Talk:Ignacio Ramos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Complete disgrace

Why is this article full of "facts" whose only source is op-eds written on far-right websites? This article is a ridiculous anti-immigrant hit piece designed to support the Lou Dobbs position that Border Patrol agents should be allowed to perform street executions on immigrants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_P._Newton - notice the title "Accusation of Murder", and how "Voluntary Manslaughter" is in quotes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumia_Abu-Jamal#Murder.2C_arrest.2C_trial - Again, no definitive statement saying "he did it". There are, however a lot of Oliver Stone like machinations demonstrating how someone else might have done it.
Juxtapose those article's sympathetic leanings to the defendant with the first line of this article: "Ignacio "Nacho" Ramos is a former United States Border Patrol Agent, who shot an unarmed illegal alien and drug smuggler on the United States–Mexico border."
No mention in this article about the two Border agents assertion that Devila was armed? No mention of Devila escaping after the shooting (thereby making it unknown if he was armed)?
I was not aware that Lou Dobbs encouraged executing immigrants. Can you please cite a quote in reference to this? Ryratt 05:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced material

I have removed all unsourced, potentially libelous material from this article per WP:LIVING. If someone can provide reliable, third-party published souces per WP:V, please do so and revert. Thanks. --Satori Son 00:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Furthermore from the language and tone of the article it seems pretty clear that the intention of it is also to promote a point-of-view, thus as such I have put an NPOV template on the article. I was considering putting up the entire article for afd for what seems to be lacking in Wikipedia notability standards.--Jersey Devil 02:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to de-POV the stub and have removed the template.--Jersey Devil 02:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] shot and left for dead

Everything I've ever read about the case says that the drug smuggler jumped into a van and drove / was driven off. Is there a source for the "left for dead" statement? That statement also seems fairly poor language for an encyclopedia.

[edit] US DOJ fact sheet

I'm posting the U.S. Attorney's fact sheet which clears up the myths on this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.185.185 (talk • contribs) 17:01, January 22, 2007

Our role here is not really to "clear up myths", but I certainly don't object to linking to the relevant press releases page of the USDOJ. Some elements of them can probably be incorporated into the article, but obviously not entire sections like before. -- Satori Son 17:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


convicted of: assault with serious bodily injury; assault with a deadly weapon;

discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence; civil rights violation. four and two counts,

obstruction of justice. 

These are apparently the charges they were convicted of (rightly or wrongly).

Not as the first part of the article states : "

"Ignacio Ramos is a former United States Border Patrol Agent, convicted for pursuing an illegal immigrant and drug smuggler on the United States–Mexico border...."

One does not get convicted for "pursuing an illegal immigrant..." That is not what the two were convicted of. I recommend you be more precise in listing what they were convicted of. Furthermore, practically speaking, Congress cannot free these men, only the President can, or the Governor, for state violations. Congress can pass new laws and make them retroactive, but it is not likely that Congress will make the infractions they were convicted of, legal. The courts can overturn a conviction for procedural reasons, but that is not likely either. A Presidential pardon, which is possible, is the only practical way I see them being freed.Ovrd 00:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged Nickname

If a source cannot be cited attesting to the "Nacho" alleged nickname, it should be removed. Mere assertion is not sufficient. ➥the Epopt 02:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

His father-in-law calls him Nacho, as does the blog in support of him. Not sure if that's a good enough source though.[1]
The DHS/OIG report, coming straight from the government's mouth, notes that his alias is indeed Nacho. (Page 7, Page 57, etc.)[2] It is mentioned that his nickname is "Nacho" throughout the transcripts and official government documentation, as well as in sworn testimony by his codefendant. I am removing the "citation needed" blurb. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.185.185 (talk • contribs) 7 February 2007.

[edit] Trial report

DHS/Office of Inspector General just posted it online. Adding to external links.68.33.185.185 06:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this really properly classified as Biography?

Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean are inseparably and only notable for their prosection. Would it not be better to retitle the article "Border Patrol Agents Compean and Ramos" with redirects from each name, and remove the Biography tag? Andyvphil 10:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC) ...is "Texas Three" in wide use? Andyvphil 12:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've not heard "Texas Three" but I am starting to think that you are correct. That is to say, there should be an article about the incident, rather than biographies of these two. I will try to work on it later today. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removing shell casings

I removed the bit about Sutton saying the agents removed shell casings from the first paragraph after a cursory look at the cites. What it says Sutton says about that is not in his "Myths" press release. It can be put back in, perhaps, but needs more careful wording. As best I can tell from a cursory look, Compean fired 14 shots, picked up nine shells and threw them in the river, and solicited another agent (not Ramos) to do the same. The latter found five shells and threw them in the river. In its summary the DOHS ROI says the weapon Compean used was his pistol, but that might be an error. (Help me on this.) The fifteenth shot was from Ramos .40 cal Beretta pistol and is the one that hit. Does that weapon eject a casing? The main point is that there's no testimony that I noticed about Ramos doing anything with casings, and it's explicitly denied elsewhere. I'm not an expert on this case, but the sentence was was very badly written... Andyvphil 11:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] They did remove bullets

"An agent who encountered defendant Compean sometime later, away from the scene of the incident, testified that Compean told him, “That little bitch took me to the ground and threw dirt in my face.” Compean did not indicate that he felt threatened, that his life was in danger, or that the driver had a weapon at any time. Compean did show the agent nine shell casings that he had collected at the scene and indicated he was “probably missing five more casings.” Compean told the agent he had “fired some rounds...did a magazine exchange and fired some more rounds,” and asked the agent to look for the additional casings. The agent proceeded to the scene of the shooting, located the additional five casings, threw them into the drainage ditch and called defendant Compean, using his cellular telephone, to tell him he had found five rounds and threw them away. The removal of the shell casings from the scene made it impossible to do a complete" investigation of the shooting." www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/2006/ Sutton%20statement%20re%20compean%20and%20ramos%20conviction.pdf Nate Riley Shrooming —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.116.58 (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter anyway! They aren't in jail for over a decade because of the cover-up. They were prosecuted for illegally discharging a firearm. 14:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This Says Nothing

I know very very little about what this trial was about and decided to finally educate myself on it. I turned to wikipedia since the wikipedia summary on the Duke LAX case was pretty thorough and I figure that would be the case here. To my dismay, this entry says very little and after reading I still went away with the question, what was all the hoopla about?

[edit] More Fishy Things

Is it really fair that they're trying the men for "violating Davila's rights"?

  1. If he's Mexican, then he is not under the US Constitution, so the Fourth Amendment wouldn't apply to him in the first place.
   (Within the boundaries of the United States of America, all persons are subject to the Constitution. 
    Do you think if you are not a citizen, for example, that the police can grab you for no reason and 
    incarcerate you with no trial? Or kill you? C'mon. Laws protect everybody, that should be clear. Argue
    from a different premise, because this one is incorrect. United States history should be required
    reading for every gung ho patriot.]


  1. Also, Davila's own mother admitted that Davila ALWAYS carrys a gun, so I don't understand how the "unarmed" story even continues to fly.
  2. I've heard some compare Sutton to Nifong in terms of how he handles the details of cases.
  3. Shortly afterwards, Davila violated the terms of his immunity by running another drug load. Sutton and others made sure that the evidence presented was instantly dismissed so that Davilla's immunity wouldn't be stripped. And yet, Ramos is the one accused of obstructing justice?

I'm not sure where to even begin making this article reflect any of this. I guess we'll have to see how the case is meted out. --The Bulldozer 00:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The talk page is not a forum for general discussion of an article's subject. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP issues

The recent edits contain multiple living person issues. Such as calling Johnny Sutton corrupt. Please discuss the edits here prior to putting them back into the article. Work with smaller edits so it is easier to reach a consensus. Jons63 (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I reverted the article and quickly recieved a nasty note accusing me a being a racist. Please post changes to the article here. If consensus is reached, then they can be added and are less likely to be reverted. Also, please provide sources for any additions. I would be happy to work to include changes if they are NPOV and sourced. Cheers, --Tom 17:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)