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.