• 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

Your Star said:
You say that now...
Click to expand...
Because it's true. Why the hell would you A: enter Mexico illegally? and B: throw rocks at Mexican Cops?

I like the veiled attempt to call me a racist. What, too cowardly to just come out and say you think I'm a racist?
 
I'm disappointed that ANYONE had to die for something that, at least at first, would not require lethal use of force. And if incidents like this happen repeatedly, as they've started to, then maybe the bike patrols should be given some non-lethal projectiles to carry if they don't already.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Bollocks to Mr. V and Cole, you'd be all over that **** and you know it, Probably be calling for the invasion of Mexico. Or at the very least bombing it...
Click to expand...


Not sure what "bullocks" means. (but i assume it was an insult....;) )

Facing off with cops throwing rocks at them is not acceptable. There are ramifications for our actions.

Some things in life are not complex....



.
 
MrVicchio said:
Because it's true. Why the hell would you A: enter Mexico illegally? and B: throw rocks at Mexican Cops?

I like the veiled attempt to call me a racist. What, too cowardly to just come out and say you think I'm a racist?
Click to expand...

Thats basement talk, I've been here for a month and already know that. Not going to bait me into saying that upstairs.
 
Your Star said:
Thats basement talk, I've been here for a month and already know that. Not going to bait me into saying that upstairs.
Click to expand...

No YOU are implying that my attitude is sheerly because the kid was Mexican. You are playing a passive aggressive game trying to paint me as "just a racist" because you have no counter to my comments. You said they should have used "less then lethal force" and I tore that apart, several times. You are left with nothing, so you pull that crap to try and discredit me because you have so far failed to make an argument that stands up to scrutiny.
 
MrVicchio said:
No, they acted professionally. Professionals don't fire warning shots.
Click to expand...

Please clarify, because it seems to me that if an officer fires a warning shot, he's showing at least a modicum of awareness that there's something else to be done prior to pointing the gun at a teenager and firing, and facing all the legal ramifications/investigations that come as a result of it.

Edit: I now see your above source. However, just out of curiosity, how would that document (and also, you) define "warning shots"?
 
Last edited:
sparks said:
Please clarify, because it seems to me that if an officer fires a warning shot, he's showing at least a modicum of awareness that there's something else to be done prior to pointing the gun at a teenager and firing, and facing all the legal ramifications/investigations that come as a result of it.
Click to expand...
7) USE OF FIREARMS - Immigration cannot use their weapons unless they believe that a person is going to kill or seriously hurt them or some other person. "Warning shots" are expressly prohibited.
Click to expand...
Untitled Document

Warning shots are for Hollywood, and only Hollywood.

Warning Shots - Introduction:

Warning shots are routinely banned by most law enforcement agencies for several reasons: the agencies may not trust their officers to make such a risky decision; the agencies are not willing to risk the intense (and costly) scrutiny of a negative outcome - when a warning shot impacts on a person(1); or, when one officer's firing of a warning shot leads other officers to believe that the suspect has fired a shot.(2) Finally, it may be that warning shots do not always work.(3) However, there are situations where warning shots would not only be appropriate, but also be an effective technique to prevent the necessity of the application of additional force. For example, warning shots have been proven effective in the stopping fleeing suspects(4). A warning shot could also be fired to get the attention of a crowd which is turning violent when no other means of communication may work. A warning shot could stop an armed aggressor who is moving in the direction of another person.

When a warning shot goes awry and hits a person(5) there is no acceptable excuse. Even if the shot is not construed as a Constitutional wrong(6), the shooting will be minimally considered as negligence on the part of the officer. "Any reasonable person would realize that firing a gun in someone's direction at close range [firing a warning shot] raises the likelihood that the person [within] the target [zone] may be hit by the bullet."(7) Where [a] police chief stated that he only intended to fire a warning shot, and the shot impacted on the suspect, the court said "There is no dispute ... over the fact that [the police chief] intentionally discharged his weapon in [the suspect's] direction and that the harm to [the suspect] was foreseeable. As the intent to fire is the only fact significant to the legal determination of whether [the police chief's] act was intentional."(8)
Click to expand...
The Pros & Cons of Warning Shots and Signal Shots
 
Jetboogieman said:
Well clearly it's in the book. It says shoot to kill if someone throws rocks. Discussion over.
Click to expand...

It says no warning shots. And if you shoot, you shoot to kill... WAIT!!! That's what I've been saying since the beginning. Oh snap, it's hard to be humble when you are as right as I am.
 
MrVicchio said:
No YOU are implying that my attitude is sheerly because the kid was Mexican. You are playing a passive aggressive game trying to paint me as "just a racist" because you have no counter to my comments. You said they should have used "less then lethal force" and I tore that apart, several times. You are left with nothing, so you pull that crap to try and discredit me because you have so far failed to make an argument that stands up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...

I didn't bring up that example, but here's my example. A 15 year old kid from Minnesota throws rocks at the police, would you advocate lethally shooting that kid? They should have used less than lethal force, and if they didn't have any less than lethal weapons on them(which they should have) they should have fired warning shots. Also you are exaggerating the lethality of throwing rocks in this situation. They weren't being stoned.
 
MrVicchio said:
Untitled Document

Warning shots are for Hollywood, and only Hollywood.


The Pros & Cons of Warning Shots and Signal Shots
Click to expand...

From your source, there, it seems as though this officer would have had nothing to lose BY firing a warning shot. Your quoted document states "However, there are situations where warning shots would not only be appropriate, but also be an effective technique to prevent the necessity of the application of additional force" and also that it is UNACCEPTABLE to fire a warning shot and kill a victim. However, this victim was killed intentionally by the officer. So, what, if it was a warning shot gone wrong it's unacceptable, but if he's doing it with an intent to kill him, it's okay?
 
Your Star said:
I didn't bring up that example, but here's my example. A 15 year old kid from Minnesota throws rocks at the police, would you advocate lethally shooting that kid? They should have used less than lethal force, and if they didn't have any less than lethal weapons on them(which they should have) they should have fired warning shots. Also you are exaggerating the lethality of throwing rocks in this situation. They weren't being stoned.
Click to expand...


I've all ready, repeatedly shown that Warning Shots are FOR HOLLYWOOD.

Secondly, if you throw rocks at police, and the police feel threatened with death/bodily harm. Shoot to kill.

Your arguments would greatly benefit from some understanding of The REAL World, and not your fantasy land of "cops should fire warning shots" you get from watching TV and thinking that's how life works. It don't.

Besides, I didn't make this about race, the AP did with their story.
 
sparks said:
From your source, there, it seems as though this officer would have had nothing to lose BY firing a warning shot. Your quoted document states "However, there are situations where warning shots would not only be appropriate, but also be an effective technique to prevent the necessity of the application of additional force" and also that it is UNACCEPTABLE to fire a warning shot and kill a victim. However, this victim was killed intentionally by the officer. So, what, if it was a warning shot gone wrong it's unacceptable, but if he's doing it with an intent to kill him, it's okay?
Click to expand...


If you fire a "Warning shot" and miss, you risk unintentionally hitting a bystander. You shoot, you aim for center mass and shoot to kill. End of story.
 
Your Star said:
Lethal force isn't the appropriate response to rock throwing.
Click to expand...

1) that is stupid-rocks can kill

2) throwing a rock at someone with a gun is even more stupid and perhaps should be fatal

3) I believe in Darwin-
 
MrVicchio said:
I've all ready, repeatedly shown that Warning Shots are FOR HOLLYWOOD.

Secondly, if you throw rocks at police, and the police feel threatened with death/bodily harm. Shoot to kill.

Your arguments would greatly benefit from some understanding of The REAL World, and not your fantasy land of "cops should fire warning shots" you get from watching TV and thinking that's how life works. It don't.

Besides, I didn't make this about race, the AP did with their story.
Click to expand...

I'm not getting this from Hollywood, if anyone is its you with your Rambo mentality.

In real life when you shoot somebody they die, and this person was killed. Thats what I'm concerned about, if the officers used other methods to stop this child, they could of saved a life.
 
MrVicchio said:
If you fire a "Warning shot" and miss, you risk unintentionally hitting a bystander. You shoot, you aim for center mass and shoot to kill. End of story.
Click to expand...

What bystander? One of the OTHER people throwing rocks? Your own document there says that warning shots are sometimes acceptable, even effective. Not always, sure, but there are situations where they might be called for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom