Monday, January 19, 2009

About bloody time, too.

Today we learn that President Bush has commuted the sentence of the two Border Patrol agents who were convicted of shooting a fleeing drug smuggler in the tush.

In my humble opinion, they should have received pardons, but I guess we'll take what we can get.

Their sentences will now be served on March 20 of 2009 -- two years behind bars.

About sodding time, I say.

LawDog

17 comments:

A Texan said...

No pardon, and he STILL makes them serve 2 more months in prison?

Damn, at least let them out NOW!

The only reason I'm not ecstatic to see Bush leave is his replacement, and the replacement's minions.

Bill said...

I agree on the pardons for them.

RoaVaPD said...

Should have been a pardon. Should have happened years ago. Should have fired the US Attorney for turning a blind eye, multiple times, to a drug smuggler to prosecute a witch hunt for cops.

I'm glad they're getting out but I'm very disappointed how the administration handled the whole thing.

Sabra said...

Better than nothing. That was my initial thought on it, and my current one as well.

D.W. Drang said...

Too little, too late, and, I agree, better than nothing.

WV: "cessolio". Lubrication for the sewage pond?

bogie said...

Does anyone who reads this have a need to hire two security folks? These guys are going to need jobs - could we start some sort of internet thing?

Anonymous said...

Yeah, agree with bogie...I say these two guys are American Heroes and I want them to have something better to look forward to than the "working at the car wash blues". (Apologies to Jim Croce.)

Old Squid.

Captcha: subioni. Italian pasta or Japanese car? ;)

joelr said...

Absolutely; if cops can't get away with covering up a shooting, then who can?

Sheesh.

Anonymous said...

Two years and a bad rep, plus being unhireable is a pardon? Excuse me.
LawMom

Anonymous said...

OOps. Two months. Might as well be life, under the circumstances, dammit.
LawMom

joelr said...

It's not a pardon; it's a commutation. Two months from now, they'll be out of prison as convicted, violent federal felons, but will retain their intimate knowledge of the weaknesses in both border security and the Border Patrol generally; their connections with Mexican drug criminals, and their understandable desire to make good livings to support themselves and their families, without the ability to do so with either a badge or a gun in their possession . . .

. . . it's not impossible that they may connect some dots.

dave said...

Sorry, 'Dog, but I have to go with Peter and Marko on this one. Lying about the shooting and tampering with evidence is a crime, and ought to be doubly punished when the criminal is an agent of the State.

Simeron Steelhammer said...

Well, as I posted over at Peter's blog, I've talked with the prosecutor about this thing.

They were guilty, plain and simple. They tried to cover up the situation on top of it too.

Now, this being said, even the prosecutor thought the sentences were too long. But, there were mandatory minimums and as the man put it to me...

"The sentence is not what I have to focus on. My job is to make sure someone that is guilty of a crime is found guilty. The sentencing is up to the judge."

I think Former President Bush was right to commute the sentences. And I could see how folks might want it to be "now" rather then later but, I figure there are reasons it won't be until March.

At least it gives them a bit of time to try to prepare for life back among the free.

doug in colorado said...

I understnd from other blogs that commutation does not imply guilt and therefor allows them to continue to appeal for an exoneration at a higher court. A pardon says, You were guilty, case closed, go home.
Any real lawyers out there can correct me if I'm wrong.

Anonymous said...

Doug is right on this one. The lawyers for the two officers asked for this instead of a pardon because they are still trying to get the whole case overturned. Bush did exactly as he was asked, so no bad reflection on him.

Brass

Anonymous said...

so you are aying its out for a cop(s) to shoot someone in the back against policy in some manner (been so long ago forget why they did the cover up) THEN go about attempting to cover it up?

DO agree the sentencing was excessive.

tomcatshanger said...

I can't agree with this.

Sorry, but they got the extra time because it was a "gun crime".

Bad laws will stay on the books as long as they are not universally enforced.