Rock throwers shot at by border security -16 year old boy killed who was not involved., page 1

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

Topic started on 24-11-2012 @ 03:41 AM by curiousrb

A pair of Mexican drug smugglers in camouflage pants, bundles of marijuana strapped to their backs, scaled a fence in the middle of the night, slipped quietly into the United States and dashed into the darkness.

The conflict escalated. Authorities say they were pelted with rocks. One agent responded by aiming a gun into Mexico and firing multiple shots, killing a 16-year-old boy whose family says he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

At least 16 people have been killed by agents along the Mexico border since 2010, eight in cases where federal authorities said they were being attacked with rocks

Article

Yes the smuggling is wrong, but responding to rocks being thrown at you by opening fire and not designating a target. The 16 year old was not at the wrong place at the same time - The border security responded horrifically and this needs to be seriously looked at. A 16 year old boy! Killed because the Border Patrol couldn't deal with having rocks thrown at them!
I wouldn't like having rocks thrown at me but I wouldn't kill anyone, and I bet that most people would think the same way.

It is extremely rare for US border authorities to face criminal charges for deaths or injuries to migrants.

This is plain wrong.
Thoughts?

NOTE - Because people aren't picking up on this. - A 16 year old innocent boy was killed! A mother has lost her child, due to a reckless decision that could have been prevented.

edit on 24-11-2012 by curiousrb because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 24-11-2012 @ 04:00 AM by HabiruThorstein

Best not to be near an international border with a bunch of idiots throwing rocks at armed border guards would be the best lesson to take from this

reply posted on 24-11-2012 @ 04:00 AM by SilentKoala

I'm normally one to jump all over government agencies for excessive use of force, but I think you're reaching a bit here. The people throwing rocks clearly were the aggressors, and were assaulting with a deadly weapon (yes a thrown rock can kill) do you expect someone to not defend themselves?

If a burglar came into your home with a slingshot you would no doubt advocate for your right to shoot them on sight (and rightly so)... why should it be any different for someone on the clock at their border patrol job?

reply posted on 24-11-2012 @ 04:01 AM by zonetripper2065

As a former seller of illicit things I guarantee the smugglers weren't about to throw rocks and alert the lawless border patrol agents to their position. Couriers simply cant play with other peoples money. I smell bullsh*t. loads of it....

edit on 24-11-2012 by zonetripper2065 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 24-11-2012 @ 04:07 AM by curiousrb

reply to post by SilentKoala

Hahahahaha... What?

For a start they were not burglars going into someones home.
Yes they have a right to defend themselves, but with LETHAL force? against rocks being thrown at them?
And you need to realise this isn't even the main part that concerns me.

An INNOCENT 16 year old boy was killed. But that's okay in your books because someone was throwing rocks at border patrol.
So really your analogy should say

''It would be okay to kill a 16 year old boy standing outside your house if you are burgled.''

I find that living off the proverb ''An eye for an eye'' Is a very sad thing to live by.
I think it's ridiculous that you believe they rightly killed someone who was just passing by.
And yes a rock can kill, but only by precision. Something these officers could learn about.

edit on 24-11-2012 by curiousrb because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 24-11-2012 @ 04:12 AM by HabiruThorstein

Originally posted by curiousrb
reply to post by SilentKoala

Hahahahaha... What?

For a start they were not burglars going into someones home.
Yes they have a right to defend themselves, but with LETHAL force? against rocks being thrown at them?
And you need to realise this isn;t even the main part that concerns me.

An INNOCENT 16 year old boy was killed. But that's okay in your books because someone was throwing rocks at police.

So really your analogy should say

''It would be okay to kill a 16 year old boy standing outside your house if you are burgled.''

Who says the 16-year old was innocent? His family claims wrong place wrong time, doesn't necessarily make it so. Truth of the matter is being at an international border with a bunch of morons throwing rocks at armed border guards falls under the category of 'bad idea'.

edit on 24-11-2012 by HabiruThorstein because: typo

reply posted on 24-11-2012 @ 04:12 AM by charles1952

The very first thing to do is to mourn the loss of life, that is always sad.

From there, though, it gets a little complicated. Just a few quick thoughts.

Can we assure our agents that all drug smugglers are unarmed? If not, shouldn't they have weapons instantly available?

What kind of non-lethal weapons are being suggested? Tasers? I don't think that would be practical.

How close was the kid to the action? (If we want to call 16 year-olds boys, or children.) Was he watching to learn the trade? Serving as a lookout? We just don't seem to know from the article. His mother says he wasn't involved, but are grieving mothers the best source for that kind of statement?

According to the article, people are getting killed at the border about once every two months. Is that wildly excessive for those patrolling numerous drug entry points?

As I say, we just don't know enough yet to claim it was clearly just wrong.

reply posted on 24-11-2012 @ 04:15 AM by curiousrb

reply to post by HabiruThorstein

Read the article next time. They clearly say in it the child wasn't involved with drugs.
That was the whole point of putting the article up. So people could see the information for themselves.

You don't just point a gun out into oblivion and pull the trigger. It puts many lives at risk.

edit on 24-11-2012 by curiousrb because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 24-11-2012 @ 04:19 AM by mwood

Originally posted by HabiruThorstein
Best not to be near an international border with a bunch of idiots throwing rocks at armed border guards would be the best lesson to take from this

I agree fully.

lesson learned.

reply posted on 24-11-2012 @ 04:23 AM by curiousrb

reply to post by mwood

Put on of you family members in the 16 year olds shoes and do you still have the same opinion?

15 year old boy killed

14 year old boy killed

Grown men seriously can't defend themselves against teenagers without using a gun?
Pathetic.

reply posted on 24-11-2012 @ 04:29 AM by PURIFIER

International borders have to be respected. Try throwing rocks at Russian border before 1992 or perhaps at North Korea border now and see what happens. What the boy was doing near the border anyway? It is not a place somebody goes for a good time.

reply posted on 24-11-2012 @ 04:29 AM by lee anoma

reply to post by curiousrb

The drug dealers were throwing rocks at federal law enforcement agents.
That's not only blatantly disrespectful, but extremely dangerous.

You can be killed by a rock.
It can be considered a deadly weapon.

They have been utilized as such for hundreds of years.

My advice to drug dealers, aside from the obvious, would be to not throw rocks at the law enforcement trying to catch you.

It exacerbates the situation.

...16-year-old boy whose family says he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Standing near drug dealers that are throwing rocks at federal agents?
Yeah, I'd say you definitely were in the wrong place.

If he was innocently caught in the crossfire that really is a shame.

- Lee

reply posted on 24-11-2012 @ 04:35 AM by HabiruThorstein

Originally posted by curiousrb
reply to post by HabiruThorstein

Read the article next time. They clearly say in it the child wasn't involved with drugs.
That was the whole point of putting the article up. So people could see the information for themselves.

You don't just point a gun out into oblivion and pull the trigger. It puts many lives at risk.
edit on 24-11-2012 by curiousrb because: (no reason given)

You put an OP that ended with asking for thoughts on this. Too bad if you don't like the ones you are getting. Why was he hanging around an international border with rock throwing idiots anyway?

edit on 24-11-2012 by HabiruThorstein because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 24-11-2012 @ 04:39 AM by curiousrb

reply to post by lee anoma

I'm over hearing ''The boy was probably doing something bad.''
Just so you can back yourself. You're making it seem hard to believe that a 16 year old Mexican boy could be innocent.

She says he was walking past the area a few blocks from home and got caught in the crossfire.

It's amazing without being there, you guys have been able to figure the thought of the 16 year old being involved, but the authorities haven't.

One agent responded by aiming a gun into Mexico and firing multiple shots

Just point and shoot. I hope this isn't the case everywhere.

Promote the use of violence against teenagers. Just goes to show the reason why tyrants get put in power.

reply posted on 24-11-2012 @ 04:41 AM by curiousrb

reply to post by HabiruThorstein

Next time I ask for thoughts, I will completely change my view and comply, comply, comply, conform conform conform. Power to the man!

reply posted on 24-11-2012 @ 04:45 AM by Socrato

I can imagine myself firing shots in the direction of a rock throwing attack. I'm sorry the kid died, very sorry. But I honestly don't think this was excessive use of force. Rocks can be dangerous and the border patrol is already in a risky position where they are pitted against people from a foreign nation rather than fellow citizens. Who's to say that the attack was going to stop at rocks?

Moral of the story is don't throw rocks at armed border patrol agents, especially not from another country where drug smuggling comes from. You know drug smugglers are dangerous so these border patrol want to make sure they get back home to their families.

reply posted on 24-11-2012 @ 04:45 AM by PURIFIER

reply to post by curiousrb

You are hearing only yourself. I repeat, normal person does not go near the border, it is a dead end. In Russia, there used to be a 30 km no-man-land as well.

reply posted on 24-11-2012 @ 05:00 AM by Socrato

Originally posted by PURIFIER
reply to post by curiousrb

You are hearing only yourself. I repeat, normal person does not go near the border, it is a dead end. In Russia, there used to be a 30 km no-man-land as well.

That is absolutely incorrect. Mexico is not Russia. There are cities built directly on the border with buildings just across the street from the fence. The story that he just happened to be walking by is entirely plausible.

reply posted on 24-11-2012 @ 05:03 AM by sirhumperdink

Originally posted by PURIFIER
reply to post by curiousrb

You are hearing only yourself. I repeat, normal person does not go near the border, it is a dead end. In Russia, there used to be a 30 km no-man-land as well.

except this isnt russia and these arent the early 90s
there are people that live very close to the border on both sides of it the kid could have been sitting at his dining room table (probably not the case) and been hit in some areas if the officer was just firing blindly across the border... which you are never supposed to do in the first place

this is indefensible no matter how you choose to look at the situation
and to justify it by claiming the kid somehow deserved it with absolutely no evidence of any kind of wrongdoing is absolutely disgusting
and if you have personal beliefs in a god or hell then you better believe he has special place there for people like you

edit on 24-11-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 24-11-2012 @ 05:08 AM by PURIFIER

reply to post by sirhumperdink

Getting personal, are we? It is easy on the Internet, keyboard endures, you know.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^