It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Border Patrol Shoots, Kills Illegal Immigrant; FBI Investigates

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   
A single US Border Patrol apprehended seven illegal immigrants near Naco, Arizona, and was attempting to place them under arrest when he was threatened by one of the illegals. He fired one shot, killing the illegal immigrant. Now the FBI is investigating the incident. And there have been charges that the Mexican Consulate was allowed to improperly interview the detainees while they were being held in jail.
 



www.foxnews.com
Cold-blooded murder.

That's what Mexico claims happened along the Arizona border after an argument between a 22-year-old illegal immigrant and the Border Patrol agent who tried to arrest him.

The local border patrol union claims self-defense and fears the agent is about to be railroaded after Mexican officials were given unrestricted access to the witnesses before U.S. investigators. Union officials claim that access allowed the Mexican officials to frame the agent using false testimony.

"The Mexican consulate was allowed to coach the witnesses," said Brandon Judd, president of Local 2544, which represents 90 percent of the 2,900 Customs and Border Protection agents in Southern Arizona. "Now the agent is in jeopardy because these witnesses were allowed to solidify their stories as the Mexican consulate coached them to do."

The incident happened two weeks ago, when a 39-year-old border agent tried to arrest seven illegal aliens near Naco, Ariz. The agent had three immigrants inside a vehicle and three on the ground, but Francisco Rivera, age 22 refused to comply, the agent said.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The Mexican government is claiming "cold blooded murder". It was clearly a case of self defense. And the actions by the Border Patrol supervisor, Darcy Olmos, to allow the Mexican consulate to question these detainees was an illegal and outrageous violation of procedure.

Our law enforcement are being asked to do a job and then hobbled in their efforts to do it. Witness the recent National Guard incident. This failure to secure our borders is one of the most blatant failures of this Congress and administration.

Related News Links:
www.foxnews.com




posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Rivera picked up a rock, according to Judd, and cocked his arm to throw it from about 10 feet away.

The agent, a former Marine, says he killed Rivera with a single shot when he failed to answer commands to put the rock down.

"Assuming he had a stone, should you shoot somebody who picks up a stone?" asked Francisco Gaxiola, an attorney for the Mexican consulate. "If the witness statements are true, it was totally unjustified. There was no reason to shoot Rivera. He had his hands up. He was not threatening anybody."


Border agents got to be tough, no doubt. But if he already had three in the car, and this one picks up a rock, why didn't the agent blast him in the leg or try to shoot him in the right shoulder or something? Did he have to kill him? You tellin me the mexican guy is going to still try to throw a rock with a bullet hole in him, bleeding profusely? Somehow I doubt that.

These guys need to do their job under extreme circumstances, for sure. But the way that article presents it, it seems like excessive use of force to me. It'd be different if the illegals were ALL armed or something. But nuh uh. I feel he needs to be prosecuted, and least let this go to trial. Enforcement agents have to use extremely good judgement every day, and they are trained to do so. But maybe there is more to the story than is being published. And given that it is FoxNews, I have no doubt there probably is.


Tea

posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   
When you come into this country illegally, expect to be shot.


I don't see what the problem is. The man was protecting himself.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   
It sounds like they were doing their job. The border patrol is employed by the American people to defend the border.

Someone should send a memo saying that to the FBI I guess...



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Border agents got to be tough, no doubt. But if he already had three in the car, and this one picks up a rock, why didn't the agent blast him in the leg or try to shoot him in the right shoulder or something? Did he have to kill him? You tellin me the mexican guy is going to still try to throw a rock with a bullet hole in him, bleeding profusely? Somehow I doubt that.

There were still 3 on the ground. Were they armed? Did the rock wielder have a knife or gun in his belt? A 5 pound rock can kill you, or stun you till they can grab your firearm.

And shooting to disarm or disable is not good policy. If you're going to pull the trigger, make it count.


These guys need to do their job under extreme circumstances, for sure. But the way that article presents it, it seems like excessive use of force to me. It'd be different if the illegals were ALL armed or something. But nuh uh. I feel he needs to be prosecuted, and least let this go to trial. Enforcement agents have to use extremely good judgement every day, and they are trained to do so. But maybe there is more to the story than is being published. And given that it is FoxNews, I have no doubt there probably is.

Excessive force, my posterior. How about someone threatens you with a rock aimed at your head, with 3 of his buddies who might jump in?

And your bias against the news source is your own.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
This failure to secure our borders is one of the most blatant failures of this Congress and administration.


I totally agree and I would take it one step further and say that is our greatest failure as a whole, if your own country is not top priority I don't know WTF is.

This case, the National Guard case, and the case a while back in which a border patrol agent was charged for shooting an illegal immigrant alien highlights the problem. We bend over backwards and go out of our way to please the Mexican government while restricting the border patrol in their efforts. We offer greater rights to illegal aliens and give our men and women that are doing this country a great favor the cold shoulder. What a national disgrace this issue is!



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Border agents got to be tough, no doubt. But if he already had three in the car, and this one picks up a rock, why didn't the agent blast him in the leg or try to shoot him in the right shoulder or something?


Law enforcement is not trained to wound. When you fire a weapon in self-defense, you aim for center mass. That John Wayne wing'em stuff is a good way to end up in the boneyard. You're more apt to miss a limb and/or not stop the attacker.

If the border patrol agent shoots the immigrant's leg, then he still can get clunked in the head, his weapon taken and used against him....there's no second chance. Aim for center mass.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   
The border patrol officer was doing his job, he had the right to defend himself while trying to stop these people committing a crime.

Its sad that the border patrol has to become under scrutiny for doing their job.

I am very upset and angry that Illegals are given more rights that American citizens.

Incredible.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Law enforcement is not trained to wound. When you fire a weapon in self-defense, you aim for center mass. That John Wayne wing'em stuff is a good way to end up in the boneyard. You're more apt to miss a limb and/or not stop the attacker.

If the border patrol agent shoots the immigrant's leg, then he still can get clunked in the head, his weapon taken and used against him....there's no second chance. Aim for center mass.



This is SOP for all law officers. Enquiry? Probably. Indictment? Not a hope in hell.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   
rofl, funny I find myself arguing on the other side of the border fence all of a sudden. With as many threads as I have done here bitching about illegal immigrants, to the point of being called racist extraordinaire, you'd think I'd be right in there with yas, ringing up one for the home team.

But unfortunately, in this case I do not see it as you guys do. Some of you are acting like this place needs to turn into North Korea or something: "One foot over the border, and you're dead."
Ahhhh, that's a bit extreme to me, no matter how bad I want illegal immigration to stop. I'd say it about that poor dude who got killed as well as I'd say it over the poor fool who pulls out a wrench and gets killed by a cop thinking it was a knife or gun or something. It's excessive use of force. I stand by it. Flame me some more, cause it's cold as hell here right now and I could use the heat.


Enforcement keeps that up, and people aren't going to bother anymore pulling out anything less than 45's. And they're not going to bother even letting enforcement get anywhere near them. Hell, it happens all the time, and I'm sick of the abuse of power all the way from the top on down. There used to be some middle ground. Not no mo'.

Aight, sure, shoot em all. Every last one of them that even opens their mouth when they get caught. No no, let's put in some gas chambers every 100 feet along the border, yes? And save the ammo.

Hey, verbal protest is considered resisting to a degree, right? Then why not just be allowed to shoot em on sight? I mean where in the hell does this end? It used to be that it would take all hell breaking loose before a cop would even THINK about pulling out his gun. Not no mo'. Not no mo'.

Excessive use of force. Sorry, but that's just me on this. Live with it.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Sorry TA, I wasn't dissing your position Rm just pointed out that shooting "center mass" at an attacker is what happened and I concurred. It's SOP here in Canada as well. Relief of your fire arm is a BAD thing. You could be dead, your partner could be dead. Anyone that it's aimed at could be dead. I see this as protecting the fire arm than it is self preservation.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Excessive use of force. Sorry, but that's just me on this. Live with it.


It's best not to pick up a rock and bum rush a law enforcement officer or your likely to be shot with no warning....that's how it's always been.


The agent, a former Marine, says he killed Rivera with a single shot when he failed to answer commands to put the rock down.

"This rock, if it hit you in the head, can kill you," Judd said. "If not kill you, incapacitate you. And that gives the alien access to your sidearm. We have to escalate to a force greater than the alien is using."


Same goes for a citizen's right to self-defense, if someone breaks into your home and tries to smash your head with an object...you are justified in shooting them. Personally, if I wasn't out numbered and you tried to hit me with a rock, I doubt I would shoot, since most folks are a lot smaller than me.



[edit on 30-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   
nah, it's totally cool intrepid. But lemme ask ya what you think of this:

If it was me in that situation, and I had three guys already in the car, and only one seriously resisting, and he picked up a rock, I would have fired first in the air or real close by to him, and maybe even fired at his hand to show I meant biz. Now if after that he didn't get the picture, and picked up another rock or something, game over. Yer dead.

But I didn't see anything like that in the story. No warning, just boom. It is for this reason that I see it as excessive use of force.

It would be very interesting to hear the other captive's stories on this, to see if they jive. And I really don't trust Fox any further than I can throw a rock, hehe. And I'm not the only one jso.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
nah, it's totally cool intrepid. But lemme ask ya what you think of this:

If it was me in that situation, and I had three guys already in the car, and only one seriously resisting, and he picked up a rock, I would have fired first in the air or real close by to him, and maybe even fired at his hand to show I meant biz. Now if after that he didn't get the picture, and picked up another rock or something, game over. Yer dead.


I can't answer that personally. I work in a jail, I'm not a cop. My father was though and he said, "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
nah, it's totally cool intrepid. But lemme ask ya what you think of this:

If it was me in that situation, and I had three guys already in the car, and only one seriously resisting, and he picked up a rock, I would have fired first in the air or real close by to him, and maybe even fired at his hand to show I meant biz. Now if after that he didn't get the picture, and picked up another rock or something, game over. Yer dead.

This ain't a video game where you get points for different moves. This is life and death. Your first chance could be your only chance; you have to assume that when threatened or attacked.


It would be very interesting to hear the other captive's stories on this, to see if they jive. And I really don't trust Fox any further than I can throw a rock, hehe. And I'm not the only one jso.

Yeah, well I don't care how many hate Fox News. I think for myself. And I could find a dozen other sources that might suit your fancy, but I'm not gonna do that.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
It's best not to pick up a rock and bumrush a law enforcement officer or your likely to be shot....that's how it's always been.


Well, I agree that it's best not to, no. But I disagree that that's how it's always been. In fact, given the history of the way these patrol agents have had their hands tied, the illegals have had it relatively easy to this point. The thing is, that's ending slowly but surely, as pressure from the public is squeezing the bejesus out of the administration to do something about it. But it doesn't need to come to this, on the border, or in the streets.

All I'm really saying is that it would be more equitable if enforcement didn't pull out a gun and fire at every dude with a rock. That you can probably avoid if thrown, even at yes, 10 ft.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
If it was me in that situation, and I had three guys already in the car, and only one seriously resisting, and he picked up a rock, I would have fired first in the air or real close by to him, and maybe even fired at his hand to show I meant biz. Now if after that he didn't get the picture, and picked up another rock or something, game over. Yer dead.


Warning shots are for TV and for soon to be dead law enforcement officers... Most departments don't allow for "warning shots" as they have little effect, other than getting someone innocent killed.

Here's an example of policy:



20.8 Warning Shot. Warning shots are not permitted.

elips.doi.gov...


Please note the brevity of this particular regulation. It doesn't allow for circumstance or leeway... There's a reason... Officers Circumstance and Leeway are already dead because of the misguided notion of "warning shots."

To add to this, most departments will reprimand or dismiss an officer who fires his weapon in line of duty and doesn't maintain a "center of mass" sight picture. If all you "have to do" is shoot them in the leg, you didn't need to shoot them at all.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   
That officer needed to defend himself in a hostile situation. He did what he had too, these people when they decided to enter a country illegaly knew what the score was. You cant expect an officer to try an take a chance on getting clobbered with a rock and have his weapon turned against him.

Letting a foriegn governement have access to that prisoner was insane. This needs to be completely thrown out because of that fact.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
But I disagree that that's how it's always been.

All I'm really saying is that it would be more equitable if enforcement didn't pull out a gun and fire at every dude with a rock. That you can probably avoid if thrown, even at yes, 10 ft.

Yes, it has always been that way. If you threaten an officer with a deadly object, they can lawfully shoot you. You might get lucky and get an Andy Griffith type that knows judo or is a master with a tonfa, but you'd be crazy to count on that.


(ii) Deadly force may be used only when a designated immigration officer, as listed in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section, has reasonable grounds to believe that such force is necessary to protect the designated immigration officer or other persons from the present danger of death or serious bodily harm.

usborderpatrol.com

I would say the agent better draw and fire then and now, if I was closer than 15 feet and armed with a 5lb rock, cause I could crack his head wide open and disarm him.


TWENTY ONE FEET IS WAY TO CLOSE!

It is common knowledge that a suspect, armed with an edged weapon and within twenty-one feet of a police officer presents a deadly threat. Why? Because the “average” man can run that twenty-one feet in about one-point-five seconds; the same one-point-five seconds it will take that police officer to recognize danger, draw and point his weapon, and then pull the trigger. Even if the officer manages to get the shot off, and even if it hits the suspect; even if it instantly disables the suspect, the blade is going to be so close to the officer that the suspect’s momentum may continue forward with enough force for the edged weapon to end up injuring the officer anyway.


[edit on 30-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   
I back the Officer fully, and it was an egregious violation of the Officer's and the American People's Rights to allow the mexican consulate to "interview" the detainees before they were interviewed by U.S. Authorities. If I were in command of the situation the mexican con-sulate would never been able to speak to the detainees until I was so ordered by the State Department.

On a side note, some women at work today were talking about getting U.S. Passports so that they could cross the border back into the U.S. when they visit mexico. They stated openly that their Social Security numbers were fraudulent and that the Passport Agency doesn't care.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join