US border agentl kills Mexican teen

[Guest American Woman]

Always wonder why age is a factor when the incident is/should be the focus. If it was the other way around, the US would be SCREAMING injustices.

Because so many Americans are trying to enter Mexico illegally?

Again, I feel bad that a 15 year old boy has lost his life. But I've seen no answers to my questions.

What would happen if someone who broke the law started throwing rocks at the police? And what should the border guards have done; nothing? thrown rocks back?

Furthermore, how were they to have known the ages of those throwing rocks?

I'm not condoning shooting 15 year olds by any means, although I'm sure there are posters here who will claim I am, but I do wonder: what would be the answer in this situation?

Instead of criticism, I'd like to hear what the border guard should have done.

[dre]

I don't think fear of death is the legal requirement. It is usually fear of something like "serious bodily harm", which, I suppose, means a concussion or broken bones ought to qualify.

As I said earlier, people who physically attack armed men are kinda stupid, and not necessarily deserving of much sympathy.

I don't think fear of death is the legal requirement. It is usually fear of something like "serious bodily harm", which, I suppose, means a concussion or broken bones ought to qualify.

Yeah I think thats about right. Like I said in some cases throwing stones would meet that critiera and in some cases it wouldnt.

Like you said, its not a real bright move.

[dre]

Because so many Americans are trying to enter Mexico illegally?

Again, I feel bad that a 15 year old boy has lost his life. But I've seen no answers to my questions.

What would happen if someone who broke the law started throwing rocks at the police? And what should the border guards have done; nothing? thrown rocks back?

Furthermore, how were they to have known the ages of those throwing rocks?

I'm not condoning shooting 15 year olds by any means, although I'm sure there are posters here who will claim I am, but I do wonder: what would be the answer in this situation?

Instead of criticism, I'd like to hear what the border guard should have done.

Here are some other options...

1. Retreat to his vehicle and call for backup, then monitor the suspects until backup arrived.

2. Used non lethal force (firing his weapon at the suspects legs)

In this case since the agent was confronting a bunch of suspects it probably would have been a good idea to retreat to his vehicle and call for backup, but depending on the nature of the incident that may not have been possible. A non-lethal shot is not always possible either.

Theres not enough information here to determine if he did the right thing or not. Were the perps 20 feet away? If they were then throwing large rocks from that distance constitutes deadly force and the agent may have not had time to either retreat or try a non lethal shot. Or were the stone throwers 100 feet away lobbing rocks from a distance? In this case the agent had more options and more time to think and faced less danger.

Klinkel v. Saddler demontrates the standard applied, although that case involves a police officer who was being assaulted by a misdemeanor suspect, not a border patrol agent. The court ruled that the shooting was lawfull because the cop felt he was in imminent danger.

We need to know...

1. Where was the gunshoot wound?

2. How far away were the suspects throwing rocks?

[Guest American Woman]

Here are some other options...

1. Retreat to his vehicle and call for backup, then monitor the suspects until backup arrived.

Retreat to his vehicle? He's a border guard. Are you suggesting that he "retreat" and leave the border unguarded?

2. Used non lethal force (firing his weapon at the suspects legs)

Do you truly believe he was actually aiming for his head? If he were aiming for his head, he was one helluva shot. Chances are, he was shooting indiscriminately to scare them away, and one shot happen to get one kid in the head.

In this case since the agent was confronting a bunch of suspects it probably would have been a good idea to retreat to his vehicle and call for backup, but depending on the nature of the incident that may not have been possible. A non-lethal shot is not always possible either.

Again, he would have had to have left his post to "retreat" anywhere. Leaving the border unguarded. You actually think that would have been the appropriate answer?

Theres not enough information here to determine if he did the right thing or not.

Exactly. Yet that doesn't stop the criticism and the condemnation.

Were the perps 20 feet away? If they were then throwing large rocks from that distance constitutes deadly force and the agent may have not had time to either retreat or try a non lethal shot.

I agree. There's a reason people have been "stoned to death," and that reason is that throwing rocks can be lethal.

Or were the stone throwers 100 feet away lobbing rocks from a distance? In this case the agent had more options and more time to think and faced less danger.

What options?

Klinkel v. Saddler demontrates the standard applied, although that case involves a police officer who was being assaulted by a misdemeanor suspect, not a border patrol agent. The court ruled that the shooting was lawfull because the cop felt he was in imminent danger.

My point exactly.

We need to know...

1. Where was the gunshoot wound?

2. How far away were the suspects throwing rocks?

If they were close enough that the guards were aware that they were throwing rocks, I'd say they were hitting the vicinity of the guards. Or even if they were falling short, what would make the guards believe they wouldn't advance? Should they have waited until one of them got a rock to the head before responding?

These are serious/legitimate questions. It's easy to sit back and determine what someone else should have done. But I don't see "retreating" as an option, much less a "should have." If cops/border guards start "retreating," where will that lead? All illegals have to do is throw rocks at border guards, the guards retreat, and then come what may .......

[dre]

Retreat to his vehicle? He's a border guard. Are you suggesting that he "retreat" and leave the border unguarded?

Do you truly believe he was actually aiming for his head? If he were aiming for his head, he was one helluva shot. Chances are, he was shooting indiscriminately to scare them away, and one shot happen to get one kid in the head.

Again, he would have had to have left his post to "retreat" anywhere. Leaving the border unguarded. You actually think that would have been the appropriate answer?

Exactly. Yet that doesn't stop the criticism and the condemnation.

I agree. There's a reason people have been "stoned to death," and that reason is that throwing rocks can be lethal.

What options?

My point exactly.

If they were close enough that the guards were aware that they were throwing rocks, I'd say they were hitting the vicinity of the guards. Or even if they were falling short, what would make the guards believe they wouldn't advance? Should they have waited until one of them got a rock to the head before responding?

These are serious/legitimate questions. It's easy to sit back and determine what someone else should have done. But I don't see "retreating" as an option, much less a "should have." If cops/border guards start "retreating," where will that lead? All illegals have to do is throw rocks at border guards, the guards retreat, and then come what may .......

Retreat to his vehicle? He's a border guard. Are you suggesting that he "retreat" and leave the border unguarded?

Not unguarded. He could have monitored the suspects until help arrived. This is a law enforcement agent confronting multiple hostile suspects. In most cases police in that circumstance are trained to disengage and get backup, or wait for backup before engaging.

Do you truly believe he was actually aiming for his head? If he were aiming for his head, he was one helluva shot. Chances are, he was shooting indiscriminately to scare them away, and one shot happen to get one kid in the head.

Law enforcement almost never aims for the head and in cases where lethal force is desired they are trained to aim for the center of mass (just below the suspects sternum). I have no idea if the agent meant to use deadly force here or not, you asked for other options and I felt that "winging" was worth mentioning.

Exactly. Yet that doesn't stop the criticism and the condemnation.

Well... Im trying my best not to jump to conclusions or condemn anyone.

If they were close enough that the guards were aware that they were throwing rocks, I'd say they were hitting the vicinity of the guards. Or even if they were falling short, what would make the guards believe they wouldn't advance? Should they have waited until one of them got a rock to the head before responding?

The further away the stone throwers the less threat there is and the less chance deadly force is legal. If you throw rocks at me from 100 feet away Im going to casually watch them come at me and step out of the way if one is going to hit me. Im not going to feel that im in serious imminent danger. If youre 20 feet away I have no time to react and I would feel Im in serious imminent danger. If the stones were falling short then the use of deadly force would be a real tough sell in legal terms.

These are serious/legitimate questions. It's easy to sit back and determine what someone else should have done. But I don't see "retreating" as an option, much less a "should have." If cops/border guards start "retreating," where will that lead? All illegals have to do is throw rocks at border guards, the guards retreat, and then come what may .......

Temporarily retreating and either disengaging until backup arrives or delaying the engagement until backup arrives is actually standard procedure in most areas of law enforcement. Im not suggesting the officer flee the scene here... Just that he get in his car where he would have protection from being hit by rocks, and call for backup.

Edited June 11, 2010 by dre

[dre]

Not unguarded. He could have monitored the suspects until help arrived. This is a law enforcement agent confronting multiple hostile suspects. In most cases police in that circumstance are trained to disengage and get backup, or wait for backup before engaging.

Law enforcement almost never aims for the head and in cases where lethal force is desired they are trained to aim for the center of mass (just below the suspects sternum). I have no idea if the agent meant to use deadly force here or not, you asked for other options and I felt that "winging" was worth mentioning.

Well... Im trying my best not to jump to conclusions or condemn anyone.

The further away the stone throwers the less threat there is and the less chance deadly force is legal. If you throw rocks at me from 100 feet away Im going to casually watch them come at me and step out of the way if one is going to hit me. Im not going to feel that im in serious imminent danger. If youre 20 feet away I have no time to react and I would feel Im in serious imminent danger. If the stones were falling short then the use of deadly force would be a real tough sell in legal terms.

Temporarily retreating and either disengaging until backup arrives or delaying the engagement until backup arrives is actually standard procedure in most areas of law enforcement. Im not suggesting the officer flee the scene here... Just that he get in his car where he would have protection from being hit by rocks, and call for backup.

BTW, I came across this...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/10/texas.border.patrol.shooting/index.html?iref=obnetwork

Its a cellphone video that contradicts the agents account of events (that the agent was "surrounded" by rock throwers. It looks from the video that suspect was about 60 feet away when he was shot, and was either running away or had just stopped a second before the shooting. The texas border patrol has had to recant part of previous statement on the incident in response to the video.

The FBI however does say they have video proof that at least some stones were thrown.

[naomiglover]

Nice how the mexican is 14 or 15 but Naomi as an example make the american

12...

You would be okay with shooting a 14 or 15 year old but not a 12 year old?

Would 2 years make a difference in this context? If not, why do you bother posting?

[dre]

You would be okay with shooting a 14 or 15 year old but not a 12 year old?

Would 2 years make a difference in this context? If not, why do you bother posting?

Point out those sort of discrepencies is pretty much what Morris has been reduced to.

The other day I said "almost ten", and he responded: "youre wrong, its 9!"

Edited June 11, 2010 by dre