“Ramos said he had no choice but to protect his partner and himself from Aldrete-Davila, who had what Ramos believed to be a weapon in his hand after ditching the van filled with marijuana.

During the ensuing foot pursuit, as the smuggler reached the Rio Grande, Ramos said Aldrete-Davila turned and pointed what Ramos believed to be a weapon at him. Ramos fired one shot. He hit Aldrete-Davila in the buttocks, but the smuggler made his way back into Mexico and fled in a van on the other side.”

Compean and Ramos were found guilty of assault with serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, a civil-rights charge and obstruction of justice in the Feb. 17, 2005, shooting of Osvaldo Aldrete Davila. Note that the “discharge of a firearm” enhancement is intended to be used against non-LEOs who commit violent crimes with illegally-employed guns. It is ludicrous to apply that law to enhance the sentence of LEOs who are arguably employing their legal firearms in the line of duty – even if it is subsequently found that their actions were not justifiable. Prosecutors knew they could add 3 to 5 mandatory non-parole years to ANY sentence if they could get this charge to stick. And they did.

There is much to question about the case, the behavior of the prosecution, jury foreman and judge. There is much also to question of the Administration in their hands-off approach towards border enforcement. Whether a causal linkage can be established is doubtful, but the apparent climate of tolerance from the Administration is certainly conducive to scapegoating of any BP agent who actually tries to forcibly interdict known drug criminals who may be (and usually are) armed and dangerous. Not to mention encouraging to smugglers.

I am no LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) but I do not believe that forcible interdiction of known smugglers constitutes prima facie evidence of civil rights violations.

And while Congress should not stick their grubby fingers into this, sometimes one must appeal to one’s representatives to act to correct egregious transgressions of the Administration, if possible. The fact that Congress would consider this at all raises my estimation of them – slightly – very slightly. Congress will not act to correct the root problem (say, enacting very tough legislation to protect the borders) because, perhaps, they believe it to be politically inexpedient at the moment. But they are not above making an exception for these two agents – quite possible because, perhaps, it is politically expedient at the moment.