Arizona bill 1070

[Moonlit_Angel]

I got confused by that for a moment, too .

Anyway, I'm all for an investigation, if for no other reason than to get the exact facts surrounding what happened there. I do agree that if you're getting pelted with rocks regardless of the situation, you don't automatically need to pull out your massive guns and start shooting away. Maybe call in someone to help calm the people throwing rocks down ('cause they shouldn't do that, either, as rocks can hurt people), and if they don't calm down, then go through whatever the next step is. That shooting likely is only going to make things worse.

Angela

[BVS]

Originally Posted by bigjohn2441

you dont think getting hit in the head with a rock could be deadly? Im not BP, but i sometimes patrol the island and if i had a bunch of people chucking rocks at me, you bet your ass id more than likely be shooting back.

Wear a helmet. I'm pretty sure most 15 year olds would run after a warning shot. If you can't outrun or shield yourself from a rock maybe you need to change careers.

Originally Posted by bigjohn2441

and technically no, policy says you shouldnt shoot into mexico, even if you're being shot at.

I'm well aware of policy, but I believe if an investigation found that you were fired upon first they would hopefully find it justifiable.

[bigjohn2441]

Originally Posted by BVS

Wear a helmet. I'm pretty sure most 15 year olds would run after a warning shot. If you can't outrun or shield yourself from a rock maybe you need to change careers.

first, we arent issued helmets, and i doubt most BP agents would want to wear a helmet out in the middle of the desert. Second, i wasnt just talking only about the 15 yo, ive seen and read of numerous rock throwing incidents at the border, most of which end badly for the agents and some end worse for the throwers. And third, that's a helluva judgement to make that i need to change my career because of how i would act in a situation where my life is at stake. Rocks could kill or cause serious bodily harm especially with multiple attackers which most of these situations are, and deadly force IS justified. And the fact that agents should "run away" from such an attack is ridiculous to me.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by bigjohn2441

first, we arent issued helmets, and i doubt most BP agents would want to wear a helmet out in the middle of the desert. Second, i wasnt just talking only about the 15 yo, ive seen and read of numerous rock throwing incidents at the border, most of which end badly for the agents and some end worse for the throwers. And third, that's a helluva judgement to make that i need to change my career because of how i would act in a situation where my life is at stake. Rocks could kill or cause serious bodily harm especially with multiple attackers which most of these situations are, and deadly force IS justified. And the fact that agents should "run away" from such an attack is ridiculous to me.

You find running from a rock ridiculous? Not manly enough? Saving a fifteen year old's life not worth it?

Soldiers wear helmets in the desert.

How many have died from these rock attacks?

[bigjohn2441]

Originally Posted by BVS

You find running from a rock ridiculous? Not manly enough? Saving a fifteen year old's life not worth it?

Soldiers wear helmets in the desert.

How many have died from these rock attacks?

sure you can try to dodge the rocks, as long as there arent a bunch of people throwing them. but im not going to stand there and dodge rocks all day while shaking my fist at them in between throws. yeah i do find "running away" from a situation like that ridiculous. so im on patrol and a group of people start hurling rocks at me im just supposed to run away? what if they chase me? what if there is nothing to hide behind? what if backup is 20 minutes away? what if the rock hits me in the head and knocks me out and they come and take my gun and shoot me or someone else? am i really supposed to take those chances in a potentially deadly situation? and do you really want the people protecting the country to "run away" from a situation instead of dealing with it.

as for the 15 y/o aspect of it, that kid wasnt the most law-abiding person ever, to say the least. a 15 y/o could kill you just as easily as a 25 y/o, rock or otherwise.

as for the helmets, maybe you should write your congressman so they will issue them to us

i dont know how many. all i know is you try throwing rocks at mexico's federales and they'll put so many holes in you they wouldnt be able to count them all. and they wouldnt even think about it. people bitch about how the US law enforcement treats people when if you look at some other countries, we are one of the most generous. i never hear any outcry over that.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by bigjohn2441

sure you can try to dodge the rocks, as long as there arent a bunch of people throwing them. but im not going to stand there and dodge rocks all day while shaking my fist at them in between throws. yeah i do find "running away" from a situation like that ridiculous. so im on patrol and a group of people start hurling rocks at me im just supposed to run away? what if they chase me? what if there is nothing to hide behind? what if backup is 20 minutes away? what if the rock hits me in the head and knocks me out and they come and take my gun and shoot me or someone else? am i really supposed to take those chances in a potentially deadly situation? and do you really want the people protecting the country to "run away" from a situation instead of dealing with it.

And what if you dodged the first one and fired a warning shot and it stopped?

If by dealing with it you mean killing people, then no. My whole point is that there had to be a better way to deal with the situation. A kill shot should be the very last response.

Originally Posted by bigjohn2441

as for the 15 y/o aspect of it, that kid wasnt the most law-abiding person ever, to say the least. a 15 y/o could kill you just as easily as a 25 y/o, rock or otherwise.

I don't care if he was "law abiding" or not, it was not the right response.

Originally Posted by bigjohn2441

i dont know how many. all i know is you try throwing rocks at mexico's federales and they'll put so many holes in you they wouldnt be able to count them all. and they wouldnt even think about it. people bitch about how the US law enforcement treats people when if you look at some other countries, we are one of the most generous. i never hear any outcry over that.

I hate this argument, people use this to justify torture all the time, it's an elementary school line of defense.

[bigjohn2441]

Originally Posted by BVS

And what if you dodged the first one and fired a warning shot and it stopped?

this isnt tv, we dont fire warning shots, policy doesnt allow it. you only fire your weapon at something you intend to shoot. the only people authorized to use warning shots are marine interdiction agents. they are allowed to fire warning shots before they shoot the motor of a boat during a chase.

what if the 1st one hits me in the temple? what if it doesnt stop? are you willing to play the what if game when you life is potentially at stake?

what would you have done then? you are out in the middle of the desert doing a foot patrol, maybe alone, and you come across a group and they start throwing rocks at you. you cant tell how old they are, who they are, or what their intentions are. you cant fire warning shots, backup is 20 minutes away, and your vehicle is 100 yards away. what do you do?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by bigjohn2441

we dont fire warning shots, policy doesnt allow it. you only fire your weapon at something you intend to shoot. the only people authorized to use warning shots are marine interdiction agents. they are allowed to fire warning shots before they shoot the motor of a boat during a chase.

what if the 1st one hits me in the temple? what if it doesnt stop? are you willing to play the what if game when you life is potentially at stake?

So policy says to kill anyone who throws something at you?

We can play the "what if" game all day long, it comes down to assesment and from the small amount of information we have I think he assessed the situation wrong. Why if there was a group throwing rocks was just one 15 year old killed? Did he miss the others?

[bigjohn2441]

Originally Posted by BVS

So policy says to kill anyone who throws something at you?

We can play the "what if" game all day long, it comes down to assesment and from the small amount of information we have I think he assessed the situation wrong. Why if there was a group throwing rocks was just one 15 year old killed? Did he miss the others?

well not just anything. if someone threw a cup or shot a rubber band at me i probably wouldnt shoot them. dont you agree that rocks, escpecially thrown by a group, could cause serious bodily harm or death? if so then deadly force is justified. obviously if there were 3 agents and 1 teenager throwing, i doubt you would need to blow him away. but an agent by himself, or even 2, being pelted with rocks from a group?

i find it hard to believe that it was 1 lone 15 y/o in the middle of the desert throwing the rocks. it had to be a group. i bet once the kid was shot the others shit their pants and ran their asses off, and the agents obviously arent going to shoot someone running away.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by bigjohn2441

i bet once the kid was shot the others shit their pants and ran their asses off, and the agents obviously arent going to shoot someone running away.

Yep, too bad a warning shot wasn't policy, someone would still be alive today.

[bigjohn2441]

Originally Posted by BVS

Yep, too bad a warning shot wasn't policy, someone would still be alive today.

well bullets kinda travel fast and far, so firing warning shots in the air, especially in an urban setting, might not be the best idea. even in the desert the bullets could travel far and hit who knows what.

again, write your congressman

[U2387]

Originally Posted by bigjohn2441

well bullets kinda travel fast and far, so firing warning shots in the air, especially in an urban setting, might not be the best idea. even in the desert the bullets could travel far and hit who knows what.

again, write your congressman

Right.

Urban area=shitload of people=bad idea.

Desert=travel far with nothing to obstruct it but the next innocent bystander=bad idea.

1070 I am so sick of the entire debate by this point.

It really does not change existing policy in any significant way- it neither allows mass round ups of people who look illegal nor gives the police/other LE agencies any new power or tools.

The claims of both sides are BS being thrown into the air to distract and get votes in an election year. Not solve the problem, thats for damn sure.

BVS, do you know when to drop anything? I usually agree with you, but come on! You're not out there getting rocks thrown at you, why nitpick the guy who is actually experiencing it?

Certainly no need to equate it to torture defenses, its apples and oranges. No one who tortured people during the Bush years was confronting a live, active threat, they were abusing for the sake of abuse or under the false assumptions that it would provide valuable information.

The Border Patrol are not out there to kill as many people as possible, and you can be damn sure they regret ever having to fire their guns, much less kill someone. BigJohn strikes me as the kind of guy who wants to do his job and get the minimal amount of people hurt or placed in any danger whatsoever as possible.

If you can't see how rocks flying at you could possibly be deadly and certainly justify a response, then I just don't understand that line of reasoning at all.

Are they supposed to start hurling the rocks back like its school recess for reform school kids? (Its not a fight, the BP is there to END the situation)

Are they supposed to run?

The kids have to be pretty stupid to not back off when guys with guns who are trained to use them start reaching for them while simultaneously pleading with them to stop.

As for the Holder investigation, the Glenn Becks of the world will no doubt spin it as "Obama now going after the Border Patrol for doing their jobs, worst President ever, treason, etc."

The reality? There would be an investigation after any law enforcement shooting that resulted in an injury or death. That goes for local, state and federal agencies.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by U2387

BVS, do you know when to drop anything? I usually agree with you, but come on! You're not out there getting rocks thrown at you, why nitpick the guy who is actually experiencing it?

A 15 year old boy lost his life due to a rock, if you want to call it nitpicking then go right ahead.

[BVS]

Arizona: GOP Bill May Target Illegal Immigrants' Kids - TIME

[deep]

Anchor babies isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots — the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. — for their next move.

they should quit while they are ahead




why does being born here grant automatic citizenship,
perhaps we should all have to earn it, or periodically qualify for citizenship

[U2387]

Originally Posted by BVS

A 15 year old boy lost his life due to a rock, if you want to call it nitpicking then go right ahead.

Lack of context.

Multiple rocks, thrown by multiple people, there was a threat, so they acted to stop it.

Nowhere has anyone suggested that the loss of life was anything but tragic.

Perhaps the kid should not have been throwing rocks, he had that power in his hands to avoid the entire situation.

Again, regret for the loss of life is present all around, but how stupid must the kid be to start throwing rocks at guys with guns???

The nitpicking, I was referring to all of the assumptions you were making about how the BP's job should be done, what challenges they face, how they should have responded, etc.

All I know is if I was getting rocks hurled at me, I would view it as a major threat. One to the temple, and you could be killed instantly. You say "dead because of a rock" like the kid was playfully throwing a bean bag or some sand.

The BP responded, as well they should have.

It should have been clear that I was not calling the death of a 15 year old nitpicking.

Again, I am pretty sure the last thing BP wanted to do was kill the kid.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by U2387

The nitpicking, I was referring to all of the assumptions you were making about how the BP's job should be done, what challenges they face, how they should have responded, etc.

All I know is if I was getting rocks hurled at me, I would view it as a major threat. One to the temple, and you could be killed instantly. You say "dead because of a rock" like the kid was playfully throwing a bean bag or some sand.

We don't know the size of or how these rocks were beging thrown. So let's not pretend one of has all the details and one doesn't. Of course they shouldn't have been throwing them, but my whole point is that the policy should be revisited if this is something common, a kill shot does not not seem like a reasonable response for someone throwing a rock. I have family in law enforcement, it's a hard job, and restraint is part of the job.

[bigjohn2441]

Right, like they're gonna have the time to go "well gee, that rock was just a pebble, let's wait and see the size of the next one. Oh shit! That one was a little bigger, i wonder had that hit me in the head would it have killed me? DUCK!!!!! Oh, that one was only the size of a golfball......"

[martha]

Originally Posted by deep

perhaps we should all have to earn it, or periodically qualify for citizenship

Be careful what you wish for.

[martha]

the potential "anchor baby" bill blocks the next generation from ever being able to obtain it.

How far back are they going to go?