If I have a rap sheet that consists of, say, smoking pot, are you going to not lose any sleep over my death too? The cop acting with force is the consequence that leads to my death, not my potsmoking.
I didn't make any value statements as to the justice or fairness of what happened, nor am I saying that excessive force is okay if it turns out the victim was a bad guy after the fact.
All I'm saying is all I said: I'm not going to lose sleep over a repeat offender getting killed while attacking a cop who caught him breaking the law again.
If we're going to hem and haw over the the levels of appropriate force, I would posit that comparing a cop-assaulting human smuggler to a guy smoking weed is fairly dishonest.
If I have a rap sheet that consists of, say, smoking pot, are you going to not lose any sleep over my death too? The cop acting with force is the consequence that leads to my death, not my potsmoking.
I didn't make any value statements as to the justice or fairness of what happened, nor am I saying that excessive force is okay if it turns out the victim was a bad guy after the fact.
All I'm saying is all I said: I'm not going to lose sleep over a repeat offender getting killed while attacking a cop who caught him breaking the law again.
If we're going to hem and haw over the the levels of appropriate force, I would posit that comparing a cop-assaulting human smuggler to a guy smoking weed is fairly dishonest.
I'm a repeat offender. Granted, the offenses are bathing on a Sunday and not bathing on a Sunday, but I've done both repeatedly.
CNN has the video and they helpfully clear up a few things:
- The officer on the bike had no cover whatsoever from the the rock attack (and could not reach any for some time), while the throwers were hiding behind a concrete pylon.
- While the officer never crossed into Mexico, the kid is clearly shot on the Mexican side at a surprising range. Given it appears to be more than 50 yards away, I'm doubtful that the officer was aiming at anything other than the kid's general direction.
- The victim was a repeat offender with known history of human smuggling.
Moments later, the officer points what appears to be his firearm in the direction of a second suspect, standing about 60 feet away from the officer -- on the Mexican side of the border. The video shows the suspect running away.
Seconds later, two gunshots can be heard on the video. A third gunshot is heard in a different sequence of the tape. After the shooting, another suspect is seen running in the upper left side of screen away from the incident.
If we're going to hem and haw over the the levels of appropriate force, I would posit that comparing a cop-assaulting human smuggler to a guy smoking weed is fairly dishonest.
I'm going by what you said. So someone has a rap sheet. So... how does that play into you not losing any sleep? If he had like, a murder/rape record, I could see where you're coming from. But helping people get into America is hardly something one should have any cause to harden a heart over.
CNN has the video and they helpfully clear up a few things:
- The officer on the bike had no cover whatsoever from the the rock attack (and could not reach any for some time), while the throwers were hiding behind a concrete pylon.
- While the officer never crossed into Mexico, the kid is clearly shot on the Mexican side at a surprising range. Given it appears to be more than 50 yards away, I'm doubtful that the officer was aiming at anything other than the kid's general direction.
- The victim was a repeat offender with known history of human smuggling.
Moments later, the officer points what appears to be his firearm in the direction of a second suspect, standing about 60 feet away from the officer -- on the Mexican side of the border. The video shows the suspect running away.
Seconds later, two gunshots can be heard on the video. A third gunshot is heard in a different sequence of the tape. After the shooting, another suspect is seen running in the upper left side of screen away from the incident.
For comparison, the world record for longest shot put is 23.12 meters and a pitcher's mount is 60'6"
I don't see what smuggling ties have to do with how right or wrong the officer was
It's supposed to make you feel better about a kid getting shot as he was running away.
I have to say, I'm not going to lose any sleep over a kid with a rap sheet getting killed while attacking a cop when caught breaking the law again.
You see Loren? He deserved his punishment.
*edit* for claaaaarity
Deserve really has nothing to do with it. I don't think the kid "deserved" to die, but in the context of the events, his death was a possibility that he clearly had the chance to avoid. Whether the cop acted with appropriate force is fairly inconsequential to that.
If I have a rap sheet that consists of, say, smoking pot, are you going to not lose any sleep over my death too? The cop acting with force is the consequence that leads to my death, not my potsmoking.
If you got caught smoking pot and went to jail I wouldn't. But your pot smoking, has nothing to do with this.
Kid had a rap sheet, had been busted before, and then chose to do it again. He then chose to use lethal force against a law enforcement officer who responded as he should have, with deadly force in return, and is now dead.
Now, if you had a serial rap sheet of constant drug busts. Were hanging out in an area known for violence (which border crossing are), and then threw rocks at a cop and then got shot would I feel bad, not in the slightest.
The video is interesting, we don't see where the other people went to, they are out of the camera. We do hear people say that he is throwing rocks, and even say "is he stupid". So, justified shooting. We can't tell how true "surrounded" was, and that's not a black and white term as there are degrees of this. But still, rock thrown.
For comparison, the world record for longest shot put is 23.12 meters.
Not the same as a rock.
In which case he'd have been hit by rocks, which was my point.
Which goes back again to "he should wait till he was hit by lethal force" which is silly.
"Rock thrown" and "Lethal force" and not synonyms. Whether the kid had a previous rap sheet is entirely irrelevant to whether lethal force should have been used. The only thing that matters is whether the border patrol agent was under threat of serious harm. Throwing rocks from 60 feet and then running away does not constitute a level of threat that justifies lethal force as a response.
I definitely agree that the kid should not have been throwing rocks, and that that's stupid. But still, there's a matter of appropriate response. A kid throwing a snowball at a moving cop car in shitty weather can cause an accident or worse, doesn't mean shooting is justified if you see a kid about to lob one. If the distance numbers here are at all accurate, I tend to fall on the side of "unjustified shooting". The video seems to back this up. There's throwing rocks and then there's throwing rocks from 60 feet away. It's still stupid, absolutely, but not something that warrants lethal force as a means to defend oneself.
Even though I agree with PotatoNinja that the kid's record had nothing to do with the shooting, the article also seems to indicate that the kid didn't have a rap sheet:
The victim, Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, had been apprehended by U.S. officials on more than one occassion but was never criminally charged, Qualia said.
Of course, the whole narrative is suspect because you'd expect a man surrounded by men pelting him with rocks to sustain some injury. Now, given that he didn't sustain any injuries worth reporting, we must either assume that he wasn't surrounded by men pelting him with rocks or that the rocks weren't heavy enough to be a threat.
Or that they missed. Depending on how narrowly a projectile misses by, it can still represent a lethal threat even without actually hitting.
Rock with significant mass misses by 2 feet at high velocity = lethal threat.
Same rock is lobbed and misses by 50 feet = probably not.
The video in this instance, however, does not appear to reflect the agent's account of the incident. Naturally, that casts doubt on a claim from the same source that an imminent lethal threat was present as well.
Of course, the whole narrative is suspect because you'd expect a man surrounded by men pelting him with rocks to sustain some injury. Now, given that he didn't sustain any injuries worth reporting, we must either assume that he wasn't surrounded by men pelting him with rocks or that the rocks weren't heavy enough to be a threat.
Or that they missed. Depending on how narrowly a projectile misses by, it can still represent a lethal threat even without actually hitting.
Rock with significant mass misses by 2 feet at high velocity = lethal threat.
Same rock is lobbed and misses by 50 feet = probably not.
The video in this instance, however, does not appear to reflect the agent's account of the incident. Naturally, that casts doubt on a claim from the same source that an imminent lethal threat was present as well.
Given known cases re: inappropriate use of force that seem to plague law enforcement and cases re: lying in reports, I am somewhat disinclined to take them at their word. Am I wrong to have this reaction?
Of course, the whole narrative is suspect because you'd expect a man surrounded by men pelting him with rocks to sustain some injury. Now, given that he didn't sustain any injuries worth reporting, we must either assume that he wasn't surrounded by men pelting him with rocks or that the rocks weren't heavy enough to be a threat.
Or that they missed. Depending on how narrowly a projectile misses by, it can still represent a lethal threat even without actually hitting.
Rock with significant mass misses by 2 feet at high velocity = lethal threat.
Same rock is lobbed and misses by 50 feet = probably not.
The video in this instance, however, does not appear to reflect the agent's account of the incident. Naturally, that casts doubt on a claim from the same source that an imminent lethal threat was present as well.
That's why my main issue is with the part about him being surrounded and pelted, as you'd think something potentially fatal would result in some sort of injury if done by a group.
The video contradicts Simmons' account. She had said: "This agent, who had the second subject detained on the ground, gave verbal commands to the remaining subjects to stop and retreat. However, the subjects surrounded the agent and continued to throw rocks at him. The agent then fired his service weapon several times, striking one subject who later died."
Moments later, the officer points what appears to be his firearm in the direction of a second suspect, standing about 60 feet away from the officer -- on the Mexican side of the border. The video shows the suspect running away.
Seconds later, two gunshots can be heard on the video. A third gunshot is heard in a different sequence of the tape. After the shooting, another suspect is seen running in the upper left side of screen away from the incident.
The video shows the suspect running away.
Seconds later, two gunshots can be heard on the video.
Yeah this is gonna get messy
Nice selective quoting. You completely neglected the part where FBI says the video shows thrown rocks, and that the video has someone shouting in spanish about about rock throwing. However unlikely it seems to you, it appears that the group did throw rocks at the guy.
The article also says the use of the word 'surrounded' was by the FBI.
EDIT: It does appear that I was very wrong about something I was insisting on earlier in the thread. By Monday 'night', they apparently mean around 6:30 PM. In other words, it was evening, not nighttime. So, sorry about that, I misrepresenting the situation there.
Border Patrol can't fire warning shots? That's shitty, even the US military is allowed to do that. Hell, the Coast Guard trains quite a bit on just how to fire warning shots properly. Shit, Israeli commandos fire warning shots.
For the first eight months of my deployment we were not allowed to fire warning shots. Whether warning shots are allowed is part of ROE, and that changes (and varies among units/AOs). Even once warning shots were authorized, they were highly discouraged by my particular chain of command.
If the situation was: Group throws rocks with clear intent to harm, patrolman produces gun and threatens to shoot, group continues to throw rocks with clear intent to harm, patrolman opens fire--that's a pretty reasonable action on the officer's part.
But that scenario does strike me as unlikely. Its possible! Maybe he was really being attacked by a savage gang of bloodthirsty rock murderers. I have difficult envisioning a scenario where you have people who are particularly keen on playing "rock - paper - scissors" except the other side gets to pick "assault rifle."
I haven't advocated for the "retreat" strategy (I'm aware others in this thread have and assume discussions on that matter are directed to them) and suspect it would be generally unwise but could be ideal in some limited and, again, unlikely scenarios.
If the scenario was really "thugs with rocks are threat to officer's life, threat of lethal force is ignored, lethal force response used" that's tragic but also probably both reasonable and necessary. Does that scenario sound realistic to you? A bunch of kids saying "Man, I bet that gun pointed at me isn't even loaded HEY GET ANOTHER ROCK SO I CAN THROW IT AT THIS GUY WITH A GUN!
Unless you're on a playground and the rocks in question are pretty damn small, throwing rocks in and of itself constitutes a clear intent to harm. Or at least a reckless disregard. By the age of 15, any kid should fucking know this.
According to that article an agent doesn't need to believe his life is in danger in order to use lethal force:
Lethal force, he said, is allowed "when an agent is in imminent threat of physical or bodily harm, which could cause death or injury or in protection of an innocent third party."
The "he" in that quote is Customs and Border Protection spokesman Mark Qualia. So technically Border Patrol agents are allowed to kill people even if they don't believe their life is in jeopardy. The threat of injury is enough.
Unless you're on a playground and the rocks in question are pretty damn small, throwing rocks in and of itself constitutes a clear intent to harm. Or at least a reckless disregard. By the age of 15, any kid should fucking know this.
So you're telling me the agent produces a firearm, orders the attacker to stop, and they continue to throw rocks that pose a serious threat?
Because that's a dramatically different scenario than throwing a rock at an agent who doesn't see you and is sixty feet away and then running like hell when they pull their gun.
Jesus with the way some of the forum is acting we should replace the M-16 with a bag of rocks, as they're obviously cheaper and just as lethal.
Jesus with the way some of the forum is acting we should replace the M-16 with a bag of rocks, as they're obviously cheaper and just as lethal.
dude stop doing that
There's no comparison in force between throwing a rock at someone sixty feet away and shooting a gun.
None.
Rocks are dangerous, throwing them at people is bad and, if the thrower is particularly lucky (or unlucky) they can even be fatal, but you don't--you can't--threaten someone who has a gun with a rock unless you're literally psychotic. The logistics and physics of the scenario do not work.
Unless you're on a playground and the rocks in question are pretty damn small, throwing rocks in and of itself constitutes a clear intent to harm. Or at least a reckless disregard. By the age of 15, any kid should fucking know this.
So you're telling me the agent produces a firearm, orders the attacker to stop, and they continue to throw rocks that pose a serious threat?
Yes. Serious enough to warrant the use of force (including deadly force).
Because that's a dramatically different scenario than throwing a rock at an agent who doesn't see you and is sixty feet away and then running like hell when they pull their gun.
Right, and if anybody was still throwing rocks at the point shots were fired then the fact that you (the one running away) wound up being the one hit is irrelevant.
Also, once you start throwing rocks you are the one who has escalated the confrontation. Just because you managed to stop throwing and start running before the agent could process that fact, and he opens fire anyway, doesn't suddenly make the outcome of that situation his fault. I'd argue that responsibility lies with the one who decided a violent confrontation with a law enforcement officer was a spiffy idea.
Jesus with the way some of the forum is acting we should replace the M-16 with a bag of rocks, as they're obviously cheaper and just as lethal.
Just because an M-16 is more deadly does not mean a rock isn't deadly, and that responding to a rock with an M-16 is automatically inappropriate. Quit being a gibbering fucking moron.
And officers are allowed to use deadly force even in the absence of deadly force against them. Threat of injury (particularly serious injury) is enough. Since you're focused on the rocks, we'll speak theoretically for a moment (since the various facts of the encounter are still in question). We've got rocks being thrown. Rocks can cause injury. What level of injury is the officer supposed to allow himself to be subjected to before his use of deadly force is appropriate? Only death? Loss of an eye? Brain damage? Lost tooth? Please, lay it out for me. I want to know just what level of injury somebody is allowed to inflict on an agent in your world before he's allowed to use the most effective means he has to defend himself.
Based on the quote I cited earlier, from a purely legal standpoint, it seems the border patrol agent was justified in the shooting. Throwing rocks at a dude qualifies as a threat of bodily harm that could cause an injury.
The fact, though, that this guy was willing to end the life of a kid rather than risk the one in a million chance that he might sustain an injury that requires more than three stitches to fix makes him sort of an asshole in my opinion.
How about "I have a gun I'm aiming it at you stop throwing rocks at me or I will kill you."
Kind of like "freeze" except a little more explicit.
Which is different than shooting someone who is fleeing.
Right, and if anybody was still throwing rocks at the point shots were fired then the fact that you (the one running away) wound up being the one hit is irrelevant.
Actually that's kind of really fucking relevant but also another tangent.
PotatoNinja on
Two goats enter, one car leaves
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Rocks are dangerous, throwing them at people is bad and, if the thrower is particularly lucky (or unlucky) they can even be fatal, but you don't--you can't--threaten someone who has a gun with a rock unless you're literally psychotic. The logistics and physics of the scenario do not work.
You want to play the logistics game? Then what, pray tell, should an officer do when other methods of deterrence aren't available? The attackers were a good distance away, well out of taser range, and he had no cover. And from the video it looks like he had already pulled his gun as a threat, yet the attackers did not relent.
Just because an M-16 is more deadly does not mean a rock isn't deadly, and that responding to a rock with an M-16 is automatically inappropriate. Quit being a gibbering fucking moron.
I'm out. People gonna start taking dumb sides like when that cop shot the face-down dude in the back. It has already begun and I fear I have become a part of the problem.
Jesus with the way some of the forum is acting we should replace the M-16 with a bag of rocks, as they're obviously cheaper and just as lethal.
dude stop doing that
There's no comparison in force between throwing a rock at someone sixty feet away and shooting a gun.
None.
Rocks are dangerous, throwing them at people is bad and, if the thrower is particularly lucky (or unlucky) they can even be fatal, but you don't--you can't--threaten someone who has a gun with a rock unless you're literally psychotic. The logistics and physics of the scenario do not work.
PotatoNinja, it is not a contest. It's not a matter where lethal force is only allowed if the type of attack is over half as lethal as a gun, or something. They were throwing rocks, the guy pointed a gun at them, they kept throwing rocks.
It is quite possible that they were coming to the same conclusion as you, and thus calling his bluff. Meanwhile, the threat of a gun obviously wasn't enough, and he had nothing else with sufficient range. Securing and removing the detained guy (who was right at the get-away-scott-free line that was the border, so he was going to be resisting) by himself was going to take time.
What are you saying he should have done? Are you saying he should have just ignored the rocks that were being chunked his way? Are you saying something else? I don't know. I only know what you are saying he should not have done. Which is nice, but not quite as constructive.
Unless you're on a playground and the rocks in question are pretty damn small, throwing rocks in and of itself constitutes a clear intent to harm. Or at least a reckless disregard. By the age of 15, any kid should fucking know this.
So you're telling me the agent produces a firearm, orders the attacker to stop, and they continue to throw rocks that pose a serious threat?
Yes. Serious enough to warrant the use of force (including deadly force).
Because that's a dramatically different scenario than throwing a rock at an agent who doesn't see you and is sixty feet away and then running like hell when they pull their gun.
Right, and if anybody was still throwing rocks at the point shots were fired then the fact that you (the one running away) wound up being the one hit is irrelevant.
Also, once you start throwing rocks you are the one who has escalated the confrontation. Just because you managed to stop throwing and start running before the agent could process that fact, and he opens fire anyway, doesn't suddenly make the outcome of that situation his fault. I'd argue that responsibility lies with the one who decided a violent confrontation with a law enforcement officer was a spiffy idea.
Jesus with the way some of the forum is acting we should replace the M-16 with a bag of rocks, as they're obviously cheaper and just as lethal.
Just because an M-16 is more deadly does not mean a rock isn't deadly, and that responding to a rock with an M-16 is automatically inappropriate. Quit being a gibbering fucking moron.
And officers are allowed to use deadly force even in the absence of deadly force against them. Threat of injury (particularly serious injury) is enough. Since you're focused on the rocks, we'll speak theoretically for a moment (since the various facts of the encounter are still in question). We've got rocks being thrown. Rocks can cause injury. What level of injury is the officer supposed to allow himself to be subjected to before his use of deadly force is appropriate? Only death? Loss of an eye? Brain damage? Lost tooth? Please, lay it out for me. I want to know just what level of injury somebody is allowed to inflict on an agent in your world before he's allowed to use the most effective means he has to defend himself.
How much injury does running away cause?
Also, great use of logic with the rocks bit. "He held his hand out to me. Hands can cause injury." "He sneezed toward me. Sneezes can spread fatal disease." It's almost as precious as your use of the slipper slope argument to show that any chance of injury justifies shooting somebody in your mind.
Rocks are dangerous, throwing them at people is bad and, if the thrower is particularly lucky (or unlucky) they can even be fatal, but you don't--you can't--threaten someone who has a gun with a rock unless you're literally psychotic. The logistics and physics of the scenario do not work.
You want to play the logistics game? Then what, pray tell, should an officer do when other methods of deterrence aren't available? The attackers were a good distance away, well out of taser range, and he had no cover. And from the video it looks like he had already pulled his gun as a threat, yet the attackers did not relent.
Is the target running away? Get the best look at them you can and, unless they are armed with an immediately lethal weapon (firearm or bionic arm capable of hurting rocks at 300 MPH directly into agent brains) let them flee unless you have the capability to pursue (which the agent didn't in this scenario).
Is the target, after being clearly warned and seeing both your firearm and your action of taking aim, still attacking? Are these attacks posing a serious threat? Shoot them because they're fucking loony.
That would be my abbreviated guide. Other factors play into it.
PotatoNinja on
Two goats enter, one car leaves
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Is the target, after being clearly warned and seeing both your firearm and your action of taking aim, still attacking? Are these attacks posing a serious threat? Shoot them because they're fucking loony.
That would be my abbreviated guide. Other factors play into it.
Um, this is what happened. Go look at the tape. The cop stands there for quite a while with his gun out before they start throwing rocks at him.
Also, great use of logic with the rocks bit. "He held his hand out to me. Hands can cause injury." "He sneezed toward me. Sneezes can spread fatal disease." It's almost as precious as your use of the slipper slope argument to show that any chance of injury justifies shooting somebody in your mind.
Hey, way to equate sneezing with making an active decision to intentionally take an aggressive action unlawfully against another human being that could easily lead to their injury (even serious injury).
Is the target, after being clearly warned and seeing both your firearm and your action of taking aim, still attacking? Are these attacks posing a serious threat? Shoot them because they're fucking loony.
That would be my abbreviated guide. Other factors play into it.
Um, this is what happened. Go look at the tape. The cop stands there for quite a while with his gun out before they start throwing rocks at him.
From the article we're all referencing:
One of the suspects is detained by the officer, but never handcuffed, and is dragged a short distance. This happened on the U.S. side of the border.
Moments later, the officer points what appears to be his firearm in the direction of a second suspect, standing about 60 feet away from the officer -- on the Mexican side of the border. The video shows the suspect running away.
Seconds later, two gunshots can be heard on the video. A third gunshot is heard in a different sequence of the tape.
How can he be running away while also attacking the agent with rocks?
Rocks are dangerous, throwing them at people is bad and, if the thrower is particularly lucky (or unlucky) they can even be fatal, but you don't--you can't--threaten someone who has a gun with a rock unless you're literally psychotic. The logistics and physics of the scenario do not work.
You want to play the logistics game? Then what, pray tell, should an officer do when other methods of deterrence aren't available? The attackers were a good distance away, well out of taser range, and he had no cover. And from the video it looks like he had already pulled his gun as a threat, yet the attackers did not relent.
So he was surrounded, had time and was willing to stand around pointing his gun and tell them to stop, and got away without so much as a smudge on his shirt, and we're supposed to believe that those people were doing something capable of killing him that entire time? Are these guys Bosnian snipers or something?
Rocks are dangerous, throwing them at people is bad and, if the thrower is particularly lucky (or unlucky) they can even be fatal, but you don't--you can't--threaten someone who has a gun with a rock unless you're literally psychotic. The logistics and physics of the scenario do not work.
You want to play the logistics game? Then what, pray tell, should an officer do when other methods of deterrence aren't available? The attackers were a good distance away, well out of taser range, and he had no cover. And from the video it looks like he had already pulled his gun as a threat, yet the attackers did not relent.
So he was surrounded, had time and was willing to stand around pointing his gun and tell them to stop, and got away without so much as a smudge on his shirt, and we're supposed to believe that those people were doing something capable of killing him that entire time? Are these guys Bosnian snipers or something?
Wait, so failing to use force the moment somebody engages in an activity that poses danger to you then precludes you from ever using force to stop that same activity?
Or is a human being at some point allowed to decide that the risk is no longer acceptable, and respond with force?
Is the target, after being clearly warned and seeing both your firearm and your action of taking aim, still attacking? Are these attacks posing a serious threat? Shoot them because they're fucking loony.
That would be my abbreviated guide. Other factors play into it.
Um, this is what happened. Go look at the tape. The cop stands there for quite a while with his gun out before they start throwing rocks at him.
From the article we're all referencing:
One of the suspects is detained by the officer, but never handcuffed, and is dragged a short distance. This happened on the U.S. side of the border.
Moments later, the officer points what appears to be his firearm in the direction of a second suspect, standing about 60 feet away from the officer -- on the Mexican side of the border. The video shows the suspect running away.
Seconds later, two gunshots can be heard on the video. A third gunshot is heard in a different sequence of the tape.
How can he be running away while also attacking the agent with rocks?
Also, great use of logic with the rocks bit. "He held his hand out to me. Hands can cause injury." "He sneezed toward me. Sneezes can spread fatal disease." It's almost as precious as your use of the slipper slope argument to show that any chance of injury justifies shooting somebody in your mind.
Hey, way to equate sneezing with making an active decision to intentionally take an aggressive action unlawfully against another human being that could easily lead to their injury (even serious injury).
I mean, speaking of great uses of logic.
Sneezing can cause injury. What level of injury is the officer supposed to allow himself to be subjected to before his use of deadly force is appropriate? Only death? Loss of an eye? Brain damage? Lost tooth? Please, lay it out for me. I want to know just what level of injury somebody is allowed to inflict on an agent in your world before he's allowed to use the most effective means he has to defend himself.
The fact of the matter is that your argument is equally applicable to rocks and sneezing. That it is ridiculous is the entire point. You said that something can cause injury, so any action involving that thing can cause injury. Now, can you show that a 15 year old boy throwing rocks from 60 feet away is in any way, shape, or form a credible threat? You obviously can't, even with the gimme of assuming that the rocks were injuriously large, or you would have already tried.
Also, from the video, it looks like he wasn't more than 30' away from another pylon in the bridge the rock throwers were hiding under. He could have been there in a few seconds. So for those people saying there was no immediate cover, there was.
Legally, he was justified in the shooting as the kids were threatening to injure him. Three or four teenagers at sixty feet barely qualifies as a threat, but technically it does qualify. I think it was a seriously bad judgment call on the agent's part to respond with deadly force to such a minimal threat, but it was his to make.
I hope, after seeing the sort of judgment calls this guy makes in the field, they take away his gun and put him in a desk job somewhere.
The Big Levinsky on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Now, can you show that a 15 year old boy throwing rocks from 60 feet away is in any way, shape, or form a credible threat? You obviously can't, even with the gimme of assuming that the rocks were injuriously large, or you would have already tried.
I dunno. Maybe you should come over and we'll whip big rocks at you, and you can tell us how threatened you feel.
Also, great use of logic with the rocks bit. "He held his hand out to me. Hands can cause injury." "He sneezed toward me. Sneezes can spread fatal disease." It's almost as precious as your use of the slipper slope argument to show that any chance of injury justifies shooting somebody in your mind.
Hey, way to equate sneezing with making an active decision to intentionally take an aggressive action unlawfully against another human being that could easily lead to their injury (even serious injury).
I mean, speaking of great uses of logic.
Sneezing can cause injury. What level of injury is the officer supposed to allow himself to be subjected to before his use of deadly force is appropriate? Only death? Loss of an eye? Brain damage? Lost tooth? Please, lay it out for me. I want to know just what level of injury somebody is allowed to inflict on an agent in your world before he's allowed to use the most effective means he has to defend himself.
The fact of the matter is that your argument is equally applicable to rocks and sneezing. That it is ridiculous is the entire point. You said that something can cause injury, so any action involving that thing can cause injury. Now, can you show that a 15 year old boy throwing rocks from 60 feet away is in any way, shape, or form a credible threat? You obviously can't, even with the gimme of assuming that the rocks were injuriously large, or you would have already tried.
First, I'd love an explanation of how sneezing is going to cause any serious or permanent injury to another person. I suppose they may have some fatal communicable disease, is that what you're getting at?
Second, intent matters. When another person is intentionally assaulting me, that's definitely different from a sneeze. At least any sneeze not intentionally aimed at me with the hope of transmitting a fatal communicable disease.
Third, I thought that any reasonably intelligent human being reading my post would understand that we were talking in the context of one person intentionally assaulting another, not holding a hand out or sneezing. Apparently I was wrong. Well, that or you're....well....yeah.
EDIT: Oh, and if I determined that a person was intentionally trying to sneeze on me knowing they had a fatal (or just permanent and debilitating) communicable disease? I'd have zero problem shooting them to stop them.
Now, can you show that a 15 year old boy throwing rocks from 60 feet away is in any way, shape, or form a credible threat? You obviously can't, even with the gimme of assuming that the rocks were injuriously large, or you would have already tried.
I dunno. Maybe you should come over and we'll whip big rocks at you, and you can tell us how threatened you feel.
Does he get to point a loaded gun at you in response? We could make a D&D thread about what happens, I'd totally be on the side of "Atomic Ross didn't deserve to get shot!"
Rocks are dangerous, throwing them at people is bad and, if the thrower is particularly lucky (or unlucky) they can even be fatal, but you don't--you can't--threaten someone who has a gun with a rock unless you're literally psychotic. The logistics and physics of the scenario do not work.
You want to play the logistics game? Then what, pray tell, should an officer do when other methods of deterrence aren't available? The attackers were a good distance away, well out of taser range, and he had no cover. And from the video it looks like he had already pulled his gun as a threat, yet the attackers did not relent.
So he was surrounded, had time and was willing to stand around pointing his gun and tell them to stop, and got away without so much as a smudge on his shirt, and we're supposed to believe that those people were doing something capable of killing him that entire time? Are these guys Bosnian snipers or something?
Wait, so failing to use force the moment somebody engages in an activity that poses danger to you then precludes you from ever using force to stop that same activity?
Or is a human being at some point allowed to decide that the risk is no longer acceptable, and respond with force?
Do rocks get more dangerous after five minutes? I mean, he could have miraculously managed to avoid injury for a while before deciding he was in danger, but that raises the question of why it took him so long to decide and why said danger never appeared. If I claimed to have been a target of snipers in Bosnia, yet was shown calmly walking across an exposed area without any injury whatsoever, people are going to say that I wan full of shit.
Posts
I didn't make any value statements as to the justice or fairness of what happened, nor am I saying that excessive force is okay if it turns out the victim was a bad guy after the fact.
All I'm saying is all I said: I'm not going to lose sleep over a repeat offender getting killed while attacking a cop who caught him breaking the law again.
If we're going to hem and haw over the the levels of appropriate force, I would posit that comparing a cop-assaulting human smuggler to a guy smoking weed is fairly dishonest.
I'm a repeat offender. Granted, the offenses are bathing on a Sunday and not bathing on a Sunday, but I've done both repeatedly.
Article says the suspect was sixty feet away.
I'm going by what you said. So someone has a rap sheet. So... how does that play into you not losing any sleep? If he had like, a murder/rape record, I could see where you're coming from. But helping people get into America is hardly something one should have any cause to harden a heart over.
For comparison, the world record for longest shot put is 23.12 meters and a pitcher's mount is 60'6"
If you got caught smoking pot and went to jail I wouldn't. But your pot smoking, has nothing to do with this.
Kid had a rap sheet, had been busted before, and then chose to do it again. He then chose to use lethal force against a law enforcement officer who responded as he should have, with deadly force in return, and is now dead.
Now, if you had a serial rap sheet of constant drug busts. Were hanging out in an area known for violence (which border crossing are), and then threw rocks at a cop and then got shot would I feel bad, not in the slightest.
The video is interesting, we don't see where the other people went to, they are out of the camera. We do hear people say that he is throwing rocks, and even say "is he stupid". So, justified shooting. We can't tell how true "surrounded" was, and that's not a black and white term as there are degrees of this. But still, rock thrown.
Not the same as a rock.
Which goes back again to "he should wait till he was hit by lethal force" which is silly.
I definitely agree that the kid should not have been throwing rocks, and that that's stupid. But still, there's a matter of appropriate response. A kid throwing a snowball at a moving cop car in shitty weather can cause an accident or worse, doesn't mean shooting is justified if you see a kid about to lob one. If the distance numbers here are at all accurate, I tend to fall on the side of "unjustified shooting". The video seems to back this up. There's throwing rocks and then there's throwing rocks from 60 feet away. It's still stupid, absolutely, but not something that warrants lethal force as a means to defend oneself.
Or that they missed. Depending on how narrowly a projectile misses by, it can still represent a lethal threat even without actually hitting.
Rock with significant mass misses by 2 feet at high velocity = lethal threat.
Same rock is lobbed and misses by 50 feet = probably not.
The video in this instance, however, does not appear to reflect the agent's account of the incident. Naturally, that casts doubt on a claim from the same source that an imminent lethal threat was present as well.
Given known cases re: inappropriate use of force that seem to plague law enforcement and cases re: lying in reports, I am somewhat disinclined to take them at their word. Am I wrong to have this reaction?
That's why my main issue is with the part about him being surrounded and pelted, as you'd think something potentially fatal would result in some sort of injury if done by a group.
Nice selective quoting. You completely neglected the part where FBI says the video shows thrown rocks, and that the video has someone shouting in spanish about about rock throwing. However unlikely it seems to you, it appears that the group did throw rocks at the guy.
The article also says the use of the word 'surrounded' was by the FBI.
EDIT: It does appear that I was very wrong about something I was insisting on earlier in the thread. By Monday 'night', they apparently mean around 6:30 PM. In other words, it was evening, not nighttime. So, sorry about that, I misrepresenting the situation there.
For the first eight months of my deployment we were not allowed to fire warning shots. Whether warning shots are allowed is part of ROE, and that changes (and varies among units/AOs). Even once warning shots were authorized, they were highly discouraged by my particular chain of command.
Unless you're on a playground and the rocks in question are pretty damn small, throwing rocks in and of itself constitutes a clear intent to harm. Or at least a reckless disregard. By the age of 15, any kid should fucking know this.
The "he" in that quote is Customs and Border Protection spokesman Mark Qualia. So technically Border Patrol agents are allowed to kill people even if they don't believe their life is in jeopardy. The threat of injury is enough.
So you're telling me the agent produces a firearm, orders the attacker to stop, and they continue to throw rocks that pose a serious threat?
Because that's a dramatically different scenario than throwing a rock at an agent who doesn't see you and is sixty feet away and then running like hell when they pull their gun.
Jesus with the way some of the forum is acting we should replace the M-16 with a bag of rocks, as they're obviously cheaper and just as lethal.
dude stop doing that
There's no comparison in force between throwing a rock at someone sixty feet away and shooting a gun.
None.
Rocks are dangerous, throwing them at people is bad and, if the thrower is particularly lucky (or unlucky) they can even be fatal, but you don't--you can't--threaten someone who has a gun with a rock unless you're literally psychotic. The logistics and physics of the scenario do not work.
Yes. Serious enough to warrant the use of force (including deadly force).
Right, and if anybody was still throwing rocks at the point shots were fired then the fact that you (the one running away) wound up being the one hit is irrelevant.
Also, once you start throwing rocks you are the one who has escalated the confrontation. Just because you managed to stop throwing and start running before the agent could process that fact, and he opens fire anyway, doesn't suddenly make the outcome of that situation his fault. I'd argue that responsibility lies with the one who decided a violent confrontation with a law enforcement officer was a spiffy idea.
Just because an M-16 is more deadly does not mean a rock isn't deadly, and that responding to a rock with an M-16 is automatically inappropriate. Quit being a gibbering fucking moron.
And officers are allowed to use deadly force even in the absence of deadly force against them. Threat of injury (particularly serious injury) is enough. Since you're focused on the rocks, we'll speak theoretically for a moment (since the various facts of the encounter are still in question). We've got rocks being thrown. Rocks can cause injury. What level of injury is the officer supposed to allow himself to be subjected to before his use of deadly force is appropriate? Only death? Loss of an eye? Brain damage? Lost tooth? Please, lay it out for me. I want to know just what level of injury somebody is allowed to inflict on an agent in your world before he's allowed to use the most effective means he has to defend himself.
The fact, though, that this guy was willing to end the life of a kid rather than risk the one in a million chance that he might sustain an injury that requires more than three stitches to fix makes him sort of an asshole in my opinion.
Kind of like "freeze" except a little more explicit.
Which is different than shooting someone who is fleeing.
Actually that's kind of really fucking relevant but also another tangent.
You want to play the logistics game? Then what, pray tell, should an officer do when other methods of deterrence aren't available? The attackers were a good distance away, well out of taser range, and he had no cover. And from the video it looks like he had already pulled his gun as a threat, yet the attackers did not relent.
I'm out. People gonna start taking dumb sides like when that cop shot the face-down dude in the back. It has already begun and I fear I have become a part of the problem.
PotatoNinja, it is not a contest. It's not a matter where lethal force is only allowed if the type of attack is over half as lethal as a gun, or something. They were throwing rocks, the guy pointed a gun at them, they kept throwing rocks.
It is quite possible that they were coming to the same conclusion as you, and thus calling his bluff. Meanwhile, the threat of a gun obviously wasn't enough, and he had nothing else with sufficient range. Securing and removing the detained guy (who was right at the get-away-scott-free line that was the border, so he was going to be resisting) by himself was going to take time.
What are you saying he should have done? Are you saying he should have just ignored the rocks that were being chunked his way? Are you saying something else? I don't know. I only know what you are saying he should not have done. Which is nice, but not quite as constructive.
How much injury does running away cause?
Also, great use of logic with the rocks bit. "He held his hand out to me. Hands can cause injury." "He sneezed toward me. Sneezes can spread fatal disease." It's almost as precious as your use of the slipper slope argument to show that any chance of injury justifies shooting somebody in your mind.
Is the target running away? Get the best look at them you can and, unless they are armed with an immediately lethal weapon (firearm or bionic arm capable of hurting rocks at 300 MPH directly into agent brains) let them flee unless you have the capability to pursue (which the agent didn't in this scenario).
Is the target, after being clearly warned and seeing both your firearm and your action of taking aim, still attacking? Are these attacks posing a serious threat? Shoot them because they're fucking loony.
That would be my abbreviated guide. Other factors play into it.
Um, this is what happened. Go look at the tape. The cop stands there for quite a while with his gun out before they start throwing rocks at him.
Hey, way to equate sneezing with making an active decision to intentionally take an aggressive action unlawfully against another human being that could easily lead to their injury (even serious injury).
I mean, speaking of great uses of logic.
From the article we're all referencing:
How can he be running away while also attacking the agent with rocks?
So he was surrounded, had time and was willing to stand around pointing his gun and tell them to stop, and got away without so much as a smudge on his shirt, and we're supposed to believe that those people were doing something capable of killing him that entire time? Are these guys Bosnian snipers or something?
Wait, so failing to use force the moment somebody engages in an activity that poses danger to you then precludes you from ever using force to stop that same activity?
Or is a human being at some point allowed to decide that the risk is no longer acceptable, and respond with force?
The Link I posted earlier in the thread, with the video itself.
Sneezing can cause injury. What level of injury is the officer supposed to allow himself to be subjected to before his use of deadly force is appropriate? Only death? Loss of an eye? Brain damage? Lost tooth? Please, lay it out for me. I want to know just what level of injury somebody is allowed to inflict on an agent in your world before he's allowed to use the most effective means he has to defend himself.
The fact of the matter is that your argument is equally applicable to rocks and sneezing. That it is ridiculous is the entire point. You said that something can cause injury, so any action involving that thing can cause injury. Now, can you show that a 15 year old boy throwing rocks from 60 feet away is in any way, shape, or form a credible threat? You obviously can't, even with the gimme of assuming that the rocks were injuriously large, or you would have already tried.
Legally, he was justified in the shooting as the kids were threatening to injure him. Three or four teenagers at sixty feet barely qualifies as a threat, but technically it does qualify. I think it was a seriously bad judgment call on the agent's part to respond with deadly force to such a minimal threat, but it was his to make.
I hope, after seeing the sort of judgment calls this guy makes in the field, they take away his gun and put him in a desk job somewhere.
I dunno. Maybe you should come over and we'll whip big rocks at you, and you can tell us how threatened you feel.
First, I'd love an explanation of how sneezing is going to cause any serious or permanent injury to another person. I suppose they may have some fatal communicable disease, is that what you're getting at?
Second, intent matters. When another person is intentionally assaulting me, that's definitely different from a sneeze. At least any sneeze not intentionally aimed at me with the hope of transmitting a fatal communicable disease.
Third, I thought that any reasonably intelligent human being reading my post would understand that we were talking in the context of one person intentionally assaulting another, not holding a hand out or sneezing. Apparently I was wrong. Well, that or you're....well....yeah.
EDIT: Oh, and if I determined that a person was intentionally trying to sneeze on me knowing they had a fatal (or just permanent and debilitating) communicable disease? I'd have zero problem shooting them to stop them.
Does he get to point a loaded gun at you in response? We could make a D&D thread about what happens, I'd totally be on the side of "Atomic Ross didn't deserve to get shot!"
Do rocks get more dangerous after five minutes? I mean, he could have miraculously managed to avoid injury for a while before deciding he was in danger, but that raises the question of why it took him so long to decide and why said danger never appeared. If I claimed to have been a target of snipers in Bosnia, yet was shown calmly walking across an exposed area without any injury whatsoever, people are going to say that I wan full of shit.