• 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

Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...




actually, if their job is to patrol the border and prevent and intercept illegal entry, retreating away from the crossing would be dereliction of duty, no?



Look at it this way... If simple rocks could make the border patrol retreat, it would be even easier to cross this border, no?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
actually, if their job is to patrol the border and prevent and intercept illegal entry, retreating away from the crossing would be dereliction of duty, no?

Look at it this way... If simple rocks could make the border patrol retreat, it would be even easier to cross this border, no?
Click to expand...

Where in the world did I in any way agree with or disagree with Tucker and Jail's assertions? You're making an argument against something I never intimated or said. You know what they call that Reverend, you declare other people using said tactic often so I know you know.

There are many ways to disagree with what Tucker and Jallman are stating. However if one is incapable of not continually and repeatedly misrepresenting and mistating what it is they believe and can not properly articulate the fact that they actually grasp what it is they're arguing then ones argumenst against it are meaningless.

If I say "The Sky is Purple" then it'd be pretty easy to prove me wrong. However if your endevour to prove me wrong is predicated over the notion that you believe I'm declaring the sky is green and thus are proving that the sky really ISN'T green you're not really putting forth an argument worth considering because you're not even grasping what I said initially well enough to even properly counter it.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
actually, if their job is to patrol the border and prevent and intercept illegal entry, retreating away from the crossing would be dereliction of duty, no?



Look at it this way... If simple rocks could make the border patrol retreat, it would be even easier to cross this border, no?
Click to expand...

No one is saying to tuck tail and run. All that is being said is that in the event simple rocks are being thrown, back up to a safe distance and hold fire until they cross the border. Then do whatever you like, within our own laws.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
actually, if their job is to patrol the border and prevent and intercept illegal entry, retreating away from the crossing would be dereliction of duty, no?

Look at it this way... If simple rocks could make the border patrol retreat, it would be even easier to cross this border, no?
Click to expand...

Now, that said, I shouldn't be speaking for them...but I'll do so simply to illustrate that it is actually possible to grasp their argument even if one doesn't agree with them.

I would imagine that the argument would be that if throwing rocks at them causes border patrol officers to retreat that it wouldn't make it any easier to illegal cross the border in any effective way. By that I mean any way that would actually make a difference, as once they cross the border if they have any intention of coming outside of rock range then they could easily be nabbed and thus it really doesn't matter. Additionally, as evident by them both saying repeatly they don't care about the shot if they were on U.S. soil, if said rock throwers tried to expand upon this strategy onto U.S. soil then they'd be in favor of them being shot.

So yes, it'd make it easier in theory to "cross the border" but ultimately have no real affect since it would have little impact on their ability to get significantly farther into the border or stay within the border.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
actually, if their job is to patrol the border and prevent and intercept illegal entry, retreating away from the crossing would be dereliction of duty, no?
Click to expand...

Not the way I've presented this argument here and in the other thread.

The range necessary to avoid danger from a thrown rock isn't all that great. One can simply pull back far enough that in order to continue throwing rocks with any chance of sucess, the person has to cross the border. Once they do cross the border and try to throw a rock, they can be blown away to th eBorder Agent's heart's content.

Look at it this way... If simple rocks could make the border patrol retreat, it would be even easier to cross this border, no?
Click to expand...

Not if the "retreat" is done intelligently. It's actualy just falling back to get into a better defensive position.

If the rock throwers are on their side of the border, there's no problem. That's where they are supposed to be. Let them throw rocks ineffectively if they wish. Like a small child crying, they'll tire themselves out eventually.

Or they'll actually cross the border and get arrested or killed for it.
 
Last edited:
MCS117 said:
People were shot for much less.... But then again.... The border patrol should have used warning shots first before he actually engaged.....
Click to expand...

I said that somewhere on page 3 or 4. No go with the "we should kill all border crossers" hardliners.

Some Americans answer to everything. Just kill a bunch of people and it'll solve the problem...
 
MCS117 said:
People were shot for much less.... But then again.... The border patrol should have used warning shots first before he actually engaged.....
Click to expand...

The problem with that is the BP doesn't allow warning shots to be fired.

Why the BP removes this ability form their agents, I do not know. Seems like a silly ban and it adds to the danger their agents face, IMO
 
MCS117 said:
People were shot for much less.... But then again.... The border patrol should have used warning shots first before he actually engaged.....
Click to expand...

No, he shouldn't have. Warning shots are forbidden and would likely have gotten the border patrol into trouble. Additionally if he had enough ability to fire of a warning shot then he'd have enough ability to properly retreat, thus rendoring the notion of shooting to kill completely uncalled for. You fire your weapon if, and only if, you feel shooting to kill is required because your life or the life of someone you're charged to protect is at stake. If you're firing not to kill then you shouldn't be firing at all.
 
Jetboogieman said:
I said that somewhere on page 3 or 4. No go with the "we should kill all border crossers" hardliners.

Some Americans answer to everything. Just kill a bunch of people and it'll solve the problem...
Click to expand...

It seems others are having a hard time with reading comprehension.

Please provide names of those "we should kill all who cross the boarder" hardliners and quotes to back up that is their stance.

From what I remember you were turned down by those "Border Agents should follow the regulations of the job" hardliners.
 
Zyphlin said:
No, he shouldn't have. Warning shots are forbidden and would likely have gotten the border patrol into trouble. Additionally if he had enough ability to fire of a warning shot then he'd have enough ability to properly retreat, thus rendoring the notion of shooting to kill completely uncalled for. You fire your weapon if, and only if, you feel shooting to kill is required because your life or the life of someone you're charged to protect is at stake. If you're firing not to kill then you shouldn't be firing at all.
Click to expand...

That's a good argument in favor of the BP's ban on warning shots.
 
Zyphlin said:
No, he shouldn't have. Warning shots are forbidden and would likely have gotten the border patrol into trouble. Additionally if he had enough ability to fire of a warning shot then he'd have enough ability to properly retreat, thus rendoring the notion of shooting to kill completely uncalled for. You fire your weapon if, and only if, you feel shooting to kill is required because your life or the life of someone you're charged to protect is at stake. If you're firing not to kill then you shouldn't be firing at all.
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that certain criteria have to be met before "shoot to kill" orders are in effect.
 
jallman said:
It's my understanding that certain criteria have to be met before "shoot to kill" orders are in effect.
Click to expand...

I believe that to be true. With that said to my understanding there is no in between. Its either "Don't shoot" or "Shoot to kill". From what I'm able to gather there is not "shoot to wound" or "Shoot to warn" or "shoot to maybe kill" in between as some in this thread and others have seemed to indicated should've been the prefered method.

You either don't shoot or you aim center mass and shoot to kill. When it comes to discharging ones firearm to my understanding there is no grey area.
 
Tucker Case said:
That's a good argument in favor of the BP's ban on warning shots.
Click to expand...

Why don’t the police fire “warning shots” and give suspects the chance to throw down their weapons?

The national standard among police agencies is not to fire warning shots. The Seattle Police Department complies with that standard. The carefully scripted plots of movies and television programs frequently involve armed suspects who appear easily persuaded to relinquish their weapons and surrender to police officers. Unfortunately, many of the people that police officers confront are not nearly so compliant. Some may be incapable of making a rational decision to surrender, because of a mental state or chemically induced condition. Others may have so strong a motivation to flee or fight that they will not consider complying with officers’ orders to stop. As noted above, officers may only have one chance to use their weapons. Making (likely to be ineffective) shots in the air that have the added potential of harming others may not be the best use of that one opportunity.
Click to expand...
Seattle Police > Publications
I'm looking for police links to refute this notion of Warning Shots' being a viable option, they are not.
 
MrVicchio said:
Seattle Police > Publications
I'm looking for police links to refute this notion of Warning Shots' being a viable option, they are not.
Click to expand...

My post basically said that Zyph's explanation of why they are not a viable option was a good one, IMO.

Because of that explanation, I must say my previous statements in post 284 about the ban seeming silly and dangerous" were poorly thought out. His explanation proves that comment wrong. The ban on warning shots is not silly and dangerous.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
My post said that Zyph's explanation of why they are not a viable option was a good one.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to back it up with facts that's all. This was me trying to help you. There was that post about trying to raise civility....
 
Its especially bad for actual cops. With the border at least you likely have long stretches of land that are not heavily populated and are unquestionably solid.

Warning shots in cities are horrible. Inside a building? Do you know if there are people above, below, or to the side of you where you're shooting that bullet? If you're outside and you fire it up are you sure its not going to arc into a building or even come back down in such an arc as to harm someone else? If you fire it into the ground are you comfortable that there will not be any kind of riccochet with concrete or if it hits onto something metal?

I never get upset with people that call for it at first, because movies/TV/books condition us to think of it as relatively normal and routine and seems reasonable to a logical thinker whose viewing it only in the immediete scope. However my annoyance flares up with people who repeatly continue to push the notion even after showing the numerous reasons why it'd likely be more counter productive than anything else.

In the past few posts we've seen an example of the former and the latter with two seperate posters.
 
Tucker Case said:
Gotcha, I misunderstood.

Sorry. :3oops:
Click to expand...

My wording sucked, Fighting a MC and a PC version of WCIII so I can whup B's but in a match. He seems to think he's good or something. Time to humble the young prodigy.
 
Tucker Case said:
I really failed to understand all that. :lol: :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Just be glad he wasn't distracted because he was a "5k GS DPS LFG 4 TOGC 10/25 atleast to FC, pst am gtg"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom