Rock-throwing prompts border shooting

Old Sep 16, 2012, 9:57 am
  #61  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
The site Firebug linked to does a comparison of a 1 pound rock thrown at point blank range to a pistol. Now details are emerging that an AR15 rifle was used, and we know the location of the incident and can estimate distances based on where the legal midpoint of the river was and where the victim was when he was shot. So, here are my numbers (with open invitation to better them by my superiors in terms of physics)

With an AR15:
velocity =
3200 feet per second if they used standard M193 ball military grade ammo or 3000 feet per second if using SS109 (M855 ball) combat grade
the ss109 will penetrate 10 gauge steel plate up to 623 yards distance, the 193 ball will do the same up to 400 yards.

Typical accuracy of AR15 rifles with either types of ammo is about 1MOA, which means a competent shooter can put bullets within a 1-inch circle of aimpoint at 100 yards. at 100 yards, the kinetic energy of the ss109 is 1430 foot pounds (enough energy to move a 1430 pound object one foot)

If the CBP were on the US side of the river, as legally required, they are probably at least 105 feet from the spot where Guillermo Arvalo Pedroza was shot, at the water's edge on the mexican side. At that distance, we can safely rule out a 1 pound rock that Firebug's linked site used. We're talking at most a 5 oz baseball weight (sized smaller than a baseball) rock.

Let's suppose Guillermo Arvalo Pedroza were as accurate and strong in his arm as Roger Clemons at his steroid-pumped best. He's throwing 142 feet per second at 65 feet, which carries a kinetic energy of 0.35 foot pounds (if I'm doing this correctly), and both speed and kinetic energy will be dropping rapidly, probably by 30%-40% at 105 feet. Estimating MOA is 3 inches at 65 feet, 12 inches at 105 feet.

So, if the rock thrower were lucky enough to even hit the CBP at this distance, the KE is probably 0.20 foot pounds.

Baseball hitters are routinely hit by pitches at 97 mph and survive with permanent injuries being vary rare. The CBP agents were being pelted by rocks at 62 mph at most, at these distances, IF Roger Clemons were throwing. Most likely, the speed developed by these rummies on the mexican side was half that, say 31 mph.

Still say lethal force was justified, and rocks were comparable to what the agents used?
nachtnebel is offline  
Old Sep 17, 2012, 1:43 am
  #62  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: HEL
Programs: lots of shiny metal cards
Posts: 14,083
Just my 2 cents - the CBP has no right whatsoever to fire into Mexican (or Canadian, for that matter) territory. They just commited armed aggression an other country.

If they felt threatened, they just had to move 50 yards away.

Last edited by WilcoRoger; Sep 17, 2012 at 5:14 am
WilcoRoger is offline  
Old Sep 17, 2012, 2:46 am
  #63  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 647
Originally Posted by WilcoRoger
Just my 2 cents - the CBP has no right whatsowever to fire into Mexican (or Canadian, for that matter) territory. They just commited armed aggression an other country.

If they felt threatened, they just had to move 50 yards away.
Bolding mine.

Thank you. My point exactly. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that.
bluenotesro is offline  
Old Sep 17, 2012, 8:20 am
  #64  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 642
Originally Posted by bluenotesro
Bolding mine.

Thank you. My point exactly. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that.
Blashphemy! Common sense, critical thinking and an ability to honorably represent this country are not skills of great desire for the DHS.
jtodd is offline  
Old Sep 17, 2012, 2:12 pm
  #65  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,320
Originally Posted by WilcoRoger
Just my 2 cents - the CBP has no right whatsoever to fire into Mexican (or Canadian, for that matter) territory. They just commited armed aggression an other country.

If they felt threatened, they just had to move 50 yards away.
Shooting *BACK* isn't armed aggression against another country. The rock throwers are another matter, though.
Loren Pechtel is offline  
Old Sep 17, 2012, 5:54 pm
  #66  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SJC, SFO, YYC
Programs: AA-EXP, AA-0.41MM, UA-Gold, Ex UA-1K (2006 thru 2015), PMUA-0.95MM, COUA-1.5MM-lite, AF-Silver
Posts: 13,437
Originally Posted by nachtnebel
don't agree. since the time of David and Goliath, it has been noteworthy and rare for the rock thrower to kill his opponent. use of shields protects against rocks. being hit with a rock *may* result in damage, more rarely result in heavy/lasting damage, and even more rarely, death. being hit with a bullet WILL result in damage, very likely heavy/lasting damage or death. The rock thrower being gunned down is a guaranteed loser in PR terms. Ask the Israelis.
Humans have been killing each other and animals with rocks for hundreds of thousands of years. You don't become the apex predator while being physically puny compared to many the predators and prey unless you master the rock.

Rocking throwing is the preferred method of execution in many countries.

Rare? Ridiculous.


Originally Posted by WilcoRoger
Just my 2 cents - the CBP has no right whatsoever to fire into Mexican (or Canadian, for that matter) territory. They just commited armed aggression an other country.

If they felt threatened, they just had to move 50 yards away.
Castle doctrine states that there is no duty to retreat when attacked in ones home and instead the victim has a right to deadly force on the attacker. The CBP has no duty to retreat when patrolling the border.

The rock throwers got what they deserved.
Boggie Dog likes this.
mre5765 is offline  
Old Sep 17, 2012, 6:07 pm
  #67  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 861
Originally Posted by mre5765
Humans have been killing each other and animals with rocks for hundreds of thousands of years. You don't become the apex predator while being physically puny compared to many the predators and prey unless you master the rock.
True, but we need our border patrol to be smarter than large prey animals.

Originally Posted by mre5765
Rocking throwing is the preferred method of execution in many countries.
Good point, but the condemned would probably always survive if the executioners put them on a powerboat in the middle of the river and then started throwing rocks.


Originally Posted by mre5765
Castle doctrine states that there is no duty to retreat when attacked in ones home and instead the victim has a right to deadly force on the attacker. The CBP has no duty to retreat when patrolling the border.

The rock throwers got what they deserved.
Was the person killed one of the rock throwers, or was the person killed a bystander?
docmonkey is offline  
Old Sep 17, 2012, 6:21 pm
  #68  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SJC, SFO, YYC
Programs: AA-EXP, AA-0.41MM, UA-Gold, Ex UA-1K (2006 thru 2015), PMUA-0.95MM, COUA-1.5MM-lite, AF-Silver
Posts: 13,437
Originally Posted by docmonkey
True, but we need our border patrol to be smarter than large prey animals.

Good point, but the condemned would probably always survive if the executioners put them on a powerboat in the middle of the river and then started throwing rocks.


Was the person killed one of the rock throwers, or was the person killed a bystander?
We need the CBP to be smarter than rock throwers. Which it was in this case.

As for the condemned always surviving, how about this? You sign a waiver and you put yourself in a powerboat in a river and promise not to return fire while I throw rocks at you. Rocks are a near infinite supply. What outcome will it be for you? I hope you have life insurance.

If the person killed was an innocent bystander, then he should have ran in direction that was away from both the rock throwers and the CBP.
mre5765 is offline  
Old Sep 17, 2012, 6:50 pm
  #69  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ottawa
Programs: Cessna TTx Self-Fly
Posts: 2,978
Originally Posted by mre5765
We need the CBP to be smarter than rock throwers. Which it was in this case.
I disagree. Shooting when they could have easily removed themselves from the threat is not smart.

As for the condemned always surviving, how about this? You sign a waiver and you put yourself in a powerboat in a river and promise not to return fire while I throw rocks at you. Rocks are a near infinite supply. What outcome will it be for you? I hope you have life insurance.
Or, more sensibly, how about this: You sign a waiver and you put yourself in a powerboat in a river and promise not to return fire while I throw rocks at you unless all non-lethal avenues of escape have been exhausted.

How about this: if there was a real need for a boat to be in a location where the agents on board are in fear for their lives due to being pelted by rocks then simply install transparent shields on the boat. This way the agents won't get injured and the rock throwers have nothing to gain by their actions.

If the person killed was an innocent bystander, then he should have ran in direction that was away from both the rock throwers and the CBP.
It's ridiculous to blame an innocent bystander in the manner you are. Totally ridiculous.

Castle doctrine states that there is no duty to retreat when attacked in ones home and instead the victim has a right to deadly force on the attacker. The CBP has no duty to retreat when patrolling the border.
While you may be correct, surely it's better to respond to the threat in a non-lethal manner if at all possible is preferred. In the case of someone attacking your home where avenues of escape are limited it's one thing to respond with guns a blazing. Shooting when you can extract yourself to safety thereby avoiding killing someone is abhorrent and something else entirely.

Last edited by OttawaMark; Sep 17, 2012 at 7:02 pm
OttawaMark is offline  
Old Sep 17, 2012, 7:19 pm
  #70  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,330
Originally Posted by mre5765
...If the person killed was an innocent bystander, then he should have ran in direction that was away from both the rock throwers and the CBP.
But, um... the innocent bystander was in his own country, and had no duty to retreat when attacked, and in fact, had the right to use deadly force on his attacker (the CBP agents who fired on him), as you said:

Originally Posted by mre5765
...Castle doctrine states that there is no duty to retreat when attacked in ones home and instead the victim has a right to deadly force on the attacker. The CBP has no duty to retreat when patrolling the border.

The rock throwers got what they deserved.
So, what would your reaction have been had the innocent bystanders returned fire on the CBP agents and killed them all outright as soon as they fired on the Mexican shore?
WillCAD is offline  
Old Sep 18, 2012, 1:00 am
  #71  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 647
Originally Posted by mre5765
Humans have been killing each other and animals with rocks for hundreds of thousands of years. You don't become the apex predator while being physically puny compared to many the predators and prey unless you master the rock.

Rocking throwing is the preferred method of execution in many countries.

Rare? Ridiculous.




Castle doctrine states that there is no duty to retreat when attacked in ones home and instead the victim has a right to deadly force on the attacker. The CBP has no duty to retreat when patrolling the border.

The rock throwers got what they deserved.


Bolding mine.

A person who throws a rock deserves to get shot and killed???

UFB
bluenotesro is offline  
Old Sep 18, 2012, 6:01 am
  #72  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ottawa
Programs: Cessna TTx Self-Fly
Posts: 2,978
Originally Posted by WillCAD
So, what would your reaction have been had the innocent bystanders returned fire on the CBP agents and killed them all outright as soon as they fired on the Mexican shore?
Using the "no duty to retreat" and "meet lethal force with lethal force" doctrines the only answer to this question is that the innocent bystanders would have been fully justified in killing the agents.

Imagine if law abiding Mexicans had been free to carry arms anywhere and everywhere in the manner that US gun carry proponents seem to think all law abiding citizens should be allowed to do - the border agents would be very likely be dead. Oh the irony!


The response by the agents in this incident seems to be just the tip of the iceberg regarding the "I felt slightly threatened so I automatically killed the threat" response that seems to be coming the SOP of more and more American law enforcement officers. It's a slippery slope.

Last edited by OttawaMark; Sep 18, 2012 at 9:57 am
OttawaMark is offline  
Old Sep 18, 2012, 6:39 am
  #73  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ottawa
Programs: Cessna TTx Self-Fly
Posts: 2,978
Originally Posted by bluenotesro
[/B]



A person who throws a rock deserves to get shot and killed???

UFB
In the eyes of some groups of people the answer is yes. I mean, if LE is not allowed to shoot and kill someone presenting a minimal threat even when other avenues of response are available then it won't be long before "law abiding armed citizens" will have to follow the same rules. And they simply can't let this happen. Therefore the shoot is deemed justified.
OttawaMark is offline  
Old Oct 8, 2012, 9:59 am
  #74  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 861
US Border Patrol agents shoot each other

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

Tragically, the Border Patrol killed another person. This time it was one of their own.

This is unquestionably a dangerous line of work, but it seems the agents are too trigger-happy.
docmonkey is offline  
Old Oct 8, 2012, 10:49 pm
  #75  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ottawa
Programs: Cessna TTx Self-Fly
Posts: 2,978
Originally Posted by docmonkey
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

Tragically, the Border Patrol killed another person. This time it was one of their own.

This is unquestionably a dangerous line of work, but it seems the agents are too trigger-happy.
There seems to be an increase in trigger happiness across all US law enforcement.
OttawaMark is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.