By Joseph Farah
© 2007
"Over the years, I've noticed a schism develop between many law enforcement people and ordinary "civilians" – you know, the poor schlemiels who pay their taxes, empower the high mighty and employ the cops. This division takes many shapes and forms, but nowhere is it more obvious than on the issue of firearms. Many police officers have come to believe guns are only safe in their hands – that they cannot be entrusted into the custody of untrained, unqualified citizens. Obviously, this is a non-starter from a constitutional, freedom-oriented perspective. But there's a practical new reason for cops to begin rethinking where this anti-gun hysteria is leading our country." STOPPING THE MUSIC TIME Since police have had a big part in creating the anti-gun hysteria how in all hells is one supposed to align oneself with the enemy? So we all can be on the same page that reads CIVILIANS SHOULD NEVER CARRY GUNS? Like the cops think? Anyway, there's more, some of which you may very well happen to agree with: "I don't know how many of us thought to question passage of law 18 U.S. Code section 924(c)(1)(a), which calls for a mandatory 10-year sentence for using or carrying a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence. Off hand, it sounds pretty good. Who could argue with a law that says, "Hey, if you commit a violence crime with a gun, you go to jail for at least 10 years"? I could live with that. It sounds just. I like to see bad guys put away for a long time. Anyone who commits a crime of violence and has a gun on them is probably a very bad actor. But, recently, much to the shock of some law enforcement people, this law has been used not against bad guys – but against cops! That's exactly what happened in the case of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, the two Border Patrol agents now serving sentence of 11 and 12 years respectively for their actions on the job in pursuit of a drug-smuggling illegal alien. The heavyweight sentence wasn't so much for their alleged misbehavior in discharging their weapons at a fleeing suspect or for allegedly covering it up later. The hard time was for being convicted of a violation of 924(c)(1)(a) – carrying or using a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence. That's kind of a "Catch 22" for law enforcement officers convicted rightly or wrongly of a crime of violence since they are required to carry firearms as part of their job. Whenever government acts, with good intentions or evil, there are always unintended consequences. And in this upside-down, black-is-white, good-is-evil, left-is-right, right-is-wrong world in which we live, those unintended consequences are often downright scary – especially when lawyers get involved, which is, pretty much, always. This aspect of the Ramos and Compean case is perhaps the most controversial part of the prosecution by the U.S. Justice Department, which, let's face it, completely out of control under the Bush administration. U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, a friend of W, is making the rounds defending every aspect of his case against Ramos and Compean. He's got an answer for every question. The only problem is that when he's finished answering the questions and demeaning the character of these two agents in every way imaginable, his official actions still reek of rank injustice." So let's get this straight then, shall we? Cops should be immune from punishment for committing crimes with guns but we shouldn't. Yeah. They'd LOVE that sort of alliance. They diss US every chance they get but WE go to bat for them when the chips are down. An alliance with the enemy really sounds like something a wackjob liberal would propose. The Constitution is clear on who's the boss, and I for one am not in the mood to go begging for whats rightfully mine to begin with.
Former U.S. Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos embraced his wife, Monica Ramos, two days before he was sentenced to 11 years in prison (Courtesy El Paso Times)
Agent Jose Alonso Compean (Courtesy: KFOX-TV)
No comments:
Post a Comment