Rock-throwing prompts border shooting
Sep 10, 2012, 2:11 pm
#16
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
This "proportionality" argument is compleate BS!!!
If there is a guy out side you house trying to kill you & he has a big knife, would you want the police to show up armed only with a big knife? Would you want only a sigle police officer to show up?
I doubt that you would.
If there is a guy out side you house trying to kill you & he has a big knife, would you want the police to show up armed only with a big knife? Would you want only a sigle police officer to show up?
I doubt that you would.
1. The CBP was outside the victim's house (ok, his country) firing into it. The victim had a right to be there, CBP didn't have the right to advance on or enter the victim's house.
2. The CBP chose to be at such proximity to the victim's house that rock throwing became an issue.
3. The CBP could have removed themselves from the scene to provide for safety. There is no immediacy of threat with a rock thrower, unless maybe the thrower is Roger Clemons on a good day.
Instead, the CBP chose to provoke an international incident by firing across a border at rock throwers, killing one of them.
If the victim was using a catapult, then this would change things. But there has been no mention of such a device in the news stories.
Sep 10, 2012, 3:13 pm
#17
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,789
This "proportionality" argument is compleate BS!!!
If there is a guy out side you house trying to kill you & he has a big knife, would you want the police to show up armed only with a big knife? Would you want only a sigle police officer to show up?
I doubt that you would.
If there is a guy out side you house trying to kill you & he has a big knife, would you want the police to show up armed only with a big knife? Would you want only a sigle police officer to show up?
I doubt that you would.
That'll show'em.
Sep 10, 2012, 3:18 pm
#18
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 861
Good grief, I can't imagine the trouble myself and other Marines would have been in had we opened fire on unarmed civilians in Iraq for throwing rocks. How cowardly do you have to be to shoot across a national border at unarmed people throwing rocks?!
A proper response would have been to fall back to a safe distance and continue surveillance. If the rocks were that big, a safe distance still allows viewing without binoculars, unless we're talking about supermen throwing rocks.
Lastly, as Americans, we have every right, in fact, it is part of our duty, to question the manners and methods used by government employees to do their public service jobs. Otherwise, this wouldn't be much of a democracy, though it appears some don't like that.
A proper response would have been to fall back to a safe distance and continue surveillance. If the rocks were that big, a safe distance still allows viewing without binoculars, unless we're talking about supermen throwing rocks.
Lastly, as Americans, we have every right, in fact, it is part of our duty, to question the manners and methods used by government employees to do their public service jobs. Otherwise, this wouldn't be much of a democracy, though it appears some don't like that.
Sep 10, 2012, 3:46 pm
#19
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
^^^^^
The CATO Institute publishes an ongoing synopsis of police-gone awry, if you care to be informed about that. Stuff like nine year old girls getting tased at Victoria Secret, etc. So people are increasingly aware of how things can go wrong.
In the case of CBP, where, possibly due to its lack of appropriate vetting of agents since 2005 and the huge influx of new agents since then, you have large numbers of CBP agents---hundreds--in prison or facing charges from anything from murder to beating people, from selling drug sensor maps to actually being part of drug cartels, yes, the rock-throwing/shooting thing looks bad. It might not turn out that way, but for the time being it smells like other crimes that CBP agents have done.
The CATO Institute publishes an ongoing synopsis of police-gone awry, if you care to be informed about that. Stuff like nine year old girls getting tased at Victoria Secret, etc. So people are increasingly aware of how things can go wrong.
In the case of CBP, where, possibly due to its lack of appropriate vetting of agents since 2005 and the huge influx of new agents since then, you have large numbers of CBP agents---hundreds--in prison or facing charges from anything from murder to beating people, from selling drug sensor maps to actually being part of drug cartels, yes, the rock-throwing/shooting thing looks bad. It might not turn out that way, but for the time being it smells like other crimes that CBP agents have done.
Sep 10, 2012, 3:48 pm
#20
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
Really? has any USG-owned or operated helicopter on the border crashed from a hand-thrown(which is what I assume we're talking about here) rock? While I'm not the best thrower, and I know that baseball pitchers can throw at close to 100 miles per hour, could a rock really be fast/big enough to bring down a hovering helicopter?
not sure your analogy is quite right:
1. The CBP was outside the victim's house (ok, his country) firing into it. The victim had a right to be there, CBP didn't have the right to advance on or enter the victim's house.
2. The CBP chose to be at such proximity to the victim's house that rock throwing became an issue.
3. The CBP could have removed themselves from the scene to provide for safety. There is no immediacy of threat with a rock thrower, unless maybe the thrower is Roger Clemons on a good day.
Instead, the CBP chose to provoke an international incident by firing across a border at rock throwers, killing one of them.
If the victim was using a catapult, then this would change things. But there has been no mention of such a device in the news stories.
1. The CBP was outside the victim's house (ok, his country) firing into it. The victim had a right to be there, CBP didn't have the right to advance on or enter the victim's house.
2. The CBP chose to be at such proximity to the victim's house that rock throwing became an issue.
3. The CBP could have removed themselves from the scene to provide for safety. There is no immediacy of threat with a rock thrower, unless maybe the thrower is Roger Clemons on a good day.
Instead, the CBP chose to provoke an international incident by firing across a border at rock throwers, killing one of them.
If the victim was using a catapult, then this would change things. But there has been no mention of such a device in the news stories.
In this case, the CBP were carrying out their official duty and not only did they have the right to return fire, as part of their job to protect and enforce the border, they had a responsibility to return fire. Had they not stood their position, had they instead abandoned their post, they might very well have been subject to disciplinary action, if not criminal action for cowardice in the line of duty. It is ridiculous to demand that the CBP give ground.
And no, I am generally no fan of the CBP, but it seems to me that their job is to protect the border. That is what BP means. I would rather the CBP shoot rock throwers on the border, than harass citizens and legal immigrants hundreds of miles from the border looking for illegals. Part of the reason why harassment occurs is because the CBP has more or less lost control of the southern border, and additional outcry about how they do their job on the border is going to lead to more harassment inside the country.
Sep 10, 2012, 4:35 pm
#21
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
http://articles.cnn.com/2005-08-25/u...nding?_s=PM:US
The CBP had a right to be in the river. An unprovoked attack was made. The officers responded in a manner that protected themselves.
The CBP had a right to be in the river. An unprovoked attack was made. The officers responded in a manner that protected themselves.
If instead of those people being CBP officers they were fisherman and were attacked, why would they not have the right to self defense?
In this case, the CBP were carrying out their official duty and not only did they have the right to return fire, as part of their job to protect and enforce the border, they had a responsibility to return fire.
Had they not stood their position, had they instead abandoned their post, they might very well have been subject to disciplinary action, if not criminal action for cowardice in the line of duty. It is ridiculous to demand that the CBP give ground.
And no, I am generally no fan of the CBP, but it seems to me that their job is to protect the border.
I would rather the CBP shoot rock throwers on the border, than harass citizens and legal immigrants hundreds of miles from the border looking for illegals. Part of the reason why harassment occurs is because the CBP has more or less lost control of the southern border, and additional outcry about how they do their job on the border is going to lead to more harassment inside the country.
I also agree that CBP has lost control of the southern border. But I don't think you regain control by shooting rock throwers.
Last edited by nachtnebel; Sep 10, 2012 at 4:40 pm
Sep 10, 2012, 5:28 pm
#22
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
What training and experience do you draw this conclusion from? We are talking about rocks that have caused helicopters to crash. We are not talking about folks just trying to cross a border. We are talking about people that are willing to throw objects that can kill people. They do this knowing they are throwing these objects at law enforcement officers that are armed. They know full well what they are doing.
It is interesting that you seem to have no condemnation at all for the individual that was trying to injure another person. What questions did that smuggler ask? Did the smuggler move to another location? No, he did not instead he chose to commit a felony and attack law enforcement officers.
Usually, I can be pretty patient. However, this discussion is not about TSA, entry inspection, or administrative search. This is someone physically trying to cause serious bodily harm to an officer. Quite frankly, you have no idea what you are talking about. I would like to hear what kind of questions you are going to ask while someone is trying to injure or kill you. You don't get to just move out of the way. The agents don't get to just move out of the way. They agents were where they were supposed to be on the US side of the border. They are paid to secure that border. When they are attacked with something that can kill them, they will respond in kind. If they did not before you knew it everyone would be committing felony assault because you know if you just throw rocks at them they go away.
You must know that violent assaults have been on the rise for years on the southern border. It is no joke to have to work there. Of course, since you are so well versed on Law Enforcement tactics perhaps you should change your current career choice. You don't even have to go to the academy you seem to have it all figured out.
I am happy to have this or any other discussion with you. However, I will say it again. Why do people who don't have the benefit of any law enforcement training or experience feel they are qualified to tell other people how to do law enforcement work?. You would not tell a firefighter how to put out fires. You would not tell a contractor how to build a house. You would not tell a clock maker how to make clocks. You can have an opinion but that it is all it is. It is an opinion formed without any actual knowledge of what you are talking about.
You say that you aren't making any judgment calls yet. Really? Did you actual read what you wrote after that sentence. The entire post is a judgment. You go on about what the agents could have done. Were you there? Have you had the training they have? Have you ever been out on the border between the ports of entry? Have you ever had those types of objects thrown at you? What knowledge are you drawing your conclusions from? I betting that it is only what you believe not what you actually know. In that case, you can have your 2 cents back. The officers/agents are much better off following their training in use of force.
I will also point out so far that the courts have agreed that in the event of the type of rock attack we are discussing use of deadly force is justified.
FB
It is interesting that you seem to have no condemnation at all for the individual that was trying to injure another person. What questions did that smuggler ask? Did the smuggler move to another location? No, he did not instead he chose to commit a felony and attack law enforcement officers.
Usually, I can be pretty patient. However, this discussion is not about TSA, entry inspection, or administrative search. This is someone physically trying to cause serious bodily harm to an officer. Quite frankly, you have no idea what you are talking about. I would like to hear what kind of questions you are going to ask while someone is trying to injure or kill you. You don't get to just move out of the way. The agents don't get to just move out of the way. They agents were where they were supposed to be on the US side of the border. They are paid to secure that border. When they are attacked with something that can kill them, they will respond in kind. If they did not before you knew it everyone would be committing felony assault because you know if you just throw rocks at them they go away.
You must know that violent assaults have been on the rise for years on the southern border. It is no joke to have to work there. Of course, since you are so well versed on Law Enforcement tactics perhaps you should change your current career choice. You don't even have to go to the academy you seem to have it all figured out.
I am happy to have this or any other discussion with you. However, I will say it again. Why do people who don't have the benefit of any law enforcement training or experience feel they are qualified to tell other people how to do law enforcement work?. You would not tell a firefighter how to put out fires. You would not tell a contractor how to build a house. You would not tell a clock maker how to make clocks. You can have an opinion but that it is all it is. It is an opinion formed without any actual knowledge of what you are talking about.
You say that you aren't making any judgment calls yet. Really? Did you actual read what you wrote after that sentence. The entire post is a judgment. You go on about what the agents could have done. Were you there? Have you had the training they have? Have you ever been out on the border between the ports of entry? Have you ever had those types of objects thrown at you? What knowledge are you drawing your conclusions from? I betting that it is only what you believe not what you actually know. In that case, you can have your 2 cents back. The officers/agents are much better off following their training in use of force.
I will also point out so far that the courts have agreed that in the event of the type of rock attack we are discussing use of deadly force is justified.
FB
That's a tired old argument that has never held any water. And in this case, it's dangerous - if only cops can ever critique or criticize other cops, how can there be objective oversight to prevent cops from over-reaching and abusing their authority?
You put on the badge, you better be prepared to defend and justify every breath you take, every move you make, every decision, every arrest, and you better damn sure be ready to defend any lethal force you use, to your entire jurisdiction. And if you're CBP, that means justifying yourself to the whole country.
If you don't like having reasonable restrictions on what you do, and proper civilian oversight, and intense public scrutiny, get another job.
http://articles.cnn.com/2005-08-25/u...nding?_s=PM:US
The CBP had a right to be in the river. An unprovoked attack was made. The officers responded in a manner that protected themselves. If instead of those people being CBP officers they were fisherman and were attacked, why would they not have the right to self defense?
In this case, the CBP were carrying out their official duty and not only did they have the right to return fire, as part of their job to protect and enforce the border, they had a responsibility to return fire. Had they not stood their position, had they instead abandoned their post, they might very well have been subject to disciplinary action, if not criminal action for cowardice in the line of duty. It is ridiculous to demand that the CBP give ground.
And no, I am generally no fan of the CBP, but it seems to me that their job is to protect the border. That is what BP means. I would rather the CBP shoot rock throwers on the border, than harass citizens and legal immigrants hundreds of miles from the border looking for illegals. Part of the reason why harassment occurs is because the CBP has more or less lost control of the southern border, and additional outcry about how they do their job on the border is going to lead to more harassment inside the country.
The CBP had a right to be in the river. An unprovoked attack was made. The officers responded in a manner that protected themselves. If instead of those people being CBP officers they were fisherman and were attacked, why would they not have the right to self defense?
In this case, the CBP were carrying out their official duty and not only did they have the right to return fire, as part of their job to protect and enforce the border, they had a responsibility to return fire. Had they not stood their position, had they instead abandoned their post, they might very well have been subject to disciplinary action, if not criminal action for cowardice in the line of duty. It is ridiculous to demand that the CBP give ground.
And no, I am generally no fan of the CBP, but it seems to me that their job is to protect the border. That is what BP means. I would rather the CBP shoot rock throwers on the border, than harass citizens and legal immigrants hundreds of miles from the border looking for illegals. Part of the reason why harassment occurs is because the CBP has more or less lost control of the southern border, and additional outcry about how they do their job on the border is going to lead to more harassment inside the country.
Why was the helicopter hovering instead of orbiting? I don't want to blame the victim, but it was kinda dumb for a CBP helicopter to hover above suspected smugglers and present a fat, juicy target that was so easy to hit they could have hit it with rocks. Which they did, come to think of it... Oh, well, at least the rock throwers were arrested.
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.
Self defense must be a proportional response to be justified. If I walk up and punch a cop in the nose, he is justified in punching me back (before arresting me and charging with with assaulting an officer). But If I walk up and punch a cop in the nose, he is not justified in shooting me dead in my tracks. That would be a disproportionate response.
On US territory, if someone throws a rock at a cop, the cop is obligated to arrest the thrower. This means the cop must take the risk of approaching the thrower; in doing so, the cop may defend himself if he feels that his life is in immediate danger. But cops have less lethal weapons at their disposal - pepper spray, batons, sometimes tasers - and are required to respond with proportionate force, and never immediately go to lethal force unless there are lives in immediate danger.
I don't know if CBP patrols are armed with less lethal alternatives. But there was one non-lethal alternative that could have saved their lives and the lives of the rock throwers - duck, and nudge that throttle a little. Five seconds later, the boat would be out of range of the rock throwers, and nobody is dead.
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.
Just imagine what would have happened if some American scumbags had thrown rocks at a Mexican border patrol boat, and the Mexicans had shot and killed the American. What would the US government be saying then? How much face time on CNN and FOX News would the crying mother of the dead American be getting? How many calls for the Mexican government to apologize or extradite their border patrol agent to the US for trial would there be? I'd be right up there protesting - the Mexicans would have no right to shoot into US territory unless they have absolutely no other recourse to save their own or innocent lives. Nor has the US CBP any right to shoot into Mexican territory unless they have absolutely no other recourse to save their own or innocent lives.
Duck. Nudge. Vroom. Out of range... problem solved. Nobody dead.
Perhaps the CBP is just tired of Mexicans not respecting their authoritah?
Last edited by WillCAD; Sep 10, 2012 at 5:37 pm
Sep 10, 2012, 5:35 pm
#23
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
Firebug4 seems to think that we citizens shouldn't chime in on the going ons at CBP. I think we have a responsibility as citizens to discuss these things. Given the number of DHS ICE/CBP employees who have been arrested these last several months I think I will disagree with Firebug4.
I have to wonder just how close to Mexico our people are to be in range of a "These are large rocks over a pound apiece" and if it is US policy to engage rock throwers with automatic weapons, firing at people on the other side of the border?
edit to add:
http://www.fedcops.org/2012/09/08/up...l-death-squad/
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/478/...rce-corruption
http://www.fedcops.org/2012/06/10/bo...asked-to-stop/
Just scratching the surface. Do a little reading on the CBP for an eye opener.
I have to wonder just how close to Mexico our people are to be in range of a "These are large rocks over a pound apiece" and if it is US policy to engage rock throwers with automatic weapons, firing at people on the other side of the border?
edit to add:
http://www.fedcops.org/2012/09/08/up...l-death-squad/
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/478/...rce-corruption
http://www.fedcops.org/2012/06/10/bo...asked-to-stop/
Just scratching the surface. Do a little reading on the CBP for an eye opener.
I have no problem with each and every one of the incidents being reviewed. However, I believe that these incidents should be reviewed by people that have had law enforcement training and have an understanding of the subject matter. As with any profession that entails a certification or license, the conduct of any member of that type of profession should be reviewed and a determination made by people that know the job.
Since you have readily admitted, by wondering how close people are to the border when these incidents, that you don't really have the facts or a true clue as to what is going on down there perhaps you might be able to learn something. That would require that you take a second and listen with an open-mind. I am happy to share knowledge and experience with the folks on this forum. I will also be happy to tell you when the agency is in the wrong. You have to do your part to and realize that you too could be wrong because you don't do the job.
I am also not sure how any number of arrests off duty or for corruption has anything to do with this discussion. This discussion is about a use of force incident. It has everything to do with if the agents acted in a manner that is consistent with law and their training not corruption. Is their corruption in the agency? Yes, absolutely. You only have the smallest inkling at the amount of money that gets thrown around. However, there is not a profession around that doesn't have its share of corruption. CBP does not hide from it. It investigates it aggressively and actually spends quite a bit of time and effort on finding it. That is another discussion that I would be happy to have.
FB
Sep 10, 2012, 5:46 pm
#24
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
Good grief, I can't imagine the trouble myself and other Marines would have been in had we opened fire on unarmed civilians in Iraq for throwing rocks. How cowardly do you have to be to shoot across a national border at unarmed people throwing rocks?!
A proper response would have been to fall back to a safe distance and continue surveillance. If the rocks were that big, a safe distance still allows viewing without binoculars, unless we're talking about supermen throwing rocks.
Lastly, as Americans, we have every right, in fact, it is part of our duty, to question the manners and methods used by government employees to do their public service jobs. Otherwise, this wouldn't be much of a democracy, though it appears some don't like that.
A proper response would have been to fall back to a safe distance and continue surveillance. If the rocks were that big, a safe distance still allows viewing without binoculars, unless we're talking about supermen throwing rocks.
Lastly, as Americans, we have every right, in fact, it is part of our duty, to question the manners and methods used by government employees to do their public service jobs. Otherwise, this wouldn't be much of a democracy, though it appears some don't like that.
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
Sep 10, 2012, 5:54 pm
#25
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
Really? has any USG-owned or operated helicopter on the border crashed from a hand-thrown(which is what I assume we're talking about here) rock? While I'm not the best thrower, and I know that baseball pitchers can throw at close to 100 miles per hour, could a rock really be fast/big enough to bring down a hovering helicopter?
FB
Sep 10, 2012, 6:13 pm
#26
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
not sure your analogy is quite right:
1. The CBP was outside the victim's house (ok, his country) firing into it. The victim had a right to be there, CBP didn't have the right to advance on or enter the victim's house.
2. The CBP chose to be at such proximity to the victim's house that rock throwing became an issue.
3. The CBP could have removed themselves from the scene to provide for safety. There is no immediacy of threat with a rock thrower, unless maybe the thrower is Roger Clemons on a good day.
Instead, the CBP chose to provoke an international incident by firing across a border at rock throwers, killing one of them.
If the victim was using a catapult, then this would change things. But there has been no mention of such a device in the news stories.
1. The CBP was outside the victim's house (ok, his country) firing into it. The victim had a right to be there, CBP didn't have the right to advance on or enter the victim's house.
2. The CBP chose to be at such proximity to the victim's house that rock throwing became an issue.
3. The CBP could have removed themselves from the scene to provide for safety. There is no immediacy of threat with a rock thrower, unless maybe the thrower is Roger Clemons on a good day.
Instead, the CBP chose to provoke an international incident by firing across a border at rock throwers, killing one of them.
If the victim was using a catapult, then this would change things. But there has been no mention of such a device in the news stories.
So you would be OK with a group of people standing on your property line and throwing rocks through your front window so that you would move out of the way so they could move things through your property and your house?
The drug smugglers also choose to be in close proximity to CBP's house. The agents had a right to be there as well. The agents were in the United States not in Mexico. The drug smuggler was in close proximity to CBP's house because they wanted to commit an illegal act and break into that house. In the process of committing that crime, the drug smugglers choose to commit a further illegal act of felony assault on a Federal Agent. Why is it that you have no problems with the person who started the whole incident by assaulting another human being? That is what the agents are you know human beings.
As for your third point, tell that to the dozens of Border Patrol agents that get seriously injured every year by rocks. Better yet, how about you let me and a group of BP agents throw the same rocks at you and see how you fair. At least, then you can say that you have some experience in the matter.
FB
Sep 10, 2012, 6:38 pm
#27
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: North of DFW
Programs: AA PLT, HH Gold, TSA Disparager Gold, going for Platnium
Posts: 1,535
Plus if on a body of water below 200 feet the rotors are pushing enough air down that it could push a human on the water under the surface and hold them under.
Also for the most part CBP uses either Bell Hueys or EuroCopter EC 135 or 145, along with a few variants of Blackhawks. Getting a rock into the intake of the engine is very hard even for a skilled thrower. Plus the leading edge of those blades are hardened and beveled so as to protect the structure of the blades from separating in the event of a strike. Short of a blade clipping a solid object with enough force/density likelyhood of a blade failure is low.
A vibration in the rotors is a very very very vague comment and could be anything from a balance weight in the rotors or mast shifting to a blade being damaged or missing (although that would lead to a crash PDQ). Putting the aircraft on the deck is probably a good idea. I wont second guess the pilots decision but sounds like it was declared for news purposes.
I've been on a helicopter that took bird strikes to the windscreen and to the rotors and rotor mast. There was no vibration in the rotor assembly that was felt through the frame or in the pilots pedals. Helicopter did not crash but did put the aircraft on the deck and didn't declare an emergency. The engines, rotor mast, blades were fine, only had to replace 2 plexiglass domes on the left seat side, and the fresnel lens on the night sun. Took maintenance 2 weeks to clean the aircraft and they joke there still picking feathers out of that aircraft.
Sep 10, 2012, 6:59 pm
#28
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
Actually, I beleive that it is exactly right.
So you would be OK with a group of people standing on your property line and throwing rocks through your front window so that you would move out of the way so they could move things through your property and your house?
..
FB
So you would be OK with a group of people standing on your property line and throwing rocks through your front window so that you would move out of the way so they could move things through your property and your house?
..
FB
Sep 10, 2012, 7:23 pm
#29
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
You don't know... therefore, you may not voice an opinion.
That's a tired old argument that has never held any water. And in this case, it's dangerous - if only cops can ever critique or criticize other cops, how can there be objective oversight to prevent cops from over-reaching and abusing their authority?
You put on the badge, you better be prepared to defend and justify every breath you take, every move you make, every decision, every arrest, and you better damn sure be ready to defend any lethal force you use, to your entire jurisdiction. And if you're CBP, that means justifying yourself to the whole country.
If you don't like having reasonable restrictions on what you do, and proper civilian oversight, and intense public scrutiny, get another job.
Wow. I guess those smugglers must have watched First Blood a few times.
Why was the helicopter hovering instead of orbiting? I don't want to blame the victim, but it was kinda dumb for a CBP helicopter to hover above suspected smugglers and present a fat, juicy target that was so easy to hit they could have hit it with rocks. Which they did, come to think of it... Oh, well, at least the rock throwers were arrested.
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.
Self defense must be a proportional response to be justified. If I walk up and punch a cop in the nose, he is justified in punching me back (before arresting me and charging with with assaulting an officer). But If I walk up and punch a cop in the nose, he is not justified in shooting me dead in my tracks. That would be a disproportionate response.
On US territory, if someone throws a rock at a cop, the cop is obligated to arrest the thrower. This means the cop must take the risk of approaching the thrower; in doing so, the cop may defend himself if he feels that his life is in immediate danger. But cops have less lethal weapons at their disposal - pepper spray, batons, sometimes tasers - and are required to respond with proportionate force, and never immediately go to lethal force unless there are lives in immediate danger.
I don't know if CBP patrols are armed with less lethal alternatives. But there was one non-lethal alternative that could have saved their lives and the lives of the rock throwers - duck, and nudge that throttle a little. Five seconds later, the boat would be out of range of the rock throwers, and nobody is dead.
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.
Just imagine what would have happened if some American scumbags had thrown rocks at a Mexican border patrol boat, and the Mexicans had shot and killed the American. What would the US government be saying then? How much face time on CNN and FOX News would the crying mother of the dead American be getting? How many calls for the Mexican government to apologize or extradite their border patrol agent to the US for trial would there be? I'd be right up there protesting - the Mexicans would have no right to shoot into US territory unless they have absolutely no other recourse to save their own or innocent lives. Nor has the US CBP any right to shoot into Mexican territory unless they have absolutely no other recourse to save their own or innocent lives.
Duck. Nudge. Vroom. Out of range... problem solved. Nobody dead.
Perhaps the CBP is just tired of Mexicans not respecting their authoritah?
That's a tired old argument that has never held any water. And in this case, it's dangerous - if only cops can ever critique or criticize other cops, how can there be objective oversight to prevent cops from over-reaching and abusing their authority?
You put on the badge, you better be prepared to defend and justify every breath you take, every move you make, every decision, every arrest, and you better damn sure be ready to defend any lethal force you use, to your entire jurisdiction. And if you're CBP, that means justifying yourself to the whole country.
If you don't like having reasonable restrictions on what you do, and proper civilian oversight, and intense public scrutiny, get another job.
Wow. I guess those smugglers must have watched First Blood a few times.
Why was the helicopter hovering instead of orbiting? I don't want to blame the victim, but it was kinda dumb for a CBP helicopter to hover above suspected smugglers and present a fat, juicy target that was so easy to hit they could have hit it with rocks. Which they did, come to think of it... Oh, well, at least the rock throwers were arrested.
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.
Self defense must be a proportional response to be justified. If I walk up and punch a cop in the nose, he is justified in punching me back (before arresting me and charging with with assaulting an officer). But If I walk up and punch a cop in the nose, he is not justified in shooting me dead in my tracks. That would be a disproportionate response.
On US territory, if someone throws a rock at a cop, the cop is obligated to arrest the thrower. This means the cop must take the risk of approaching the thrower; in doing so, the cop may defend himself if he feels that his life is in immediate danger. But cops have less lethal weapons at their disposal - pepper spray, batons, sometimes tasers - and are required to respond with proportionate force, and never immediately go to lethal force unless there are lives in immediate danger.
I don't know if CBP patrols are armed with less lethal alternatives. But there was one non-lethal alternative that could have saved their lives and the lives of the rock throwers - duck, and nudge that throttle a little. Five seconds later, the boat would be out of range of the rock throwers, and nobody is dead.
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.
Just imagine what would have happened if some American scumbags had thrown rocks at a Mexican border patrol boat, and the Mexicans had shot and killed the American. What would the US government be saying then? How much face time on CNN and FOX News would the crying mother of the dead American be getting? How many calls for the Mexican government to apologize or extradite their border patrol agent to the US for trial would there be? I'd be right up there protesting - the Mexicans would have no right to shoot into US territory unless they have absolutely no other recourse to save their own or innocent lives. Nor has the US CBP any right to shoot into Mexican territory unless they have absolutely no other recourse to save their own or innocent lives.
Duck. Nudge. Vroom. Out of range... problem solved. Nobody dead.
Perhaps the CBP is just tired of Mexicans not respecting their authoritah?
Again, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. The question is how much weight that opinion is going to hold. How many people with no training get to weigh in with any kind of effect say on doctors and medical malpractice? How many people that have no legal training get to stand in real judgment over lawyers at a bar review? How many people get with no training get to sit on NTSB boards after a plane crash?
I am also just as tired of the same old argument that someone with no training or experience in some else’s profession can know enough about it to intelligently sit in judgment of a person who has had the benefit of training in that profession. If that was true, there would be no need of academies, FTO periods or tests. Anybody could just walk in off the street and do any job. That is just not reality and most of us understand that.
How many times have I heard on this forum "Those TSO's are practicing medicine without a license. They have no medical training they have no business weighing in on medical matters” POT MEET KETTLE.
That being said, there is an organization whose job it is to provide law enforcement objective oversight and stop abuse. It is known as the judiciary. They do that job by listening to subject matter experts not someone on the internet that really doesn't know a thing about the job.
I am good with scrutiny but the folks doing the scrutiny have to listen with an open-mind. I provided information concerning rock attacks in post 2 or 3 of this thread. You obviously didn't take the time to read it. It described the circumstances that led to that helicopter crashing. You are so busy jumping to conclusions that you are only hearing what supports your point of view. How can you be objective when you are not even taking the time to review the information? Yet, you suggest that I should take you seriously.
You are sitting in this thread trying to teach the use of force continuum to me. I am well aware of the use of force continuum. Do you know why? Because, I spent the time in the academy and passed those tests. I have further reviewed and been tested on that use of force continuum every quarter for the past 15 years. Have you? What academy did you attend? Do you have your POST certificate? How old is it? When did you last review the material? When did you last qualify with your weapon? These are the questions that get asked as part of the real scrutiny that happens after a use of deadly force. They are just as important if not the most important because they form the officers decision tree that he uses to make that split second decision.
You do realize that you don't know what you are talking about and what you have posted is incorrect. This not tv or the movies. The agent is justified in using deadly force if he is in fear of serious bodily harm or death of himself or others. There are a couple of key points in there that you don't have correct at all.
First, it is not just death it includes serious bodily harm to himself or others.
Second, it is based upon his belief at the time. That belief is based on his training and experience. That belief is going to include the knowledge of the area, past violence level of that area, the results of past rock attacks (dozens of seriously injured agents per year), size of the group. It goes on there are dozens of variables. The point is it is based on the AGENTS' belief at the time. Not anyone else’s. That is why it takes a court and subject matter experts to determine because by the LAW it has to be someone who has similar training so that the court can objectively hear what that agent may have believed at the time.
The biggest problem here is you can't understand that the type of rocks and the action we are discussing is considered a deadly weapon because of the injuries that they have caused in the past. In your punch the officer in the nose example, you are correct the officer would be hard pressed to justify using deadly force unless the officer was significantly smaller than you. However, put the kind of rock we are talking about in your hand. I think you will find that you would be on the receiving end of a gun.
We don't have to get hurt first before we respond.
As to some of the other random points in your post, you do realize there are parts of the Rio Grande that you can throw a rock not only to the mid-point but all the way across. Again, that would take gaining knowledge not just assuming.
Did you know there are cases of gunfire from the Mexican side of the border into the US on weekly basis? Sometimes between the ports, other times directly at the ports. Course it takes some determined looking to find that because it is not popular right now to report because right now Mexico is our friend and doesn't want to hurt us. There is a reason that the agency went to long arms even in the ports. It was in response to violence. The agency spends a lot of time and effort responding to events. That is because that is the rules of the game on the border. The agency generally only gets to respond.
FB
Sep 10, 2012, 7:35 pm
#30
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
Okay you need to check your facts a emergency landing is not a crash, and there have not been reports of multiple incidents. First if a pilot is below the safe altitude to do a auto-rotation he better make sure his skills are on lock or hes more likely to kill all souls on board and those below.
Plus if on a body of water below 200 feet the rotors are pushing enough air down that it could push a human on the water under the surface and hold them under.
Also for the most part CBP uses either Bell Hueys or EuroCopter EC 135 or 145, along with a few variants of Blackhawks. Getting a rock into the intake of the engine is very hard even for a skilled thrower. Plus the leading edge of those blades are hardened and beveled so as to protect the structure of the blades from separating in the event of a strike. Short of a blade clipping a solid object with enough force/density likelyhood of a blade failure is low.
A vibration in the rotors is a very very very vague comment and could be anything from a balance weight in the rotors or mast shifting to a blade being damaged or missing (although that would lead to a crash PDQ). Putting the aircraft on the deck is probably a good idea. I wont second guess the pilots decision but sounds like it was declared for news purposes.
I've been on a helicopter that took bird strikes to the windscreen and to the rotors and rotor mast. There was no vibration in the rotor assembly that was felt through the frame or in the pilots pedals. Helicopter did not crash but did put the aircraft on the deck and didn't declare an emergency. The engines, rotor mast, blades were fine, only had to replace 2 plexiglass domes on the left seat side, and the fresnel lens on the night sun. Took maintenance 2 weeks to clean the aircraft and they joke there still picking feathers out of that aircraft.
Plus if on a body of water below 200 feet the rotors are pushing enough air down that it could push a human on the water under the surface and hold them under.
Also for the most part CBP uses either Bell Hueys or EuroCopter EC 135 or 145, along with a few variants of Blackhawks. Getting a rock into the intake of the engine is very hard even for a skilled thrower. Plus the leading edge of those blades are hardened and beveled so as to protect the structure of the blades from separating in the event of a strike. Short of a blade clipping a solid object with enough force/density likelyhood of a blade failure is low.
A vibration in the rotors is a very very very vague comment and could be anything from a balance weight in the rotors or mast shifting to a blade being damaged or missing (although that would lead to a crash PDQ). Putting the aircraft on the deck is probably a good idea. I wont second guess the pilots decision but sounds like it was declared for news purposes.
I've been on a helicopter that took bird strikes to the windscreen and to the rotors and rotor mast. There was no vibration in the rotor assembly that was felt through the frame or in the pilots pedals. Helicopter did not crash but did put the aircraft on the deck and didn't declare an emergency. The engines, rotor mast, blades were fine, only had to replace 2 plexiglass domes on the left seat side, and the fresnel lens on the night sun. Took maintenance 2 weeks to clean the aircraft and they joke there still picking feathers out of that aircraft.