• 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

My notion isn't that rocks arent that big of a deal. It's that hand thrwon rocks aren't that big of a deal. Granted, one instance in that video showed that hand thrown rocks can be a major issue in certain circumstances (like when the velocity of a vehicle is incorporated into the impact force generated by said rock). Aside from that one example (which was't the case in this instance) the other things were minor.

The agents got stitches from rocks is no worse than a lot of **** I've seen on construction sites. Far better than quite a few injuries of seen on construction sites, to be honest.

Jobs that have risks will have injuries. They should be wearing wear hard hats or helmets. I'd have gotten fined a ****load by OSHA for having guys on a job without hardhats.

Let me throw a rock at you and I'll see you in the obituaries.
 
Basically, it comes down to this: they are using every hyperbole in the book to try to justify a shooting that may or may not have been justified. I will still hold judgment against the agent in this particular instance until an investigation is reported. However, in general, if rocks are coming from behind a boundary, I think the smart and reasonable thing to do is to move away from the boundary out of rock throwing range but still within accurate firing range. Bullet trumps rock in terms of accurate range so I don't think it should be too hard.

So your response to the use of deadly force is to retreat? Good to know, we should just tell bankrobbers to use large chunks of concrete instead of guns from now on.
 
So your response to the use of deadly force is to retreat?

That's not what I said at all. Try reading and responding to what was actually posted.

Good to know, we should just tell bankrobbers to use large chunks of concrete instead of guns from now on.

You go right ahead and do that and I will go right ahead and point and laugh at you. The two situations aren't even comparable.
 
That's not what I said at all. Try reading and responding to what was actually posted.

That's exactly what you said. You suggested that the officer should have retreated after the rocks were thrown.

You go right ahead and do that and I will go right ahead and point and laugh at you. The two situations aren't even comparable.

Really how so?
 
That's exactly what you said. You suggested that the officer should have retreated after the rocks were thrown.

Now go back and read what I actually said in its entirety. Try responding to that.

Really how so?

I don't know how much more simply to spell this out but I will try one more time: if rocks are coming from behind a boundary (like, now stay with me here...a border) the BP agent should move himself to a safe distance out of rock throwing range but within firing range in case the rock thrower crosses the border.

If bank robbers are throwing stuff at police, the police are likely already in a pursuit situation and there really isn't a border. The issue here is what? OMG...it's the border!!??!! Who knew?
 
What is a Deadly Weapon?
We typically think of deadly weapons as being something obvious like a gun or knife. However, everyday "innocent" objects or instruments will qualify when used in ways that are likely to result in severe harm to another.

California’s Penal Code section 245(a)(1) defines "deadly weapon" as an object, instrument, or weapon that is capable of producing and likely to produce death or great bodily injury.5 Hands and feet are not considered "deadly weapons", as the definition is limited to objects that are not part of one’s body.6

Let’s look at some situations where otherwise "innocent" objects will qualify as deadly weapons when used to intentionally harm another.


Examples:

Swinging a beer bottle at another


Threatening to stab another in the neck with a sharp pencil


Ramming your car into another person or another’s car (while the individual is inside)

All of these items...the bottle, pencil, and vehicle...are perfectly innocent when used normally. However, "deadly weapon" is a catchall and can include anything (other than a body part) that has the ability to cause substantial harm to another if used in a threatening way. This means that


a beer bottle,


a pencil,


a dog,


a cigarette lighter,


steel-toed boots,


a car,


a rock, or


anything else (when used in a manner likely to harm another)

qualifies as a "deadly weapon" pursuant to Penal Code 245 (a) (1) PC.
Assault with a Deadly Weapon (ADW); California Penal Code 245(a)(1) pc

Yeah, the California Penal Code is wrong. Rocks are NOT deadly weapons.
 
I am sure a rock, when used to bludgeon is just as deadly as a candlestick holder. That does nothing to build or tear down your case that border patrol should shoot at mexicans across the border when they are throwing rocks.


Except that they HAVE shot across the border, on multiple occasions at rock throwers and never been prosecuted or held in the wrong.

You and Tucker have only your opinions, I have facts, precedent, law enforcement rules and regulations on my side. You have what again? Emotion?
 
Except that they HAVE shot across the border, on multiple occasions at rock throwers and never been prosecuted or held in the wrong.

You and Tucker have only your opinions, I have facts, precedent, law enforcement rules and regulations on my side. You have what again? Emotion?

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.
 
Now go back and read what I actually said in its entirety. Try responding to that.



I don't know how much more simply to spell this out but I will try one more time: if rocks are coming from behind a boundary (like, now stay with me here...a border) the BP agent should move himself to a safe distance out of rock throwing range but within firing range in case the rock thrower crosses the border.

If bank robbers are throwing stuff at police, the police are likely already in a pursuit situation and there really isn't a border. The issue here is what? OMG...it's the border!!??!! Who knew?

Once again your response to the use of deadly force would be to retreat.
 
Not really. Any human being with two working legs to move and eyes to see can do it.

Thats amazing

littlebabydollblog.jpg



littleoldlady.gif
 
Once again your response to the use of deadly force would be to retreat.

And your response is invasion of a sovereign nation?

Seriously, I bet you'd be using those exact words if it were armed Mexican officials entering American territory to arrest an American.
 
And your response is invasion of a sovereign nation?

Seriously, I bet you'd be using those exact words if it were armed Mexican officials entering American territory to arrest an American.

Not at all. Its rather simple. Deadly force gets deadly force back. Deadly force is just that, shooting to wound would be inappropriate. Period
 
Assault with a Deadly Weapon (ADW); California Penal Code 245(a)(1) pc

Yeah, the California Penal Code is wrong. Rocks are NOT deadly weapons.

Interesting approach....

1)linking to a law firm website that may or may not fit your argument... (they're just lawyers, not judges)
2)making a cryptic remark... (could be sarcasm, could be serious, who the hell knows)
3) NOT including any explanation as to why your link is the end-all, case-making source to your argument... as if by merely clicking, all will be revealed...

Please don't mistake our puzzled stare for awe...:shock::confused:
 
Thats amazing

littlebabydollblog.jpg



littleoldlady.gif

I said "working legs". That baby's legs aren't functioning fully yet and that woman has diminished function of her legs as evidenced by her cane.

No, you still don't have a point.
 
I said "working legs". That baby's legs aren't functioning fully yet and that woman has diminished function of her legs as evidenced by her cane.

No, you still don't have a point.

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
 
I'll catch it and wing it back at you and watch you rub your wounded head in amazement at my not-all-that-impressive skill at catching things.

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).
 
Back
Top Bottom