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

Originally posted by curiousrb
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.

You're 'hearing' what you want to hear.
Try 'reading' what I actually said.

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.

What are you talking about?
Is this directed at me?

When did I say I figured out 'the thought' of a 16 year old?

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

You're being obtuse and I can't tell if it's on purpose of not.

Not once did I advocate violence against teenagers.

So far, these are allegations. Until definitely proven I can't say whether the teen was involved or not...that's why I didn't. You cannot say either because the mother has one story and the agents have another. Until one side is proven beyond a reasonable doubt I am actually being perfectly fair by stating that I don't know if the teen was involved or not. That's why I used the conjunction "if".

I never once said he was.
Why are you acting like I did?

You however seem to be speaking as if you were actually there and chastising anyone that doesn't support your view of the events.

- Lee

Originally posted 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!

Nice straw man! Who said anything about about complying? Comply with what? You asked for thoughts, I gave one, you came back telling me I didn't read the article (I did) and bashing my opinion because you didn't like it. Sorry but go ahead and disagree my opinion with me all you want. But if you ask for opinions, don't complain that everyone doesn't want to do the same boo-hooing as you do.

Originally posted by PURIFIER
reply to post by sirhumperdink

 

It is easy on the Internet, keyboard endures, you know.

oh the irony

reply to post by PURIFIER


I'm not only hearing myself..

I'm seeing

''Lesson learned''
''Shouldn't be near the border''
''Self defense''
''The boy was probably involved''
''Respect for international borders''
''You can be killed by a rock''

Let me address these points.

''Lesson learned''
This is something I would apply if the teenage boy had been proven to be at a major fault of the conflict. This was obviously not the case. It has neither been proved for the boy to have been involved in any way. Yes the boy was in a bad place which he shouldn't have been. A mistake like that should not be punished with murder. Or in your cases ''manslaughter'' I believe will suit your cause. In any situation like this, death as punishment for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and is simply excessive.

''Shouldn't be near the border''
Addressed above and in another post. Wrong place, but not the right punishment. And yes people do live close as stated by another member. I agree that is a risky place to hand out but his death was preventable by BOTH parties. Himself by making a sensible decision and security by identifying the target correctly to prevent killing by standers. Although it is possible he was not a bystander, but authorities have not recognized he had any involvement.

''Self defense''
Addressed above. The 16 year old wasn't a threat and didn't need to be defended against. He was simply caught in the fire of someone who was more of a shoot then ask questions. Not identify the right target, then shoot. It mentions in the article that they are well trained marksmen. Being cautious in firing doesn't make you a bad shooter. His death could have been prevented by the officer involved not randomly shooting over the border in hope of a hit.

''The boy was probably involved''
Addressed earlier. No recognition by authorities of him being involved. How ever we don't know for certain and a grieving mother can make a lot of money from getting payed out by the US gov. And this happens. So I appreciate you bring that point up because it's possible, but i think it would have been factored into the story it it was the case. i think it's safe to say he was in the worng place at the wrong time. Not he was learning how to throw stones or assisting in their crossing.

''Respect for international borders''
Yes, borders should be respected as the Mexicans involved in the stone throwing were illegally entering a country they had no connection to and assaulted those that did. They cause provocation and therefore met consequences that they would have known could happen. As for the 16 year old. From what we know he had no involvement meaning he wasn't disrespecting the border in any way.

''You can be killed by a rock''
This was covered in self defense. From what we know the 16 year old was not throwing rocks. Meaning he wasn't assaulting anyone. This is vague as we don't know the size of the rocks used but I agree the other two were in the the wrong. Not the boy.

I hope I have done my best to ''hear'' others.

reply to post by curiousrb


would you prefer they threw rocks instead?


From your link

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.

In the latest incident, the two smugglers were trying to climb the fence back into Mexico, while Border Patrol agents and Nogales Police Department officers were ordering them down.

strange

Originally posted by aivlas
reply to post by curiousrb

 

would you prefer they threw rocks instead?

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

they dont know if the kid was involved or not the officer blindly shot across the border
.....whats with people making these ridiculous statements or questions without reading the story

reply to post by lee anoma


Wasn't directed at you an I am sorry for causing that confusion. Some of it was aimed at you. Some of it was at others. That was all definitely not aimed at you. Sorry that you took it that way. I'm not hearing what i want to hear? I'm trying my best to address these points. I used some generalization which made the opposing look worse when it wasn't the case, and I did it out of being a tad... hmm opposed.

For the other guy, sorry for assuming you didn't read the article but then you should have realised my reason to believe the child was innocent. When I mentioned conform and comply, I was talking about complying with your points. I wanted thoughts and i argued them.

I will be honest, these weren't the responses i was hoping for. I realised I asked for opinions, but I felt they opposed mine and I wanted to allow you to see my point of view. Since it took a different direction I seemed to be outnumbered and was being blasted with - what,why,how? I tried answering in my above post and hope that clarifies my reasoning.

But I apologize for confusion in my post. Especially to Lee Anoma

I didn't see it as complaining with your opinion but more arguing. Some I my posts did become a bit less literal and i see why it would appear that way. @Habiru

reply to post by sirhumperdink

The police officers took cover, but at least one Border Patrol agent went to the fence and opened fire on Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez, who was shot seven times, according to Mexican authorities.

How can you blindly open fire on someone?

Originally posted by curiousrb
''You can be killed by a rock''
This was covered in self defense. From what we know the 16 year old was not throwing rocks. Meaning he wasn't assaulting anyone. This is vague as we don't know the size of the rocks used but I agree the other two were in the the wrong. Not the boy.

Again you are "hearing' what you want to hear.

Read my post.
Take the words for what they are.
Don't project all over it.
You're only arguing with yourself, not me.

I clearly said "the drug dealers were throwing rocks" NOT the boy, and that they were considered a dangerous weapon. It's considered battery if someone even hits you with a rock they throw with intent. A small rock thrown with force that hits a person in the right spot can kill them, so getting into the size is irrelevant to the fact that they are considered deadly weapons.

At this point neither you, nor I know if the boy was involved or not.
His own mother wasn't even there.

Again, that's why I said "if".
I don't know if he was an innocent bystander or actually involved.
A mother saying he was innocent isn't definitive evidence.
Most mothers would likely say the same. It doesn't mean they are correct.

- Lee

reply to post by lee anoma


Simply why that post was not in reply to you.
i replied to someone else who made the ''I'm hearing statement''.

The reason why I brought up the point of whether he was innocent or not is because it seemed to be the mood that he wasn't and that was used against me. It was a made a point out of with no proof.

From October 12th
www.dailymail.co.uk...

Mexican teen killed by U.S. border agents was shot SEVEN times in the back after throwing rocks across border

Several Border Patrol agents responded Wednesday night to reports of suspected drug smugglers in Nogales, Ariz. The agents watched two people abandon a load of narcotics, then run back to Mexico.

Border agents are generally allowed to use lethal force against rock throwers, and there are several ongoing investigations into similar shootings in Arizona and Texas.

reply to post by curiousrb


It's fine, I just want to make it clear that I am not saying he was guilty.
As I said, if he really was in the wrong spot at the wrong time that is truly a shame and a tragedy.

Ill wait for more facts to come in.

- Lee

Originally posted by curiousrb
reply to post by lee anoma

 

Simply why that post was not in reply to you.

Okay, but I am the one that said "you can be killed by a rock" and it look like you quoted it.
My mistake.

- Lee

reply to post by lee anoma


Yes and I realised that in your first post. I didn't mean to infer that you said he was guilty and I apologize if I made it seem that way. I agree with you on the ''if''. But even if he was involved, he certainly wasn't throwing stones or that would have been mentioned. So I think if he was, he wasn't a threat that needed to be killed.
But I still believe he was innocent or it would have surely been brought up for defense of the Border security officer.

Originally posted by aivlas
reply to post by sirhumperdink

 

The police officers took cover, but at least one Border Patrol agent went to the fence and opened fire on Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez, who was shot seven times, according to Mexican authorities.

How can you blindly open fire on someone?

because he had no target
he had no indication of whether or not the kid was throwing rocks or involved in the drug smuggling operation

i was also basing this on the article provided which does not include the quote you used but instead says

"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."

please provide your source because i would love to see it (but i will tell you right now that if that is a report by one of the officers involved in the fatal shooting and there is no other evidence to back that up.... im going to have to take it with a grain of salt)

they do consider rocks a deadly weapon and are allowed to respond with deadly force but this is a little bit ridiculous because all it would take is outfitting your agents with cheap helmets and the chances of a fatality from a stone throw become almost nonexistent

i would also like to know the legality of a united states border patrol agent shooting into mexico from across the border (surely if they were being attacked by something with such low power and range as thrown stones it would be safer to back up a few feet rather than rushing the fence and opening fire..... so self defense grounds would be shaky at best even if he knew for sure the kid was responsible)

Okay, but I am the one that said "you can be killed by a rock" and it look like you quoted it.
My mistake.

- Lee

Yeah you did but someone made the same statement.

I just hope everything's cool. I didn't mean to offend anyone.

reply to post by sirhumperdink


that's from the op


Slingshots

reply to post by aivlas


I think while shooting at the Mexican throwing rocks, the 16 year old was caught in the cross fire. Im not very sure if the same officer who shot at the rock throwers is the same that killed the 16 year old.

Originally posted by aivlas
reply to post by sirhumperdink

 

that's from the op

correct you are i went back and read again because i didnt recall it .... and for good reason
you took it out of context

in context it is abundantly clear that he did not necessarily even have a visual on the person he shot and that he certainly had no idea of whether or not it was his intended target

can you or can you not open fire on something without knowing what it is or if there is anything even there?

reply to post by sirhumperdink



Out of context

In the latest incident, the two smugglers were trying to climb the fence back into Mexico, while Border Patrol agents and Nogales Police Department officers were ordering them down.

"Don't worry, they can't hurt us up here!" one suspect yelled to the other. Then came the rocks.

The police officers took cover, but at least one Border Patrol agent went to the fence and opened fire on Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez, who was shot seven times, according to Mexican authorities.

The Border Patrol has revealed little information about the case as investigations continue on both sides of the fence that separates Nogales, Arizona, from Nogales, Sonora, literally a stone's throw from each other. The FBI is investigating, as is standard with all Border Patrol shootings, but it won't comment "out of respect for the investigative process", said US Customs and Border Protection spokesman Michael Friel.

He blindly shot him 7 times, while the kid was running?