• 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

Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...

You have a point about the children thing. I always carried my kids to school in the back of my pickup under the cover while fleeing from the law. Doesn't everybody?

There are lots of people that are capable of shooting from a moving helicopter and hitting the target. They worked well in Viet Nam, and there are a good many capable of shooting from either a prop driven airplane or a helicopter and killing game or shooting darts to immobilize critters. I would have no reason to believe that the LEO assigned to police helicopters were not among them

For me, that is the one element of the story that doesn't make much sense. If you are trying to stop a fleeing pickup, why would you shoot at the bed?

A
 
Rear tires I would guess.
jimbo said:
You have a point about the children thing. I always carried my kids to school in the back of my pickup under the cover while fleeing from the law. Doesn't everybody?

There are lots of people that are capable of shooting from a moving helicopter and hitting the target. They worked well in Viet Nam, and there are a good many capable of shooting from either a prop driven airplane or a helicopter and killing game or shooting darts to immobilize critters. I would have no reason to believe that the LEO assigned to police helicopters were not among them

For me, that is the one element of the story that doesn't make much sense. If you are trying to stop a fleeing pickup, why would you shoot at the bed?

A
Click to expand...
 
How old fashioned. They could have used a drone to explode the vehicle thereby insuring there were no survivors and the medical cost associated with that.

The elimination of due process has made enforcement much easier. Shoot first, ask questions later:roll:
 
mak2 said:
Texas?
Click to expand...

You could try. But that would only use up about 5% of our available ammunition. We can get more, now that we don't have to spend it on helicopter fuel.

Most probably wouldn't like Texas anyways. Most come from socialist or neo-socialist countries and we ain't exactly the poster children for socialism, now are we? For example, our economy is actually doing ok.
 
specklebang said:
How old fashioned. They could have used a drone to explode the vehicle thereby insuring there were no survivors and the medical cost associated with that.

The elimination of due process has made enforcement much easier. Shoot first, ask questions later:roll:
Click to expand...

Not really. The perps were offered their day in court with the police trying to stop the vehicle and the vehicle fleeing. Red light flashing, you pull over. You run, you lose.

This story is from last October. It was originally reported as a pickup load of suspected illegals. Only the new Texas policy is recent news. I don't know what to make of the story, but the truckload of suspected illegal something had ample time to comply.
 
CanadaJohn said:
So you're against President Obama's indescriminate murder of Americans and other nationals using drones. Good to hear.
Click to expand...

.... indiscriminate? Lol... it's not like the man is ordering the bombing of schools full of 10 year old girls.
 
This was an ill-fated attempt of sarcasm on my part. However, the snideness of my remark is more related to the Patriot Act than to this specific case. Unless a violent crime has been committed, I am not very comfortable with law enforcement shooting people in the back, despite my disapproval of crime.

My city's police department is notorious for poorly justified police shootings that are carefully blocked from examination and prosecution. I am not unsympathetic to the police but I prefer the justice system be applied in all cases other than imminent violence.



jimbo said:
Not really. The perps were offered their day in court with the police trying to stop the vehicle and the vehicle fleeing. Red light flashing, you pull over. You run, you lose.

This story is from last October. It was originally reported as a pickup load of suspected illegals. Only the new Texas policy is recent news. I don't know what to make of the story, but the truckload of suspected illegal something had ample time to comply.
Click to expand...
 
CanadaJohn said:
Where there is no difference is in shooting indescriminately from the sky from a drone or from a helicopter - to suggest otherwise, is dishonest.
Click to expand...

?

in·dis·crim·i·nate

1.Done at random or without careful judgment: "indiscriminate killing".
2.(of a person) Not using or exercising discrimination.
Click to expand...

How does that fit?
 
Hatuey said:
.... indiscriminate? Lol... it's not like the man is ordering the bombing of schools full of 10 year old girls.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not - what you refer to is deliberate on the part of the bombers. Obama has simply ordered bombings that occasionally takes out men, women and children attending a wedding celebration - I'm sure that wasn't his intent - that's what makes it indiscriminate.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Texas bans shooting immigrants from helicopters | The Raw Story


Yup... Only in Texas... [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

Read the story. The truck was attempting to flee, and was refusing to stop for law enforcement. IMHO, that makes it a target. Also, the troopers did not shoot the immigrants. They shot out the tires of the truck because the driver was evading arrest, then the truck crashed. That there were illegal immigrants in the truck makes this unfortunate, but the driver should have obeyed the law and stopped. The immigrants should have also obeyed the law and waited in line to come here.
 
Last edited:
CanadaJohn said:
Perhaps not - what you refer to is deliberate on the part of the bombers. Obama has simply ordered bombings that occasionally takes out men, women and children attending a wedding celebration - I'm sure that wasn't his intent - that's what makes it indiscriminate.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter whether it was intentional or not. Obama is to blame for the killing of innocent people. He has blood on his hands.
 
I hate weddings.
CanadaJohn said:
Perhaps not - what you refer to is deliberate on the part of the bombers. Obama has simply ordered bombings that occasionally takes out men, women and children attending a wedding celebration - I'm sure that wasn't his intent - that's what makes it indiscriminate.
Click to expand...
 
ecofarm said:
?



How does that fit?
Click to expand...

My point, lost on some I suppose, is that if you kill innocent people using a drone bomb or a shot from a helicopter, there is no difference. Both indiscriminately ignore innocent life that may be lost in securing, in their opinion, the death of the guilty. To me, it would be like Texas electrocuting a murderer and a few innocents in the audience got zapped too - too bad, so sad - they were just associating with the wrong crowd.
 
Dont give them Texans any ideas.
CanadaJohn said:
My point, lost on some I suppose, is that if you kill innocent people using a drone bomb or a shot from a helicopter, there is no difference. Both indiscriminately ignore innocent life that may be lost in securing, in their opinion, the death of the guilty. To me, it would be like Texas electrocuting a murderer and a few innocents in the audience got zapped too - too bad, so sad - they were just associating with the wrong crowd.
Click to expand...
 
CanadaJohn said:
My point, lost on some I suppose, is that if you kill innocent people using a drone bomb or a shot from a helicopter, there is no difference. Both indiscriminately ignore innocent life that may be lost in securing, in their opinion, the death of the guilty. To me, it would be like Texas electrocuting a murderer and a few innocents in the audience got zapped too - too bad, so sad - they were just associating with the wrong crowd.
Click to expand...

I disagree. In the case of Texas, the driver was attempting to evade arrest. Also, troopers did not shoot the illegals. They shot out the tires of the truck, and the truck crashed. The truck should have stopped when ordered to by law enforecement. IMHO, this was a good shoot by the cops.
 
danarhea said:
I disagree. In the case of Texas, the driver was attempting to evade arrest. Also, troopers did not shoot the illegals. They shot out the tires of the truck, and the truck crashed. The truck should have stopped when ordered to by law enforecement. IMHO, this was a good shoot by the cops.
Click to expand...

I don't dispute these facts - I was simply following up on the discussion yesterday where some on the left claimed that the Texas example was wrong because it ignored "due process" for those on the ground but didn't think due process should equally be given to those killed by drones, even when they are American citizens. My point was that it would be wrong in both cases if innocent lives are lost.
 
I dont object due to due process, I just dont beleive there was enough of a threat from a speeding pickup truck that the LEOs in the helicopter should open fire. I do believe AlQueda leader ship poses that much of a threat. I do understand your argument though.
CanadaJohn said:
I don't dispute these facts - I was simply following up on the discussion yesterday where some on the left claimed that the Texas example was wrong because it ignored "due process" for those on the ground but didn't think due process should equally be given to those killed by drones, even when they are American citizens. My point was that it would be wrong in both cases if innocent lives are lost.
Click to expand...
 
CanadaJohn said:
I don't dispute these facts - I was simply following up on the discussion yesterday where some on the left claimed that the Texas example was wrong because it ignored "due process" for those on the ground but didn't think due process should equally be given to those killed by drones, even when they are American citizens. My point was that it would be wrong in both cases if innocent lives are lost.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that due process should apply to all, but in the Texas case, they were fleeing law enforcement, which has ordered them to stop. The helicopter had every right to fire on the truck without taking away due process. They had due process when ordered to stop.
 
danarhea said:
I agree with you that due process should apply to all, but in the Texas case, they were fleeing law enforcement, which has ordered them to stop. The helicopter had every right to fire on the truck without taking away due process. They had due process when ordered to stop.
Click to expand...

In effect, those in the truck were in the process of committing a crime - failure to stop - and were suspected of being in the process of committing other crimes, such as illegal entry into the country and drug trafficing - that makes, in my view, the actions of the troopers even more legitimate than drone attacks where the intent is solely to kill someone not committing a crime but perhaps planning one.
 
mak2 said:
I dont object due to due process, I just dont beleive there was enough of a threat from a speeding pickup truck that the LEOs in the helicopter should open fire. I do believe AlQueda leader ship poses that much of a threat. I do understand your argument though.
Click to expand...

The scope of illegal activity intwined with illegal border crossing go well beyond mere speeding
 
danarhea said:
I agree with you that due process should apply to all, but in the Texas case, they were fleeing law enforcement, which has ordered them to stop. The helicopter had every right to fire on the truck without taking away due process. They had due process when ordered to stop.
Click to expand...

This is correct. This is more a police procedure issue. Police departments have pretty wide leeway in determining policy with respect to use of force. That said shooting at moving truck from a moving helicopter and achieving any repeatable degree of accuracy is likely beyond the abilities of all but the most talented marksmen. Meaning that in most cases it's a dumb idea.
 
Gaius46 said:
This is correct. This is more a police procedure issue. Police departments have pretty wide leeway in determining policy with respect to use of force. That said shooting at moving truck from a moving helicopter and achieving any repeatable degree of accuracy is likely beyond the abilities of all but the most talented marksmen. Meaning that in most cases it's a dumb idea.
Click to expand...

They aimed for the tires. They hit the tires. Case closed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom