• 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

I admit mistakes all the time. I also have teh fortitude to actually apologize for making them, especialy if they involve an accusation.



False. My initial post was:



As you can see, the argument involved them being on the Mexican side of the border from the very start. I don't consider rocks thrown at a distance of greater than 20 feet to be a legitimate weapon to warrant lethal force. But I do allow for the caveat that Lethal force is warranted if the perosn is on the US side of the border, due to the fact that this is well-within the Border Guards jurisdiction.

The clarification about being able to shoot over the border came here (which is the third of fourth post by me in that thread):



Clearly I was never arguing anything but what I have said I was arguing the whole time. Nothing has changed in my stance.



As you can see, the only person lying is you. You are lying about understanding my argument, and you are lying in how you are portraying that argument. Nothing I have said has been proven wrong.



Me admitting errror just last week:



When someone actually proves me wrong, I am totally willing to admit error. I would even be willing to wager that I have done this far mroe often than you have.

My contention is that your admission of error was merely a prevetantaive measure to keep me form pointing out the error, which you could do nothing to dodge. You still haven't admitted the error that exists in the attacks on my credibility. That can only be admitted through an apology directly tro me for your unfounded accusations.

By teh way, on the "character" accusation, allow me to add into evidence an apology that I have offered to others due to an error made by me:



As I thought about my error in that thread, it occured to me that it might have caused offense to otehrs. I added the apology as an additional aspect due to the fact that I felt guilty over the offense that my error may have caused. It may not have been absolutey necessary in that case, for I made no accusations, but I offered it anyway because I felt it was the right thing to do in that case.

What I did not do was compound the error by repeating it. i.e. Your accusations against me earlier for having "deleted" posts was as unfounded as your accusations now about my character. I do not expect you to have the character to apologize for either of these accusations, but I would be pelasently surprised if you did display that degree of character.

You are trying with the apology thing to get one or both of us into trouble, and I for one refuse to step into that trap.

You posted this big block of you responding to you.

Yes, YOU don't consider rocks to be a threat. Law Enforcement does.

YOU don't think they should be allowed to shoot into Mexico. Law Enforcement CAN.

You, spent a lot of time trying to ignore the facts of the case to justify your errant opinion. Is anyone aside you buying this?
I'm thinking no, no they are not. You insulted everyone that doesn't agree with you as not being smart enough to "Get" your logic. Sorry, you failed to make your case about anything other then your personal, and wrong, opinion.
 
In any case where the border patrol agents are shot at, I absolutley support their ability to shoot back. If they are not shooting back in these instances, I agree with you that they should be shooting into Mexico more often. ;)





So setting up a ranch with a range that points towards mexico, goes too far for you? :ssst:
 
This thread has now devolved into word play, next we'll be disecting the letters of each post to measure the precision with which a point was made. :roll: The kid was throwing rocks at authorities. He didn't stop, he was shot for it. End of story.
 
This thread has now devolved into word play, next we'll be disecting the letters of each post to measure the precision with which a point was made. :roll: The kid was throwing rocks at authorities. He didn't stop, he was shot for it. End of story.

And there is video evidence that the Mexican Police crossed into our borders, took something from the ground and carried it back with them across the borders. So unless that is cleared up, I believe the police from Mexico dragged the body over to their place and made it seem like someone got shot on their side of the border...
 
Mr V: " And to settle Tucker is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY full of ****,"

Since when is calling someone "COMPLITELY and UTTERLY full of ****" not an insult?
 
This thread has now devolved into word play, next we'll be disecting the letters of each post to measure the precision with which a point was made. :roll: The kid was throwing rocks at authorities. He didn't stop, he was shot for it. End of story.

I am glad that most americans with guns don't shoot their kids for throwing rocks. Who hasn't at one time thrown a rock at another person in their lifetime. I would guess, none.

:blastem:
 
You are trying with the apology thing to get one or both of us into trouble, and I for one refuse to step into that trap.

Another accusation on your part founded on ignorance. I'm asking for an apology simply because you guys both made false accusations towards me in this thread. You both accused me of doing something I did not do because you were both ignroant of the fact that teh commetns you were looking for were never in this thread.

Tex admitted to teh error that led to the accusations, but did not do anything to rectify the accusations. You've done neither.

Yet somehow, you think it is appropriate to compound your error by making mroe errors of the same quality.

Very odd.

You posted this big block of you responding to you.

I posted a big block of evidence proving you and tex wrong.

Yes, YOU don't consider rocks to be a threat. Law Enforcement does.

Correction: I don't consider rocks thrown at larger distances to be a threat. If someoen were to hold a rock in their hand and bludgeon someoen ,that is a very real and effective threat to one's life and safety. The danger posed by rocks is inversely proportional to the distance of the person doing the threatening and the person being threatened.

My poisition is that when the person with the rocks is on the other side of the border (a clearly defined limit) the person being threatened has the ability to dramatically reduce the threat by increasing the distance between the thrower and themselves.

If the prson throwing the rocks crosses the border, it is clear that they

YOU don't think they should be allowed to shoot into Mexico. Law Enforcement CAN.

That is incorrect.

I have proven that this is not my position in very the post that you quoted.


You, spent a lot of time trying to ignore the facts of the case to justify your errant opinion. Is anyone aside you buying this?
I'm thinking no, no they are not. You insulted everyone that doesn't agree with you as not being smart enough to "Get" your logic. Sorry, you failed to make your case about anything other then your personal, and wrong, opinion.

You don't get my position. That's clearly evident.

For example, you could not have said "YOU don't think they should be allowed to shoot into Mexico." if you understood my position. Unless of course you do understand my position, in which case thatr would mean that you are just lying about my position.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. An inability to understand what I'm saying is not a negative quality. There can be a plethora of reasons for an inability to understand my position.

However, willful dishonesty is somethign I would not accuse you of.

Because there are only two options here:

1. You don't understand
2. You are lying.

The option that doesn't exist, regardles of what you may think to be true, is that you both understand my position AND are telling the truth truth about that position.

Those two situations are mutually exclusive at this point.
 
And there is video evidence that the Mexican Police crossed into our borders, took something from the ground and carried it back with them across the borders. So unless that is cleared up, I believe the police from Mexico dragged the body over to their place and made it seem like someone got shot on their side of the border...

There's other video that shows that the kid was on the Mexican side of the border when he was shot. It was posted in this thread.
 
I am glad that most americans with guns don't shoot their kids for throwing rocks. Who hasn't at one time thrown a rock at another person in their lifetime. I would guess, none.

:blastem:

Have you every thrown rocks at a police officer?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Personal insults need to end, now.
 
There's other video that shows that the kid was on the Mexican side of the border when he was shot. It was posted in this thread.

Forget about, the not too bright rock throwing pos.

You gotta call up Felipe Calderón and tell him, he needs to spend less time on the lecture U.S. circuit and more time dealing with his own issues. Mexico is still a third world narcoterrorist state. Until they clean up their politicians and other corrupt public officials, the drug lords will still be around and the violence will continue.
 
Forget about, the not too bright rock throwing pos.

You gotta call up Felipe Calderón and tell him, he needs to spend less time on the lecture U.S. circuit and more time dealing with his own issues. Mexico is still a third world narcoterrorist state. Until they clean up their politicians and other corrupt public officials, the drug lords will still be around and the violence will continue.

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:
 
No, but I was once shot at by a park ranger for doing nothing. True story.

For doing nothing? And the man pulled out his gun and shot at you. And then you turned him in right?
 
You are trying with the apology thing to get one or both of us into trouble, and I for one refuse to step into that trap.

You posted this big block of you responding to you.

Yes, YOU don't consider rocks to be a threat. Law Enforcement does.

YOU don't think they should be allowed to shoot into Mexico. Law Enforcement CAN.

You, spent a lot of time trying to ignore the facts of the case to justify your errant opinion. Is anyone aside you buying this?
I'm thinking no, no they are not. You insulted everyone that doesn't agree with you as not being smart enough to "Get" your logic. Sorry, you failed to make your case about anything other then your personal, and wrong, opinion.

I think you and tex are being positively ridiculous at this point...something I expect from tex but I think a little more highly of you. First of all, you are refusing to make a distinguished assessment between rock throwing on this side of the border and theirs. If rocks are being thrown from the Mexican side of the border, the border patrol can and should retreat the few dozen yards back from the border where they are still well within firing range but out of rock throwing range. There's no sense in firing across the border at rock throwers on that side as it's easy to alleviate the threat without such action.

Now if they are firing bullets from the other side of the border, by all means open fire. If they are chasing border agents throwing rocks on our side of the border, by all means open fire. That's all Tucker has been saying from the beginning and you both know that. Why you're feeding off each other's desperate and childish need to just be contrary is beyond me.
 
No, but I was once shot at by a park ranger for doing nothing. True story.

And this is important, how? You were probably prowling around, and he shot you thinking you were a bear or something....

On the throwing rocks, you deserved it. Doesn't matter what it is, throwing rocks at a police officer is like spitting and stomping on our flags, but then again, people probably don't care about our flags anyways........
 
No. I'm not saying that. That is a strawman.

My argument is entirely about rocks being thrown over the broder not being a legitimate enough threat to warrant lethal force against someone on the Mexican side of the broder. As range increases, the danger form thrown rocks decreases dramatically. The border agent has the option to retreat a short distance in order to protect themselves.
Dude... You Tell me your not saying it, then you go and you agree with what I said you were saying.

Please, ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, I present to you my emphasized word above.
 
And this is important, how? You were probably prowling around, and he shot you thinking you were a bear or something....

On the throwing rocks, you deserved it. Doesn't matter what it is, throwing rocks at a police officer is like spitting and stomping on our flags, but then again, people probably don't care about our flags anyways........

People should be shot for spitting on a flag?
 
Dude... You Tell me your not saying it, then you go and you agree with what I said you were saying.

Please, ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, I present to you my emphasized word above.

If my post was a single word, instead of a bunch of them, you'd have a point. If that word wasn't attached to a bunch of otehr words that have a totally different meaning than what you had said, you'd have a point.

But since that isn't the case, you don't have a point.
 
Dude... You Tell me your not saying it, then you go and you agree with what I said you were saying.

Please, ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, I present to you my emphasized word above.

Why don't you go ahead and emphasize the entire operative phrase instead of playing semantics and loading a single word within that phrase?
 
I think you and tex are being positively ridiculous at this point...something I expect from tex but I think a little more highly of you. First of all, you are refusing to make a distinguished assessment between rock throwing on this side of the border and theirs. If rocks are being thrown from the Mexican side of the border, the border patrol can and should retreat the few dozen yards back from the border where they are still well within firing range but out of rock throwing range. There's no sense in firing across the border at rock throwers on that side as it's easy to alleviate the threat without such action.

Now if they are firing bullets from the other side of the border, by all means open fire. If they are chasing border agents throwing rocks on our side of the border, by all means open fire. That's all Tucker has been saying from the beginning and you both know that. Why you're feeding off each other's desperate and childish need to just be contrary is beyond me.

My assessment of the video seems to indicate the cop was holding his gun with one hand, while holding a suspect, just standing wide open. The range at which the rocks must have been thrown, was far enough away to have been dodged, and I didn't see the cop moving at all because of any rocks thrown.

If he felt any threat to his life would he have not moved to any sort of cover, assessed the situation and then decided to open fire?
 
My assessment of the video seems to indicate the cop was holding his gun with one hand, while holding a suspect, just standing wide open. The range at which the rocks must have been thrown, was far enough away to have been dodged, and I didn't see the cop moving at all because of any rocks thrown.

If he felt any threat to his life would he have not moved to any sort of cover, assessed the situation and then decided to open fire?

I agree and even under the loose guidelines Tucker laid out, it's still a case by case basis. He could have also opened fire to protect the suspect he had in custody, too. It really just looked like a bunch of subhuman monkeys in full riot mode were trying to hurt the agent with no regard for one of their own that was being held. I still would have preferred to see him move away, but there's more to being in the situation than you see in a video.

I will reserve judgment of the situation until the findings of an investigation are reported.
 
For doing nothing? And the man pulled out his gun and shot at you. And then you turned him in right?

Hell yeah. I was playing in a play ground with a friend when he appeared out of nowhere with a gun pointed at us. We ran, he fired, my friend kept on running and I stopped.

It turned out the playground had been vandalized the day before. They caught the kids who had done it the next day. My father sued him and got a nice chunk of money.
 
Another accusation on your part founded on ignorance. I'm asking for an apology simply because you guys both made false accusations towards me in this thread. You both accused me of doing something I did not do because you were both ignroant of the fact that teh commetns you were looking for were never in this thread.

Tex admitted to teh error that led to the accusations, but did not do anything to rectify the accusations. You've done neither.
This is a lie, however, I'll do it here just to shut you up. I was in error in thinking posts were deleted. My bad.

Yet somehow, you think it is appropriate to compound your error by making mroe errors of the same quality.

Very odd.
The only error here is expecting you to be honest.

I posted a big block of evidence proving you and tex wrong.
Only in your mind.

Correction: I don't consider rocks thrown at larger distances to be a threat. If someoen were to hold a rock in their hand and bludgeon someoen ,that is a very real and effective threat to one's life and safety. The danger posed by rocks is inversely proportional to the distance of the person doing the threatening and the person being threatened.
Must be nice to sit back on the internet and determine at what distance a rock is dangerous. Ever had someone attack you with malicious intent?

My poisition is that when the person with the rocks is on the other side of the border (a clearly defined limit) the person being threatened has the ability to dramatically reduce the threat by increasing the distance between the thrower and themselves.
Except the BP Agent was unable to do this because of the person he had handcuffed. Which you have ignored repeatedly.

If the prson throwing the rocks crosses the border, it is clear that they

they....

That is incorrect.

I have proven that this is not my position in very the post that you quoted.
You've back tracked and attempted to change your position.


You don't get my position. That's clearly evident.
No, you keep changing your "position". You've narrowed the parameters of why you ARE right and the rest of us are wrong to justify your stance. The actual situation doesn't resemble the story you've concocted
For example, you could not have said "YOU don't think they should be allowed to shoot into Mexico." if you understood my position. Unless of course you do understand my position, in which case thatr would mean that you are just lying about my position.
What side of the border was that guy on when he was shot?

If you still don't know what my argument was, you aren't equipped to say that I'd have to admit I was wrong.

It would seem that you are arguing his being in Mexico was the pertinent factor.


As shown here you are stuck on "US Side/Mexican Side"

Was he on US soil? Yes.

If you are unwilling to comprehend my argument, you are not equipped with the necessary tools to make any claims about me being wrong.
(oh and nice personal attack on Tex there)

No. I'm not saying that. That is a strawman.

My argument is entirely about rocks being thrown over the broder not being a legitimate enough threat to warrant lethal force against someone on the Mexican side of the broder. As range increases, the danger form thrown rocks decreases dramatically. The border agent has the option to retreat a short distance in order to protect themselves.

Expect the Agent COULDN'T retreat... AND I've also posted links showing the BP not only has fired into Mexico in Defense against Rocks being thrown, but that they are authorized to do so.

So far, your arguments are not withstanding scrutiny... well except by you of course.


I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. An inability to understand what I'm saying is not a negative quality. There can be a plethora of reasons for an inability to understand my position.

However, willful dishonesty is somethign I would not accuse you of.

Because there are only two options here:

1. You don't understand
2. You are lying.

The option that doesn't exist, regardles of what you may think to be true, is that you both understand my position AND are telling the truth truth about that position.

Those two situations are mutually exclusive at this point.


The only one misrepresenting your position, is you. And you are doing so trying to avoid being shown to be completely and utterly wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom