• 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!

FBI: Mexican soldiers used rifles to chase off U.S. Border Patrol

Eventually, the noose will get tighter around your neck :2razz:



As, for grandma. She just twisted her ankle. She´ll be fine by next week to try and prove your rock-throwing spree theory


Perhaps but it clearly won't be by you. And you have no idea what "grandma" did and why she's carrying that cane.

Further, the child in that video is not at the same stage of development as the child in the picture you showed.


It looks like the only noose tightening here is the rope of dishonesty tightening around your own gullet, sport.
 
If you don't get it by now, Ferris is trying to inform you that he has the most bad ass rock throwing arm in the (insert regional area here).

And I'm telling him that I have the most bad-ass rock catching hands in the galaxy.
 
No, we have a differing opinion about what the law should be based on observation. You have "nuhhhhh, well this is the way it is so I'm right".

That's an appeal to the status quo and not an argument.

So you and Tucker want our Agents to be unable to defend themselves when attacked by rock wielders. Good thing people like ya'll don't make policy, we'd have a lot of hurt Agents.
 
So you and Tucker want our Agents to be unable to defend themselves when attacked by rock wielders.

False.

Good thing people like ya'll don't make policy, we'd have a lot of hurt Agents.

Not really. If I actually made the policy, I'd get rid of the asinine laws in this country that are the causal factor for all the violence in the first place, but that's a subject for a different thread altogether.

Lemme just say it is bull**** political pandering that has created a considerable monetary incentive for violent criminals to engage in violence on the border. Remove the stupid political pandering, you remove that monetary incentive.
 
Whatever. You've spent this whole thread demanding this Agent be tried for defending himself. You started with "It's just a rock" to "The bullet crossed the border" and each time your arguments have been slammed. Now you claim no one (but Jall) is smart enough to get your logic. W/E.


Not really. If I actually made the policy, I'd get rid of the asinine laws in this country that are the causal factor for all the violence in the first place, but that's a subject for a different thread altogether.
Lemme just say it is bull**** political pandering that has created a considerable monetary incentive for violent criminals to engage in violence on the border. Remove the stupid political pandering, you remove that monetary incentive.

You'd legalize drugs.

doublefacepalm.jpg
 
Perhaps but it clearly won't be by you. And you have no idea what "grandma" did and why she's carrying that cane.

Further, the child in that video is not at the same stage of development as the child in the picture you showed.


It looks like the only noose tightening here is the rope of dishonesty tightening around your own gullet, sport.

Apparently, not 2 too quick on your "toes"

The baby, grandma combo represents 2 mindsets. Take your pick
 
Whatever. You've spent this whole thread demanding this Agent be tried for defending himself. You started with "It's just a rock" to "The bullet crossed the border" and each time your arguments have been slammed.

False.

Now you claim no one (but Jall) is smart enough to get your logic. W/E.

I never claimed once claimed people weren't smart enough to get it. Plenty of smart people don't understand the things they actively don't want to understand.

I think the issue here is that it's far easier for some people to present an emotionally-laden irrational argument against a strawman they build up in order to demonize their opponents than it is to actually debate the issues being discussed by the other person. Doesn't mean that said person is irrational. It's quitre rational to argue against an easy target that one has invented for the purpoose of arguing against it than it is to argue against an more difficult target that isn't particularly interested in emotion-laden nonsense.

This is why the people who seem to be most emotional in this thread are the one's who are creating this strawman that Jall and I are opposed to agents defending themselves.


You'd legalize drugs

It's not that simple, obviously. Just look at the video you posted before. The price of human smiggling has grown immensley over the last few years. It's a lot more than drugs that are causing the problem.

The thing is, I'm not in charge of polic, and I'll never be allowed to be in charge of policy. This isn't because I wouldn't make good policy decisions.

It's because I'm not prone to making emotionally-laden, irrational arguments. This is what America wants nowadays; pure emotional drivel. We engorge ouselves on it. One only needs to look at the **** that passes for "news" in this country to see that. Look at the nonsense that our politicians on both sides vomit out.

Well, that, and I've got a criminal record.
 
Apparently, not 2 too quick on your "toes"

The baby, grandma combo represents 2 mindsets. Take your pick

Don't need to. You are clearly making an appeal to the absurd.

Apparently, honest discussion isn't your interest so why would I indulge such a moronic "pick"?
 
That's not what I stated. I don't know why you insist on being so dishonest.

I don't know why you are running away from your stance.

You think this guy shouldn't have fired his weapon. Ergo, he has no right to self defense.
 
I don't know why you are running away from your stance.

You think this guy shouldn't have fired his weapon. Ergo, he has no right to self defense.

And there you go again...I said I would wait until an investigation into this particular incident was conducted in order to make that judgment call.

Does anyone even bother to ****ing read a thread before they start spewing and blathering about what they think was said rather than what was actually said?
 
And there you go again...I said I would wait until an investigation into this particular incident was conducted in order to make that judgment call.

Funny, how you've spent most of the thread arguing his actions were wrong... What you're doing is taking a stance and crutching it in "But I'll wait for..." so when you're proven wrong you can say "see, I waited good thing too" and if you're right you can say "See, I was right all along". That's not debate, that's CYA posturing.

Does anyone even bother to ****ing read a thread before they start spewing and blathering about what they think was said rather than what was actually said?

No, we just see your name and assume you take X stance. :roll:

Don't get mad, if you'd quit trying to play every angle so as not to be wrong, you might get somewhere.
 
He was being attacked with rocks. You want him prosecuted for defending himself.

Ergo in your view, he had no right to defend himself.

/thread.

I do believe Tucker also said an investigation was warranted before making a decision.

However, I will affirm that generally speaking, bullets as a response to rocks should be prosecuted. Again, though, this is a case by case issue.
 
I do believe Tucker also said an investigation was warranted before making a decision.

Then Tucker should wait till the investigation before saying anything.


However, I will affirm that generally speaking, bullets as a response to rocks should be prosecuted. Again, though, this is a case by case issue.

And the LAW, police department procedure, common sense... says you are utterly in the wrong.
 
Funny, how you've spent most of the thread arguing his actions were wrong...

No, I've spent the entire thread arguing that bullets across the border as a response to rocks across the border is wrong. Try opening your eyes and ****ing reading once in a while.

What you're doing is taking a stance and crutching it in "But I'll wait for..." so when you're proven wrong you can say "see, I waited good thing too" and if you're right you can say "See, I was right all along". That's not debate, that's CYA posturing.

No, it's acknowledging that I would like to have all the pertinent information before moving forward in my assessment. It's what most intelligent and fair people will do.

No, we just see your name and assume you take X stance. :roll:

Don't get mad, if you'd quit trying to play every angle so as not to be wrong, you might get somewhere.

I don't know what it is you actually do but it sure as hell hasn't been responding to what was actually posted to you. And now you are completely shifting gears to a whole new line of attack with this "playing every angle" bull**** you're now spewing because, chances are, you've gone back and seen the record and how you haven't actually been responding to what I said but what you convinced yourself I said.

Instead of just confessing you were wrong, you're now making more **** up. It's your MO.
 
Then Tucker should wait till the investigation before saying anything.




And the LAW, police department procedure, common sense... says you are utterly in the wrong.

Another moronic appeal to status quo. No surprise there.
 
Don't need to. You are clearly making an appeal to the absurd.
When you stop watching american idol and start paying attention to real life then we'll see some action

Apparently, honest discussion isn't your interest so why would I indulge such a moronic "pick"?

There are 3 types of fails.... Those you learn from, those you suffer from, and those you don't survive. Again, an appeal to the "absurd"
 
When you stop watching american idol and start paying attention to real life then we'll see some action

And now you are resorting to ad homs that aren't even remotely on topic. You're done.

There are 3 types of fails.... Those you learn from, those you suffer from, and those you don't survive. Again, an appeal to the "absurd"

You're not even making sense at this point. You're all over the place. Coherence....try it sometime.
 
No, I've spent the entire thread arguing that bullets across the border as a response to rocks across the border is wrong. Try opening your eyes and ****ing reading once in a while.
And I've repeatedly given evidence that not only is this a first time occurrence, it's not, but that it is PART OF HOW THE BORDER PATROL Operates.
They feel they are in danger from someone on the Mexican side of the border, they are more then free to shoot them. End of story.
I.E. you keep going on about the bullets crossing the border as if your point has any relevance to reality whatsoever.

No, it's acknowledging that I would like to have all the pertinent information before moving forward in my assessment. It's what most intelligent and fair people will do.

Yet you are assessing that shooting into Mexico at a rock thrower is wrong, despite pertinent information in the form of rules, laws, precedent proving that you are in error. This shows how little you care about the "Pertinent Information". Fair and intelligent people (That's a nice little passive aggressive personal insult by the way), also use past events to guide their judgement. You have not shown to use such tools in this case.
I don't know what it is you actually do but it sure as hell hasn't been responding to what was actually posted to you. And now you are completely shifting gears to a whole new line of attack with this "playing every angle" bull**** you're now spewing because, chances are, you've gone back and seen the record and how you haven't actually been responding to what I said but what you convinced yourself I said.

Instead of just confessing you were wrong, you're now making more **** up. It's your MO.

What am I making up? Nothing. I'm hounding you for your error, and for your elitist attitude that somehow despite all evidence to the contrary, you have a valid point to make.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's take it down a notch
 
He was being attacked with rocks. You want him prosecuted for defending himself.

Ergo in your view, he had no right to defend himself.

/thread.

Repeating it doesn't make it less of a false dichotomy.

First, using a gun is not the only way that one can defend themself. Thus, your conclusion is totally illogical and fallacious. You can repeat it agian if you wish, but it doesn't change the fact that the conclusion itself is totally asinine. My arguments are actually about defending one's self in a manner that is appropriate to the threat posed by the one being defended against.

Your argument is that any instance of rock throwing can be met with lethal force at the sole discretion of the shooter and that charges should never be filed agianst the shooter in any circumstances because ... ROCKS CAN KILL!!!!

From my perspective, this is an irrational argument.

It means that a small child throwing stones at a cop could be shot by said cop and the cop is never at risk for being prosecuted.

My argumetn is that the amount of force used in response to a threat should be relative to the legitimate degree of threat being posed.

If the threat to life is minimal, the response should not be a maximal threat to the life of the attacker.

My argument allows the prosecution of a cop who shoots a small child for throwing stones at him.

Now, you'll see that the word "prosecution" above has been italicized. This is because I think you are misunderstanding what "prosecuted" means. It does not mean found guilty or imprisoned or punished in some way..

It simply means that charges should be filed and that due process of law should be fully employed in order to determine if a really was is guilty of some crime or not.

You are trying to bypass the due process of law by finding him not guilty of any crime before a trial even happens.

I disagree with that. The presumption of innocence is important to due process, but that doesn't mean that a declaration of innocence should occur pre-trial.

Do you throw away the presumption of innocence when you are calling for someone's prosecution? Do you only do so when you presume guilt and want them to be punished?
 
And I've repeatedly given evidence that not only is this a first time occurrence, it's not, but that it is PART OF HOW THE BORDER PATROL Operates.
They feel they are in danger from someone on the Mexican side of the border, they are more then free to shoot them. End of story.
I.E. you keep going on about the bullets crossing the border as if your point has any relevance to reality whatsoever.

And I have repeatedly pointed out that that they can remove themselves from danger easily by moving a a couple dozen yards back while still being in a good position to actually defend the border should someone...you know...try to cross it.

Yet you are assessing that shooting into Mexico at a rock thrower is wrong, despite pertinent information in the form of rules, laws, precedent proving that you are in error. This shows how little you care about the "Pertinent Information". Fair and intelligent people (That's a nice little passive aggressive personal insult by the way), also use past events to guide their judgement. You have not shown to use such tools in this case.

Boo-****ing-hoo on the insult front. I have found it insulting that you have misrepresented mine and Tucker's stance on this from beginning to end. Get over it.

And I have simply asserted that in most cases (I'll even go so far as to say the vast number of cases) firing bullets in response to rock throwing is not appropriate. Period. I have also said that it is a case by case basis in order to determine the times it is appropriate. I really wish you would make some attempt at honesty here.

What am I making up? Nothing. I'm hounding you for your error, and for your elitist attitude that somehow despite all evidence to the contrary, you have a valid point to make.

Well let's see....you've completely falsified several positions since this started. Now whether that's because you are a liar, ignorant of the positions because you failed to actually read them, or didn't comprehend what you read remains to be seen. And now you are totally making up this idea that I am playing all sides when I have been abundantly clear as to what my position is.
 
And I have simply asserted that in most cases (I'll even go so far as to say the vast number of cases) firing bullets in response to rock throwing is not appropriate. Period.

You're thinking would give anyone that wanted to stop/interfere with the BP or other Law Enforcement free reign to throw rocks at them. This shows how little you understand the reality of Law Enforcement.
 
Back
Top Bottom