‘Tis the Season to Forgive
Everyone is making pardon recommendations. First, Mark Bowden suggests that President Bush ask the Iraqi government to pardon shoe-thrower Muntazer al-Zaidi:
With a simple gesture of reprieve, he could completely rise above it. Mr. Zaidi would be nothing more than a rude prankster. The president would be the story’s hero.
I feel no sympathy for the shoe-thrower, and I’m torn on this, but Bowden makes a decent argument. Meanwhile, Michael Barone says Bush ought to pardon Scooter Libby (via Hot Air):
Libby was a dedicated and hypercompetent public servant who was brought down by a prosecutor investigating a scandal that wasn’t a scandal. The investigation purportedly was an attempt to discover who had told Robert Novak that Valerie Plame was a CIA “operative” (Novak’s word). But prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knew before the investigation began that the leaker was Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.
I’m not persuaded. I think it would have been irresponsible for Fitz to stop dead in his tracks without investigating whether Armitage acted alone or at the direction of someone else.
I say no pardon for Libby, and I really don’t care what happens to shoe-guy. My prediction: the commentariat says pardon Libby and throw the book (if not the shoe) at the shoe-guy. Let’s see whether I’m right.
I think Libby should be pardoned just to watch the Leftist’s head assplode. I also think that the shoe-thrower should be pardoned. And I think that President Bush should pardon Barack and Rahmblo for being liars prior to leaving office.
JD (e96920) — 12/24/2008 @ 8:55 amPardons for the both of ’em.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/24/2008 @ 9:01 amSPQR – Does this make Patterico half-wrong or half-Right?
JD (e96920) — 12/24/2008 @ 9:08 amI think that GW Bush should pardon Marc Rich, just on general principles. The more folks are reminded of how “heroes” the Democratic Party have pardoned truly egregious characters for personal gain, the better.
Eric Blair (e906af) — 12/24/2008 @ 9:10 amI don’t care about Libby and it would be inconsistent with our effort to stabilize Iraq to interfere in the case of the shoe-flinger. If the Iraqi justice system cannot handle that on its own …?
He should have pardoned Ramos and Compean two years ago. He probably will not, now, either.
nk (20403f) — 12/24/2008 @ 9:10 amPardon no one. Punish them all!
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 12/24/2008 @ 9:10 amYep, pardons for both. I doubt al-Zaidi is looking at 15 years and requesting grace on his behalf would leave Bush looking the bigger man. Pardon Libby for pure entertainment value. Pardons for Ramos and Compean too, because it’s the right thing to do.
Pablo (99243e) — 12/24/2008 @ 9:11 amActually, love2008, I don’t think that Presidential pardons are a good idea anymore, as they have slipped and slid into political games.
So I agree with you.
Eric Blair (e906af) — 12/24/2008 @ 9:12 amNo. Bush is the victim in the case. Leniency at the request of the victim/victim’s family is not uncommon in Arabic culture.
Pablo (99243e) — 12/24/2008 @ 9:13 amThe posthumous pardon of the Jewish gentleman for his role in aiding Israel in the 1940’s was a grand gesture.
JD (e96920) — 12/24/2008 @ 9:17 amIf Scooter Libby and Muntazer al-Zaidi had on camera sex, they both be a hero to the left here in America and both would be slowly strangled if they visited Iran.
Since Libby lives here and al-Zaidi lives {over} there, I think this would be better than a pardon, albeit much more difficult for President Bush to arrange.
Adriane (497622) — 12/24/2008 @ 9:22 amIt would be a magnanimous gesture for the President to ask the Iraqi PM to pardon the shoe thrower; one that the MSM would react to by scratching their collective asses and saying “Where did that come from?” (notice how much press coverage there has been of how the President has met with over 4000 families of killed and wounded? The only mention I’ve seen is in the RW blogosphere, + Fox News TV; but then I lead the life of a monk and try to limit my exposure to corrupting influences).
Libby is another matter. It is apparent that his testimony conflicted with at least Russert’s, and Fitz chose to believe Russert and proceeded accordingly. If protocol is followed, Libby would have to acknowledge his responsibility in any pardon application, or the President could grant him a Clinton-style pardon where there is no acknowledgement of responsibility as per the PR terrorists and Marc Rich. I do not think this President would take the latter approach, and I don’t have a clue as to what Libby’s feelings are on this. But, if he ever wants to get his law license back, he has to do something, or set off on a new career path as a convicted felon.
Please remind me why anyone would want this job:
The pay is not all that great, the perks ARE neat but the responsibilities are a killer, and everyone (even your friends, too) gives you shit, and the vast organization that you ostensibly lead has all of the responsiveness of The Blob (and moves at about the same speed).
So: Question One…Yes;
Another Drew (171f89) — 12/24/2008 @ 9:25 amQuestion Two…He should offer, but it is up to Libby to accept.
I’m reluctant to see Bush favor a pardon for the shoe thrower only because the left here have lionized said shoe-thrower while making his shoe-throwing symbolic of *all* Americans who have suffered along with the Iraqi people under Bush. That a pardon would possibly bring Bush into a millimeter of favor with said left, makes me inclined toward no pardon. Petty perhaps but it is politics, no?
Ramos and Compean, or no one.
Dana (79a78b) — 12/24/2008 @ 9:38 amWhy on earth would he pardon Libby? He’s had his sentence commuted, thus never served a day of it. Leave it be – it’s not like he’s going to be hurting for employment due to his record.
I like calling for the Iraqis to “pardon” (not sure what the word would be in Iraqi parlance) the shoe thrower. Especially at Christmas.
carlitos (ae0b26) — 12/24/2008 @ 9:40 amHow about I get pardoned for what I think about Liberal Democrats?
PCD (7fe637) — 12/24/2008 @ 9:40 amI don’t think it is a very smart thing to pardon the Iraqi shoe-thrower. Blank it, Bush already has a low approval. That’s no news. He that is down needs fear no fall. Justice should be allowed to take it’s full course in this matter. An attempt was made on the life of an American President. An assault on his person. If he walks away free, he would be the hero and Bush, the powerless commander-in-chief. This is not good for the image of America. Something has to be done to teach others who might try the same in the future. If not we will be setting a very dangerous precedent. Today it is shoes, who knows what will be thrown tomorrow. When you wake up in the morning and decide you are going to throw your shoes at the president of the USA, you should also expect to pay the price for it.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 12/24/2008 @ 9:42 amOh, please.
Pablo (99243e) — 12/24/2008 @ 9:46 amDana,
Screw the left. I’m thinking of the Iraqi perspective. And of deflating shoe boy’s troof to powder.
Pablo (99243e) — 12/24/2008 @ 9:48 amI would also pardon Ramos and Compean prospectively for looking up Johnny Sutton and beating the living daylights out of him. His AUSAs who did the trial, too.
nk (20403f) — 12/24/2008 @ 9:54 amdeflating shoe boy’s troof to powder
A very good PR reason for a fact.
nk (20403f) — 12/24/2008 @ 9:55 amI think it would be a mistake to pardon Libby because it’s kind of an admission of guilt and I don’t think he was guilty of any crime.
jwarner (0a2a75) — 12/24/2008 @ 9:59 amI think this makes a fine public test case for the Iraqi justice system. We hear that the shoe-thrower got roughed up – let’s see his injuries. (Interrogations in most non-US countries begin in a kinetic manner, I’ve had international policemen tell me.) And they have a specific crime listed for ‘attacking a foreign dignitary’ and we have the crime on tape. It looks like an open and shut case.
Scooter Libby already had the correct level of pardon, no reason to change it.
luagha (5cbe06) — 12/24/2008 @ 10:00 amTrue enough…
Now if only Armitage had been prosecuted for the leak…
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/24/2008 @ 10:05 amNeither – Libby shouldn’t admit to doing something he obviously felt wasn’t wrong, and the Iraqis should be allowed to deal with ShoeBoy on their own terms and conditions.
Dmac (e30284) — 12/24/2008 @ 10:10 amHow about a pardon for the silly trolls, especially love2008? Merry Fitzmas everyone!
Old Coot (a8acc7) — 12/24/2008 @ 10:10 amComment by Scott Jacobs — 12/24/2008 @ 10:05 am
Which brings the question:
Another Drew (171f89) — 12/24/2008 @ 10:11 amDid Fitz bring Armitage before a Grand Jury?
And, if not, why not?
Oh, please.
Comment by Pablo — 12/24/2008 @ 9:46 am
love2008 (1b037c) — 12/24/2008 @ 10:12 amYou don’t think so, Pablo? How do you suppose this man be treated? Maybe buy him lunch and tell him it’s not his fault?
Comment by Old Coot — 12/24/2008 @ 10:10 am
Another Drew (171f89) — 12/24/2008 @ 10:12 amlovey, perhaps.
mariO, doubtful.
the others, Never!
Don’t even for a minute believe that an oleaginous troll has changed its spots and will not stick the knife in about twelve comments down.
nk (20403f) — 12/24/2008 @ 10:15 amComment by Old Coot — 12/24/2008 @ 10:10 am
love2008 (1b037c) — 12/24/2008 @ 10:15 amI am bigger than you. So I forgive you. Racist.
Comment by love2008 — 12/24/2008 @ 10:12 am
After the ass-kicking he got at the hands of the PM’s security detail, he probably has a very good idea how he is to be treated in the future if he pulls a stunt like that again.
It’s not like he’s in Iran and pissed-off the Mullahs. That only gets you a trip to the soccer stadium (one-way).
Another Drew (171f89) — 12/24/2008 @ 10:16 amPardon Libby & the shoe guy.
Libby wasn’t the leaker anyways. It was a witch-hunt.
h2u (2294f7) — 12/24/2008 @ 10:17 amNo, I don’t think he attempted to kill the President.
Pablo (99243e) — 12/24/2008 @ 10:27 amPardon Me………….
I’m going to do you us all a favor and try not to comment today. (Live it up while it lasts!)
I just want to say Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all here at Patterico.
We may disagree on a day to day basis, but I have no doubt that all of your intentions are true to our country and true to our hearts.
Happy New Year too!!
Oiram (983921) — 12/24/2008 @ 10:35 amUh, but you just did comment. Never mind…
Dmac (e30284) — 12/24/2008 @ 10:37 amBush should strive for some $$$ quid pro quo and find a Marc Rich type to pardon. Also why not continue to kiss libtard/lovers of mutant killers and pro-abortion hollywood elite by freeing OJ, Mumia, Eichorn, Manson and a few others. Or maybe just go whole hog like that one Ill.governor and take death penalty off the table, trying to win Euroweenie hearts and minds.
Forget about those two border patrol agents- they didn’t do anything to please Mexico desires regarding illegal drug runners/wetback.
In spirit of forgiveness I don’t see the left backing off from potential prosecution of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld for war crimes and high treason. Pity Kuchinich wasn’t elected Potus.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 12/24/2008 @ 10:38 amMerry Christmas to All,
Another Drew (171f89) — 12/24/2008 @ 10:43 amand to All a Good Night!
and the Iraqis should be allowed to deal with ShoeBoy on their own terms and conditions.
We’ve been screamed at repeatedly to butt-out of other nation’s affairs, and Iraq since around 2003, so perhaps we should. After all isn’t this why the world hates us?
Dana (79a78b) — 12/24/2008 @ 10:47 amPresident Bush should pardon Libby, apologize for the unfair prosecution, and have him over for lunch.
Let the Iraqi’s deal with the shoe-thrower, he’s their problem, not ours.
Ropelight (d40bc3) — 12/24/2008 @ 10:48 amI agree that Fitzgerald should have investigated whether Armitage acted alone or at the direction of someone else. For whatever reason, Fitzgerald chose not to do so- at least until Woodward came forward and said Armitage was hiding their discussion.
Bush has already laughed off the shoe-thrower. I don’t think it puts Maliki in a good position if he publicly asks for a pardon. What if Maliki doesn’t want to pardon the guy?
MayBee (b04cd2) — 12/24/2008 @ 11:01 amand to All a Good Night!
Comment by Another Drew — 12/24/2008 @ 10:43 am
love2008 (1b037c) — 12/24/2008 @ 12:06 pmWhy is AD saying good night to all at this time of the day? Hope all is well with him.
I’d like to see Bush pardon Libby even though I think the Libby prosecution was fair. The intense scrutiny and publicity in the case makes it hard to decide where justice ends and politics begins.
As for the shoe-thrower, I’d prefer to let Iraq handle the case. My understanding is that the charges are insulting a foreign leader, so the “victim” isn’t Bush but the Iraqi government. Insulting a foreign leader could (in theory) adversely affect the Iraqi government’s standing with another nation, so I think it’s up to Iraqi authorities to decide how to handle it. Whether or not Bush forgives the shoe-thrower is a separate question. Thus, if Bush doesn’t care, he can refrain from pursuing a civil remedy.
Finally, if I could speak directly with President Bush, I would encourage him to commute the sentences of Ramos and Campeon. They have served over a year — the sentence for the assault — and are now serving 10 years on the gun charge. The 10-year charge/sentence is what is most troubling about this case and commutation would remedy that. However, I think there is little or no chance that will happen because Johnny Sutton is Bush’s chief U.S. Attorney and long-time associate. A commutation would question the judgment of his pal Sutton, and we know how Bush feels about his pals.
DRJ (be6fb0) — 12/24/2008 @ 12:08 pmComment by DRJ — 12/24/2008 @ 12:08 pm
love2008 (1b037c) — 12/24/2008 @ 12:22 pmWho would you like to forgive this season? Forgiving does have healing effects. Let’s talk about it. If you don’t mind.
I would pardon Libby, and forgive and pardon the shoe thrower
Showing mercy to your enemies is a much admired but seldom scene act of the Muslim Faith
EricPWJohnson (5a816b) — 12/24/2008 @ 12:33 pm“I feel no sympathy for the shoe-thrower”
You’re as stingy with your assessment of your opposition as you are generous with that towards your own. A botched invasion based on lies (or delusions) a similarly botched reconstruction (it would help if you at least mentioned the recent reports documenting the extent of failure), thousands and thousands dead and millions of refugees; and you get huffy about a man who throws a shoe (and not even an exploding one). I searched for “Shinseki” on this site and found exactly one (1) reference, and that offhand.
I would say this ties in well with the simple moralism of your take on law and the legal system. Your link to your friendly ADA’s hypotheticals was telling. The answers were simple, but you treated the questions as if they exposed a deep corruption in the moral logic of the law, when all they exposed is the ambiguities of life.
Two additional points: It would me nice if you at least noted that the shoe thrower, Muntader al-Zaidi has been badly beaten in custody, and that Maliki has lied about the incident, claiming al-Zaidi was linked to terrorists. Maliki is trying to push the sectarian angle when in fact al-Zaidi said specifically that he acted as a nationalist, and for all Iraqis. If you followed the details you would know that his popularity crosses sectarian boundaries, whereas Maliki’s such as it is, does not. Simple facts, easily verifiable if you care enough to try.
And also, just to remind all concerned: “Scooter” Libby was one of Marc Rich’s lawyers.
sleepy (6b0755) — 12/24/2008 @ 12:43 pmsleepy, you give us a mish-mash of long-debunked myths and lies yourself. Yawn.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/24/2008 @ 12:58 pmThat’s not sleepy. It sounds more like dopey.
Official Internet Data Office (8aa339) — 12/24/2008 @ 1:05 pmI am praying for the following pardons:
1. Jonathan Pollard: He has paid the price.
2. Scooter Libby: Why is doing time for Armitage’s “crime?”
3. The shoe-thrower: As Patterico suggests, it will cause Bush to rise above the fray.
4. Ramos & Compean: Because their imprisonment is so egregiously wrong that even the stones may soon cry out for their pardon and release. (An independent prosecutor’s investigation of US Attorney Johnny Sutton — who engineered their trial that stood justice on its head — would be a welcome companion development.)
man_in_tx (17242e) — 12/24/2008 @ 1:27 pmIf Fitz was really looking for co-conspirators, then Armitage would have gone into the Grand Jury, but he did not. I can’t think of a AUSA who would not have put a co-conspirator in the Grand Jury. In short order he would have found out if Armitage was working with others to leak Plame’s name, but, in the end, she was not covered by the act anyway.
Federale (8859fe) — 12/24/2008 @ 1:55 pmYour link to your friendly ADA’s hypotheticals was telling. The answers were simple, but you treated the questions as if they exposed a deep corruption in the moral logic of the law, when all they exposed is the ambiguities of life.
sleepy,
I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. They were hypotheticals. We discussed them. It was interesting. This stuff about the “moral logic of the law” is something you’re pulling out of your hind quarters.
Merry Christmas.
Patterico (c207d4) — 12/24/2008 @ 1:55 pmAs for your desire to see me talk about topics you’re interested in, I have two options for you. 1) Get your own blog. 2) Pay me to write about what you want discussed, rather than what I want to discuss.
Patterico (c207d4) — 12/24/2008 @ 1:59 pmsleepy, Patterico even gave you the title for your own blog. You can call it “Out of My Hindquarters”
SPQR (72771e) — 12/24/2008 @ 2:11 pmlove2008,
I’d have to think about it to give you specific names. In my everyday life, I’m willing to forgive anyone that sincerely seeks forgiveness. But, even though they sound the same, forgiveness isn’t the same as a pardon or commutation. For one thing, I don’t think there is a legal requirement that the recipient has taken responsibility and is remorseful, although some have. To me, those are important elements of forgiveness.
DRJ (be6fb0) — 12/24/2008 @ 2:24 pmI think Bush should pardon Al Gore for his lies about global warming.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/24/2008 @ 2:38 pmJust to watch everyone’s head explode, I say pardon Ramos but not Compean, or vice-versa.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/24/2008 @ 2:42 pmI would applaud a pardon of Ramos and not Compean. Ramos came over the hill to find his partner shooting at a suspect. He shot once. That doesn’t seem wrong or excessive to me.
But I still question the weapons charge and wish Bush would commute both sentences.
DRJ (be6fb0) — 12/24/2008 @ 2:52 pmNow here is a question, based on one of the first comments in a thread.
Can you pardon someone who doesn’t want to be pardoned, in advance of possible crimes?
Because it would be amusing if GW Bush pardoned BO in advance. Even if BO hasn’t done anything wrong.
Eric Blair (9294a8) — 12/24/2008 @ 2:53 pmThere is no limitation on the Presidential pardon power, other than it only applies to Federal crimes.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/24/2008 @ 3:00 pmPatterico wrote:
I don’t get it, Pat. Armitage wasn’t indicted, so what would it matter if someone told him to do something that wasn’t a crime?
Fitzgerald played into the expectations in the leftosphere that he was about to land a big fish in his investigations by failing to forthrightly and publicly acknowledge Armitage as the “leaker”, not Rove, not Cheney. OTOH, with Chi-Blagogate, he let us know straight out of the box that Obama was not a target.
I also don’t appreciate the way Fitz was carefully obscure about whether or not Valerie Plame was “covert,” especially in the face of the key statute’s co-author — Victoria Toensing — insisting that Plame couldn’t have qualified based on her husband’s account of the dates and times of her undercover activities. Despite the fact that Armitage was charged with nothing, and that Libby’s perjurous statements didn’t directly deal with the leak, Fitz grandstanded as if all the questions had been answered with the Scooter indictment and conviction. They weren’t. And when those questions are asked, the MSM answers them with their own self-serving, left-leaning and baseless answers.
L.N. Smithee (da0b05) — 12/24/2008 @ 3:02 pmComment by DRJ — 12/24/2008 @ 2:24 pm
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 12/24/2008 @ 3:24 pmIt’s strange that you say one has to “seek forgiveness” from you to be forgiven. Don’t they earn it by changing their ways? Asking for forgiveness without repentance is biblical though.
SPQR, there is one other limitation on the pardon power: it doesn’t extend to cases of impeachment. I’m also curious as to whether the theory that the power only applies to federal crimes has been tested in court. After all, “Offences against the United States” can have two meanings: offenses against the US as a nation, or offenses against one or more of the states that make it up.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/24/2008 @ 3:36 pmRamos and Compean
PatAZ (d8da01) — 12/24/2008 @ 6:06 pmWhy on earth would he pardon Libby? He’s had his sentence commuted, thus never served a day of it. Leave it be
Libby is a lawyer and is barred from practice as a felon. I think he should be pardoned even though I agree he is innocent. FitzGerald seems to like perjury traps, which is why Obama should be careful.
I also agree about the two agents.
Mike K (2cf494) — 12/24/2008 @ 6:37 pmlove2008:
Maybe we have different views of what needs to be forgiven in a moral (as opposed to a legal) sense. I don’t need to forgive people for unintentional acts or careless slights because it’s not worth the emotional cost of taking those slights personally. If that were the standard, we’d spend most of our days keeping count of all the things on our forgiveness lists.
I think the things that require forgiveness are acts people do intentionally or with great recklessness that hurt others. Those acts are more serious and while they don’t happen often, the actors should seek forgiveness. But since that doesn’t always happen, it’s also important for the person who has been hurt to move on and not bear a grudge. Maybe you see that as forgiveness but, to me, forgiveness is directed at and benefits the other person. Not bearing a grudge is directed at and benefits myself.
DRJ (be6fb0) — 12/24/2008 @ 6:37 pmDRJ
Ramos and Compean did not come over a hill, there never was a deep gully, heavy brush etc
they both confessed “IN WRITING” that they tried to kill the guy.
Its those written confessions and their turning down a plea deal to make a political statement that got them exactly where they are
In fact Ramos confessed to being a mental patient and had an extensive arrest record including multiple sentencing to anger management. In fact as we went through the transcripts it was clearly apparent that these two were trouble and had been trouble.
Johhny Sutton did everything he could to give these guys a break but they were too caught up in their pre trial local instafame and the head of he Union told them they were going to make history
Sad really…..
EricPWJohnson (5a816b) — 12/24/2008 @ 6:38 pmEric,
From Ramos’ testimony (Transcript 12, pp. 190-210):
Ramos said the parties ran into a ditch that was approx. 11 feet deep followed by an elevated levee that was wide enough for vehicles to drive on. (In fact, Compean’s vehicle was parked on the levee.) Ramos testified he heard gunshots when he was in the ditch. He ran out of the ditch, over the levee, and saw Compean on the vega and the suspect running away. The suspect turned and gestured and Ramos testified he thought the suspect had a weapon.
It’s fine if you don’t believe Ramos’ version of the events, but the testimony was uncontradicted that there was a deep ditch and a graded, elevated levee (e.g., a hill) where this happened.
DRJ (be6fb0) — 12/24/2008 @ 6:51 pmAnd Ramos didn’t confess to being a mental patient. He has Tourette’s Syndrome.
Finally, a law enforcement officer or any person who decides to use a gun should aim to kill. That’s why everyone who has a gun should be trained and practice regularly.
DRJ (be6fb0) — 12/24/2008 @ 6:53 pmQuestion: Why have Sec. 1001 of Title 18 – the statute that makes it a crime it lie to the Feds (usually the FBI) – when in those cases in which a lie actually obstructs justice, it is prosecutable under general obstruction statutes, e.g., 1503?
This query is related to Fitz because he – like other Fed prosecutors – likes to charge defendants with 1001 violations even when no one is charged with the underlying offense which was the ostensible purpose of the investigation. (Although Libby was, I think charged with Perjury and Obstruction too.)
Taking away 1001 would at least partially restrain self-aggrandizing jerk prosecutors such as Fitz, i.e., restrain their tendency to indulge in bogus charges to justify a public investigation.
Brian (74a9ae) — 12/24/2008 @ 6:55 pmDRJ-
Everyone who has to fire a weapon should “shoot to stop” and not “aim to kill.” Admittedly, killing someone also “stops” them, but the “aim to kill” mindset might also induce you to fire an extra round “just to make sure.”
Please think of the effect on a jury of the difference between the two statements should you be placed as a defendant.
Roy in Nipomo (1023a0) — 12/24/2008 @ 8:16 pmAny time you point a weapon — never mind squeeze the trigger — at a person, you’d better be damned sure you’re willing to bring about their death.
Hollywood is fantasy — there is no “shoot to stop”.
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 12/24/2008 @ 8:58 pmTruly scary that a few posters here seem to think that Bush really has the power to pardon the shoe-thrower.
I forgive you.
FREE RAMOS & COMPEAN!!!
Icy Texan (b7d162) — 12/24/2008 @ 9:39 pmThe two agents should be pardoned because they were guilty but had circumstances that are extenuating; like the guy they shot should be treated like the dirtbag he is.
Mike K (2cf494) — 12/24/2008 @ 9:57 pmRamos and Compean for all the reasons that have been discussed for the past year plus. It won’t happen though. Consider the pardons that Bush has granted. Seems to me that a significant percentage of those were for drug offenses. I am starting to think that he is trying to send a message. Don’t mess with our unofficial foreign aid.
Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 12/24/2008 @ 10:17 pm#69 Roy in Nipomo:
Rob Crawford has it right in his comment at #70:
My prior law enforcement training in the Coast Guard stressed the use of a three round salvo as a standard practice, based on statistical studies of shootings done by the DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Most shootings happen at relatively close quarters, but a single round is only effective in the neighborhood of 60-65% of the time in “stopping” an assailant.
As Rob further notes:
which is why we teach a continuum of force in response to situations, up to and including the use of deadly force. [Emphasis added to Rob’s comment is mine.] Ideally, a person capable of exerting deadly force should be able to prevent a situation from escalating to that level~but sometimes the real world doesn’t play along.
Even though I am generally polite by nature, as one of the questions at Oleg Volk’s terrific A Human Right website asks,
“act even more politely than before so as to avoid confrontations.”
Merry Christmas, all!
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 12/25/2008 @ 5:58 amSame with my USAF SP training. The target is always center mass. “Shoot to stop” was known as “aim to maim” and very much discouraged. Three rounds in the torso. Repeat as necessary. And you don’t draw on anything you’re not ready to place those 3 rounds into.
Merry Christmas, all!
Pablo (99243e) — 12/25/2008 @ 6:41 amFolks, you misunderstand me. I am fully aware that firearms are “deadly weapons” and not “warning weapons” or “wounding weapons.” I was not advocating “shooting to wound” or “shooting to maim,” but rather pointing out that a “shooting to kill” mindset invokes the feel of vengeance.
Shooting someone (at least in Calif) is to protect life (yours or someone elses). If the suspect dies, so be it – he is “stopped”, but the main reason you should be shooting is to *stop* the person from doing the bad thing.
If (Heaven forbid) you end up going before “12 people, good and true,” saying that you were trying to “stop” the person plays much better than saying you were trying to “kill” them.
My personal preference for home defense weapon is a 12ga (20ga for my daughter as a 12 is a bit much for the wheelchair) shotgun loaded with buckshot. I would not expect a suspect to survive but *stopping* them is the priority when the hammer falls and not their death or their survival.
Does this make it clearer?
Roy in Nipomo (1023a0) — 12/25/2008 @ 1:26 pmDRJ
With all due respect,
Tourette’s syndrome is a mental disease which Ramos wrongfully concealed from the border patrol. Having it, being treated for it automatically disqualifies him from holding any weapons permit.
Anyone with a federal mandate to carry a weapon is required to report any mental problems immediately
Also,
Its a fact that the ground was flat, there was not an 11 foot ditch, (It was 2 – 4 ft – an 11 foot ditch would have taken about a week to get out of its higher than a 1 story house)
He also confessed…. Asked for a lawyer in a routine investigation, called for his union rep – why – because his sealed service record probably had a last chance clause in it.
He was also the trainer for crime scene protocol in his unit and the unit marksman.
Ramos was no hero, he was and is and always will be a felon.
Thats unfortunately the path he very well chose for himself, Sutton asked for his badge and a suspended sentence – which had an adjudication clause in it – others convinced these 2 that politics would carry the day.
There will be no investigative story, no ground breaking novel on it.
Its over, as one juror said, “Compean, tried to hit the guy in the face, guy ducked, Compean flipped over into the road ditch (thank goodness it wasn’t 11 ft) everyone laughed, Compean pulled his weapon and the rest is history.”
EricPWJohnson (5a816b) — 12/25/2008 @ 3:55 pmEric,
I learned a long time ago to be leery of anyone who starts out by saying “with all due respect” because they usually mean just the opposite. That’s true with your comment, isn’t it?
First, there is no indication that Ramos concealed his Tourette’s Syndrome from the Border Patrol and given his testimony regarding how it manifested, I doubt he could have.
Second, it is not a fact that the ground in the area was flat. The vega is flat but the area between where the van was parked and the vega included a deep ditch and an elevated levee. You obviously won’t take my word for it, nor did you believe the testimony of Ignacio Ramos I pointed you to, so perhaps you will believe Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila who testified in Vol VIII pp 36-38 that the ditch was 2-1/2 meters deep (approx. 12 feet).
DRJ (30954e) — 12/25/2008 @ 4:26 pmDRJ
Again, Tourettes disqualifies you from serving – its an especially rare disease that also rarely extends into adulthood and its brought on by pressure, tense situations.
And I am sorry that I dispute your version – it was not meant to be disrespectful but to just give another take on the situation.
Your interpretation is controversial, and the jury, the appellate court, the entire Senate and the State of Texas agrees with my version more – I think
EricPWJohnson (5a816b) — 12/25/2008 @ 5:18 pmI don’t think you understand my interpretation. I support jury verdicts and while I don’t think juries in other Texas cities would agree with the El Paso jury’s decision, they saw the witnesses and I respect their verdict.
What I disagree with is charging law enforcement defendants with the use of a weapon in commission of a crime where the crime involves how they attempted to apprehend a suspect. That’s the sentence I would commute. Law enforcement officers have to carry weapons so I think it makes more sense to handle cases like this as excessive force complaints, not weapons violations.
DRJ (30954e) — 12/25/2008 @ 5:28 pmAs for Tourette’s, I know people with Tourette’s and a little about the disease. While I don’t know if it should be a reason to disqualify someone from service per se, it seems more likely to me (especially in this post-ADA world) that it would vary depending on the nature and degree of impairment.
DRJ (30954e) — 12/25/2008 @ 5:34 pmDRJ
First as a point of law, you commit a crime in the conduct of your duties you cross into the criminal side.
Ask all those vice cops who have raped a prostitute at gunpoint. Or shot a
All neurological and psychological genetic illness’ prevent you from serving in the armed forces and any police force.
Also to answer why Sutton charged them with committing a crime
In a situation where soo many shots were fired, Ramos coming on the scene after the shooting stopped and deciding to shoot from a distance. All this was to cover up their ransacking the van and trying to beat the guy
At about the third shot Compean ceased to be a law enforcement officer in the eyes of the jury, Ramos lost his law enforcement status after he lied about shooting someone to his superiors on the scene
To recap
They tried to beat an unarmed man with a shotgun
He ducked
He then ran for his life unarmed while Compean spent the better part of a minute aiming and firing methodically trying to kill him
Then witnessing the unthinkable, Ramos hurried back from ransacking the van ran up fired a shot, suspect went down, stayed down until a van came and the suspect broke cover running bleeding, limping
So they tried to beat a guy, kill the guy, lied about it, several times, made up a story about tourettes, at any point they never told the truth, why on earth would I believe their newfound geographical skills…..
EricPWJohnson (5a816b) — 12/25/2008 @ 6:12 pm#76 Roy in Nipomo:
As mud.
Once a reasonably prudent individual has made the decision that no other level of force is sufficient to prevent grievous bodily harm to themself or another, and that deadly force is required to defend themself, or another person (or in jurisdictions that allow a more lenient use of deadly force; to protect property), then you are shooting with the full expectation that the person you are shooting will die. Period.
It has nothing to do with vengence, or any other facet of your emotional state at the time: and if it does…then you need to continue practicing in situational exercises until your shoot/no-shoot response is as automatic as a tennis pro responding to a serve from their opponent.
If you are in any doubt about using deadly force, and do anyway, then you are “shooting to stop,” and consequently have not reached a reasonable and prudent decision to use deadly force. As DRJ noted in an earlier thread, the usual question before the jury is whether or not the decision to use deadly force was what a reasonable and prudent individual would have done under the circumstances. If you discharge a weapon at someone, its pretty much a foregone conclusion that you were trying to kill them.
You just need to be able to explain to the jury why that was the most reasonable and prudent course of action to take under the circumstances. And that’s a lot easier to do if, in fact, it was.
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 12/25/2008 @ 6:49 pmRoy, I think the disconnect here is one of looking at a shooting as an emotional event. Training is intended to mitigate emotional reactions and decisions based on emotion. There are ROE’s and there’s a procedure that is drilled into you. The ideal outcome is that you’re not thinking about stopping, killing or wounding. Once your training tells you that it’s appropriate to fire your weapon, your job is to drop 3 rounds into center mass, period. Your motivation shouldn’t be to kill or to wound. It should be to act as you were trained to, and when asked, that’s the appropriate answer.
As EW1(SG) says, it’s a given that you’re trying to kill someone you shoot at. If you’re not justified in doing that, you shouldn’t be firing.
Pablo (99243e) — 12/25/2008 @ 7:11 pmEric:
That’s circular. They didn’t commit a crime if they shot in self-defense. It only becomes a crime once the jury decides it is, and that happens long after the prosecutor charges the case. I agree the prosecutor believed the shooting was wrong but there’s no evidence this was a premeditated act and people can differ on which version to believe.
So there are no law enforcement officers with ADD, ADHD, OCD or who stutter? Because these are all genetic neurological illnesses.
Ramos chased Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila and did not stop at the van. (Ramos Transcript XII pp. 184-185) Juarez was the first agent to approach the van and that occurred while the shots were fired. (Juarez Transcript IX pp 15-16) Vasquez and Juarez, not Ramos, are the agents that stayed with the van. I’m not sure what you mean by “ransacked” but Vasquez was anxious to check out the numbers in the cell phone recovered in the van because he said it could yield valuable intel. (Vasquez transcript pp. 20-27)
The incident happened quickly — in seconds — and the testimony was clear that Aldrete-Davila ran and Ramos/Compean were trying to stop him. You make it sound like it was a shake-down gone bad but there’s nothing to substantiate that view.
That’s an opinion you are certainly justified in reaching but it is still just an opinion.
That’s an interesting narrative but you realize, of course, that it doesn’t match the defense narrative and furthermore than some people find Aldrete-Davila to be a less-than-credible witness. As for those “newfound geographical skills,” one of my links was to Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila’s testimony on the depth of the ditch. If you don’t believe his judgment on that subject – that the ditch was deeper than he is tall – then I have a hard time understanding why you believe him when he claimed to be unarmed.
DRJ (30954e) — 12/25/2008 @ 7:34 pmWas the jury told of what Aldrete-Davila was doing, and his commendable history of being an upstanding citizen?
JD (ba27e7) — 12/25/2008 @ 7:56 pmThe prosecutor told the jury that A-D was only trying to feed his family and that there was nobody in the courtroom who did not have a relative or neighbor who smuggled drugs.
nk (20403f) — 12/25/2008 @ 8:10 pmnk – Please tell me that is a joke.
JD (ba27e7) — 12/25/2008 @ 8:17 pmNope. It’s in the closing arguments. DRJ linked to and summarized the entire transcript of the trial on this site. I’ll see if Patterico’s Search bot will cooperate tonight.
nk (20403f) — 12/25/2008 @ 8:27 pmNo need, nk. I trust you.
JD (ba27e7) — 12/25/2008 @ 8:31 pmDoes not say much about the jurors if they all had a relative or a friend that had smuggled drugs across the border to feed their family.
JD (ba27e7) — 12/25/2008 @ 8:32 pmThe jury knew he was smuggling drugs on this occasion but he testified it was his first time and the defense was precluded from further questioning.
And as nk said, this is from the prosecution’s closing argument:
Transcript Vol. XV, p. 102
DRJ (30954e) — 12/25/2008 @ 8:38 pmNone of this has ever set well with me. But when it comes to the law topics, and process stuff, I tend to sit back and defer to the lawyers round here.
JD (ba27e7) — 12/25/2008 @ 8:43 pmFrom the same link, page 30 of the prosecution’s closing argument:
DRJ (30954e) — 12/25/2008 @ 8:45 pmLawyers disagree all the time so you might as well chime in, JD.
DRJ (30954e) — 12/25/2008 @ 8:47 pmI know this much. I do not like the prosecutor outlined above.
DRJ – As you well know, I have no problem with disagreement. I know my limitations, and prefer to learn from you and the others that have training in those areas. I know what I do not know, and am not so arrogant to argue the points of the law with people that know it much better than I. I prefer to sit back, read, and learn from you learned folks.
And make fun of trolls.
JD (ba27e7) — 12/25/2008 @ 8:50 pmRacist
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/25/2008 @ 8:53 pmOh, yeah. That too. I denounce myself. And I will pre-emptively condemn myself too.
JD (ba27e7) — 12/25/2008 @ 8:57 pmThank you, DRJ.
JD, you must know the story of The Devil and Daniel Webster. Unfortunately for Ramos and Compean, closing argument is too late to move for a change of venue and the defense attorneys were no Daniel Websters so the devil won.
nk (20403f) — 12/25/2008 @ 9:01 pm#97 daleyrocks:
Hmmph. I prefer to think of JD as a wielder of Nekama’s Troll Hammer.
Well, all the dinner stuff was put up long ago…and I think I’ll finish cleaning up the rest of the house in the morning, so good night, and I hope you all had a pleasant and merry Christmas!
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 12/25/2008 @ 9:05 pmnk – What a fabulous story. I had heard of it, and knew the gist of the story, but the words were wonderful.
JD (ba27e7) — 12/25/2008 @ 9:15 pmStephen Vincent Benet is a great American poet. Check out The Ballad of William Sycamore too.
nk (20403f) — 12/25/2008 @ 9:18 pmEW1 – Happy Holidays. I am not sure if that was a compliment or not, but if so, thanks.
Thank you, nk. I now have some new additions to my list of things to read this year.
JD (ba27e7) — 12/25/2008 @ 9:21 pmMerry Christmas, you racist neo-theocon godbotherers. You are all great folks, except those of you who are not. And you know who you are.
JD (ba27e7) — 12/25/2008 @ 9:30 pmAnd for Another Drew, EW1(SG), Pablo and gun geeks everywhere, Blaming Of The Parts. Racist, profane and side-splittingly funny.
nk (20403f) — 12/25/2008 @ 9:33 pmEW1 – Good to see you. Happy holidays.
JD’s got it all going on. You name it, he’s got it. I just didn’t take time to list all the qualities. He’s also mean to old people and I hear you need to watch him closely on a golf course.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/25/2008 @ 9:43 pmdaleyrocks – All true, except the having to watch me on the golf course. Play it as you find it, unless it comes to rest on some huge Frankenstein looking dude’s foot, at which point you execute a discreet toe wedge, and play on.
JD (ba27e7) — 12/25/2008 @ 9:49 pmJD – The drink cart babes weren’t safe from my shots even if I was playing well in front of them back in the day.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/25/2008 @ 9:59 pmdaleyrocks – alppuccino had me laughing so hard that I almost hit a 3-wood backwards.
JD (ba27e7) — 12/25/2008 @ 10:02 pmThanks, nk~I too had forgotten the eloquence of The Devil and Daniel Webster, and am delightfully refreshed.
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 12/26/2008 @ 5:45 amPardoning the Show thrower sounds like a magnanimous gesture to us Americans, and also makes the case that the reign of tyranny is over in Iraq. However, I am not so sure we would be right in considering this idea from our Western viewpoint. I think that it is more important in Irag for them to show that while the brutallity is over there, in a free society there is the due process of law and that “free” doesn’t mean “weak”.
Jim P (a59306) — 12/26/2008 @ 11:19 amComment by nk — 12/25/2008 @ 9:33 pm
Another Drew (who will be known as AD in the coming year) (14f1e0) — 12/26/2008 @ 11:37 amFirst saw that several years ago from a link on a blog by ? (a So.African, naturalized US citizen living in TX, who has now given up blogging a second time, who I just can’t remember the name of).
And, yes, sometimes the parts just do not co-operate – that damn front sight just won’t stay as still as it is supposed to, or in focus.