Rock-throwing prompts border shooting
Sep 12, 2012, 6:01 am
#46
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
But I still have questions in this case. I'm not 100% convinced either way, and won't be till I hear more details about the situation:
*How wide was the river at that point?
*How far from the Mexican shore were the agents?
*How far from the throwers were the agents?
*How many throwers were there?
*How big were the rocks?
*How many rocks were thrown at the agents?
*How close did the rocks come to the agents?
*Was the agents' escape route blocked in any way?
*Were the agents wearing any protective gear, i.e. body armor and/or helmets?
*Did the boat provide the agents any physical protection form the rocks?
*Did the agents make any attempt whatsoever to evade the rock throwers?
*Had the Mexican authorities been alerted?
*Did the agents give any verbal warning to the throwers before openning fire?
*What action, if any, did the agents take prior to escalating their response to lethal force?
Before I can decide whether I believe the fatal shooting of a Mexican national, in Mexican territory, by US CBP agents in the river, was justified, I need these questions answered.
*How wide was the river at that point?
*How far from the Mexican shore were the agents?
*How far from the throwers were the agents?
*How many throwers were there?
*How big were the rocks?
*How many rocks were thrown at the agents?
*How close did the rocks come to the agents?
*Was the agents' escape route blocked in any way?
*Were the agents wearing any protective gear, i.e. body armor and/or helmets?
*Did the boat provide the agents any physical protection form the rocks?
*Did the agents make any attempt whatsoever to evade the rock throwers?
*Had the Mexican authorities been alerted?
*Did the agents give any verbal warning to the throwers before openning fire?
*What action, if any, did the agents take prior to escalating their response to lethal force?
Before I can decide whether I believe the fatal shooting of a Mexican national, in Mexican territory, by US CBP agents in the river, was justified, I need these questions answered.
Sep 12, 2012, 6:31 am
#47
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,111
Sep 12, 2012, 7:50 am
#48
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
I don't want to start a witch hunt on the CBP agents involved in this incident, but I also don't think we can say that a rock is always a deadly weapon and they were automatically justified in using lethal force merely because rocks were thrown at them. Rocks can be deadly weapons, but they aren't always deadly weapons; whether they are or not depends on the circumstances and the rocks themselves.
My mind is not yet made up. I'm not saying that the agents were definitely in the wrong and that their use of lethal force was definitely unjustified. What I'm saying is, that possibility exists, and because of that possibility, the incident should be investigated by an objective outside agency.
When all is said and done in this case, when the details are released and my own personal questions are answered, I may very well come back and fully support the agents' actions and their use of lethal force. But I'm not going to do that until I have more information, and unless that information supports the agents' use of lethal force.
Sep 12, 2012, 9:36 pm
#49
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 647
I seriously doubt that the CBP will file a factual and honest report. It's not in their best interests which is CYA.
By the way, you asked what experience I have and said that I frankly don't know what I'm talking about.
Does combat count as experience?
By the way, you asked what experience I have and said that I frankly don't know what I'm talking about.
Does combat count as experience?
Sep 12, 2012, 9:55 pm
#50
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Honkers/UK ... wherever clients are.
Programs: BAEC, AAdvantage, Untied, US Airways, Skypesos, Hyatt, Marriott, Hilton, Priority Club.
Posts: 154
Yes, there was. It was a Border Patrol helicopter in the San Diego sector. The helicopter was in the process of rescuing an illegal alien that was drowning in the Tijuana River. What is the point of discussing these topics if you are not going to read what other people write? Did you even read the link that describes a rock attack and what it can do? There are even some decent pictures of the aftermath of these attacks. I am starting to remember why I stopped posting here. If you want me to listen to your opinions you could at least show the courtesy of reading the posts.
FB
FB
Now, I really haven't paid attention to grammar since the 6th grade, but I seem to remember that sentences that end with a "?" usually tend to constitute a question. As for the link that "describes the rock attack", the link posted by the OP:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/06/us...html?hpt=us_c2
Take a guess at how many times that mentions a helicopter crash. That right. Zero.
I don't expect others to know the details about what I do, nor do I expect them to have the accumulated knowledge that someone who does what I do, including knowledge of past experiences that are not generally accepted public knowledge. Nor do I generally respond to polite questions with that sort of response. But, I guess, to each his own.
Also, as to your other point, that individuals who aren't members of your agency aren't allowed to "judge" its actions, or those of its employees ...
You've got to be kidding. Do you think every judge who presides over a case involving CBP is a former law enforcement professional? How about jurors, are they all former law enforcement?
I think you may be confusing(or at least not communicating) the roles of "expert witnesses" who say that in a particular situation , actions A, B, and C are best practices with non-experts who take that information and render a judgement.
Sep 13, 2012, 12:01 am
#51
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Prescott, AZ
Programs: US, UA, Marriott, SPG, HH Silver
Posts: 173
I am curious about something - how much of the Rio Grande is US territory, and how much is Mexican territory? Is the national border on one side or the other, or is it in the middle? I had always been under the impression that the actual border line was the middle, and that each nation's watercraft were required to stay on their side of the river, except in cases where assistance was required and requested by one side or the other, or in life-saving operations such as drowning civilians. So why was a US boat within rock-throwing range of the Mexican side?
And to reiterate what others have said - while I agree that rock throwing can certainly be deadly, it's still rock throwing. Responding to rock throwing with gunfire, unless the LEOs are cornered and have no escape, is a disproportionate response.
I won't defend the rock throwers. They're most likely drug smuggling criminals, and they have no right to throw rocks at law enforcement, of either country. But CBP is a US agency, and the people they shot at were Mexicans inside Mexican territory. CBP has no authority, and no right - legal, ethical, or moral - to take a life inside Mexican sovereign territory unless they have no alternative to save their own lives.
And to reiterate what others have said - while I agree that rock throwing can certainly be deadly, it's still rock throwing. Responding to rock throwing with gunfire, unless the LEOs are cornered and have no escape, is a disproportionate response.
I won't defend the rock throwers. They're most likely drug smuggling criminals, and they have no right to throw rocks at law enforcement, of either country. But CBP is a US agency, and the people they shot at were Mexicans inside Mexican territory. CBP has no authority, and no right - legal, ethical, or moral - to take a life inside Mexican sovereign territory unless they have no alternative to save their own lives.
It's nearly impossible to side with either one. I think the CBP agents should not have answered simply because the rock throwers were likely trying to get a violent response (just like kids throw rocks at Israeli soldiers in Palestine, at the US military in Irak/Afgh., etc). For obvious reasons can't side with the rock throwers either.
The reality is that if you throw rocks at the Mexican Military (the only credible agency in Mexico right now, maybe the PF too), you're probably going to be on the receiving end of a G3. Granted, it is less likely that either country's military will fire across the border, because it would be more damaging to bilateral relations, and they're more likely to exercise some restraint, as I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time that they are victims of that type of provocations.
As to why was a US boat within rock throwing range, I'm not sure if you've ever been around Laredo, but the river is significantly lower than the ground on either side, at least every time I've been there (I think it can go up significantly if there's excess rain, but not normally), so they could have shot from higher ground in a narrower part of the river.
Sep 13, 2012, 4:48 am
#52
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,111
Been thinking about this incident. Wondering what kind of tactics intentionally call for placing your force within range of a person who can throw a "deadly" rocks.
Perhaps these law enforcement experts need some none experts to point out how to prevent these occurrences.
Perhaps these law enforcement experts need some none experts to point out how to prevent these occurrences.
Sep 13, 2012, 2:20 pm
#53
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
Been thinking about this incident. Wondering what kind of tactics intentionally call for placing your force within range of a person who can throw a "deadly" rocks.
Perhaps these law enforcement experts need some none experts to point out how to prevent these occurrences.
Perhaps these law enforcement experts need some none experts to point out how to prevent these occurrences.
Both the US and Mexico have border patrols in boats on that river. Both have a perfect right - indeed, a duty - to patrol that river.
My issue is that the agents may have responded with lethal force when there were non-lethal options available to protect themselves, including fleeing the scene, an option which is not available when assailants are on US soil and they have a legal responsibility to chase the assailants down and arrest them.
Sep 13, 2012, 2:48 pm
#54
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,111
Let's not go totally wig on this issue, BD.
Both the US and Mexico have border patrols in boats on that river. Both have a perfect right - indeed, a duty - to patrol that river.
My issue is that the agents may have responded with lethal force when there were non-lethal options available to protect themselves, including fleeing the scene, an option which is not available when assailants are on US soil and they have a legal responsibility to chase the assailants down and arrest them.
Both the US and Mexico have border patrols in boats on that river. Both have a perfect right - indeed, a duty - to patrol that river.
My issue is that the agents may have responded with lethal force when there were non-lethal options available to protect themselves, including fleeing the scene, an option which is not available when assailants are on US soil and they have a legal responsibility to chase the assailants down and arrest them.
Sep 13, 2012, 5:50 pm
#55
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 647
In my earlier days (1980s), in an undisclosed place, my squad was confronted by a crowd of civilians (and possibly a bad guy or two mixed in) who were throwing rocks, bottles, and other crap at us. Our orders, and our procedure, was to NOT ENGAGE WITH LETHAL FORCE UNLESS FIRED UPON!!! Did we get hit by some of this? We certainly did. Did we return fire? No, we did not. We backed off and diffused the situation. Was there any armed people in the crowd? Most certainly, but they did not fire on us.
The point is that we acted in a much more professional manner than the CBP agents on the river. Don't presume to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Many LEOs today are less professional in their actions and manners than 20 or 30 years ago. And that includes the CBP. Too many are too quick to shoot, taze, or attack than ever before. The professionalism of many agents, especially those manning the immi booths, has been waning the past decade. Not all, but many. 9/11 is not an excuse so don't even bring that up.
The agents in the river could probably have handled the situation much better and there would be one less dead person in this world. We will never know the truth because the DHS/CBP will lie and cover it up. That's the nature of our government, unfortunately.
And until we get politicians who have big ones, it will only continue to decline and more people will be abused, harassed, and killed.
The point is that we acted in a much more professional manner than the CBP agents on the river. Don't presume to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Many LEOs today are less professional in their actions and manners than 20 or 30 years ago. And that includes the CBP. Too many are too quick to shoot, taze, or attack than ever before. The professionalism of many agents, especially those manning the immi booths, has been waning the past decade. Not all, but many. 9/11 is not an excuse so don't even bring that up.
The agents in the river could probably have handled the situation much better and there would be one less dead person in this world. We will never know the truth because the DHS/CBP will lie and cover it up. That's the nature of our government, unfortunately.
And until we get politicians who have big ones, it will only continue to decline and more people will be abused, harassed, and killed.
Sep 13, 2012, 8:14 pm
#56
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
These agents may - I stress may because, as I said, I don't have enough facts to make that judgement 100% certain - they may have used lethal force when the situation did not warrant it, during the course of their protection of the border.
Sep 14, 2012, 12:33 am
#57
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: North of DFW
Programs: AA PLT, HH Gold, TSA Disparager Gold, going for Platnium
Posts: 1,535
The agency uses other and has used other aircraft then what you have listed. They just recently in the past year or last year retired the last loach that they had flying. Last time I looked I worked for the agency and have better access to the information than you do or does work experience only work in YOUR favor.
That was just a short list as I know there are much more types/varities in there fleet.
In working in/on/around FD/EMS apparatus as well as rotor and fixed wing aircraft on a daily basis, and more times then not aircraft are hot (blades, props, engines spinning). Beyond not like i can'tlook on the apron/ramp of KGKY or KGPM at Bell, American EuroCopter or UniFlight to see whats going on and in for maintence/upgrades and/or training. That or drive up the road to lockheed martin.
For which as of yesterday there were a A-Star 350 and a EC 135 in CBP markings at American Eurocopter sitting on the apron next to the EC X-3 Prototype/Demonstrator along with a mix/mash of a dozen or so helicopters.
In any case, you experience while worthwhile is not all that impressive to me. In my prior, life I spent 12 years in Fire/Ems. I have spent a fair amount of time around helicopters. I will date myself by saying I was even involved in making the state of NJ training film for Fire Department interaction with helicopters. Very old we are talking late 80's I was just a grunt then. This screen name didn't come from my present employment.
Sep 14, 2012, 10:50 am
#58
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Honkers/UK ... wherever clients are.
Programs: BAEC, AAdvantage, Untied, US Airways, Skypesos, Hyatt, Marriott, Hilton, Priority Club.
Posts: 154
I would agree with this. Even if that individual did have information that wasn't public, he probably shouldn't be sharing it anyway, but if he did do so, he could have expressed himself separately.
Sep 14, 2012, 7:40 pm
#60
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 642
The problem being that they are not unarmed. They are armed with deadly weapons depending upon the circumstances. There are dozens of agents every year that are seriously injuries in these rock attacks that are felony assaults on a law enforcement officer. This not a war zone and when you were in your war zone you had specific rule of engagement. They are not the same here. These people are out to injure agents. One could say it works both ways. The drug smuggler could watch with binos and wait for the agents to leave but they don't. They attack the agents in the hope that they will leave the area. You should take a look at some of the BP vehicles that operate on the southern border. You would find they don't look all that different than what you were driving in Iraq. There is a reason for that. The agents don't always get to stay in those vehicles.
I promise you the last thing that agent wants to do is use deadly force. For the simple reason that no matter what the circumstances, there will be many many people that will second guess him forever. Most, of those people have never even been in an altercation involving anger let alone someone who is really trying to hurt or kill them.
FB
I promise you the last thing that agent wants to do is use deadly force. For the simple reason that no matter what the circumstances, there will be many many people that will second guess him forever. Most, of those people have never even been in an altercation involving anger let alone someone who is really trying to hurt or kill them.
FB
Lastly, I would like to believe you regarding CBP employees desire to avoid deadly force. Unfortunately, the increase in violence by CBP employees being reported in the media seems to be contrary to that. The number of honest and worthy CBP agents is on the decline. Two instances off the top of my head that are recent:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml Chilling video 'reveals moment 12 border guards tasered and beat Mexican illegal immigrant to death'
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblog...er-punched-me/ Woman Said Border Patrol Agent “Sucker Punched Me”
Admittedly, the second one isn't deadly force, but it is 2 CBP employees, off duty, threatening and beating a female Navy doctor in San Diego. In fact, the male cheers on the woman as she beats the doctor. Sounds like 2 people who love violence and get some of it fulfilled by being CBP employees. Definitely people that would not be able to show good judgement when armed against helpless people and nobody around to hold them accountable. If these 2 remain employees of the CBP, that says all we need to know about the CBP.