• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mexico teen killed by US Border Patrol, anger high

If his life was actually in danger, and he didn't give up his attempted arrest in order to provide himself better coverage from the attacks, he would deserve to die.
So every time our lives are threatened instead of dealing with the threat accordingly we should just allow people to violate the law because they were willing to use lethal force.

Nice. Liberal ideology at its worst, I think im done here.


Would he be expected to keep holding the guy if they were bullets coming at him? I'd think that any rational and intelligent person would release teh guy and try to defend himself from a position of cover.
Depends on if he could quickly assess where the shot was coming from and take out the threat without having to run for cover first in order to do so.
If some sniper was shooting at him, sure.
 
Then you would deserve to be tried for murder.

Its ignorant liberal ideologies like this that put our Police Officers and Military personnel in a greater danger of being casualties than we need to be.
 
Rocks are considered deadly weapons when hurled as projectiles by most police districts. :prof

If I were hurling blunt objects at a suspect's head, It would be considered using lethal force.

Therefore, if a suspect does it, it shall also be considered lethal force.
 
Had he shot one of the one's that were on the US side of the border, I wouldn't have had a problem with it.

Honestly, do you think you would have been able to stop shooting at people who were throwing rocks at you, just because they crossed an imaginary line determining which country each is in? Even when that "line" also happens to be a river (although it definitely looked more like a small, dried up stream in that video). I do understand that many don't consider rocks a lethal weapon, eventhough they can be. And the case really isn't as clear cut as either side is making it sound. But it certainly isn't honest to expect every person to be able to automatically pause in their shooting, while trying to defend themselves and being outnumbered, just because the suspects crossed the border. Now, I will say, that if the rock throwing had stopped, then he should have stopped shooting, but I have no idea if the rock throwing had stopped from that video. I really don't know if the shooting will be ruled as justified or not, but I really think, with the given statements and evidence we have, that it should be.
 
So every time our lives are threatened instead of dealing with the threat accordingly we should just allow people to violate the law because they were willing to use lethal force.

Not even remotely close to what I said.

I actually said that if the arresting officer's life is actually in danger and he tries to continue the arrest instead of preserving his life, he would in fact deserve to die.

This is just darwinism. If somoene is so stupid that they try to do anything else but preserve their life, they dont deserve to live.

This means that trying to continue an arrest in teh face of mortal danger is so unbelievably stupid, somoene who does this deserves to die.

Not a very liberal attitude, if one actually wants to look at it rationally.

I said nothing about not using lethal force in the face of a real life danger. I'm using the fact that one can try to continue the arrest while shooting back a tthe perosn as proof that the danger he is in is not really life threatening. If it was, he'd be smart enough to give up on the arrest in order to preserve his life.

Nice. Liberal ideology at its worst, I think im done here.

If you are done here, it' snot because of liberal idieology, it's because you joined the "I'd rather make up **** instead of actually debate the poitns that are made" bandwagon.



Depends on if he could quickly assess where the shot was coming from and take out the threat without having to run for cover first in order to do so.
If some sniper was shooting at him, sure.

He should shoot back with one hand in a truly life threatening situation?!?!?

Anyone who does that deserves to die for the sake of the gene pool, IMO.
 
Not even remotely close to what I said.

I actually said that if the arresting officer's life is actually in danger and he tries to continue the arrest instead of preserving his life, he would in fact deserve to die.

This is just darwinism. If somoene is so stupid that they try to do anything else but preserve their life, they dont deserve to live.

This means that trying to continue an arrest in teh face of mortal danger is so unbelievably stupid, somoene who does this deserves to die.

Not a very liberal attitude, if one actually wants to look at it rationally.

I said nothing about not using lethal force in the face of a real life danger. I'm using the fact that one can try to continue the arrest while shooting back a tthe perosn as proof that the danger he is in is not really life threatening. If it was, he'd be smart enough to give up on the arrest in order to preserve his life.



If you are done here, it' snot because of liberal idieology, it's because you joined the "I'd rather make up **** instead of actually debate the poitns that are made" bandwagon.





He should shoot back with one hand in a truly life threatening situation?!?!?

Anyone who does that deserves to die for the sake of the gene pool, IMO.

Two hands, one hand...

If its a pistol, wtf is the difference?

Im just in a lowly city department and we train to shoot our firearms with one hand......
 
Its ignorant liberal ideologies like this that put our Police Officers and Military personnel in a greater danger of being casualties than we need to be.

Don't hand me your idiotic "ignorant liberal idealogies" rant as if it has some kind of partisan relevance to your defense of using lethal force against nonlethal resistance from across a border. I don't give a good goddamn if you are a cop or not...the fact that you are should leave you in a position of knowing better than to advocate lethal force used in this situation. This isn't about conservative or liberal. This is about excessive use of force against a civilian.
 
Honestly, do you think you would have been able to stop shooting at people who were throwing rocks at you, just because they crossed an imaginary line determining which country each is in?

I would never shoot at someone for throwing rocks at me from a distance of greater than 10 feet. If they had a slingshot, I'd shoot. But not for hand thrown rocks. I'd be more likely to catch one of the rocks and wing it back at them, as I have in the past when I was faced with such a situation in real life.


Even when that "line" also happens to be a river (although it definitely looked more like a small, dried up stream in that video). I do understand that many don't consider rocks a lethal weapon, eventhough they can be. And the case really isn't as clear cut as either side is making it sound. But it certainly isn't honest to expect every person to be able to automatically pause in their shooting, while trying to defend themselves and being outnumbered, just because the suspects crossed the border. Now, I will say, that if the rock throwing had stopped, then he should have stopped shooting, but I have no idea if the rock throwing had stopped from that video. I really don't know if the shooting will be ruled as justified or not, but I really think, with the given statements and evidence we have, that it should be.

I think the opposite so far. I don't see a valid reason to elevate teh situation to lethal force. If he had even tried to dodge a single rock, I might be convinced that lethal force was necessary. But calmly standng up while still holding the suspect he had in custody, even dragging him towards the border, tells me he never really felt his life was in danger. Just that he didn't want to be hit with rocks and wanted to get his arrest.
 
Two hands, one hand...

If its a pistol, wtf is the difference?

Im just in a lowly city department and we train to shoot our firearms with one hand......

Holding on to his suspect shows his life was never really in danger. If they train you to hold onto the suspect while defending yourself from legitimate life threatening situations, they should be shot.
 
Moderator's Warning:
We have a helpful feature on this forum, its called the "report" button. You use it when you feel like someone made a personal attack so that Mods, the people that determine if they did, can review it. That is the proper procedure. What is not the proper procedure is to continually and routinely attempt to act as if you're a mod and are in charge of the rules and make repeated accusation of rule violations in a thread. This is in and of itself a relatively minor bait that, when repeated, can become a rather major one. If you think a rule has been violated, report it. What you shouldn't do is try to play mod and continue to accuse people of rule violations you have no right to determine have occured.

This is the final warning, the level of civility in this needs to go drastically higher and the hositility drastically lower. It is possible to agree strongly with individuals on topics without resulting to flames
 
Last edited:
I'm more interested in US politics than Mexican politics. It's not my place to tell the Mexican government what I think they should be doing, it is my place to tell my own government how I think they should behave. :shrug:

Hey, I gotta suggestion. Telling "your" government how they should behave...

Instead of bullets, YOUR OWN government should supply, the BP with their own rocks, bricks, toilet handles, hammers, cue balls, etc... You know, just so, the BP won't have to resort to "lethal/deadly" force.

We could save lives and show some American PC worldwide
 
I think the important part of this story is the fact that the officer can shoot if he feels his life is in danger.

From the video I saw it looked as if the kid that got shot was far enough away to not be able to hit the officer with rocks if he was throwing them.

If the argument was that others were throwing rocks so it is ok to shoot a kid that was not throwing rocks, even though he had thrown rocks previously, that is wrong.

Refference has been made to a video showing guys throwing rocks at close range while an officer is trying to detain another. That video was from 2007 I beleive and does not pertain to this situation.

At the moment the officer pointed his gun and shot there were no rocks heading his way. He had another in his hand and then pointed the gun.

Yes an investigation needs to be done to see what really happened.
 
Hey, I gotta suggestion. Telling "your" government how they should behave...

Instead of bullets, YOUR OWN government should supply, the BP with their own rocks, bricks, toilet handles, hammers, cue balls, etc... You know, just so, the BP won't have to resort to "lethal/deadly" force.

We could save lives and show some American PC worldwide

Why on Earth should the government provide something that Nature has already provided within easy reach? :confused:
 
Well based on the video...

YouTube - Mexico Teen Shot on Tape

This officer was not in near enough danger to warrant live fire. If these border patrol agents want to fight back against teens throwing rocks, they need to be given a gun with rubber bullets or other less lethal weapons. Large rocks, or large amounts of rocks can kill. Yes of course. But this is not one of those situations where the officers life appeared to be threatened.

I know the border agents have a tough job and very often get a bad wrap. However, I just don't see justification in this incident. Make sure you aren't just backing the border patrol out of habit. There are times when people protecting this nation have gone too far, and it appears this is one of those times.

So for me, unless more information is revealed later, the border agent is at fault and should be held accountable for his actions.
 
Last edited:
No, it is a point of contention. You need to learn the difference if you are going to be at a debate site.

The point of contention is wrong then. You and Tucker have taken the position that if an Agent is being pelted with rocks, unless the perp is right in front of them, the Agent should do anything BUT use lethal force.

Fortunate for our Law Enforcement folks, they are guided by principles far more realistic then ya'lls. Policies that put their lives, above the lives of rock throwing criminals. Which I have demonstrated repeatedly that the actions of the Agent in question did not violate any laws, rules or regulations.

The FBI has clear video of the event, and chances are this will be determined as a clean shoot. The real danger here is if political considerations scape goat this guy.
 
The point of contention is wrong then. You and Tucker have taken the position that if an Agent is being pelted with rocks, unless the perp is right in front of them, the Agent should do anything BUT use lethal force.

False. Again, the above only proves that you are not really understanding the position that was taken.
 
False. Again, the above only proves that you are not really understanding the position that was taken.

Yawn, you said 10 feet away yeah shoot, but the kid was further away so..

blah blah blah here's tucker changing his stance again. It's called the Stance Dance.
 
The point of contention is wrong then. You and Tucker have taken the position that if an Agent is being pelted with rocks, unless the perp is right in front of them, the Agent should do anything BUT use lethal force.

Are you being obtuse on purpose, or are you really just failing at comprehending what they're saying?

Neither of them are saying that an agent being pelted with rocks should do anything BUT use lethal force unless the perp is right in front of them.

They are both saying that if the agent is being pelted with rocks by individuals on the other side of the border, and they would be able to disengage farther into the American side of the border to a point where the rock thrower could no longer present a danger unless they cross into American soil, that they should not use lethal force.
 
Back
Top Bottom