I love to argue and I think as you distill an argument you usually get to a juicy center. In this case it seems to me the key philosophical difference is that Typhoid thinks law enforcement officials should be held to a higher standard in court where I think that everyone should be held to the same standard, especially in court.

 

 

I can see where you're comming at, but the thing is, in law-enforcement, the official is placed in a position that carries a heavy level of trust and expectations of professionalism, probably more than what should be expected from a human being. Unfortunately, because these officials are human beings, they are probably going to be prone to do something really stupid... such as covering up evidence. However, because of the position that they're in, and the fact that as a law-enforcement officers, they should know way better than the average joe on how bad it is to do such a thing. They are essentially violating a serious level of trust placed upon them and are opening themselves up to the severiest of ridicule and scrutiny. They need to be set as a severe example of such actions to encourage others from doing the same. Is it harsh, yes. Is it cruel or unusual, to the average citizen, yes, but to a cop, it should be expected. Cops are not average citizens. Once you swear in, you're essentially placing yourself at a higher level of expectations than the average American citizen, and failing to meet those expectations can come with a price that is just as high. You are essentially no longer the American citizen that you once were. You're supposed to be better, you're trained to be better, and swore to be better, and if you're not, you get the boot a lot harder.

Edited February 19, 2009 by serverandenforcer

[+Typhoid 231]

Yeah just in the interest of full disclosure I love to argue and I think as you distill an argument you usually get to a juicy center. In this case it seems to me the key philosophical difference is that Typhoid thinks law enforcement officials should be held to a higher standard in court where I think that everyone should be held to the same standard, especially in court.

 

 

that is absolutely my point.

 

I do agree, having said the above, the court proceedings in such a case must ALSO be held to the highest, and higher, standard as well. So I do agree and have said that the proceedings should have an independent review.

 

It was, however, upheld on appeal so that review has been done.

 

Not sure where this proceeding should go at this point. Buried perhaps......