Justified?

UncleBuck said:

alright, suppose they did recognize him in the chaos and from a distance. i will grant that.

now assuming they recognized him, does that make it OK for them to shoot to kill for that alone without his day in court? last time i checked, even illegals get trials. it is part of the silly 'innocent until proven guilty' principle american believe in. we don't simply drag suspected criminals behind the court house to shoot them, no matter how damning the evidence.

so still irrelevant.

Click to expand...

so has dude been charged for killing the kid?

UncleBuck said:

Jan Brewer tried to make a similar assertion to yours:

"The majority of them in my opinion and I think in the opinion of law enforcement is that they are not coming here to work. They are coming here and they’re bringing drugs. And they’re doing drop houses and they’re extorting people and they’re terrorizing the families."

she had to promptly correct herself because....IT IS NOT TRUE.

this should be the end of this particular sub-debate

Click to expand...

Since Jan Brewers name was brought up I just wanted to say that on the 29th I am going to have the opertunity to meet her and shake her hand. I am going to tell her that I am honored to meet someone so dedicated to getting rid of this disease that is affecting Arizona. I respect her for having the internal fortatude to make a stand and sign this bill. Its about time someone did something.

His actions were 100 percent justified. Rocks are not made out of nerf. Getting hit by one in the head, eye, throat, even in the chest by the heart can cause death. Just think if your walking down the street and a few kids start throwing golf ball size rocks at you would you feel like your life was in danger. I would.

Absolutely 100% justified.

The age/race/sex/etc of the so-called "victim" are irrelevant so shitcan any touchy-feely BS. He was not an illegal alien --- he is an INVADER when he sneaks across our border. And ALL invaders should be dealt with the same way -- KILL THEM!!!!!

Now don't think I'm anti-immigration, I'm anything but! I welcome immigrants who come into our country LEGALLY and assimilate into our culture (and that does NOT mean they have to abandon their native cultures to do so!). But those who try to bypass the border crossings are by default up to no good, and should be considered invaders and dealt with as such!!! This kid was no choir boy and he chose his path and suffered the consequences. End of story. The Border Patrol agent did what he should have, except ---- He should have shot more of them!!!!! When they chose to turn and hurl rocks rather than fleeing, they became fair game IMHO!!

here is my newest quandary....currently i stand on the side of 'justified' but i have flip-flopped before and who knows, i may do so again...so here it is.

currently, i feel it is justified because throwing rocks CAN be deadly, so of course it is justifiable to meet such a threat with equal force.

but it is not just the simple act of throwing rocks that must be considered. the letter of the law and spirit of the law are often markedly different. whatever the letter of the law says about throwing rocks, the act of the BP agent is only justifiable if his life was TRULY IN DANGER due to the throwing of the rocks, ie the spirit of the law.

for example, suppose a 7 year old girl is throwing rocks at a BP agent in 100% complete body armor....the letter of the law says that she is throwing rocks, so use deadly force. the spirit of the law dictates the officer's life is not in danger by a 7 year old throwing rocks, so deadly force is not justified.

now, let's take a look at the verifiable facts that we can discern from the video:

the agent had backup literally 12 seconds away
the agent was wearing a helmet and had a human shield protecting him from projectiles
the kid throwing the rocks was far enough away that a deadly projectile is laughable

was the agent's life TRULY in danger?

some here have tried to justify the act by citing the kid as a bad seed. this line of justification is pure bullshit, as whatever that kid had done in the past is not relevant to the justification of deadly force. to me, these false justifications smack of cognitive dissonance.

the only relevant consideration is whether this agent's life was truly in danger. i say no, but am still staying in the justified camp until more facts come out. bong time

when i was 15 i could easily throw a baseball 65 mph. Also they were not that far away. Even if there was backup 2 seconds away one well placed "pitch" with a golf ball sized rock would have this guy dead on the ground. Helmet doesnt protect you from having your windpipe crushed or eye socket poped out or farhead from being split open or skull cracked like a egg. All it needed to do what hit the frontal lobe area where the helmet doesnt protect and he would be fucked.

UncleBuck said:

Jan Brewer tried to make a similar assertion to yours:

"The majority of them in my opinion and I think in the opinion of law enforcement is that they are not coming here to work. They are coming here and they’re bringing drugs. And they’re doing drop houses and they’re extorting people and they’re terrorizing the families."

she had to promptly correct herself because....IT IS NOT TRUE.

this should be the end of this particular sub-debate

Click to expand...

They are coming here illegally, that is enough.

Yes....and you and I are both growing illegal plants, that is enough too. Quite enough for 2 to 5 years in prison in my state....

And it's pretty clear from the discussion that for a lot of you, the BP officer could have executed the kid point blank with his arms tied behind his back and some of you would still be applauding. This isn't about what kind of force is justified by the people guarding our borders, it's about you guys hating on immigrants. Good thing we have such a healthy population of ignorant xenophobes...it would be hard for politicians to turn illegal immigrants into the scapegoats for all your problems if some of us were a little better educated or a little bit smarter.

Its not about hating imigrants at all, and what we grow in the privacy of our own homes is not a comparison. Its the rock throwing at a person that is the problem. For most of us we run the risk of getting in trouble but we would not physically attack a officer with a club, rock, or anything that can end up killing them. We will most likely take our punishment and deal with the punishment no matter how wrong that punishment may be. Also its about preventing violence from another country from spilling into our borders. We cannot have a policy that says we will allow people through our borders illegally with no consequence. I think you are too high if you say that killing someone because they are attacking you would be as ok for most of us as killing someone execution style with there hands tied. The reason Arizona wants that law to pass is because there has been a huge spill of violence and kidnapping from mexico. Many people have been kidnapped from arizona and brought over the border and held for ransom. Also smuggling is a huge issue. The violence is funded from there drug trade and just because someone is young does not mean they are not working for a cartel. I grow weed because i am not a fan of the violent people that i used to purchase from.

For me the issue is would i feel the same if the boy was any other country and i say yes, still justified. The situation is simple, rocks were thrown at a person, his life was very well in danger. He shot and killed a person that was threatening his life. Its ashame that a child died but its something that could have been avoided. If the kids just simply ran away like they were and didnt stop to pick up rocks in the hopes that it would hit and hurt or kill the officer no one would have died.

Not reading the thread, and really don't care about anyone elses' views either, whether they agree or disagree with me. But to answer the original poster's question as to justified or not:

Absolutely.

I carry a gun most days (because I am licensed to do so, not because I am a state or federal cop). As a private citizen, if someone through rocks at me I would respond by stopping the threat to myself. That means I aim center mass and pull the trigger until the deadly force used against me ceases. If the yahoo throwing rocks at me died ... well maybe he shouldn't have thrown rocks at me.

And I can guarantee you that I would not be prosecuted for my actions.

So should we expect our border patrol agents to have less emphasis placed on their lives and their natural law liberty to respond to deadly force with their own deadly force? The answer to that is an emphatic and sane no.

Throw a rock and expect to get shot.

vertise said:

when i was 15 i could easily throw a baseball 65 mph. Also they were not that far away. Even if there was backup 2 seconds away one well placed "pitch" with a golf ball sized rock would have this guy dead on the ground. Helmet doesnt protect you from having your windpipe crushed or eye socket poped out or farhead from being split open or skull cracked like a egg. All it needed to do what hit the frontal lobe area where the helmet doesnt protect and he would be fucked.

Click to expand...

Ya but don't ya think he could have thought for a second (yes against all odds someone using their head) and shot him in the arm, ya can't throw rocks without an arm and it doesn't give someone a death sentence. But I guess thats just if your one of the few people out there that has the mental capacity to think rather than just do what their told and kill someone for throwing rocks. And it wouldn't be hard to hit someone in the arm from that distance.

People always say that, why dont people that shoot guns just shoot the body parts that are holding the knife or weapon. The reason is not everyone is chuck noris. I know he can shoot a person anywhere he wants but in real life thats not practicle. Anyone that has tried to shoot a handgun, one handed knows that the bullets fly in a general area and almost never hit exactly where you want them too. Especially from the distance he was shooting from. Also add the stress of holding down one of the kids that were running back to mexico while you fire. Most likely his shot was a fluke. Simply shooting in the direction of the attacker. I Doubt he made a one handed shot from what seems to be 15 to 20 yards away almost between the eyes. Unless he was Riggs.[video=youtube;8Zjjzh1JGiU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zjjzh1JGiU[/video]

Vertise, movies and video games has made everyone an expert on how to shoot a firearm. People saying the agent should have shot the kid in the arm have probably never raised a real weapon in their hands.

I am an expert shot with a rifle (not braggadocio, just the facts) and am a better than average shot with a handgun. And with a handgun I know that in the heat of the fight, with my heart racing, trying to hold onto another person who was fighting me and making a one-handed shot at 20 yards I would be happy to just hit the target.

All military, police, and other agents of the state are trained to shoot center mass. In my opinion, the agent's shot killing the kid was more luck than skill, although I am sure he was aiming center mass.

vertise said:

People always say that, why dont people that shoot guns just shoot the body parts that are holding the knife or weapon. The reason is not everyone is chuck noris. I know he can shoot a person anywhere he wants but in real life thats not practicle. Anyone that has tried to shoot a handgun, one handed knows that the bullets fly in a general area and almost never hit exactly where you want them too. Especially from the distance he was shooting from. Also add the stress of holding down one of the kids that were running back to mexico while you fire. Most likely his shot was a fluke. Simply shooting in the direction of the attacker. I Doubt he made a one handed shot from what seems to be 15 to 20 yards away almost between the eyes. Unless he was Riggs.[video=youtube;8Zjjzh1JGiU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zjjzh1JGiU[/video]

Click to expand...

Yes but i've shot guns alot, trust me. Aiming for the shoulder wouldn't be too difficult and has a good chance of hitting, besides they have nearly 20 shots in those pistols, I don't and shooting pistols isn't that hard, it especially shouldn't be if your trained to use them. And he could've just shot the other guy in the arm too, who cares, two guys with flesh wounds beats one guy dead, and then ya can use two hands to shoot the other and maybe get better aim.

I am willing to bet he was aiming center mast when he hit the kid in the head. It just happened to be where the bullet went.

Shooting a pistol is not hard, hitting a target from a distance one handed is much more difficult.

People watch too many movies...

NLXSK1 said:

I am willing to bet he was aiming center mast when he hit the kid in the head. It just happened to be where the bullet went.

Shooting a pistol is not hard, hitting a target from a distance one handed is much more difficult.

People watch too many movies...

Click to expand...

I can tell from bcbong's statement that he certainly watches too many movies. And yes, I am quite sure he was aiming center mass when he missed and hit the kid in the head.

bcbong92 said:

Yes but i've shot guns alot, trust me. Aiming for the shoulder wouldn't be too difficult and has a good chance of hitting, besides they have nearly 20 shots in those pistols, I don't and shooting pistols isn't that hard, it especially shouldn't be if your trained to use them. And he could've just shot the other guy in the arm too, who cares, two guys with flesh wounds beats one guy dead, and then ya can use two hands to shoot the other and maybe get better aim.

Click to expand...

you have shot guns but id be willing to bet you have never shot a gun in combat. id be willing to bet you have never been trained of combat. I'm wondering if you have ever been in a fight in your life because you have no idea how fast you have to identify a threat and eliminate the threat. compound the situation by having to keep one person on the ground and it makes it pretty hard to place a round in a 6inx6in target at 30 yards.

if our military fallowed bullshit like this "shoot him in the arm" crap we would still be under British rule. this country is way to politicaly correct.

irishwyrick said:

you have shot guns but id be willing to bet you have never shot a gun in combat. id be willing to bet you have never been trained of combat. I'm wondering if you have ever been in a fight in your life because you have no idea how fast you have to identify a threat and eliminate the threat. compound the situation by having to keep one person on the ground and it makes it pretty hard to place a round in a 6inx6in target at 30 yards.

if our military fallowed bullshit like this "shoot him in the arm" crap we would still be under British rule. this country is way to politicaly correct.

Click to expand...

if we were under british rule, this wouldn't have happened because the bobby (sic?) wouldn't be armed! j/k, i get what you're saying.

on the newest issue in this thread, i think it is safe to say he was shooting where all leos are taught to shoot, the center, and had a lucky miss. i mean hell, his first two shots missed...just sayin'

edit - you might also call it an unlucky miss, depending on where you stand on the issue