Rock-throwing prompts border shooting
Sep 10, 2012, 7:44 pm
#31
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
I didn't say this was not a problem. It is a crowd control problem that should not result in death by gunfire when there is only rock-throwing going on. According to your posts, this is a common tactic, therefore it is an ongoing issue. Could not LRAD type devices be used?
FB
Sep 10, 2012, 9:03 pm
#33
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,413
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.
Rocks = potentially lethal force as the agents didn't have cover available.
Bullets = potentially lethal force.
They met force with the same category of force.
Sep 10, 2012, 10:25 pm
#36
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
If what Firebug says is true, then his agency needs to get the word out more effectively about what is actually going on in these confrontations at the border. As the press reports this, it looks like a bunch of bozos stumbling over a happy picnic of local innocents, coming unglued and firing away. If there was presented a credible case for this being a concerted attempt to drive away CBP prior to running smugglers through, IMO there would be support for using LRADs on those participating or nearby. Admitted there will be deployment issues. Seems to me a good way to free up funds for this would be to take away from the TSA....
Sep 10, 2012, 10:51 pm
#37
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 861
The off-duty arrests and corruption tell us about how much we should trust or distrust this organization when its members say they were using necessary force.
Sep 11, 2012, 5:45 am
#38
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,121
I think that you should not be putting words in my mouth that I did not say. I never said that these topics should not be discussed. Is that not what we are doing? I recall in the original post that my opinion was asked. That is actually my point. You have access to someone who has the training and experience yet you don't really want to hear the response because it doesn't jive with what you have already decided without the facts, without any really knowledge of the subject matter.
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
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
You think review should only be conducted by others with law enforcement training and I would disagree with that. A good case would be how our military is managed. Our military is under the control of civilians not uniformed military members. I don't think it takes a person with law enforcement training to know that firing a weapon across an international border into a crowd of people is wrong. I have to wonder just who gave the original order authorizing CBP to do such acts.
I readily admit I don't know exactly what is going on at the border. But I can read, think, and formulate opinions. I know that corruption and other illegal acts by CBP employees are a major problem. On duty or off duty illegal acts by CBP employees matters because it shows the caliber of people employed by the agency. If it was just one or two cases then that would be a different matter but you know as well as I that CBP has a very serious problem with corruption. People in CBP have been accused of beating people to death. They have been accused and found guilty of many illegal acts including smuggling people, smuggling drugs, off duty illegal behaviors just to mention a few.
This all matters but the central issue in this case was the use of deadly force by CBP, firing their weapons across an international border (and act of war), and into a crowd of people.
It is my opinion that the CBP employees in the air boats should have withdrawn to the U.S. shore of the river, firing only after a person on the Mexico side made entry to the U.S. I believe that the CBP employees aggravated the issue while they had opportunity to defuse the problem.
I believe CBP acted poorly in this case.
Sep 11, 2012, 7:11 am
#39
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ottawa
Programs: Cessna TTx Self-Fly
Posts: 2,982
A little dog tethered an a leash is a potential lethal force. Should LEOs be able to shoot and kill such an animal because of a perceived threat? Oh, wait ...
It seems that LEO just has to claim "I felt threatened" and a shooting by LEO the eliminate the so-called threat suddenly becomes a perfectly justified act of heroism.
LEO is doing itself no favor by continuing to allow this.
Sep 11, 2012, 9:14 am
#41
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ottawa
Programs: Cessna TTx Self-Fly
Posts: 2,982
I agree. I used to have the utmost respect for LE (and mostly still do) - at one time I was considering a career in LE. I know it's a tough job.
It seems like we're seeing weekly, if not daily, reports of police misconduct, abuse, shooting of unarmed (and in some cases even handcuffed) people, confiscation of cameras, unlawful arrest and detainment, shooting of pets, raids on the wrong houses, terrorization of citizens by LE, etc. I realize there are millions of officers who perform their duties properly but the stories of misconduct we read of on a regular basis really do affect the way we look at LE as a whole. The powers that be either don't understand this simple concept or simply don't care.
My 17 year old daughter, after reading of US LE bullies (not saying Canadian LE are angels) no longer wants to visit the US. I no longer feel comfortable driving in the US due to some LE tactics and some LE bullies. Add to this the misconduct that comes to light regarding US CBP activities and the US becomes a country I have no desire to visit any more.
It seems like we're seeing weekly, if not daily, reports of police misconduct, abuse, shooting of unarmed (and in some cases even handcuffed) people, confiscation of cameras, unlawful arrest and detainment, shooting of pets, raids on the wrong houses, terrorization of citizens by LE, etc. I realize there are millions of officers who perform their duties properly but the stories of misconduct we read of on a regular basis really do affect the way we look at LE as a whole. The powers that be either don't understand this simple concept or simply don't care.
My 17 year old daughter, after reading of US LE bullies (not saying Canadian LE are angels) no longer wants to visit the US. I no longer feel comfortable driving in the US due to some LE tactics and some LE bullies. Add to this the misconduct that comes to light regarding US CBP activities and the US becomes a country I have no desire to visit any more.
Sep 11, 2012, 9:54 am
#42
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
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
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
Wrong. In fact, I challenge you to find a single case of a cop charged with a crime who had a single cop, former cop, or immediate relative of a cop on their juries. It won't happen, because cops are predjudiced in favor of their Brothers in Blue, and training or not, cannot be trusted to be objective when judging each other.
Nor could someone with a criminal arrest record be trusted to be objective - because they would be predjudiced against the cops.
Don't give me this BS about how I can't judge a cop's actions properly because I haven't had their training and experience. I can be far MORE objective in my evaluation than you can, because I'm not a Brother In Blue who would naturally side with his Brothers and circle the proverbial wagons against all comers.
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.
Sep 11, 2012, 10:06 am
#44
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YVR
Programs: NullPointerException
Posts: 59
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.
Sep 11, 2012, 10:12 am
#45
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 861
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.
Last edited by docmonkey; Sep 11, 2012 at 2:41 pm