You know, my best friend had rocks thrown at him in Iraq. It kind of scares me that if it were a few of you in his position, dozens of stupid angry children would be lying face down to a barrage of machinegun fire rather than firing warning shots into the air which effectively disperse most such crowds
Well, you know, he was an Arab, and Arabs can cause injuries.
Even then, they might want the kid to shoot first.
No even if the kid shot first you'd hear "but he coulda ran away, could have arrested him, could have taken cover". There is a certain portion of our society that just hates the cops, agents, and the military. It's rather nasty and well... it's part of a certain political spectrum at that. Those people are just out there to die and have no reason to defend themselves, ever, and if they do... off with their head!
Please stop strawmanning.
People have made those exact arguments here...
So no, not a strawman. And since a section of our society has known to value the lives of cops and soldiers less then that of anybody else, it's a concern.
You are assigning overly general and simplistic motives to people and attacking these alleged motives instead of arguing about the merits of this particular shooting. It's a straw man and it's also veering off topic.
Nice dodge. Now, do you feel that I'd be justified in shooting you if you were throwing rocks from three meters short of the winning shot put at the latest Olympics, or am I only allowed to shoot Hispanics?
As a former collegiate shot-putter, I have to wonder if you know how little distance that is.
Three meters short. The winner in 2008 was 21. 60 feet is 18 meters.
Nice dodge. Now, do you feel that I'd be justified in shooting you if you were throwing rocks from three meters short of the winning shot put at the latest Olympics, or am I only allowed to shoot Hispanics?
As a former collegiate shot-putter, I have to wonder if you know how little distance that is.
This is evidence that if you are armed with a rock I should shoot you.
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.
I think it was seriously bad judgment for the teenagers to throw rocks at a law enforcement officer. Or any person with a gun, for that matter. But hey, it was theirs to make.
I hope, after seeing the sort of judgment calls Border Patrol agents make in the field, Mexican teenagers will not throw fucking rocks at our federal agents. That'd be peachy.
Regardless of whether the rocks were a lethal threat or not, I can't imagine this scenario in any way making Border Patrol Agents' lives any easier. The response so far from Mexico does not seem to be "we totally learned our lesson and won't throw rocks anymore!"
Shoot more of them. They'll figure it out eventually.
Nice dodge. Now, do you feel that I'd be justified in shooting you if you were throwing rocks from three meters short of the winning shot put at the latest Olympics, or am I only allowed to shoot Hispanics?
As a former collegiate shot-putter, I have to wonder if you know how little distance that is.
Three meters short. The winner in 2008 was 21. 60 feet is 18 meters.
Compare the weight of a shutput vs that of your average rock needed to cause real damage. The compare how fast and far you can throw the fuckers.
It's not the same situation at all.
Well, you know, he was an Arab, and Arabs can cause injuries.
You're reaching here.
nstf on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Nice dodge. Now, do you feel that I'd be justified in shooting you if you were throwing rocks from three meters short of the winning shot put at the latest Olympics, or am I only allowed to shoot Hispanics?
As a former collegiate shot-putter, I have to wonder if you know how little distance that is.
This is evidence that if you are armed with a rock I should shoot you.
Just for my own safety.
You probably know Rock-Fu.
A shot is definitely a dangerous object. A kid in my junior high got put into a coma from accidentally walking in front of the ring when a guy was throwing.
But at least they have limited range and nice round edges. Unlike rocks, which are smaller and pointy. Not unlike the theory behind bullets.
Nice dodge. Now, do you feel that I'd be justified in shooting you if you were throwing rocks from three meters short of the winning shot put at the latest Olympics, or am I only allowed to shoot Hispanics?
As a former collegiate shot-putter, I have to wonder if you know how little distance that is.
This is evidence that if you are armed with a rock I should shoot you.
Just for my own safety.
You probably know Rock-Fu.
He'd only be allowed to shoot you if you were actually throwing rocks at him and he was a border patrol agent. And it's not that he should shoot you, but he'd have to make a judgment call of whether it's appropriate. If you were a 15 year old standing 60' feet away, then he'd be legally allowed to shoot you, but it would be poor judgment on his part to do so.
Oh I forgot, white people are kids if they're 15, messicans are adults
The point being made was that a child with a rock posed no legitimate threat. Fifteen is hardly the age of a child incapable of physically harming someone, and choosing to frame it that way is intentionally dishonest.
You, too, are engaging in dishonest debate by purposefully misconstruing my statement.
Misconstruing your statement? You mean your comment that fuck, thats not a kid for mexicans because they're already squirting out kids of their own at that age?
kid was 14. You don't shoot kids. I don't care if you take a rock to the face, don't shoot little kids.
Ever?
Want to go down this road?
EDIT: Also, unless you're the one volunteering to get hit in the face with rocks by little kids (or shot by little kids, or blown up by little kids), you might want to consider just not posting any more on the subject.
I would rather die than kill a child armed with nothing more than a rock. I am an adult.
What horrible irony it would be if you were killed by a rock thrown by a child.
And really, 15? 15 ain't a "child." Half the Hispanic 15-year olds I see at work are parents.
Oh I forgot, white people are kids if they're 15, messicans are adults
Actually, he was only talking about Mexicans in terms of teen pregnancy rates. Which I'd be unsurprised to find that their teen pregnancy rates are higher. His "15 ain't a 'child'" comment was race-neutral.
From the guy that thinks the solution is to shoot more Mexicans? You're not very good at spotting racism.
Nice dodge. Now, do you feel that I'd be justified in shooting you if you were throwing rocks from three meters short of the winning shot put at the latest Olympics, or am I only allowed to shoot Hispanics?
As a former collegiate shot-putter, I have to wonder if you know how little distance that is.
Three meters short. The winner in 2008 was 21. 60 feet is 18 meters.
Compare the weight of a shutput vs that of your average rock needed to cause real damage. The compare how fast and far you can throw the fuckers.
It's not the same situation at all.
Well, you know, he was an Arab, and Arabs can cause injuries.
You're reaching here.
I'd say it's pretty close, but, if you want, I could show it from the light end:
Nice dodge. Now, do you feel that I'd be justified in shooting you if you were throwing rocks from three meters short of the winning shot put at the latest Olympics, or am I only allowed to shoot Hispanics?
As a former collegiate shot-putter, I have to wonder if you know how little distance that is.
This is evidence that if you are armed with a rock I should shoot you.
Just for my own safety.
You probably know Rock-Fu.
A shot is definitely a dangerous object. A kid in my junior high got put into a coma from accidentally walking in front of the ring when a guy was throwing.
But at least they have limited range and nice round edges. Unlike rocks, which are smaller and pointy. Not unlike the theory behind bullets.
Well there's the fact that they're not traveling at 3000 feet per second. But yes other than that, rocks are exactly like bullets.
Nice dodge. Now, do you feel that I'd be justified in shooting you if you were throwing rocks from three meters short of the winning shot put at the latest Olympics, or am I only allowed to shoot Hispanics?
As a former collegiate shot-putter, I have to wonder if you know how little distance that is.
This is evidence that if you are armed with a rock I should shoot you.
Just for my own safety.
You probably know Rock-Fu.
A shot is definitely a dangerous object. A kid in my junior high got put into a coma from accidentally walking in front of the ring when a guy was throwing.
But at least they have limited range and nice round edges. Unlike rocks, which are smaller and pointy. Not unlike the theory behind bullets.
I think I see the problem here: You think that the best way to kill someone from 60 feet away with a bullet is throwing it at him.
So here's another angle on this. If there was any mexican police officers within 1 mile of the border in the same direction as the 15 year old, would they have been justified in firing on the Border patrol agent? After all a bullet can kill from a significant distance.
From the guy that thinks the solution is to shoot more Mexicans? You're not very good at spotting racism.
Ha. Nice try there, bub. The fact that they're Mexican doesn't have much to do with it. If Argentinians, or even Lithuanians, were coming across the border and assaulting BP agents, my reaction would be the same.
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.
Oh, so something's only a threat if it's meant as a threat? I'll have to tell that to all the people who let themselves be buried under the false assumption that they died in traffic accidents. Hell, can you even show that throwing the rock was intended to be an attack rather than a show of defiance?
It's an assault either way.
You argument was that the incident involved x, that x can cause injury, so this incident could cause injury. To put it in formal logic:
This incident involved a rock Some incidents involving rocks cause injury
Therefor, this incident must have caused injury
To use the same logic:
This incident involved a sneeze
Some incidents involving sneezes impart fatal diseases
Therefor, this incident must have imparted a fatal disease
You have completely failed to show that this use of a rock could have caused injury, just like how you complain that I failed to show that a given case of sneezing would impart a fatal disease.
Wait. I'm missing something with your formal logic here. Simply because some incidents involving rocks cause injury, that wouldn't imply that any incident involving a rock must cause injury.
I mean, if you're going to be a twat, try and get your argument right.
EDIT: I mean, if some cats are white, and I own a cat, that doesn't imply that it must be white...right? I've not taken any liberal arts logic classes, but I took plenty on the digital logic side and this doesn't seem to work.
That's the point.
Wait...what?
Here, let me quote you.
You argument was that the incident involved x, that x can cause injury, so this incident could cause injury. To put it in formal logic: This incident involved a rock Some incidents involving rocks cause injury
Therefor, this incident must have caused injury
The salmon'd part is not the yellow part put into formal logic.
That would be more like:
This incident involved a rock
Some incidents involving rocks cause injury
This injury could have caused injury
EDIT: In this statement "could have" is taken to meant "presents a probability not equal to zero." Whereas "must" as you used it implies a probability of 1.
Now, we'd probably want to get more specific ("involved throwing a rock at another person" instead of simply "involved a rock," for instance), but the primary point is that...
You argument was that the incident involved x, that x can cause injury, so this incident could cause injury. To put it in formal logic:
]This incident involved a rock Some incidents involving rocks cause injury
Therefor, this incident must have caused injury
...the two golded words (the first being in your interpretation of my argument, the second being in your supposed "formal logic" restatement)? Not equivalent. So basically, you tried to be a cute academic little twat, but you did it wrong.
Now is the point where you can simply admit such, if you care to. Don't worry, you won't have to admit that you agree with me on the topic at hand, just that your cute little attempt to wave your logic wang was a sad failure.
So here's another angle on this. If there was any mexican police officers within 1 mile of the border in the same direction as the 15 year old, would they have been justified in firing on the Border patrol agent? After all a bullet can kill from a significant distance.
Are we talking legally or morally?
Morally, if they felt it was the most effective means to end the threat against them...well, quite possibly yes.
Legally, I have no fucking idea. You've got a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his duties, but if he's also firing across an international border I have no idea whether it would be legally justifiable for the Mexicans to shoot back.
I know that, for instance, under the laws of war you are pretty much always allowed to defend your own life. Regardless of ROE, regardless of anything. Basically you can't be faulted if you are honestly acting in defense of your life.
On the other hand, most self-defense laws (which is to say in most states) specifically carve out exceptions for officers in the performance of official duties...which is to say, that even if you aren't aware that they are police and if you feel threatened, I'm pretty sure you can be charged for firing on police officers that are performing their duties (such as serving a warrant). No self-defense allowed.*
It's an interesting question, really.
* - This portion may not bear much relevance, given the whole "international border" thing.
So here's another angle on this. If there was any mexican police officers within 1 mile of the border in the same direction as the 15 year old, would they have been justified in firing on the Border patrol agent? After all a bullet can kill from a significant distance.
Legally, I have no fucking idea. You've got a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his duties, but if he's also firing across an international border I have no idea whether it would be legally justifiable for the Mexicans to shoot back.
* - This portion may not bear much relevance, given the whole "international border" thing.
But the US cop is legally justified firing across the mexican border to kill a 15 year old throwing rocks for absolute certain though right?
So here's another angle on this. If there was any mexican police officers within 1 mile of the border in the same direction as the 15 year old, would they have been justified in firing on the Border patrol agent? After all a bullet can kill from a significant distance.
Legally, I have no fucking idea. You've got a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his duties, but if he's also firing across an international border I have no idea whether it would be legally justifiable for the Mexicans to shoot back.
* - This portion may not bear much relevance, given the whole "international border" thing.
But the US cop is legally justified firing across the mexican border to kill a 15 year old throwing rocks?
Good to know
Possibly. Do you need me to explain the difference?
The kids are acting illegally. Committing an illegal assault. Assuming the use of force is justified, and assuming firing across the border is legal, then the agent is acting legally. This can be a relevant distinction when discussing whether the use of force is justified.
Now, up until now I've only been speaking in the context of the officer responding with deadly force to the alleged assault against him. I have not been addressing the legal issues involved with him firing across the border (assuming, for a moment, that the assault was coming from across the border). I don't intend to address that legal issue, either.
From the guy that thinks the solution is to shoot more Mexicans? You're not very good at spotting racism.
Ha. Nice try there, bub. The fact that they're Mexican doesn't have much to do with it. If Argentinians, or even Lithuanians, were coming across the border and assaulting BP agents, my reaction would be the same.
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.
Oh, so something's only a threat if it's meant as a threat? I'll have to tell that to all the people who let themselves be buried under the false assumption that they died in traffic accidents. Hell, can you even show that throwing the rock was intended to be an attack rather than a show of defiance?
It's an assault either way.
You argument was that the incident involved x, that x can cause injury, so this incident could cause injury. To put it in formal logic:
This incident involved a rock Some incidents involving rocks cause injury
Therefor, this incident must have caused injury
To use the same logic:
This incident involved a sneeze
Some incidents involving sneezes impart fatal diseases
Therefor, this incident must have imparted a fatal disease
You have completely failed to show that this use of a rock could have caused injury, just like how you complain that I failed to show that a given case of sneezing would impart a fatal disease.
Wait. I'm missing something with your formal logic here. Simply because some incidents involving rocks cause injury, that wouldn't imply that any incident involving a rock must cause injury.
I mean, if you're going to be a twat, try and get your argument right.
EDIT: I mean, if some cats are white, and I own a cat, that doesn't imply that it must be white...right? I've not taken any liberal arts logic classes, but I took plenty on the digital logic side and this doesn't seem to work.
That's the point.
Wait...what?
Here, let me quote you.
You argument was that the incident involved x, that x can cause injury, so this incident could cause injury. To put it in formal logic: This incident involved a rock Some incidents involving rocks cause injury
Therefor, this incident must have caused injury
The salmon'd part is not the yellow part put into formal logic.
That would be more like:
This incident involved a rock
Some incidents involving rocks cause injury
This injury could have caused injury
EDIT: In this statement "could have" is taken to meant "presents a probability not equal to zero." Whereas "must" as you used it implies a probability of 1.
Now, we'd probably want to get more specific ("involved throwing a rock at another person" instead of simply "involved a rock," for instance), but the primary point is that...
You argument was that the incident involved x, that x can cause injury, so this incident could cause injury. To put it in formal logic:
]This incident involved a rock Some incidents involving rocks cause injury
Therefor, this incident must have caused injury
...the two golded words (the first being in your interpretation of my argument, the second being in your supposed "formal logic" restatement)? Not equivalent. So basically, you tried to be a cute academic little twat, but you did it wrong.
Now is the point where you can simply admit such, if you care to. Don't worry, you won't have to admit that you agree with me on the topic at hand, just that your cute little attempt to wave your logic wang was a sad failure.
The point was that the logic didn't add up. Maybe you feel that I worded your argument unfairly. Let's try it again:
Starting statement: He was throwing a rock. Rocks can cause injury.
Implicated logic of the first part: It was an event involving a rock
Implicated logic of second part: All events involving rocks have the potential to cause injury
or
Some events involving rocks have the potential to cause injury.
Outside of quantum probability (your "non-zero chance"), the former implication is laughably false. That leaves us with:
The event involved a rock
Some events involving rocks have the potential to cause injury
Therefor, the event must have had the potential to cause injury
To put it plainly:
A is B
Some B are C
Therefor, A is C.
So here's another angle on this. If there was any mexican police officers within 1 mile of the border in the same direction as the 15 year old, would they have been justified in firing on the Border patrol agent? After all a bullet can kill from a significant distance.
Legally, I have no fucking idea. You've got a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his duties, but if he's also firing across an international border I have no idea whether it would be legally justifiable for the Mexicans to shoot back.
* - This portion may not bear much relevance, given the whole "international border" thing.
But the US cop is legally justified firing across the mexican border to kill a 15 year old throwing rocks?
Good to know
Possibly. Do you need me to explain the difference?
The kids are acting illegally. Committing an illegal assault. Assuming the use of force is justified, and assuming firing across the border is legal, then the agent is acting legally. This can be a relevant distinction when discussing whether the use of force is justified.
Now, up until now I've only been speaking in the context of the officer responding with deadly force to the alleged assault against him. I have not been addressing the legal issues involved with him firing across the border (assuming, for a moment, that the assault was coming from across the border). I don't intend to address that legal issue, either.
That's both assuming that firing into a foreign nation is legal and firing at a fleeing target is legal, as well as ignoring that he was firing bullets and bullets cause injury.
So here's another angle on this. If there was any mexican police officers within 1 mile of the border in the same direction as the 15 year old, would they have been justified in firing on the Border patrol agent? After all a bullet can kill from a significant distance.
Legally, I have no fucking idea. You've got a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his duties, but if he's also firing across an international border I have no idea whether it would be legally justifiable for the Mexicans to shoot back.
* - This portion may not bear much relevance, given the whole "international border" thing.
But the US cop is legally justified firing across the mexican border to kill a 15 year old throwing rocks?
Good to know
Possibly. Do you need me to explain the difference?
The kids are acting illegally. Committing an illegal assault. Assuming the use of force is justified, and assuming firing across the border is legal, then the agent is acting legally. This can be a relevant distinction when discussing whether the use of force is justified.
Now, up until now I've only been speaking in the context of the officer responding with deadly force to the alleged assault against him. I have not been addressing the legal issues involved with him firing across the border (assuming, for a moment, that the assault was coming from across the border). I don't intend to address that legal issue, either.
That's both assuming that firing into a foreign nation is legal and firing at a fleeing target is legal, as well as ignoring that he was firing bullets and bullets cause injury.
Actually, the he framed the question suggests that (for sake of argument, and bolded to assist you) the 15-year-old was still throwing rocks. Not fleeing. I was answering accordingly. Assuming no rocks were still being thrown, then no he was not justified.
As for firing into a foreign nation, no idea. That's why I used "possibly." I was mostly pointing out that the distinction between a law enforcement officer acting in legal self defense (assuming it was such) and somebody committing an illegal assault may be relevant to the question he posed.
Maybe we have an agreement with Mexico allowing our agents to fire in self defense across the border. Maybe international law allows it regardless. Maybe neither, and his firing across the border was entirely illegal. I couldn't tell you, and it's not a point I've been addressing. Nor a point I care to address. I'm really much more interested in the argument as to whether defending against rocks with a gun in general is justifiable.
EDIT: And I'm arguing based on the assumptions that many, including yourself, have been willing to accept. Including the possibility that rocks were still being thrown. I saw the video, it didn't (to my eye) put that question to rest...it's not exactly clear. It makes the Zabruder film look like Avatar.
The point was that the logic didn't add up. Maybe you feel that I worded your argument unfairly.
Hey, you almost managed to admit you were wrong. You'll get there, buddy. Don't worry.
Let's try it again:
Starting statement: He was throwing a rock. Rocks can cause injury.
Implicated logic of the first part: It was an event involving a rock
Implicated logic of second part: All events involving rocks have the potential to cause injury
or
Some events involving rocks have the potential to cause injury.
Outside of quantum probability (your "non-zero chance"), the former implication is laughably false. That leaves us with:
The event involved a rock
Some events involving rocks have the potential to cause injury
Therefor, the event must have had the potential to cause injury
To put it plainly:
A is B
Some B are C
Therefor, A is C.
I disagree with the "laughably false" part. Primarily because I don't know (and the video doesn't show) what kind of rocks we're talking about or how hard they're being thrown. As such, I'm generally not willing to make blanket statements dismissing the danger another person may have been in. You argue that it's "quantum probability," and I disagree, and I don't think either of us can really provide much proof to the other.
But then, I've actually had people throw rocks at me, shoot at me, and lob mortars at me. So I'm not generally the kind of person who likes to sit there and break down the danger other people face in the line of duty into cute little logic problems, particularly cute little logic problems where I handily dismiss any danger to them as being near zero because it makes my argument much more convenient.
But, like I said, where I was pointing a gun at people throwing rocks at you was more than enough to get them to not throw rocks at you any more. Because they had zero doubt whatsoever what came next.
EDIT: Actually, I never shot anybody at all. Thankfully. But that's because I was never unlucky enough to run into people who didn't understand that pointing a gun at them was the universal sign for "don't fucking do that anymore."
That's both assuming that firing into a foreign nation is legal and firing at a fleeing target is legal, as well as ignoring that he was firing bullets and bullets cause injury.
That's assuming they were fleeing. If they were still throwing rocks at him, firing back in self defense would be legal.
Spaten Optimator on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Misconstruing your statement? You mean your comment that fuck, thats not a kid for mexicans because they're already squirting out kids of their own at that age?
What was the point of that comment of yours then?
The point was that 15 isn't a "child," especially in the consideration that it's a childbearing age. So when NotYou wrings his hands down to bloody stumps over killing a "child," I merely wanted to highlight how intentionally dishonest he's framing the argument.
And again, you taking this angle is just as dishonest.
It should also be noted that the cop was lying through his teeth about what actually went down, so I'm not sure why it makes me "anti cop or anti military" to assume the rest of his story is bullshit
I found that Iraqi children respond quite quickly to having an M-16 pointed at them. Adults too, obviously.
Look at this guy, winning hearts and minds.
Oh, I'm sorry princess. Didn't mean to spoil your belief that combat zones are candy coated places where puppies and kittens play with unicorns.
There's also no Santa Claus.
It should also be noted that the cop was lying through his teeth about what actually went down, so I'm not sure why it makes me "anti cop or anti military" to assume the rest of his story is bullshit
What's the "lying through his teeth" part? Just the part where he claimed he was surrounded? I'm trying to watch that video and figure out what I'm missing here. It doesn't seem to clearly show the kid(s) at the time that the agent fired.
Are we assuming that he must have been "lying through his teeth," rather than simply have been mistaken given the confusion of the situation?
What's our alternative hypothesis? Negligent discharge? Or just that this Border Patrol agent went out that morning intent on killin' him a Mexican teenager? What are you suggesting is the more likely story?
And I don't know that I'd call you "anti cop or anti military," but it seems like you're more than willing to question the use of force in self defense even assuming the agent's story is true. At least from your posts. It seems like even assuming multiple people were throwing rocks at the officer, you'd still question him for defending himself. Your assertion that he's "lying through his teeth" doesn't necessarily change that.
Oh, and since there seems to be a prevailing attitude that kids chucking rocks aren't dangerous anyway, apparently this has been a problem for the Border Patrol in the past. That story seems to suggest that even rocks chucked over a fence can still do some decent damage, and it's probably not absurd to suggest that they could do even more damage if the agent is unlucky. It also suggests that this whole "pelt the BP agent with rocks to try to help your friend get away" thing isn't new. Though maybe we'll see a little less of it now.
Fuck it, make it open season on anyone that crosses a clearly defined border. That'll quickly stop 'em from trying to cross. We could even set up remotely operated video-feed turrets to be a more efficient use of manpower.
SkyCaptain on
The RPG Bestiary - Dangerous foes and legendary monsters for D&D 4th Edition
Fuck it, make it open season on anyone that crosses a clearly defined border. That'll quickly stop 'em from trying to cross. We could even set up remotely operated video-feed turrets to be a more efficient use of manpower.
No, see, that's retarded. Like, it's not even particularly funny because too many people who say it mean it (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you don't).
Also, I was going to say that it seems like a few of you would like to visualize me as some cavalier asshole who waves his gun around for kicks and hopes someday he gets to kill somebody. Which is about as far from the truth as it gets. My tone when talking about the use of force (or threat of force) is intended to remind some of you, sitting at your keyboards, that there are actually people out there who volunteer to be placed in situations where people routinely try to assault them. They're given a deadly weapon, and some guidelines, and left to make decisions about whether or not they should defend themselves (and how).
What I hear here are a lot of people who would never place themselves in such a situation, and probably can't even imagine what it would be like to be in such a situation. It sucks. And while Border Patrol isn't the most dangerous job in the world, a couple BP agents wind up getting killed in the line of duty pretty much every year. Hundreds more are assaulted. I'm not about to give them (or any other law enforcement) a free pass...again, go read my posts in other cop-related threads. But I think some people here are way to quick to try and second-guess anything and everything they do.
It's easy to be a pacifist when you're sitting behind a keyboard.
Fuck it, make it open season on anyone that crosses a clearly defined border. That'll quickly stop 'em from trying to cross. We could even set up remotely operated video-feed turrets to be a more efficient use of manpower.
No, see, that's retarded. Like, it's not even particularly funny because too many people who say it mean it (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you don't).
Also, I was going to say that it seems like a few of you would like to visualize me as some cavalier asshole who waves his gun around for kicks and hopes someday he gets to kill somebody. Which is about as far from the truth as it gets. My tone when talking about the use of force (or threat of force) is intended to remind some of you, sitting at your keyboards, that there are actually people out there who volunteer to be placed in situations where people routinely try to assault them. They're given a deadly weapon, and some guidelines, and left to make decisions about whether or not they should defend themselves (and how).
What I hear here are a lot of people who would never place themselves in such a situation, and probably can't even imagine what it would be like to be in such a situation. It sucks. And while Border Patrol isn't the most dangerous job in the world, a couple BP agents wind up getting killed in the line of duty pretty much every year. Hundreds more are assaulted. I'm not about to give them (or any other law enforcement) a free pass...again, go read my posts in other cop-related threads. But I think some people here are way to quick to try and second-guess anything and everything they do.
It's easy to be a pacifist when you're sitting behind a keyboard.
The cop told the FBI he was surrounded, the FBI says that's a load of shit
I'm sorry you think I'm a pacifist (I'm not) but I'm not the one saying this is a situation thats the same as a cop getting a brick thrown at him from a few feet away thrown by a grown man versus a teen 40-60 feet away who's actually standing in another country
There is a gradient between pacifist and "kill more of them so they stop being uppity" that you espouse, and I'm tired of this "dangerous job, unfathomable difficulties" as an excuse. Working at a recycling plant or in a coal mine is far more dangerous than being a border patrol officer. Working as a fisherman makes working as a cop look like a job as a kindergarten teacher for how dangerous it is.
I have no doubt it's high stress, border patrol agents are understaffed, etc. I'd even be willing to buy that this guy just made a mistake or exercised bad judgement - I wouldn't even necessarily want him to be fired for that (but he should probably be put on a desk job if he can't handle it).
What I do have a problem with is immediately accepting that he was justified without more evidence in his favor (what evidence there is, according to FBI analysts, is not in his favor)
This is at least the second time you've been asked to back up your assertion that the FBI says he's lying, by the way.
Edit: I've looked at the video that you're referencing, by the way. Its a jumpy cellphone camera that focuses on the agent and the guy he's with, nothing else. It jumps to the guy he shot for a split second and then back to him. You can't even see the other side of the canal, or out of it. All you can hear is a gunfire and Spanish saying "They're throwing rocks", which indicates that there's more than one person hucking stones at him.
Its hardly the silver bullet you (and certain blogs) seem to be taking it as, that's for sure. Especially since there's a second video from the BP that shows the entire scene, and Mexican law enforcement crossing into the US to pick something up.
The point was that the logic didn't add up. Maybe you feel that I worded your argument unfairly.
Hey, you almost managed to admit you were wrong. You'll get there, buddy. Don't worry.
Let's try it again:
Starting statement: He was throwing a rock. Rocks can cause injury.
Implicated logic of the first part: It was an event involving a rock
Implicated logic of second part: All events involving rocks have the potential to cause injury
or
Some events involving rocks have the potential to cause injury.
Outside of quantum probability (your "non-zero chance"), the former implication is laughably false. That leaves us with:
The event involved a rock
Some events involving rocks have the potential to cause injury
Therefor, the event must have had the potential to cause injury
To put it plainly:
A is B
Some B are C
Therefor, A is C.
I disagree with the "laughably false" part. Primarily because I don't know (and the video doesn't show) what kind of rocks we're talking about or how hard they're being thrown. As such, I'm generally not willing to make blanket statements dismissing the danger another person may have been in. You argue that it's "quantum probability," and I disagree, and I don't think either of us can really provide much proof to the other.
But then, I've actually had people throw rocks at me, shoot at me, and lob mortars at me. So I'm not generally the kind of person who likes to sit there and break down the danger other people face in the line of duty into cute little logic problems, particularly cute little logic problems where I handily dismiss any danger to them as being near zero because it makes my argument much more convenient.
So you'd feel threatened by someone throwing a pebble at you from China?
Also, saying that you don't need no stinking logic because you're on the "front lines" doesn't exactly support your fitness for that role.
So you'd feel threatened by someone throwing a pebble at you from China?
Also, saying that you don't need no stinking logic because you're on the "front lines" doesn't exactly support your fitness for that role.
He didn't say that. He said your super duper logic is fine for sitting on the internet, but doesn't work when the shit hits the fan and you have about a second to make a decsion.
So I guess that means you're going to keep making ridiculous analogies, misrepresenting other peoples arguments, and generally keep on 'spergin all over this thread?
Posts
Well, you know, he was an Arab, and Arabs can cause injuries.
You are assigning overly general and simplistic motives to people and attacking these alleged motives instead of arguing about the merits of this particular shooting. It's a straw man and it's also veering off topic.
Three meters short. The winner in 2008 was 21. 60 feet is 18 meters.
This is evidence that if you are armed with a rock I should shoot you.
Just for my own safety.
You probably know Rock-Fu.
It worked in Selma.
Compare the weight of a shutput vs that of your average rock needed to cause real damage. The compare how fast and far you can throw the fuckers.
It's not the same situation at all.
You're reaching here.
A shot is definitely a dangerous object. A kid in my junior high got put into a coma from accidentally walking in front of the ring when a guy was throwing.
But at least they have limited range and nice round edges. Unlike rocks, which are smaller and pointy. Not unlike the theory behind bullets.
He'd only be allowed to shoot you if you were actually throwing rocks at him and he was a border patrol agent. And it's not that he should shoot you, but he'd have to make a judgment call of whether it's appropriate. If you were a 15 year old standing 60' feet away, then he'd be legally allowed to shoot you, but it would be poor judgment on his part to do so.
Misconstruing your statement? You mean your comment that fuck, thats not a kid for mexicans because they're already squirting out kids of their own at that age?
What was the point of that comment of yours then?
From the guy that thinks the solution is to shoot more Mexicans? You're not very good at spotting racism.
I'd say it's pretty close, but, if you want, I could show it from the light end:
Seriously?
Seriously?
Well there's the fact that they're not traveling at 3000 feet per second. But yes other than that, rocks are exactly like bullets.
Good grief...
I think I see the problem here: You think that the best way to kill someone from 60 feet away with a bullet is throwing it at him.
When I said we should arm our troops with rocks-
because they're so lethal-
I was mocking you guys.
It was a joke-
j-o-k-e-
mockery-
not to be taken literally.
Ha. Nice try there, bub. The fact that they're Mexican doesn't have much to do with it. If Argentinians, or even Lithuanians, were coming across the border and assaulting BP agents, my reaction would be the same.
Wait...what?
Here, let me quote you.
The salmon'd part is not the yellow part put into formal logic.
That would be more like:
EDIT: In this statement "could have" is taken to meant "presents a probability not equal to zero." Whereas "must" as you used it implies a probability of 1.
Now, we'd probably want to get more specific ("involved throwing a rock at another person" instead of simply "involved a rock," for instance), but the primary point is that...
...the two golded words (the first being in your interpretation of my argument, the second being in your supposed "formal logic" restatement)? Not equivalent. So basically, you tried to be a cute academic little twat, but you did it wrong.
Now is the point where you can simply admit such, if you care to. Don't worry, you won't have to admit that you agree with me on the topic at hand, just that your cute little attempt to wave your logic wang was a sad failure.
Are we talking legally or morally?
Morally, if they felt it was the most effective means to end the threat against them...well, quite possibly yes.
Legally, I have no fucking idea. You've got a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his duties, but if he's also firing across an international border I have no idea whether it would be legally justifiable for the Mexicans to shoot back.
I know that, for instance, under the laws of war you are pretty much always allowed to defend your own life. Regardless of ROE, regardless of anything. Basically you can't be faulted if you are honestly acting in defense of your life.
On the other hand, most self-defense laws (which is to say in most states) specifically carve out exceptions for officers in the performance of official duties...which is to say, that even if you aren't aware that they are police and if you feel threatened, I'm pretty sure you can be charged for firing on police officers that are performing their duties (such as serving a warrant). No self-defense allowed.*
It's an interesting question, really.
* - This portion may not bear much relevance, given the whole "international border" thing.
But the US cop is legally justified firing across the mexican border to kill a 15 year old throwing rocks for absolute certain though right?
Good to know
Possibly. Do you need me to explain the difference?
Now, up until now I've only been speaking in the context of the officer responding with deadly force to the alleged assault against him. I have not been addressing the legal issues involved with him firing across the border (assuming, for a moment, that the assault was coming from across the border). I don't intend to address that legal issue, either.
He posed them far more of a credible threat than the kid with the rocks posed him.
The point was that the logic didn't add up. Maybe you feel that I worded your argument unfairly. Let's try it again:
Starting statement: He was throwing a rock. Rocks can cause injury.
Implicated logic of the first part: It was an event involving a rock
Implicated logic of second part: All events involving rocks have the potential to cause injury
or
Some events involving rocks have the potential to cause injury.
Outside of quantum probability (your "non-zero chance"), the former implication is laughably false. That leaves us with:
The event involved a rock
Some events involving rocks have the potential to cause injury
Therefor, the event must have had the potential to cause injury
To put it plainly:
A is B
Some B are C
Therefor, A is C.
That's both assuming that firing into a foreign nation is legal and firing at a fleeing target is legal, as well as ignoring that he was firing bullets and bullets cause injury.
Actually, the he framed the question suggests that (for sake of argument, and bolded to assist you) the 15-year-old was still throwing rocks. Not fleeing. I was answering accordingly. Assuming no rocks were still being thrown, then no he was not justified.
As for firing into a foreign nation, no idea. That's why I used "possibly." I was mostly pointing out that the distinction between a law enforcement officer acting in legal self defense (assuming it was such) and somebody committing an illegal assault may be relevant to the question he posed.
Maybe we have an agreement with Mexico allowing our agents to fire in self defense across the border. Maybe international law allows it regardless. Maybe neither, and his firing across the border was entirely illegal. I couldn't tell you, and it's not a point I've been addressing. Nor a point I care to address. I'm really much more interested in the argument as to whether defending against rocks with a gun in general is justifiable.
EDIT: And I'm arguing based on the assumptions that many, including yourself, have been willing to accept. Including the possibility that rocks were still being thrown. I saw the video, it didn't (to my eye) put that question to rest...it's not exactly clear. It makes the Zabruder film look like Avatar.
Hey, you almost managed to admit you were wrong. You'll get there, buddy. Don't worry.
I disagree with the "laughably false" part. Primarily because I don't know (and the video doesn't show) what kind of rocks we're talking about or how hard they're being thrown. As such, I'm generally not willing to make blanket statements dismissing the danger another person may have been in. You argue that it's "quantum probability," and I disagree, and I don't think either of us can really provide much proof to the other.
But then, I've actually had people throw rocks at me, shoot at me, and lob mortars at me. So I'm not generally the kind of person who likes to sit there and break down the danger other people face in the line of duty into cute little logic problems, particularly cute little logic problems where I handily dismiss any danger to them as being near zero because it makes my argument much more convenient.
I never shot anybody that threw a rock at me.
But, like I said, where I was pointing a gun at people throwing rocks at you was more than enough to get them to not throw rocks at you any more. Because they had zero doubt whatsoever what came next.
EDIT: Actually, I never shot anybody at all. Thankfully. But that's because I was never unlucky enough to run into people who didn't understand that pointing a gun at them was the universal sign for "don't fucking do that anymore."
That's assuming they were fleeing. If they were still throwing rocks at him, firing back in self defense would be legal.
The point was that 15 isn't a "child," especially in the consideration that it's a childbearing age. So when NotYou wrings his hands down to bloody stumps over killing a "child," I merely wanted to highlight how intentionally dishonest he's framing the argument.
And again, you taking this angle is just as dishonest.
Look at this guy, winning hearts and minds.
Not while they're still inside their bodies, silly.
Edit: Also, if it hasn't been pointed out, we now have video footage of the incident in question.
Steam: pazython
Oh, I'm sorry princess. Didn't mean to spoil your belief that combat zones are candy coated places where puppies and kittens play with unicorns.
There's also no Santa Claus.
What's the "lying through his teeth" part? Just the part where he claimed he was surrounded? I'm trying to watch that video and figure out what I'm missing here. It doesn't seem to clearly show the kid(s) at the time that the agent fired.
Are we assuming that he must have been "lying through his teeth," rather than simply have been mistaken given the confusion of the situation?
What's our alternative hypothesis? Negligent discharge? Or just that this Border Patrol agent went out that morning intent on killin' him a Mexican teenager? What are you suggesting is the more likely story?
And I don't know that I'd call you "anti cop or anti military," but it seems like you're more than willing to question the use of force in self defense even assuming the agent's story is true. At least from your posts. It seems like even assuming multiple people were throwing rocks at the officer, you'd still question him for defending himself. Your assertion that he's "lying through his teeth" doesn't necessarily change that.
Oh, and since there seems to be a prevailing attitude that kids chucking rocks aren't dangerous anyway, apparently this has been a problem for the Border Patrol in the past. That story seems to suggest that even rocks chucked over a fence can still do some decent damage, and it's probably not absurd to suggest that they could do even more damage if the agent is unlucky. It also suggests that this whole "pelt the BP agent with rocks to try to help your friend get away" thing isn't new. Though maybe we'll see a little less of it now.
No, see, that's retarded. Like, it's not even particularly funny because too many people who say it mean it (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you don't).
Also, I was going to say that it seems like a few of you would like to visualize me as some cavalier asshole who waves his gun around for kicks and hopes someday he gets to kill somebody. Which is about as far from the truth as it gets. My tone when talking about the use of force (or threat of force) is intended to remind some of you, sitting at your keyboards, that there are actually people out there who volunteer to be placed in situations where people routinely try to assault them. They're given a deadly weapon, and some guidelines, and left to make decisions about whether or not they should defend themselves (and how).
What I hear here are a lot of people who would never place themselves in such a situation, and probably can't even imagine what it would be like to be in such a situation. It sucks. And while Border Patrol isn't the most dangerous job in the world, a couple BP agents wind up getting killed in the line of duty pretty much every year. Hundreds more are assaulted. I'm not about to give them (or any other law enforcement) a free pass...again, go read my posts in other cop-related threads. But I think some people here are way to quick to try and second-guess anything and everything they do.
It's easy to be a pacifist when you're sitting behind a keyboard.
Even easier when the keyboard controls drones and turrets.
"I didn't shoot anyone. I just told the drone it could make up it's own mind."
Man, who would have thought rocks can fuck someone up.
Skip to 1:34 and look at what "just a rock" did to an agent inside of a vehicle.
The cop told the FBI he was surrounded, the FBI says that's a load of shit
I'm sorry you think I'm a pacifist (I'm not) but I'm not the one saying this is a situation thats the same as a cop getting a brick thrown at him from a few feet away thrown by a grown man versus a teen 40-60 feet away who's actually standing in another country
There is a gradient between pacifist and "kill more of them so they stop being uppity" that you espouse, and I'm tired of this "dangerous job, unfathomable difficulties" as an excuse. Working at a recycling plant or in a coal mine is far more dangerous than being a border patrol officer. Working as a fisherman makes working as a cop look like a job as a kindergarten teacher for how dangerous it is.
I have no doubt it's high stress, border patrol agents are understaffed, etc. I'd even be willing to buy that this guy just made a mistake or exercised bad judgement - I wouldn't even necessarily want him to be fired for that (but he should probably be put on a desk job if he can't handle it).
What I do have a problem with is immediately accepting that he was justified without more evidence in his favor (what evidence there is, according to FBI analysts, is not in his favor)
This is at least the second time you've been asked to back up your assertion that the FBI says he's lying, by the way.
Edit: I've looked at the video that you're referencing, by the way. Its a jumpy cellphone camera that focuses on the agent and the guy he's with, nothing else. It jumps to the guy he shot for a split second and then back to him. You can't even see the other side of the canal, or out of it. All you can hear is a gunfire and Spanish saying "They're throwing rocks", which indicates that there's more than one person hucking stones at him.
Its hardly the silver bullet you (and certain blogs) seem to be taking it as, that's for sure. Especially since there's a second video from the BP that shows the entire scene, and Mexican law enforcement crossing into the US to pick something up.
So you'd feel threatened by someone throwing a pebble at you from China?
Also, saying that you don't need no stinking logic because you're on the "front lines" doesn't exactly support your fitness for that role.
He didn't say that. He said your super duper logic is fine for sitting on the internet, but doesn't work when the shit hits the fan and you have about a second to make a decsion.
So I guess that means you're going to keep making ridiculous analogies, misrepresenting other peoples arguments, and generally keep on 'spergin all over this thread?