• 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!

Texas bans shooting immigrants from helicopters

So I suppose you're not allowed to use bait either, right? :2razz:


On a more serious note, I note that the ban is only about not shooting from a helicopter, but makes no mention of shooting from the ground. If people are thinking this is a win for "due process", it isn't.

Exactly, and it's good general policy not to shoot from a moving platform at distance. However, at the same time I can see where there might be situations, like this one, where it's useful to do so. You've got a truck full of god knows what fleeing border patrol (and maybe losing them), and you're in the middle of nowhere, these are not just criminals, but foreign criminals. Light em up before they get to a populated area.
 
Last edited:
Well, that is the most ridiculous non sequitor in history.

So yeah, shooting people from a helicopter is bad. That is one of those common sense things.

Depends on who they're shooting. A mass murder, who just gunned down several innocent people getting shot by a trooper in a helicopter would be good.

A mistake like this could have happened on the ground just as easily.
 
Somebody has to work at McDonalds.

LOL! You may have hit on the answer. Open more McDonalds in countries people are fleeing from... :lamo
 
Btw, in all this we should note there is no "ban", just a county's policy change for their law enforcement.
 
I am opposed to using drone strikes to kill people entering the county illegally. Drone strikes for other purposes are irrelevant to the topic since they are used for, you know, different purposes. Hint: this isn't about Obama. Not every topic is. Bringing in irrelevancies is diverting, not discussing the, you know, topic.

The right is obsessed with Obama. Some posters bring him up in every thread, including one on drinking (guess which poster did that?)
 
Let's see, the truck was fleeing at unsafe speeds, there was a tarp covering the bed. The Troopers thought there was drugs in the bed of the truck and did not intentionally target the people in the bed. It's easy to sit back and criticize the Troopers decision but there's some nasty **** that goes on on the border from the drug cartels. I guess from now on, when a fleeing vehicle is getting close to a highly populated area, troopers and law enforcement shouldn't make any attempt to stop them?

So the excuse is "They weren't trying to kill people; they were trying to kill the drugs"????
 
You have an unhealthy level of trust in the infallibility of your President and the people who work for him. Using drones to attack the enemy in a field of war is something everyone could and does support - Using drones in a sovereign country, when you're not at war with them, when in some cases they are your ally, to target one person yet kill dozens of innocent others as well is not something decent, moral people would support - I don't support any person or entity that considers themselves an arbitor of who lives and who dies from the comfort of a golf cart thousands of miles away.

Which is why he opposed the nuking of Japan in WWII and Shock and Awe
 
The right is obsessed with Obama. Some posters bring him up in every thread, including one on drinking (guess which poster did that?)

No more than the "left" was obessessed with everything Bush when he was POTUS.
 
So the excuse is "They weren't trying to kill people; they were trying to kill the drugs"????

No. The reason they shot was to disable the vehicle. Otherwise more than two of the eight illegals would have been killed.
 
Before you go out of your way to try to kill someone you should be reasonably sure they intend to do harm. Shooting illegal immigrants that reprsent no danger excpet trying to find a job is not the same as killing someone plotting to do harm to American citizens. It just isnt.

Mak, to be fair, according to the posted link and others I have seen on this situation, the helicopter did not fire on a group of unarmed illegal border invaders, but fired on a pickup truck that was fleeing from a ground level chase. The illegals were not targeted. The truck was believed to be carrying drugs not people.

Not a lawyer, but I think that flight such as this is a valid reason for opening fire.
 
If they cant see what is in the back of the truck they wuold have to assume there were people in it. Did you read the rest of the article? The shooter was suspended.

That is simply false. My pickup has a cover over the bed, as do around half of those I see on the road. I have never carried people under the cover, and I have no reason to suspect that the other pickups are. As stated, the pickup that was fired on was believed to be carrying drugs. Why this assessment was made, I have no idea.

Suspending a LEO shooter pending investigation is standard procedure in most incidents where someone is harmed, and has no bearing on the outcome.

I do wonder why the illegals who were in the back of the pickup both were hit while LEO was trying to disable the truck. The bed is the least likely spot to incur disabling damage on the truck. and I fail to see how killing a load of drugs would have stopped the vehicle. The tires, the engine compartment, or the cab, should have been the target.
 
Sure didnt turn out that way, did it?
Mak, to be fair, according to the posted link and others I have seen on this situation, the helicopter did not fire on a group of unarmed illegal border invaders, but fired on a pickup truck that was fleeing from a ground level chase. The illegals were not targeted. The truck was believed to be carrying drugs not people.

Not a lawyer, but I think that flight such as this is a valid reason for opening fire.
 
I guess this means Sarah Palin's new reality show is going to get canceled.
 
It is quite pathetic that some posters feel a need to flat out lie about what you've posted or they purposely misrepresent what you've posted in a psychotic need to engage you on their base level.
 
Oh, and by the way, Hi Jimbo.
Mak, to be fair, according to the posted link and others I have seen on this situation, the helicopter did not fire on a group of unarmed illegal border invaders, but fired on a pickup truck that was fleeing from a ground level chase. The illegals were not targeted. The truck was believed to be carrying drugs not people.

Not a lawyer, but I think that flight such as this is a valid reason for opening fire.
 
Jimbo, are you talking to yourself?
 
Sure didnt turn out that way, did it?

Law of unintended consequences. Like I told my kids, the way to stay out of trouble is to not be where trouble is. And, along the border in a drug crossing area in a fleeing truck is one of the places where trouble is.
 
Police murdering unidentified people? No, I think that's banned in most places, actually.

Border enforcement is a whole different ball game to civil policing. Not sure why people continue to draw the comparison.
 
If they cant see what is in the back of the truck they wuold have to assume there were people in it. Did you read the rest of the article? The shooter was suspended.

Actually the article claims the assumption was that the truck was transporting drugs.

Also why would it matter if the shooter was suspended? That doesn't automatically denote wrong doing on his end
 
You might be right about that. I beleived GWB when he said Iraq had WMD. I must get more cynical.

Nice attempt to totally Dodge the issue he raised.

Lol-!!!
 
It could have been carrying children on the way to school and that's why you don't fire at vehicles from a helicopter if you don't know what's in them. You ever tried to shoot a gun from a moving vehicle? Now picture that vehicle is 500 feet in the air and vibrating like you wouldn't believe. Pinpoint accurate, right?

They were shooting at people.

You seem intent on ignoring that the truck was in the process of violating our territorial integrity. Something every state has a clear interest and right to uphold.

This wasn't just some random vehicle
 
I said he was right about that. LOL. I dodged nothing. You think you are the forum police or something?
Nice attempt to totally Dodge the issue he raised.

Lol-!!!
 
I said he was right about that. LOL. I dodged nothing. You think you are the forum police or something?

No, I'm just someone pointing at your blatent attempt to shift attention.

I'm not sure how that would equate someone to the "forum police". Maybe think before you post
 
Back
Top Bottom