Reply #2: A few facts of the case:

[ret5hd]

http://www.elpasotimes.com/breakingnews/ci_5031310

(If they are such brave defenders of the fatherland, why did they try to hide what they did? Why didn't they repot the incident?)

<snip>
Ramos and Compean were convicted by a jury of violating the civil rights of a drug smuggler they shot in the buttocks in 2005 near Fabens as the man was fleeing to Mexico. They were also convicted of tampering with evidence for not reporting the shooting and for picking up shell casings. The trial lasted more than two and a half weeks.
</snip>

(If they were shot at, why didn't they say so, instead of claiming they "saw" a gun?)

<snip>
Supporters of the agents say the government should not have offered the drug smuggler immunity in exchange for his testimony and should have believed the agents when they said they saw a gun in the drug smuggler's hands.
</snip>

(Apparently, U.S. attorneys are calling these guys LIARS!)

<snip>
The U.S. Attorney's office sent a release today meant to debunk myths they said are circulating around the case, such as "The agents were just doing their jobs."

"An agent is not permitted to shoot an unarmed suspect who is running away," the release says. "There was no credible evidence that the agents were in a life-threatening situation or that (the smuggler) had a weapon that would justify the use of deadly force. In fact, Border Patrol Agent (Oscar) Juárez, who was at the scene, testified at trial that he did not draw his pistol because he did not believe there was a threat. He also testified that Aldrete did not have a weapon and was almost to Mexico when Agent Compean began firing at him."

The U.S. Attorney's Office also addressed the criticism that the government let the drug smuggler go free.

"Because the agents could not identify him, found no fingerprints, could not tie him to the van (full of marijuana) and did not apprehend him after shooting him, the case against (the smuggler) could not be proven," the release said.
</snip>