Do you think law enforcement should be within the law to shoot "suspects" if they can't outrun them?

[NNN0LHI]

<snip>DOBBS: Right.

FEINSTEIN: And that mandatory sentence was 10 years. So if they found them guilty, they had no choice but to have 10 years put on top of everything else, which would have totaled about two years.

DOBBS: Well --

FEINSTEIN: So it seems to me that there is a good case that can be made for a commutation sentence.

DOBBS: A commutation of sentence. We -- we also have in Congress the House of Representatives pushing through Congressman Hunter's pardon, seeking a Congressional pardon for these agents. A pardon is also possible.

Do you think you're using -- obviously, you're referring to a commutation of sentence.

Why would a pardon not be as effective or as desirable, in your judgment, Senator Cornyn?

CORNYN: If I could weigh in on that. Let me just say that Senator Feinstein -- I'd would take her over a lot of lawyers I know any day.

DOBBS: After watching her today, I think a lot of people would agree with you. CORNYN: She's tough.

But I have to tell you that, of course, a pardon or commutation, which are both within the power of the president of the United States -- obviously, "Scooter" Libby getting a commutation of his sentence by the president recently. And I hope he'll give the same sort of consideration to these two Border Patrol Agents.

But I know Congressman Hunter, in the absence of that executive branch commutation or pardon, has introduced a bill.

I'm going to have to look at that to see if I -- I think that will fly. I think that's, in the absence of anything else, a good effort. But I think eventually this is going to be something the president is going to have to decide.

DOBBS: So --

FEINSTEIN: There's one thing that I'd just like to mention --

DOBBS: Yes, sir.

Yes, ma'am.

FEINSTEIN: -- that became clear to me in this case, that a law enforcement officer, faced with somebody that's bringing over $1,200,000 worth of marijuana, and the culprit wants to escape. So the law enforcement officer says, Stop!" And the culprit just keeps going.

Now, he cannot fire. He cannot stop him. So he is faced with either having to outrun him -- and let's say it's a 45-year-old police officer.

DOBBS: Yes.

FEINSTEIN: How does he outrun a 22-year-old?

The fact is, he can't. And I think this may be one of the reasons why we've got so much -- so much drugs coming across the border.

DOBBS: Yes.

FEINSTEIN: Some -- a law enforcement officer says, "Stop!" and it means nothing.

DOBBS: Yes.

All right, so much --

FEINSTEIN: And this we've to take a look at.

DOBBS: Yes, Senators, to both of your credit, you referred to what Congress needs to do here. We've had a 30 year war on drugs and the tragedies and the casualties in that war have been enormous. We've got to come to terms with it. I want to -- I just have to say, as one who's been following this case carefully, closely and looking for justice for these two agents, I'm moved by your decision, both of you, to seek a commutation from the president.

I hope that your interest will continue.

[Richard Steele]

1. Problem is, this guy wasn't a "suspect" until long after he was shot.

Both agents admitted in court that they didn't know
about the weed in the van until after they had fired
upon the guy.

AND that he started running in the first place because
one of them took a swing at him with a shotgun when he
stepped out with his hands up.

NOTHING these two did was "within the law", so the entire
question is pretty moot as regards this particular case.

[northernsoul]

2. Umm, no

You can't use lethal force against somebody who does not pose an immediate threat to life and limb. That's pretty basic Anglo-American law.

[Dhalgren]

6. Not according to Senator Feinstein. She is pushing to have these two

"officers" either acquitted or pardoned or commuted to time served. Killing unarmed suspects - the new Democratic value...

[Dhalgren]

3. I don't get Feinstein, at all. Who the hell is she? She can't be a Democrat!

How could a Democrat say that shooting an unarmed suspect (SUSPECT) in the back is ok? How can she say this? and be a Democrat? I can understand a Bush-Republican saying, "Just kill anyone you want to (unless it's a Bush-Republican, of course)." This is outrageous! This is where we have come to in this country? Shooting down unarmed suspects is being championed by Democratic senators? Jesus...

[Jed Dilligan]

58. She's a hardline Drug Warrior

and should hang with the rest of them. I almost voted for Campbell (R) against her because he is the only mainstream candidate who ever campaigned against the drug war. I couldn't do it at the last minute. I can't believe that DINO is from my state! :(

[Dhalgren]

62. I heard part of the Senate hearing about these "officers" sentences,

and I couldn't believe Feinstein's statements. She was saying, flat-out, that "law officers" should be allowed to legally kill anyone running from them. I was completely nonplussed. My chin was on the floorboard of my truck. If this kind of thing is acceptable, we are done as a nation; we are become just slaves on the plantation, subject to summary execution at the whim of anyone of our numerous overseers...

[Jed Dilligan]

63. She's been all about that since she was mayor of SF.

Law 'n order Democrats ARE as bas as Repigs.

[slackmaster]

4. If they were permitted to, I wouldn't have lived past age 16

:argh:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Murder is now an athletic contest? And the loser gets to kill the winner?

So, if a cop is too fat or too old to outrun an unarmed, fleeing suspect, that poses no danger...they can gun him down.

Who needs courts if we give the cops the power to execute suspects.

[CrispyQ]

7. How about stricter standards of physical fitness for the entire police force?

It's not so much about age as it is fitness. I know some 45 year olds that could kick butt if they had too. However, the policeman who came to my door to discuss the extreme speeding in our neighborhood, was not one of them. In fact, I think I could have taken him on.

[Squatch]

8. Police should NOT be judge, jury, and executioner

[Bluerthanblue]

22. that's it in a nutshell.

well said!

[gatorboy]

9. Police should have routine physicals.

[EST]

10. In Bizzaro world, laws don't apply equally to everyone.

Feinstein has not thought this through or else is as brain-fu*ked as are the pukes who cannot understand simple principles.
The guy was hiding in a ditch and was ordered out. He came out with hands raised to show he was weaponless. One of the security agents tried to hit him with a shotgun and fell down!

The suspect seized the opportunity to attempt to escape-not unusual and precipitated by the obvious attempt by the agent to vent his pissed-off-ness by beating him up. I'd run, too, if I could.

They then used deadly force against a fleeing person, who, at that point, was guilty of nothing. The "minimun" sentencing for illegal use of a firearm in the creation of a crime is a fundamentally republican concept and has to bite any and all perpetrators of a crime equally.
Those agents, noting that the runner had gotten away, even with a forty caliber bullet hole in his butt, picked up all their casings and lied in their report, compounding their crime.

Under existing laws, those two agents got exactly what they deserved and should serve their sentences.

"If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

[TwilightGardener]

11. I do. I think if you deliberately run from the law, you're up to NO good and a

non-lethal leg shot (if possible) to bring you down is in order. Sorry, but I'm a hard-ass on this one.

[immoderate]

12. Not possible.

No sane law enforcement agency would countenance "shoot to wound." Think about it. After a few innocent, but running kids get killed by cops you'll see what I mean. How does a leg shot prevent the "suspect" from pulling his own weapon and shooting the cop. No cop wants to "shoot to piss off" a potential criminal.

Read any arms manual. You always shoot to stop (kill) your adversary. Shooting to wound a criminal is as smart as shooting to wound a bear.

--IMM

[Solon]

19. Weinerdoggy has watched WAY too much TV...

You always, ALWAYS, aim for the center of body mass, period, especially with handguns. All that shit about aiming for a person's arms, legs, head, in real life, most of the time, when this happens when a cop does it, it was an accident, not on purpose.

[immoderate]

28. People who haven't handled a gun...

They have no idea what it takes in terms of training and practice, (and nerve, when the time comes) just to be able to use a gun for self defense, much less pulling off "trick shots" like hitting the leg of a fleeing runner.

--IMM

[Solon]

32. You'd have to be Buffalo Bill to pull that off on purpose...

By sheer chance, with practice, anyone can hit someone's leg, like maybe one time out of a hundred, but that would be when they are standing still, and practically point blank range(less than 20 feet). Hitting a leg while someone is in flight, away from you, and in motion, I would say the odds are about 1 in 10,000.

[immoderate]

34. I agree with your moving target projection.

And someone who's never shot before would be surprised at how hard it is to hit something, anything, even at close range. But an experienced shooter should be able to group shots within a few inches at 20 feet.

--IMM

[Solon]

39. OK, my bad, I don't know pistols, only rifles...

Well that and bows, throwing daggers, shuriken(made them myself, back as a kid), swords, daggers, and general fencing with a rapier. The only "pistol" was a BB gun, that may have skewed my perspective, the thing was a weak one with only an accurate range of maybe 10 feet.

I will say that I was the best target shooter with both the rifle and bow(compound) in the Boy Scouts. :)
I never shot at anything that moved, mostly paper targets and bales of hay.

[immoderate]

56. I'm a "plinker" myself.

Never shot a living thing. I think it's the inborn "power at a distance" instinct. I agree about the BB pistol. It's probably not very accurate. I can split a playing card edgewise pretty consistently at 15 feet with my Browning P35. Great trick with the playing card -- it's not as hard as it looks.

--IMM

[Richard Steele]

45. This incident proves it. The "Agents" fired 15 rounds & missed 14 times. nm

[immoderate]

57. LOL -- good point!

Maybe they were aiming for his leg.

--IMM

[Bake]

13. Hard-ass, maybe. Wrong, definitely

I had a Sunday School teacher 40 years ago (or more) who was a bad-ass cop, but also a great guy. If you saw him at church in a blazer, you knew his .357 was under the jacket at all times. He told us, "Boys, this ain't TV. As a cop, you don't pull your gun unless you intend to fire. And you don't fire unless you intend to kill. This 'winging 'em' stuff is for TV."

It's called LETHAL FORCE. What if you were aiming for the leg and missed -- got the target square in the back?

Bake

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. LOL

I say I should start waving my gun, and if anybody starts running away they have it coming.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Solon]

16. Take the "hard" out of that statement and it would be closer to the truth...

Also, there is no such thing as a non-lethal shot with a firearm.

[Richard Steele]

18. That's not "hard ass", it's fascist. Different. Let's hope no one you love ever runs anywhere. nm

[Alexander]

48. Johnny Law is already way too violent in practice. That doesn't bother you?

"I do. I think if you deliberately run from the law, you're up to NO good and a non-lethal leg shot (if possible) to bring you down is in order. Sorry, but I'm a hard-ass on this one."

1. You are assuming police officers will act in good faith and not shoot to kill.

2. You are assuming police officers will have 100% accuracy and never accidentally kill someone.

3. You are assuming there aren't any other methods of remotely bringing down suspects, which is false.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

54. Fuck (most) law enforcement..

I'd say you're not a hard-ass, but a dumb-ass.

[Sapere aude]

17. There is a lot more to this story than what we are talking about here. I don't know the whole story

but it is simplified to say they shot a person for running away. I am not condoning what they did but just saying we don't have the whole story here.

[High Plains]

20. They were indicted, convicted, and sentenced in federal court.

The whole story is out there if you care to look.

I'm not aware of too many federal prosecutors trying to make careers out of arresting federal law enforcement officials for no reason. Nor am I aware of too many juries easily convicting cops of anything.

These guys shot a guy in the back as he fled. Then they lied about it.

[Sapere aude]

31. If what I am posting here is true I don't think they should have gotten the sentence that they did.

Ramos is an eight-year veteran of the U.S. Naval Reserve and a former nominee for Border Patrol Agent of the Year.

On Feb. 17, 2005, he responded to a request for back up from Compean, who noticed a suspicious van near the levee road along the Rio Grande River near the Texas town of Fabens, about 40 miles east of El Paso.

Ramos, who headed toward Fabens hoping to cut off the van, soon joined a third agent already in pursuit.

Behind the wheel of the van was an illegal alien, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila of Mexico. Unknown to the growing number of Border Patrol agents converging on Fabens, Aldrete-Davila's van was carrying 800 pounds of marijuana.

Unable to outrun Ramos and the third agent, Aldrete-Davila stopped the van on the levee, jumped out and started running toward the river. When he reached the other side of the levee, he was met by Compean who had anticipated the smuggler's attempt to get back to Mexico.

"We both yelled out for him to stop, but he wouldn't stop, and he just kept running," Ramos told California's Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Aldrete-Davila crossed a canal.

"At some point during the time where I'm crossing the canal, I hear shots being fired," Ramos said. "Later, I see Compean on the ground, but I keep running after the smuggler."

At that point, Ramos said, Aldrete-Davila turned toward him, pointing what looked like a gun.

"I shot," Ramos said. "But I didn't think he was hit, because he kept running into the brush and then disappeared into it. Later, we all watched as he jumped into a van waiting for him. He seemed fine. It didn't look like he had been hit at all."

The commotion and multiple calls for back up had brought seven other agents – including two supervisors – to the crossing by this time. Compean picked up his shell casings, but Ramos did not. He also did not follow agency procedure and report that he had fired his weapon.

"The supervisors knew that shots were fired," Ramos told the paper. "Since nobody was injured or hurt, we didn't file the report. That's the only thing I would've done different."

Had he done that one thing differently, it's unlikely it would have mattered to prosecutors.

More than two weeks after the incident, Christopher Sanchez, an investigator with the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General, received a call from a Border Patrol agent in Wilcox, Ariz. The agent's mother-in-law had received a call from Aldrete-Davila's mother in Mexico telling her that her son had been wounded in the buttocks in the shooting.

Sanchez followed up with a call of his own to the smuggler in Mexico.

In a move that still confuses Ramos and Compean, the U.S. government filed charges against them after giving full immunity to Aldrete-Davila and paying for his medical treatment at an El Paso hospital.

At trial, Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof told the court that the agents had violated an unarmed Aldrete-Davila's civil rights.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it is a violation of someone's Fourth Amendment rights to shoot them in the back while fleeing if you don't know who they are and/or if you don't know they have a weapon," said Kanof.

Kanof dismissed Ramos' testimony that he had seen something shiny in the smuggler's hand, saying that the agent couldn't be sure it was a gun he had seen.

Further, Kanof argued, it was a violation of Border Patrol policy for agents to pursue fleeing suspects.

"Agents are not allowed to pursue. In order to exceed the speed limit, you have to get supervisor approval, and they did not," she told the Daily Bulletin.

Those shell casings Compean picked up were described to the jury as destroying the crime scene and their failure to file an incident report – punishable by a five-day suspension, according to Border Patrol regulations – an attempted cover up.

The Texas jury came back with a guilty verdict. Conviction for discharging a firearm in relation to a crime of violence has an automatic 10-year sentence. The other counts have varying punishments.

"How are we supposed to follow the Border Patrol strategy of apprehending terrorists or drug smugglers if we are not supposed to pursue fleeing people?" said Ramos, who noted that he only did on that day what he had done for the previous 10 years. "Everybody who's breaking the law flees from us. What are we supposed to do? Do they want us to catch them or not?"

He also noted that none of the other agents who had responded to the incident filed reports that shots were fired and, besides, both supervisors at the scene knew they had discharged their weapons.

"You need to tell a supervisor because you can't assume that a supervisor knows about it," Kanof countered. "You have to report any discharge of a firearm."

"This is the greatest miscarriage of justice I have ever seen," said Andy Ramirez of the nonprofit group Friends of the Border Patrol. "This drug smuggler has fully contributed to the destruction of two brave agents and their families and has sent a very loud message to the other Border Patrol agents: If you confront a smuggler, this is what will happen to you."

The El Paso Sheriff's Department increased its patrols around the Ramos home when the family received threats from people they believed were associated with Aldrete-Davila.



U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Cardone in El Paso, Texas, sentenced Jose Alonso Compean to 12 years in prison and Ignacio Ramos to 11 years and one day despite a plea by their attorney for a new trial after three jurors said they were coerced into voting guilty in the case, the Washington Times reported.

[Knightly_Knews]

35. oooops

self delete

[pitohui]

21. that's my feeling too

i'm inclined to think maybe feinstein knows more about this than i do and i'm inclined to think that commuting the sentences seems fair altho i am also going to reserve the right to change my mind if i get more information

the drug smuggler wounded by the cops got a pass on smuggling over a million dollars worth of product into the usa, i'm not comfortable w. the message it sends that it's more important to give this guy immunity to "get" law enforcement officers than it was to put this smuggler in prison

[Richard Steele]

24. Well, then you should look it up before you start thinking these thugs deserve leniency.

Please see my posts on this thread for a little more info.

[pitohui]

38. ok i've read a bit more about it

i don't think a pardon is fair but i do think commutation is fair

[Richard Steele]

46. For what reason do you think these 2 shouldn't serve their sentence? nm

[Richard Steele]

23. Many of us here DO know the whole story. And they did, indeed, shoot him just for running away.

More to the point, he was running away -BECAUSE- one of them
tried to strike him with a shotgun when he exited his vehicle
with his hands up.

That's not my "opinion", that's what THEY admitted
under oath. And they had no idea he was smuggling
weed until AFTER they had shot him and attempted to
conceal THEIR CRIME by picking up the empty casings.

No way in hell are their sentences "unjust".

[VP505]

25. What was NOT mentioned

here was that the two agents were charged with the use of a firearm law adding a mandatory 10 year sentence intended to be used against felons committing crimes while armed. Is it really right to use that kind of mandatory sentencing law against law enforcement officers??? If they didn't follow procedure and tried to cover it up as apparently did then they deserve to be punished but the punishment they got is WAY out of line, IMO. Then there is the issue of the drug dealer/smuggler walking and continuing to break the law while those prosecuting the agents watched and let it happen without consequence. Is that really right, or fair to those agents or any law enforcement officer for that matter, I don't think so???

[NNN0LHI]

26. Sure it was mentioned in the OP if you had read it

Do you think that people in law enforcement should not have the same laws applied to them as are applied to us?

On the contrary. These people swear to uphold the law when they take the job. If anything they should receive harsher sentences that the average person when they get caught breaking the laws that they swore to uphold.

Don

[VP505]

29. Ya, it was mentioned

in the op but I didn't see anyone mention the intent of that law or the anything about the application of that law. I am pretty sure that it was intended to be used against people who had previous felony convictions committing more crimes, not two law enforcement officers who didn't follow procedure and committed a crime while trying to do their job. I still think it was not right to use that law against those two agents.

[immoderate]

27. If the law is intended to protect innocent people from being killed...

And here these guys shot an "innocent" person... why shouldn't it apply? :shrug:

--IMM

[pitohui]

36. yes i saw that in another story and it greatly bothers me

even if the officers did make a mistake the additional 10 years is completely unfair, as they were required to carry their firearms as part of the job

what message does this send to other leos?

i think commutation is fair

[reichstag911]

42. Mistake?

They assaulted, then attempted to murder someone against whom they had no evidence of committing a crime. The message is "Don't shoot unarmed civilians in the back when they try to escape being assaulted by you."

[reichstag911]

41. When the cops committed felonies,...

...they became felons using guns in the commission of those crimes. End of story. Fuck 'em.

[Jed Dilligan]

53. The sentence should be quadrupled if the criminal

is a law enforcement officer.

[me b zola]

55. I completely agree

If we did this we might see a decline in police brutality and corruption.

The rule of law means nothing when those charged with enforcing the law are the ones doing the law breaking. Just ask king george.

[Fleshdancer]

30. Officers are suppose to enforce the law, not capital punishment

The only time I'm ok with officers pulling the trigger is if it's in self defense. Shooting someone because they're running away from you is ridiculous.

[eppur_se_muova]

33. HOLY CRAP! Let me take you back to 1950's Montgomery, AL ...

A white man killed a black man with a shotgun after he saw him running down the street. He explained that "If he was runnin', he must have done something." He was not charged.

We want the police to have this excuse?

[pitohui]

37. i did say commutation not pardon, as did feinstein

these officers are in prison and have already paid a huge price -- the loss of career, the loss of freedom, the loss of family -- everything

i just don't see how the extra 10 years accomplishes anything except to make other people wonder if it's worth it to enforce the law

if they had just taken a few hundred bucks from this smuggler and turned their heads, they'd be free right now

the next cop is going to have to think about that and about being second guessed on the job and if he blows it, having an extra 10 years because his job requires him to carry a weapon

[Solon]

40. You are comparing accepting bribes with murder...

:puke:

[reichstag911]

43. Boo-fuckin'-hoo. nt

[YankmeCrankme]

44. maybe it will make law enforcement think before they start shooting

Perhaps this would be incentive for law enforcement to not shot at people so quickly without really knowing the situation or actually being in danger. Perhaps if law enforcement knew that there was real punishment for their, 1)lack of judgment, 2)lack of critical thinking, 3)use of deadly force when not necessary that they would evaluate the use of lethal force more critically. More innocent people might not be shot or non-threatening situations don't escalate unnecessarily.

I'd rather they erred on the side of safety.

As for your assertion that this was a case of shoot or take a bribe, I think that's fundamentally the problem, binary thinking. How about the fact that the smuggler was not that important. They had aborted his attempt to smuggle drugs (inadvertently as it turns out), those drugs were confiscated and weren't going to be sold on the street. Wasn't that enough? Fact is they didn't even know he was a smuggler so that's a moot point anyway. But how really important was it to shoot a suspected illegal alien? Was that going to stop all the others? The fact is they weren't enforcing the law...what law is it that states you shot a non-threatening person in the back if he runs away from you? The law they were enforcing was preventing people from entering the country illegally. They did that without shooting.

[philosophie_en_rose]

47. It depends.

If officers have a reasonable belief that the person running is presently and substantially dangerous, yes. Otherwise, no.

[Alexander]

49. Cops in England will throw their nightsticks at fleeing suspects.

They can do it in such a way that the nightsticks bounce on the ground and trip up the suspect.

Seems like we could learn a thing or do from them.

[Nikki Stone1]

50. A donut in one hand, a gun in the other

:donut:

[Jed Dilligan]

52. Better a donut than a bottle of Jimmy Beam

Alcoholism is rampant in police forces and other intrinsically corrupt organizations.

[Jed Dilligan]

51. Fuck Feinstein, the only Dem I ever voted against.

And fuck these fascist pig murdering border guards who shot an unarmed man in the back. They should've gotten life.

And double tripe quadruple fuck the War on Drugs, which puts protecting Americans against (gasp) marijuana at a higher priority than human life.

[MiniMe]

59. How does somebody with 1.2 million dollars of pot outrun an officer?

Just asking, because it seems like it would weigh a lot.

[dysfunctional press]

60. they drop the pot.

nt

[MiniMe]

61. Thats what I figured. So pretty much everything DiFi said is BS