Mexico teen killed by US Border Patrol, anger high

Aunt Spiker said:

While I see hypocrisy in how they value and respect our own laws. I don't feel it was under her control at all - there was nothing she could have done to prevent it. Absolutely not her fault.

Regardless of what country you live in, how much money you make or what language you speak or even how strict you are one fact remains constant - children are children and will do what they damn well please.

Whether she gave permission for the boy to go see his brother or not is beside the point - you can't keep your children as prisoner's in your own home to avoid any chance that they might stir the pot while they're out of your sight.

The cop was way out of line. The boys could have been punished - and quite alive to learn his lesson. This entire situation should never have happened like this and things will just get worse, not better.

Click to expand...

Were you answering what I posted? What brother are you talking about?

If one wants to assign blame to anyone besides the persons that were directly involved....... blame the US government for not enforcing the current laws, all it does is encourage the Illegal Aliens to come here and disrespect the laws of this country and those whose duty it is to enforce them.

Crunch said:

If one wants to assign blame to anyone besides the persons that were directly involved....... blame the US government for not enforcing the current laws, all it does is encourage the Illegal Aliens to come here and disrespect the laws of this country and those whose duty it is to enforce them.

Click to expand...

If you want to blame somebody, blame yourself. The US government is your duty, you've not been paying close enough attention. If you didn't like this illegal immigration thing, or thought the government wasn't doing it's job; it's up to you to apply pressure to the government to get that change. And how much have you purchased which rewarded companies for hiring illegal immigrants? Hmmm?

People want to sit around and point the finger, well you can just turn that finger right around to point at the real cause of the problem. We're the ones who ****ed up, don't go trying to pawn this off on anyone else.

Mason66 said:

Were you answering what I posted? What brother are you talking about?

Click to expand...

I should have bolded the line that I was responding to in your post - you said:

The mother cries after her son is killed because of her failure to teach her son to respect the law and other people. 100% her fault.

Click to expand...

From the article:

The boy's mother said he had gone to eat with his brother, who handles luggage at a border customs office. While there, he met up with a group of friends and they decided to hang out by the river, she said.

Click to expand...

So - you're blaming this entire incident on her when I see that it was out of her control completely. Unless a parent is going to chain their child up in their room for their entire life they don't have 100% control over what their children do when they're on their own.

Kids do things all the time that they're told not to do.

Maybe she did tell him "don't go down *that* way" and expected him to listen?

Aunt Spiker said:

You're trying to compare immigration laws to Jim Crow laws?
They're no where near the same scope, that's for sure.

Click to expand...

Uh, no. I'm showing why it's a mistake to try and justify something because of its legality, which doesn't necessarily mean that it's moral. Similarly, illegality does not mean that something's immoral.

Aunt Spiker said:

If she wants us to uphold OUR laws in this case then by all means we should be balanced and uphold ALL OTHER laws, as well - which means the AZ immigration law that's under fire and our federal laws regulating immigration, as well.

Click to expand...

He was shot in Mexico, so it's still a matter of investigation into exactly what happened. But this is just repetition of the same thing you said before, when I already said that laws clearly intended to enforce moral rules should be distinguished from laws that may conflict with ethics.

Your Star said:

Less than lethal isn't "just for movies", and it's far better to use less than lethal weapons on a 15 year old throwing rocks than to kill him.

Click to expand...

I would agree except this wasn't just one individual it was a group of people, how many border patrol agents were there on scene? If it was just one or two guys they could have been easily knocked out and torn apart by the angry mob. Furthermore; what type of less than lethal armament were they carrying? Were they prepared with tear gas launchers and rubber bullets or just standard, whip batons, tazers, and pepper spray, because if the latter the effective range of the stones would be at least twice that of the whip batons, pepper spray and tazers with the tazers having the longest range but only a single shot capability which doesn't do much good against an angry mob.

Personally if it came to armed confrontation I'd rather have the rocks, longer range and lethal capability especially if used with a cloth sling.

sparks said:

Those who are stoned to death are rendered helpless and unable to defend themselves. Yes, it's a form of capital punishment, but one that the American officers were, in my opinion, more than able to avoid without shooting someone. The distance at which the rocks were thrown is apparently 10 meters (33 feet). Move back another 10 meters-- I don't care how good the person's arm is, it won't be easy to hit you. Easily avoided, nobody is dead.

Yes, it's a bit ridiculous to suddenly start throwing rocks at armed officers, but it is just as ridiculous for that armed officer to pull out a gun and shoot in retaliation. I realize that there is a problem at the borders, but shooting a 15-year-old kid won't fix it.

Click to expand...

how long would you suggest he continue to retreat?
Is this what we do now, if someone breaks the law and attacks we just retreat like ******s?

****ing Liberalization of America my god.

Cochise said:

He was shot in Mexico.....

Click to expand...

This so far is pure speculation, so can we please not start saying this like it is fact?


j-mac

j-mac said:

This so far is pure speculation, so can we please not start saying this like it is fact?


j-mac

Click to expand...

No, it's POSSIBLE he was in Mexico, they were in a dry river bed, however, the bullet was fired in the USA. So it's rather pointless where he "died".

MrVicchio said:

No, it's POSSIBLE he was in Mexico, they were in a dry river bed, however, the bullet was fired in the USA. So it's rather pointless where he "died".

Click to expand...

Oh lord, I can see it now.

Supporters of Illegal Immigrants are going to support idiots coming to the border and throwing **** and acting violently on their half side of the line and then deamonize those who defend themselves on our side.

MrVicchio said:

No, it's POSSIBLE he was in Mexico, they were in a dry river bed, however, the bullet was fired in the USA. So it's rather pointless where he "died".

Click to expand...

And it is possible that the casing found near him was from another gun all together. Who knows in that lawless region.?


j-mac

MrVicchio said:

Where is the law unconstitutional? How does the law Arizona passed in anyway rise to the level of SCOTUS review? Can you give some examples?

Click to expand...

Stop, now you're just being silly. Any state law may be reviewed by SCOTUS.

You want examples of state law reviewed by SCOTUS... Seriously?

Well, the recent amendment to the CA constitution is working it's way up.

When the AZ law goes into effect, into practice, citizens may file a complaint in federal court. Whether or not it makes it all the way to SCOTUS, who can say. But, given the nature of the law, and the questions raised... and the overlapping jurisdictional issues. This is the type of thing the a lower court may ask a higher court for clarification or instructions on the limits of the law.

Again, on paper, I don't have a problem with the AZ law. But I'm not so dimwitted as to deny that it's controversial and people who feel there's a civil rights issue will seek remedy at some point.

MrVicchio said:

HEY! Where did YOU study Constitutional Law at eh? Haz is an expert man, he knows! HE KNOWS!!!

(And he fails to give any examples or reasons, but he KNOWS MAN)

Click to expand...

HEY! I didn't make an emphatic statement about the AZ law. That was Vicchio.

You know - this whole issue about "where he was shot, where the shot was fired from" is exactly why lethal force shouldn't be used frivolously at any border.

Cochise said:

I can't think of a single exchange with you where you've had the last word. If I've forgotten something, post a link so that I can fix it.

Click to expand...

LOL Just because you said the last thing by no means can be interpreted as a win. Perhaps in the 3rd grade yes but not in big people word.

What, so that you can end up running away again?

Click to expand...

Are you denying it or not? Answer the question.

LOL, the Mexican government themselves stole the land. Why doesn't this ever get through your head? By the way, as I've said before, I'm just giving you a taste of your own medicine by saying that you should be repatriated to Europe, since that's what the consistent application of your rules demands. It's not something I personally advocate.

Click to expand...

Another lie. Where did I ever say all Mexicans should go home? Go on, show us all where I said that.

If you are going to lie so blatantly, this isn't going to be as much fun as I hoped.

This isn't a counter-argument. Try stepping it up, tex.

Click to expand...

Nice dodge. It doesn't get around the fact you used your own lack of morality to assume someone would act the same way you would. Pathetic.

No, I remember him saying that.

Click to expand...

Thats another lie and I demand you produce the quote up where he said that.

Why do you continue to repeat the assertion about it being morally wrong to violate the law when I've demonstrated that the law and morality aren't always in step? Can't you engage in independent ethical analysis?

Click to expand...

Wow your reading comprehension level is atrocious. I said you use your own view of morality to justify not following law you are personally opposed to and you did exactly that. Trying to duck that fact is really sad.

It should be easy to migrate because people should rise and fall based on their merits and willingness to work hard, rather than pre-existing factors that they had no control over.

Click to expand...

The idioicy of that statement is staggering. If you are want to immigrate to the US the process by its very nature should be hard to encourage only the hard working and dedicated people to immigrate. Your pathetic reasoning for allowing people to enter based on assumptions that could never be proven because they are from another country where we could verify none of those characteristics takes stupidity to a whole new level.

Why do you bring up the most retarded strawmen about "evil whitey" over and over again, especially when I've said that I'm part white and probably descended from some "evil whiteys" myself? Do you feel persecuted? That's what the line on Stormfront is, and the initial motivation for white populism.

Click to expand...

And thats why I bring it up. You post anti white images from posters, you claim the laws of the US should not be followed because they stole the land from the locals and your position and any time someone tells you the laws should be enforced you compare them to Stormfront. You are your own worst enemy amigo

All you know how to do is repeatedly contradict, but you're never quite able to debate. You've been told numerous times that the Mexican government is also descended from European colonists, so they won't be "re-taking" anything that wasn't stolen by their predecessors.

Click to expand...

LOL The next time you show me a white mexican trying to smuggle his way in you let me know :rofl

Dishonesty is just a way of life for you isn't it?

Which is a pathetic argument You've also been told that the Indian racial identity of the majority of migrant laborers places them at odds with the white upper class, which is why they don't have an incentive to extend their authority over them. This hasn't penetrated your skull at all.

Click to expand...

I know you love pretending you aren't anti-white but claiming the land was stolen, posting anti white pictures and comparing anyone who doesn't agree with you to white supremacist groups shows the lack of character and honesty in your arguments.

I'm bringing up Stormfront because of your shared white populism, derived from your shared axiomatic conceptual values. Illegal Mexican killed by Border Patrol - Stormfront


Sounds exactly like something you or any of the "very conservative" authoritarians here could say.

Click to expand...

I'm not Conway you simpleton. LOL Do you even know who you are replying to?

So your argument against me is by associating me with someone I've never even spoken with? Thats your great link?

Doesn't get any more dishonest than that.

See you can't debate and thats why you fall into these racist rants of yours. I can quote your words, your posts and your thoughts. Your best shot is associating me with people I can never even spoken with.

Its the sign of a weak debater who can't hold his ground on the facts but that shouldn't sound new to you.

I've just accurately described what's going on.

Click to expand...

No, you've simply lied about what's going on.

It’s chauvinistic white populism that’s the basis for propaganda about a "reconquista" and authoritarian policy like police state purges of migrant laborers that have higher employment rates than the citizen population, prohibition of ethnic studies programs, removal of teachers with accents, establishment of authoritarian and inhumane camps in Arpaio’s tent cities, and the draconian restrictions on freedom of movement around our Berlin Wall of the Southwest. It’s white populism that provides the foundation for the screeching about "Islamofascism" and the environment of harassment of Arabs and non-Arabs perceived as "Middle Eastern," which is why moronic populists attacked Sikhs after 9/11. The "divided loyalties" rhetoric was also a cause for suspicion of Jews and widespread internment of Japanese, and is generally inflamed during tumultuous periods for the WASP population, be it military conflict, economic turmoil, or the combination that they are currently experiencing.

Ignorance about the non-WASP "ethnic" population is also typically a facet. Sikhs were attacked because the white populists were too ignorant to distinguish them from Muslims. Han Chinese and other East Asians were sometimes interned with Japanese despite the fact that they despised the Japanese empire for their invasive tactics, because the white populists were too ignorant to distinguish them from Japanese. And now, the white populists think that Mexicans are a racial group, rather than a national group ruled by a white upper class, and they're too ignorant to separate the Guatemalan and Salvadoran immigrants.

This is right up your alley, tex:

The foundations for a white populist backlash (association of hostile foreign status with a certain non-white/Anglo phenotype, attacks on the ethnic population’s usage of a minority language, overwhelmingly negative characterizations), are in place. The combination of economic troubles and prior social conservatism in the state of Arizona led to greater intolerance for immigrants, in the familiar pattern of support for authoritarianism increasing in times of crisis.

You are seen for what you are.

Click to expand...

This is what I am:

I actually think the law should apply to all races and no one is exempt. That's where we differ.

Click to expand...

Unlike your lies about myself and dishonesty linking me to groups I never even spoke to let alone agreed with, these are your words and your posts:


All quotes by Cochise and no one else:

I’ve grown sick of hearing claims that the U.S. government simply have the absolute right to exclude Mexican illegal immigrants or the Mexican government the right to exclude Guatemalan illegal immigrants for whatever reason when all American governments are ruling over territory that was unjustly acquired.

Click to expand...

The state’s administration simply do not have the ethical authority to declare national sovereignty over any territory in the Americas, since the territory was gained through forcible and fraudulent aggression against the indigenous residents.

Click to expand...

A good deal of current U.S. national territory is based on injustice

Click to expand...

I don't honor or respect some kind of uber-nationalist screaming about *his* land being invaded. It's not his. It never was.

Click to expand...

why do you care if illegal immigrants come and "steal" from people in the U.S.? If they can take it, as they are, shouldn't it be theirs

Click to expand...

As the evidence shows, you are the racist not me. You believe in ethnicity over law and you thrive on the dream of kicking all whites out of America claiming the land was "stolen". Its in your own words and the pictures you post. Its there for all to read for themselves unlike when you argue you can't even quote the person directly, just lie about phony associations for your "argument"

You aren't fooling anyone when your own words sink you so easily.

We need to start making M16's or M4's with the grenade launcher attachment a standard-issue weapon for the Border Patrol. Too many Americans living near the border are being terrorized (and sometimes killed) by "coyotes" and drug smugglers. Time to quit fracking around and kill a few hundred idiots; force is the only thing the drug cartels and their closely associated people-smugglers understand, so we should send them a clear message:

Don't **** with our border, or our Border Patrol.

Looks like this kid was no innocent child, but a wanted criminal.

The 15-year-old Mexican boy who was shot dead by a Border Patrol agent as U.S. authorities came under attack along the border Tuesday was known to authorities as a juvenile smuggler, sources close to the investigation told Fox News.

Sergio Adrian Hernandez Huereka was shot once near the eye as U.S. Border Patrol agents on bicycles were "assaulted with rocks" as they tried to detain illegal immigrants on the Texas side of the Rio Grande.

Huereka was charged with alien smuggling in 2009, according to sources who requested anonymity. Further details were not immediately available.

"He is a known juvenile smuggler," a source told Fox News. He was also on a "most wanted" list of juvenile smugglers compiled by U.S. authorities in the El Paso area, sources said.

Click to expand...

FOXNews.com - Mexican Teen Killed on Border Was 'Known Juvenile Smuggler,' Sources Say

But the children!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Caine said:

But the children!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

Not child, dead criminal scumbag.


Pity levels dropped when I read this kid wasn't just caught up in a moment of teen stupidity.

MrVicchio said:

Not child, dead criminal scumbag.


Pity levels dropped when I read this kid wasn't just caught up in a moment of teen stupidity.

Click to expand...

It was sarcasm brother.

Sarcasm meant as a friendly reminder that some people fail to realize that 15 year olds are capable of thinking and acting out crimes like full fledged adults.

In fact, that is how gangs take advantage of our juvenile justice system.
Why else do they recruit so heavily in high schools?

MrVicchio said:

Looks like this kid was no innocent child, but a wanted criminal.


FOXNews.com - Mexican Teen Killed on Border Was 'Known Juvenile Smuggler,' Sources Say

Click to expand...

A criminal, known for being a "coyote", was killed in durring the comission of a crime. I do not see a problem here. If the Mexican government sees a problem with what occurred, that's too damn bad.

MrVicchio said:

Not child, dead criminal scumbag.


Pity levels dropped when I read this kid wasn't just caught up in a moment of teen stupidity.

Click to expand...

Hold on...if this was an American kid that was shot dead for throwing rocks, I think there would be a certain level of outcry against it. That being said, knowing now that he was a smuggler, it does change the game a bit. I am glad I held my judgment till more information came out.

Frankly, border jumpers are invaders and that makes them enemy combatants as far as I am concerned. Now I don't think they should be treated as military combatants and shot on site but I do think they should be treated with a different set of legal codes than we would treat a citizen. In fact, I think military law should apply to them and, due to border violence already being on the rise, they should be treated with a higher level of alert and suspicion for other criminal activity. Any move toward hostility or violence should be met with lethal force of a level to bring immediate capitulation to the demands of the border patrol that is in the confrontation.


One exception should that no one should be shot in the back if they are running back across the border to Mexico even after being told to halt. The point is, we don't want them coming across the border illegally. If they are heading back, mission accomplished.

jallman said:

Hold on...if this was an American kid that was shot dead for throwing rocks, I think there would be a certain level of outcry against it. That being said, knowing now that he was a smuggler, it does change the game a bit. I am glad I held my judgment till more information came out.

Frankly, border jumpers are invaders and that makes them enemy combatants as far as I am concerned. Now I don't think they should be treated as military combatants and shot on site but I do think they should be treated with a different set of legal codes than we would treat a citizen. In fact, I think military law should apply to them and, due to border violence already being on the rise, they should be treated with a higher level of alert and suspicion for other criminal activity. Any move toward hostility or violence should be met with lethal force of a level to bring immediate capitulation to the demands of the border patrol that is in the confrontation.


One exception should that no one should be shot in the back if they are running back across the border to Mexico even after being told to halt. The point is, we don't want them coming across the border illegally. If they are heading back, mission accomplished.

Click to expand...

Good post, but could you clarify something?

You said they should not be shot in the back..... now what would you have the Border Patrol do if they are shot at and then the perp runs?

jallman said:

Hold on...if this was an American kid that was shot dead for throwing rocks, I think there would be a certain level of outcry against it. That being said, knowing now that he was a smuggler, it does change the game a bit. I am glad I held my judgment till more information came out.

Frankly, border jumpers are invaders and that makes them enemy combatants as far as I am concerned. Now I don't think they should be treated as military combatants and shot on site but I do think they should be treated with a different set of legal codes than we would treat a citizen. In fact, I think military law should apply to them and, due to border violence already being on the rise, they should be treated with a higher level of alert and suspicion for other criminal activity. Any move toward hostility or violence should be met with lethal force of a level to bring immediate capitulation to the demands of the border patrol that is in the confrontation.


One exception should that no one should be shot in the back if they are running back across the border to Mexico even after being told to halt. The point is, we don't want them coming across the border illegally. If they are heading back, mission accomplished.

Click to expand...

He was hit just by the eye, pretty sure he was facing the officers.

Crunch said:

Good post, but could you clarify something?

You said they should not be shot in the back..... now what would you have the Border Patrol do if they are shot at and then the perp runs?

Click to expand...

Blow their asses to kingdom come. If shots are fired at the border patrol, it is carte blanch for them to open fire and not stop until no one is left standing, just like you would do in any other military confrontation with enemy combatants.