AP - U.S. and Mexican officials are trading suggestions of misconduct as the shooting of a 15-year-old Mexican by a U.S. Border Patrol agent on the border with Texas swells into a full-blown international incident.

More...

BS, that's not @ all how it happend....like always, Mexico's always trying to blame the US for all their corruption and violence...

"the use of firearms to repel attacks with stones represents disproportionate use of force..."

Period. Until further information is gathered, the extent of my opinion on this matter is explained above by the Mexican government. Regardless of what was happening, if the officer says he shot back because he was having rocks hurled at him (from what appears to be about 20 yards away), he deserves disciplinary action for excessive force. A 14 year old doesn't have a 90 MPH fastball. He's not deadly with a pebble. He didn't deserve to die.

Originally Posted by sky2979

BS, that's not @ all how it happend....like always, Mexico's always trying to blame the US for all their corruption and violence...

I can't really place your comment Sky. A cop and a kid meet on a bridge. Kid throws rock cop shoots and kills kid... easy as pie. How is this linked to Mexican corruption?
And yes, I think it is excessive. But I think that of many things in the States so nothing new there...

Originally Posted by Ted

I can't really place your comment Sky. A cop and a kid meet on a bridge. Kid throws rock cop shoots and kills kid... easy as pie. How is this linked to Mexican corruption?
And yes, I think it is excessive. But I think that of many things in the States so nothing new there...

Unless you live in a border city, you won't understand how Mex.corruption is so easily linked to El paso...Its very common for kids, in Juarez Mex. to begin drug dealing and associating themselves with the drug cartels at a very early age...Cartels use kids, and young women as bait to distract US agents whenever a drug deal is in process...Ive lived in a border city all my life...therefore that makes me more of an expert on such matters..besides, dont believe everything the media advertises...after all it is only "advertisement"...

We are not required to believe anything more than a 14 year old was shot for essentially throwing rocks, the argument is not about what else was happening in the background or his reasons for being there the argument is that pretty much everyone with an IQ above 5 understands that there has to have been a better solution to the problem than just shooting the kid.

To argue that this was not a case of excessive force is ludicrous.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

"the use of firearms to repel attacks with stones represents disproportionate use of force..."

Period. Until further information is gathered, the extent of my opinion on this matter is explained above by the Mexican government. Regardless of what was happening, if the officer says he shot back because he was having rocks hurled at him (from what appears to be about 20 yards away), he deserves disciplinary action for excessive force. A 14 year old doesn't have a 90 MPH fastball. He's not deadly with a pebble. He didn't deserve to die.

Sorry Rob. Gotta disagree here. Back in 2005 in Iraq, insurgents started throwing rocks at US convoys. They were trying to hit the gunners and did in some cases. Don't think for a second that a thrown rock is not deadly force. After a few insurgents got shot, they stopped throwing rocks. You can do just as much damage to someone by throwing a rock at them as shooting at them. Do not forget that officers are trained in escalation of force. If the kid did not stop throwing rocks when ordered by the officer, he deserved to get shot. My question is. Why was he throwing rocks at the officer in the first place?

Originally Posted by MontyB

We are not required to believe anything more than a 14 year old was shot for essentially throwing rocks, the argument is not about what else was happening in the background or his reasons for being there the argument is that pretty much everyone with an IQ above 5 understands that there has to have been a better solution to the problem than just shooting the kid.

To argue that this was not a case of excessive force is ludicrous.

Monty. I would be careful throwing out statements like your last. Unless you have been in his situation it is easy to monday morning quarterback him.

BTW. What else was happening has EVERYTHING to do with what happened. Read up on Objective Reasonableness. You can look at the 4th amendment or Graham v. Connor.

(c) The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. Pp. 490 U. S. 396-397.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._Connor

I really don't give a flying monkeys butt about amendments or court rulings people sit on these forums bemoaning the actions of politicians and hide behind them when it suits their cause.

One kid throwing stones at several agents is not a substantial enough reason to shoot him and I am not sure what sort of civilised country would think it was a justifiable action.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I really don't give a flying monkeys butt about amendments or court rulings people sit on these forums bemoaning the actions of politicians and hide behind them when it suits their cause.

One kid throwing stones at several agents is not a substantial enough reason to shoot him and I am not sure what sort of civilised country would think it was a justifiable action.

This incident, while regrettable, serves to underscore the fact that there are people in this world who do NOT wish to follow the rules.

So I'm clear on this.
1. 2 officers were detaining 2 suspects who were in the country illegally.
2. In the process of apprehending the suspects, a group (meaning more than one) of illegals began throwing rocks at the officer. This is after the second officer ordered them to stop and retreat.
3. So the officers were being assaulted by a group, numbering more than the officers present. The group was not following their verbal instructions. Finally, they are responsible for the safety of the suspects they had just apprehended.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/08/tex...ing/index.html

I'm sure you would denounce the officers if one of the suspects was hit in the head, by a rock thrown at an officer, and died as well.

It is apparent that you have never been confronted by an angry mob. I have and I cannot say that I would like to do it again. Fortunately for me a K9 unit arrived on scene and magiacally the crowd became compliant.

Monty. I respect your opinion, however I cannot in good conscience agree with it.

You may not care about "amendments or court rulings", however it is the law of the land here in America and will have a significant impact on what happens to the officer.