El Paso Border Patrol shooting murky (AP)
Rob Henderson
Banned
"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.
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.
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"...
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
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.
To argue that this was not a case of excessive force is ludicrous.
HokieMSG
Active member
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?
HokieMSG
Active member
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.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
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.
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.
HokieMSG
Active member
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/texas.border.patrol.shooting/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.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Unless this report is taking things out of context to the fullest degree, I'd say shooting a kid throwing rocks at you is probably not a good idea.
Unfortunatly the violence around these parts come in all ages...Also...., of course no one in their right mind enjoys shooting children for fun...but probable causes will definitely permit a law enforcer to do so.
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I doubt that I would denounce an officer if someone else killed a suspect in his custody as long as there was no complicity on the officers part.
We have had one or two events that ended in police shootings and some of them were entirely understandable such as a kid pointing a "realistic" toy gun at a cop but there were also some less than stellar ones as well such as the shooting of a guy who had gone nuts and was breaking windows in a department store at 2 in the morning, I like most people make their judgments based on the information at hand.
As far as relying on amendments and court rulings well I stand by my comment, just because the law allows for an action does not necessarily mean that it is a good idea to carry out that action.
HokieMSG
Active member
It does not matter if you or the media denounce the officer. They are REQUIRED to safeguard anyone in their custody. I do not think that the media here in America would give the officer the benefit of doubt if something did happen. The media whould do much as they are doing now and denounce the officer for failing to safeguard the life of the suspect.
It is a slippery slope relying on the media for information. All too often the story is incomplete or inaccurate. Sadly in many cases it is the only source we have.
Remember that there are three sides to every story.
1. What subject 1 saw.
2. What subject 2 saw.
3. What really happened.
I agree with you wholeheartedly here. I was pointing out that we have laws and rulings that help to protect the officers who go into danger everyday to protect us.
Is it regrettable that the officer felt he had to shoot? Yes. What is even more regrettable is the fact that this kid felt it was OK to throw rocks at an officer in the first place. He should have been home playing Xbox or soccer. Not trying to illegally cross the border into the U.S. :hide:
03USMC
Active member
Think I'll just go with this response, instead of my own.
A. Because she is a Border Girl and understands whats going on on La Frontera.
B. Because the some other posts show little understanding of how life goes on the border.
Pebbles LMMFAO. No one worth their salt on the border throws pebbles they throw the biggest honkin rock they can throw with any velocity....pebbles yeah right.
Right on the nail....
I give our border patrol agents 100% support...Do you all know how difficult, dramatic, and dangerous it is to PROTECT and SECURE our Nation's border??? Didnt' think so
....Our agents lives are on the line EVERYDAY,...theyre not only dealing with major drug-dealing, but terrorism, violence, and threats...so I guess if our law enforcers feel threaten they should just say "Bienvenidos a Estados Unidos"???? lol...My advice....Come down here and live it,...experience it...then speak 
mmarsh
Active member
We understand this Sky. Maybe the kid was involved in drug or human trafficking, maybe he was a criminal. There is still no justification in shooting him. There is a lot of bad stuff that goes on at the border. We readily acknowledge that as a fact.
But the question remains, In this case uniquely, Was the BP agent in such a precarious situation that his ONLY recourse was to shoot the boy? This was a 15 year old. If you shoot anyone, (least of all a child) you better have a damn good reason. If this kid had a gun, nobody here would be complaining. Not matter what excuse you can find a rock is no equivalent for the officers Glock 40.
This is what we know:
1. The kid was AT LEAST 30 feet away (and looking at the video it looks like a lot more). The distances involved is under question. Judging from the videos I saw on youtube it looks a lot more than 30 feet.
2. The kid had a stone, not a gun, not a knife, or a grenade. A stone.
3. Did the BP officer have no other recourse? Was he in imminent danger? Meaning He couldn't have used a non-lethal weapon (stun gun, rubber bullets, strobe-light, baton, taser, CS Gas, sonics, water cannon, whatever). Rocks are pretty easy to dodge, he could have just walked back a few feet. Yes rocks can be dangerous (though very rarely deadly these days). A normal person cannot throw a good size rock any reasonable amount of distance unless your're a professional shot-putter or have a throwing arm like David Sutter. Remember the victim was 15 years old, I doubt he was tossing anything that large.
4. Did he shoot the right person? This too has come up, there is now some debate whether the kid who got shot was actually the one throwing the rocks. If the BP agent mistook identity, then he has committed a homicide.
5. The BP couldn't have called the Mexican police to have the rock throwers arrested?
6. As bad as the border might be, there is worse. How many other governments do you know shoot people for throwing stones? Israeli soldiers deal with stone throwers on a daily basis, and they DON'T shoot them.
7. What If this had happened not on the border but within the USA? I think if you ask most police departments, it would have to be truly extraordinary circumstances for the justifying shooting someone who had a rock. The fact that the FBI is involved means that even the LEO community has some doubts about the justification.
And finally, you can accuse the Mexican Government of dragging its feet on the Border issue, thats true. But the US has dragged its heel on the stopping of arm sales from the US that go to the Mexican gangs, which are then used against other dealers, civilians and Mexican and American police officers. Your accusation runs both ways.
Last edited:
03USMC
Active member
I challange someone to go down to the border around San Elizario and start huckin rocks at the Mexican Federal Police and see what happens. They'd light you the fark up, if they missed, they'd chase your azz to Austin to get you. Yes they would cross the border, they do it all the freakin time and we say nothing, let USBP get pelted with rocks, chunks of concrete, bricks, bottles, molotov cocktails and restrict their response, yeah thats fair.
These BPA's were on bicycles lacking the protection of the normal BP Patrol vehicles. Take a look at the suburbans they normally use along the tortillia corridor of El Paso and the Mission Trail, they have rock cages on them to protect the windows and the agents, because this happens everyday in the course of normal patrol and yet very seldom do they have to use force, because they are protected by the vehicle, bike agents don't have a barrier theres two of them getting rocks hucked at them in the open, and lets again dispell the myth that this 15 year old who was on the human smuggler list was tossing handful's of pea gravel he and his amigos were tossing broken chunks of concrete and soft ball size rocks. Yeah yeah they were only rocks, as in mans first weapon , so don't tell me no one can be killed with a rock, man has killed with rocks since Oog the cave man first picked one up.The BPA's were in no way shape or form bound by a duty to retreat they were in performance of their duty and were attacked with what can be percieved by a reasonable person as potentially deadly force, they told them to stop, they didn't the BPA's engaged.
Yeah Calderon and Mexico are gonna *****, they want a double standard when it comes to Mexican Citizens breaking US law. Calderon wants to blame the US for all Mexico's problems to get the monkey off his back instead of addressing Mexico and corruption. Ask Mexico about how they deal with illegal immigration and their southern border, or the bounty they have on illegals inside Mexico.
These BPA's were on bicycles lacking the protection of the normal BP Patrol vehicles. Take a look at the suburbans they normally use along the tortillia corridor of El Paso and the Mission Trail, they have rock cages on them to protect the windows and the agents, because this happens everyday in the course of normal patrol and yet very seldom do they have to use force, because they are protected by the vehicle, bike agents don't have a barrier theres two of them getting rocks hucked at them in the open, and lets again dispell the myth that this 15 year old who was on the human smuggler list was tossing handful's of pea gravel he and his amigos were tossing broken chunks of concrete and soft ball size rocks. Yeah yeah they were only rocks, as in mans first weapon , so don't tell me no one can be killed with a rock, man has killed with rocks since Oog the cave man first picked one up.The BPA's were in no way shape or form bound by a duty to retreat they were in performance of their duty and were attacked with what can be percieved by a reasonable person as potentially deadly force, they told them to stop, they didn't the BPA's engaged.
Yeah Calderon and Mexico are gonna *****, they want a double standard when it comes to Mexican Citizens breaking US law. Calderon wants to blame the US for all Mexico's problems to get the monkey off his back instead of addressing Mexico and corruption. Ask Mexico about how they deal with illegal immigration and their southern border, or the bounty they have on illegals inside Mexico.
mmarsh
Active member
It doesn't surprise me, Mexico is a backwater and the Mexican police are notoriously corrupt. I have heard all sorts of horror stories about American tourists getting jacked by corrupt Mexican police officers whilst on vacation. But is that the example we want to set for ourselves? Just because the Mexican cops treat people like s*** doesn't mean we should too. I'd like to think we are a bit more civilized than that. I'll return your question and ask you which 1st world country that allows LEO to shoot stone throwers. I cant think of one. In fact, I don't think it would be tolerated within the US for cops to be shooting people for tossing stones.
About Mexico and Calderon complaining, Lets be honest: If the situation were reversed and a Mexican cop shot a American teen across the border -the US would have carpet bombed the entire border within a NY minute...
Slate just did a interesting article.
http://www.slate.com/id/2256457
Although they do mention that incidents with rocking throwing are more commonplace at the border they point out that there have been only been 3 LEO killed by rocks since 1792 the last one was 70 years ago.
So while Ill grant you that its theoretically possible to be killed by a rock, its extremely unlikely. There have been more cops killed in horse-related accidents than by rocks. So the idea that the teen was wielding a rock like a WMD and that the BP agent was absolutely forced to defend himself carries little water. I simply cannot believe the BP had no other choice but the use of his firearm, and its not the first time the BP has gotten in trouble for being too itchy on the trigger. I refer to the Olveres incedent in 2003.
About Mexico and Calderon complaining, Lets be honest: If the situation were reversed and a Mexican cop shot a American teen across the border -the US would have carpet bombed the entire border within a NY minute...
Slate just did a interesting article.
http://www.slate.com/id/2256457
Although they do mention that incidents with rocking throwing are more commonplace at the border they point out that there have been only been 3 LEO killed by rocks since 1792 the last one was 70 years ago.
So while Ill grant you that its theoretically possible to be killed by a rock, its extremely unlikely. There have been more cops killed in horse-related accidents than by rocks. So the idea that the teen was wielding a rock like a WMD and that the BP agent was absolutely forced to defend himself carries little water. I simply cannot believe the BP had no other choice but the use of his firearm, and its not the first time the BP has gotten in trouble for being too itchy on the trigger. I refer to the Olveres incedent in 2003.
YES I DO..AND THE REST OF THE EL PASOAN RESIDENTS....BECAUSE... I'M THE BORDER....I'VE LIVED HERE ALL MY LIFE,...HOW DARE YOU COMMENT ON MATTERS YOU ARE PLAINLY INGNORANT TO???
I EXTEND AN INVITATION TO YOU....YOU WILL LEAVE JUAREZ AND EL PASO TEXAS IN AWE, AND SPEECHLESS....AFTER ALL JUAREZ IS THE NUMERO UNO IN WOMEN AND CARTEL KILLINGS AROUND THE WORLD...CHUMP....