PDA

View Full Version : Is it justified to shoot someone who is throwing rocks at you?


JohnH1963
June 10, 2010, 10:13 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/09/mexico-tensions-heightened-border-patrol-agent-kills-mexican-teen-near-el-paso/

Ultimately, I believe the border patrol agents will be found to have used justified force, but lets imagine another scenario. Lets say I was a rancher or a civilian hiking along the Mexican border when a band of illegal immigrants starts throwing rocks at me. Then I pull out my rifle and start shooting. Would that be justified?

As I see it, you have to take other actions before you can use deadly force such as retreating. In this case, the border patrol patrol agent could have retreated. Was he detaining a ruthless killer? I think he was just detaining some vagrant border crossers just looking to get into America. As I understand it, there is a long ways between the border and populated areas. Why couldnt the agent simply withdraw, observe at a distance and proceed to detain the suspects when more backup arrived?

I dont see where its reasonable to fire upon a crowd of rock throwers if you have the option to retreat. I know a rock can hit you in the head, but you can dodge and weave. You can see the rocks coming and can bust into a strong run to get out of the way...

ZeSpectre
June 10, 2010, 10:30 AM
I can tell you've never had anyone seriously trying to hit you with rocks.

I dont see where its reasonable to fire upon a crowd of rock throwers if you have the option to retreat.
But attempting to harm someone by throwing rocks at them is reasonable?


This whole thing really reminds me of a childhood incident where on a hot, lazy, summer day my cousin was baiting/teasing a bull on the other side of the fence. My Uncle came out and yelled at him to leave the bull alone before he was sorry. My cousin turned to reply and the instant his attention was off that bull it charged the fence, catching my cousin's hand on the top rail and breaking three fingers. He's lucky it was a strong fence or that bull would have done a whole lot worse to him.

I guess I figure if you don't want the horns then don't throw rocks at the bull.

Longdayjake
June 10, 2010, 10:43 AM
I do believe that a group of individuals throwing rocks at you can cause serious bodily harm and even death. If you are in a situation where people are trying to cause serious bodily harm to you and the danger is readily apparent then you are justified in using lethal force.

SPIN2010
June 10, 2010, 10:45 AM
YOU BET! A rock, bottle, or similar item can and will kill.

I have been the target of inner city (diversity in action) youths' throwing chunks of blacktop off a three story building in downtown Cincinnati, Ohio in 1998. The targets were "white people" visiting the local diner for a night out.

My date at the time was grazed as I covered her and ran ... we just made it to the car as a piece crashed into the car window. I drove to the nearest police officer and was told "Hey Buddy, I got bigger things to worry about as, I have a guy in a bar with a gun" the officer sped away before I could get a good look at his car number or even a glance at his badge.

That prompted me to go get my CCW. If I am ever assaulted again by the same manner you can believe I will return fire immeadiately. That agent was justified and should be left alone by all the government creep that will ensue. It is time we realize that just because people who do the crime have mental issues or different heritage is NO excuse. Enforce the laws we have 100% and stop this degradation of society.

booker_t
June 10, 2010, 10:45 AM
Your post makes absolutely no sense.

For one, Border Patrol agents, like others in law enforcement, aren't expected as civilians are to retreat from threat if possible. It is their duty to face threat, while weighing risks.

For your other scenario:
a rancher or a civilian hiking along the Mexican border when a band of illegal immigrants starts throwing rocks at me

If the Mexicans are on the other side of the border, they aren't illegal immigrants. They are legal Mexican citizens, who have rights. While they shouldn't be throwing rocks at you over the border, they aren't illegal immigrants until they cross.

Why are you at the border in the first place? Hiking? There's a million other places to hike other than the US-Mexico border. Putting yourself in a position like that is the "coiled snake" syndrome, looking for a confrontation.

There may be ranchers or people who own land that borders Mexico, in which case I'm not sure how they police their land, but that's another story if somebody is attacking you on your private property.

I know a rock can hit you in the head, but you can dodge and weave.

Sounds like somebody already got hit in the head with a rock.

cannonfire
June 10, 2010, 10:50 AM
At least in Iraq we were not allowed to shoot people if they threw rocks at our convoy... but I always had rocks to throw at them if they threw one first

45Gunner
June 10, 2010, 10:51 AM
The true test for using deadly force is: Do you believe that you were in danger of losing your life or being caused serious bodily harm?

In my book, a group/gang of whomever they are throwing rocks at me can cause my death and/or serious bodily injury. Is there a need for further discussion?

I think in the Border Patrol Incident, amazing restraint was utilized in killing just one of them.

BikerRN
June 10, 2010, 10:54 AM
JohnH1963
Senior Member


Join Date: October 22, 2008
Posts: 414 Is it justified to shoot someone who is throwing rocks at you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06...-near-el-paso/

Ultimately, I believe the border patrol agents will be found to have used justified force, but lets imagine another scenario. Lets say I was a rancher or a civilian hiking along the Mexican border when a band of illegal immigrants starts throwing rocks at me. Then I pull out my rifle and start shooting. Would that be justified?

As I see it, you have to take other actions before you can use deadly force such as retreating. In this case, the border patrol patrol agent could have retreated. Was he detaining a ruthless killer? I think he was just detaining some vagrant border crossers just looking to get into America. As I understand it, there is a long ways between the border and populated areas. Why couldnt the agent simply withdraw, observe at a distance and proceed to detain the suspects when more backup arrived?

I dont see where its reasonable to fire upon a crowd of rock throwers if you have the option to retreat. I know a rock can hit you in the head, but you can dodge and weave. You can see the rocks coming and can bust into a strong run to get out of the way...

Not to pick on you, but it appears that one needs to learn what is justified use of lethal/deadly force.

Rocks can, and do in fact kill. Border Patrol Agents have the obligation and a duty to go into danger and apprehend people that illegaly enter the country. The option to retreat and detain is limited when they are doing their job. Back-up is often a long time coming, and sometimes by another agency, given that your co-workers may be a mountain ridge away from you. As for the non-LEO, it will depend upon your state law. Some states require that one retreat before using deadly force, others don't.

I'll make this simple: Don't throw rocks at people with guns. If you do, expect to get shot. As for detaining a ruthless killer, you don't know what you got until you catch it, and lots of illegals are in fact vicious criminals with past criminal histories.

Biker

skoro
June 10, 2010, 11:13 AM
If you don't want to risk death by gunfire, don't throw rocks at armed law enforcement agents.

How much simpler could it possibly be?

LordTio3
June 10, 2010, 11:32 AM
If you don't want to risk death by gunfire, don't throw rocks at armed law enforcement agents.

How much simpler could it possibly be?

It truly can't be simpler. I do not feel sorry for people that have no respect for law enforcement, and I have absoluetly no trouble in affording those LEO the freedom to make decisions themselves in order to enforce the law, within a reasonable limitation. If there is someone with a gun, and you throw a rock at them, you should be shot. It's the progression of our society to say, "One had a rock and one had a gun. It isn't a fair fight. He shouldn't have shot him."

To which my common-sensible response is, "You're damned right it wasn't a fair fight! One guy had a rock and the other had a gun! If I were the guy with the rock I'd kicking up dust to get away from that guy!" I learned early on that you don't pick fights with people twice as big as you. You can defend yourself if the fight gets brought to you, but if you mess with the bull, you tend to get the horns. And it's idiotic to blame the bull when the moron that was messing with him had the audacity and stupidity to do it in the first place.

As my Great-Grandfather used to say quite clearly:
"Well that's what you get for actin' stupid. Now did you learn anything from it?"

~LT

Barbicatter
June 10, 2010, 12:23 PM
Here is more of the story here: http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_15265746?source=pkg
As far as I'm concerned the agent did his job by stopping the threat. The young smuggler died because of his foolish actions.

okiefarmer
June 10, 2010, 01:07 PM
They kill their own cops, public officials; cook torture and maim one another and now they are outraged over the death of one street kid involved in suspicious activity at the border. HA.

The kid was known to authorities as a human smuggler. Lay down with the dogs and sometimes ya don't get up.

And how many folks in the USA are killed annually by illegals? Way the heck more than one dufus kid at a known crossing for illegals

Retired15T
June 10, 2010, 01:27 PM
It's ALWAYS a somber/sorrowful time when a young person is killed during a confrontation like this. Did the kid deserve to be killed? Was he throwing rocks too? Whether or not he was throwing rocks, he was amongst those who were.

The Boarder Patrol guys were doing their jobs. The Mexican Police?/Military? is shown on video coming across the boarder to pick up something, the .40 casing perhaps?, and returning to their side. The boy's body and the shell casing were moved according to some "Official" who asks not to be named. This person says it's on the video surveillance tapes from the border check point.

IMHO, if you play with the pack, don't be surprised when that entity that turns on the pack that is attacking it/them takes one of you out. The kid made a personal choice to be among those throwing rocks, which ARE deadly weapons and have been for thousands of years, so the kid may not of gotten what HE deserved, but by associating with those throwing the rocks, he got what the pack deserved.

It sucks, but that's just the way it is. The Border Patrol guy is most likely now suffering some type of PTSD for having killed a child. It happens. I know, unfortunately, from personal experience in Iraq. Let's focus on SUPPORTING our guy who was involved in this exchange and STOP looking to place the blame on our underpaid BP folks. The BP guy did the right thing even if it is an unsavory thing. He deserves our full support and the Prez should be telling Mexico to STFU.

TheJ
June 10, 2010, 01:47 PM
I believe what the OP presents is a fallacy of composition.

If the hypothetical "you" referred to by the OP is joe private citizen walking down a public street then yes it would seem logical to retreat from rock throwers before using deadly force. However, the situation in the story was far from that and the same logic simply does not apply.

TheNatureBoy
June 10, 2010, 02:02 PM
Is it justified to shoot someone who is throwing rocks at you? Please tell me that you aren't serious!

mygila
June 10, 2010, 02:19 PM
Gents,
For all you guys on both sides of this discussion here some news for you. I live in Las Cruces, N.M.. L.C. is an hour's drive north of Juarez on I-10. Tens years ago "gangs" were not a real problem in L.C. They are now all because of drugs and illegals from 40 milles south of L.C. I have friends who are Border Partol. Local T.V. has reported that 900 + rocks trowing incendents (brick size) have been reported in the past EIGHT months. The Wife & I used to go to El Paso regularly to shop and dine out. Not anymore in the last FIVE years. To many "drive bys" and now we have them in L.C. If we could we'd move but that's not an option at our age. I'm 74. Needless, to say all my handguns are loaded as well as my pump shotgun. My friends in the Border Patrol show far more patience and courage than I can muster. Throw rocks at me , wife, or my dog you'll be shot at. Just my opinion. Mygila

Slotback
June 10, 2010, 02:27 PM
A rock can be a lethal weapon. It can cause serious bodily injury or death.

Correct use of force by the Agent.

vladan
June 10, 2010, 02:46 PM
Is it justified to shoot someone who is throwing rocks at you? Please tell me that you aren't serious!

It is you who is apparently not serious.
Ever occurred to you that rock is man's OLDEST weapon ? Used to hunt, fight kill ?

I challenge you to go out and tell first street punk to hit you with the rock from several yards away and if you still can walk after that please do come back and tell

OldMarksman
June 10, 2010, 03:07 PM
This is a good read--tongue in cheek and very humorous, but full of truth. Courtesy of Canada Free Press.


The following is intended to serve as a useful guide to various activists, protesters, migrants and other completely non-violent folk who happen to be packing knives, guns, rocks and crowbars. You will encounter soldiers, border patrol officers and various law enforcement and military personnel—this is how not to get shot by them.



First of all it’s important to remember that if you attack an armed man in a uniform, he will very probably shoot you. Even given the most restrictive Rules of Engagement in the world which forbid him from opening fire unless he is outnumbered 600 to 1, there is a nuclear war in progress and only when he has been given specific authorization by the UN to use deadly force—there will still come a time when he will open fire on you. This will occur when he feels that he or his comrades are in danger. At this point there will be bullets headed your way, and no matter what you learned at your Madrassa or in Protest Studies at Evergreen State High University, you are not bulletproof. Really, you’re not.

The good news is that there is a very easy way not to get shot. It starts with you not attacking the nice men in uniform. That means not trying to disembowel them with your peaceful knife and not throwing rocks at their head. Because while you might think that legal activism includes attempted murder, the nice men in uniform think that attempted murder should result in sudden death. And when that happens you will realize that fanatical passion for your poorly thought out cause and a medieval weapon are no match for trained law enforcement officers who have guns and know how to use them.

Putting on a Kefiyah or a pair of Birkenstocks does not exempt you from the laws of physics, or the code of common sense
The thing to remember is that while just about every revolution you read about does involve a crowd of people rushing at armed men, those people usually end up dead or in a lot of pain. You should expect to have the same thing happen to you. Putting on a Kefiyah or a pair of Birkenstocks does not exempt you from the laws of physics, or the code of common sense. And considering that Allah failed to save numerous Muslim armies and crystal power never levitated the Pentagon, this kind of story can only have one conclusion. Putting all politics and wacky beliefs about a pedophile who rode a flying horse aside, if you attack someone, you should expect them to respond. And if they have a gun, they will respond with bullets. At that point you will either become a martyr or the world’s ugliest man.

Everyone has their own narrative and play the hero of their own story. And while you might have a great story in which you are the Mahdi or the reincarnation of Che, the man you’re attacking just might have a story in which he’s John Wayne. And just to refresh your memory, Che was shot in his thirties by the Bolivian Special Forces. The last Mahdi died of Typhus in his forties in a besieged city and his remains were tossed into the Nile along with the rest of the trash. John Wayne died peacefully in his seventies. Which fate would you rather have?

Since the dawn of time, men have guarded the borders of their nations. The border indicates that the lands within are the possession of their tribe and their chieftain. That border may only be crossed with the permission of the laws of the people who rule over it. To cross that border without their permission is to invite war, or at least a shower of arrows, spears or more lately, bullets. To cross that border for hostile purposes is to take your life in your hands. And unless you have an army with you, those hands are slick, greasy and operated by a mind completely devoid of common sense.

Once you have a weapon out, then you have put words such as “non-violence” or “pacifist” or “youth” aside
Similarly since the dawn of time men have responded blow for blow, rock for rock and fist for fist. If you claim to be non-violent, that may remove from you the risk of suffering preemptive violence, but it does not give you license to engage in violence yourself under the dubious shield of words. Because words are only good for fighting other words. Once you have a weapon out, then you have put words such as “non-violence” or “pacifist” or “youth” aside. You have given up the moral protection of presumed innocence, for a life and death struggle. And if you do not have the stomach for the consequences of that struggle, then you should not raise that knife or that stone. Because there will be no use complaining afterward about disproportionate violence.

It is also written in the codes of common sense, that only the attacker can be guilty of disproportionate violence, not the defender. It is the business of the defender only to repel you with as little damage to himself as possible. If you have a rock, you should not expect him to put down his gun, and throw rocks at you. And if you have a knife, you should not expect him to set aside his gun for a sharp blade. This is not a duel of honor, but an exchange of force intended to result in injury or death. His business is not to mete out an equivalent level and method of force to yours, but to dispatch you as quickly as possible. Prior to your attack on him, his concern was for your safety. After your attack on him, his concern is only for his own.

What you need to understand is that for you violence is political. To soldiers and law enforcement officers, violence is only a tool. In your mind, your attempt to kill is noble, while his attempt to kill you is vile and cruel. In his mind however there is an equation, violence set against violence. He does not particularly care what you believe, just that you not attack him while you are believing it. To you he is only a rage puppet in a political or religious narrative. To him, once you attack you are nothing more than a moving target. Understanding this will help you to not get shot. Failing to understand this is how martyrs are made. But the thing about martyrdom is that the health plan is terrible and there’s no long term prospects to it at all.

When angry people with rocks, knives, crowbars and a few guns attack trained personnel with guns, the victory goes to the people who are trained to kill
The difference between violent activists and law enforcement and soldiers, is that violent activists want to kill people, but lack the necessary skills to do it well. While law enforcement personnel and soldiers have the skills to kill people, but would rather not do it. When angry people with rocks, knives, crowbars and a few guns attack trained personnel with guns, the victory goes to the people who are trained to kill, not to those who want to kill. And when the blooded radicals complain about disproportionate force, what they’re really doing is whining about how surprisingly hard it is to kill people.

The average radical, lefty or Islamic, is as stupid as he is vicious. His cleverness exhausts itself in invective and rhetoric, which he discovers has surprisingly little application in a firefight. What is left is a would be murderer who rather late in the game discovers that he is trying to kill people, who are better at killing than he is. And that he came woefully unprepared for the encounter. Part of his misguided thinking is the belief that a knife or a rock are more moral weapons than a gun. They are not. A gun is the most moral weapon invented because it is efficient, quick and deadly. Killing a man with a knife is positively horrifying compared to shooting him in the head. Soldiers and law enforcement officers understand this. Subconsciously so do radicals, which is why they long for the knife, the rock and the nail studded bombs. If they kill, they prefer to be brutal and cruel about it.

The terrorist is utterly terrible at the art of war, but excels at the art of making his innocent victims suffer. The soldier dispatches his targets quickly and cleanly. For the terrorist however, inflicting agony is the sadistic purpose of the entire exercise. The suicide bomber gives himself a quick death, while mutilating those in his vicinity. He spreads horror and shock. And of course terror. But the media finds something awful about the soldier who executes his target with one round to the head, and something faintly heroic about the suicide bomber “making a statement” by taking away the arms of a 13 year old girl. Because the media radicals admire murderous passion, but find something horrible about the detachment of the soldier just doing his job. To kill horribly because of passion is somehow better in their eyes, than to kill cleanly and dispassionately to keep the people around you safe.

Terrorists only exist when they are tolerated
But terrorists only exist when they are tolerated. And they are tolerated by people who do not think like soldiers, but think like the media. Who want to find ways of making terrorists less angry, rather than finding ways to make more terrorists dead. Such people write narrowly restrictive rules of engagement, prosecute soldiers for defending themselves, and are outraged when a bullet prevents a massacre, rather than being outraged by the planned massacre instead.

But let us be clear about it. When you pick up a knife or a rock or a gun, you are not facing the politicians or the generals who answer to them. You are facing men who bear you no particular ill will, but do want to get home to their families that night or that month or that week. And if you do anything that risks interfering with that, they will shoot you. They will shoot you without caring about your politics or your fashionable scarf or what Karl Marx wrote about the role of the industrialist in the capitalist society. They will just shoot you. Because you are an aspiring politician trying to leverage your innate violence for political power. They are just guarding the front lines. They are not politicians. They just have guns and know how to use them. And if you attack them, you will die. And in that moment you will realize that neither your moving poems or your protest songs or your passion for the imagined plight of the children of Guatemala or Gaza or Gazambalooza, will do you the least bit of good. Because while you have the passion, they have the training. And the best to not be shot by men trained in the art of violence, is to put down the knife, the rock or the gun and walk the other way.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/24095

Back to the OP: (1) rocks do constitute lethal weapons and (2) NO, Border Patrol agents do NOT have a duty to retreat.

m.p.driver
June 10, 2010, 03:09 PM
Amen Spin2010,having been downtown on April 10,2001 i would have shown no qualms of defending myself against the mobs throwing bricks,rocks,and hunks of asphalt.I had to be downtown,but my AR-15,Rem 870,and Glock 21 had to be with me also.As a drill sargent once told me"We're not training you to be victims"

TailGator
June 10, 2010, 03:17 PM
Stoning was the accepted manner of execution in the middle east in biblical times. The community gathered to throw stones, so that each person had a part in the execution of the person deemed unworthy to continue living. That is the background for the widespread use of stone throwing in unrest in the area to this day. If a stone is intended by its user to be a lethal weapon, it certainly can be.

There was an incident on the local news last night in which a relative of a dead teenager said her little angel didn't deserve to die. The teenager was in a stolen car and aimed a firearm at the officer who stopped the car, prompting the office to fire. Same logic as those who condemn the Border Patrol agent.

Don P
June 10, 2010, 03:18 PM
Lets say I was a rancher or a civilian hiking along the Mexican border when a band of illegal immigrants starts throwing rocks at me. Then I pull out my rifle and start shooting. Would that be justified?

Only if none of them are able to talk after you are done. ( all dead )
Dead men tell no tales

BGutzman
June 10, 2010, 03:42 PM
The officer was doing his job... The business end of a rifle or pistol says stop and obey me any where in the world you go, think of it as a universal language.

Obviously it would have been better to be able to fire a warning shot but in the current legal environment doing such is almost certainly illegal regardless that it could save lives, especially in unpopulated areas.

I think the guy did his job...

dnr1128
June 10, 2010, 04:18 PM
A 1 lb rock thrown at 80 mph hits with with about 225 ft/lbs of force. A 9mm round weight 1/60 of a lb "thrown" at 1000 ft/sec hits with about 250 ft/lbs. Yes, when somebody throws a rock at me, and they show that they are intending to hit me, it is a lethal threat.

http://www.usborderpatrol.com/Border_Patrol412b.htm

JohnH1963
June 10, 2010, 04:43 PM
Stones can be dodged if you know they are coming in. You can also retreat a certain distance away because the stone thrower's range is only so much. The stone throwers in the article appear to be across a river.

I think its right that law enforcement doesnt have to retreat, but what if someone got shot everytime a snowball or rock is being thrown at a cop? That would end up with a lot of community backlash and unknown consequences. It sends a message to the community that its ok to use deadly force when someone doesnt have a knife or pistol which is not what you want to send.

In my personal opinion, I would say if the person throwing the rocks was a known violent offender where if they got away it would mean consequences to the community then I think its neccasary to fire. However, anyone else and I think they should retreat.

If the border patrol encountered so many rock-throwers, then why do they not wear lightweight pro-tec helmets? It seems like many encounters by the Border Patrol involve a little wrestle, why do they not have lightweight helmets and maybe some pads to absorb blows or stones?

http://www.pthelmets.com/products.asp?cat=14

ZeSpectre
June 10, 2010, 05:05 PM
JohnH1963, I feel like you have an amazing command of the "blame the victim" mentality here.

Stones can be dodged if you know they are coming in. You can also retreat a certain distance away because the stone thrower's range is only so much. The stone throwers in the article appear to be across a river.
And I repeat, you apparently have never had someone trying to hit you with rocks. It's not a damned game, it's someone trying to injure you as much as they can with what is on hand.

I think its right that law enforcement doesnt have to retreat, but what if someone got shot everytime a snowball or rock is being thrown at a cop? That would end up with a lot of community backlash and unknown consequences. It sends a message to the community that its ok to use deadly force when someone doesnt have a knife or pistol which is not what you want to send.
Actually it is the message that should be sent. Or to put it more clearly, if one assaults an armed official don't be surprised if they do whatever it takes to stop the assault as fast as possible....that often means one risks getting shot.

In my personal opinion, I would say if the person throwing the rocks was a known violent offender where if they got away it would mean consequences to the community then I think its neccasary to fire. However, anyone else and I think they should retreat.
Are you saying that someone under assault should say "hey, wait a minute while I run a background check"? What utter nonsense, at that moment in time all you need to know is that someone is attacking you and you need to protect yourself.

If the border patrol encountered so many rock-throwers, then why do they not wear lightweight pro-tec helmets? It seems like many encounters by the Border Patrol involve a little wrestle, why do they not have lightweight helmets and maybe some pads to absorb blows or stones?
So it's the Border Patrol's responsibility to "absorb" any rock attacks? I think maybe you need to consider the concept of "problem ownership" and then look again to see where the actual problem is originating here.

Hook686
June 10, 2010, 05:11 PM
I personally think it depends. Depends upon:

-range of rock throwers
-number of rock throwers
-did the throwing consist of one rock, or a continuous barrage
-can you run away faster than the assailants
-if you retreat, do assailants pursue
-are you outnumbered

I think one rock already thrown is no longer a threat.

Ivo Suarez
June 10, 2010, 05:26 PM
dnr1128,

While those numbers are true, I don't know who in the world could chuck a 1lb stone at 80 mph. Mexico would have some impressive pitchers...

With that said, a thrown stone is still a deadly weapon, even if it's under 80 mph. While I would have fired a warning shot first, I think that the officer wasn't wrong for defending himself.

10mm man
June 10, 2010, 05:30 PM
while I certainly don't condone rock throwing, several questions come to mind. was the kid on the mexican side of the river? if yes, this raises other issues, the officer could have retreated to a safer distance on the US side and waited for the punk to cross before shooting. shooting across the border opens a floodgate of political issues, whereas if the kid was on the US side then all bets are off.

the OP asked if it were you or I shooting back at a rock thrower would net the same results. I dont believe it would. as a "civilian", I would be required to retreat and if not possible then I could defend myself. HOWEVER, if I shot someone across the river in mexican territory, I would be hung out to dry.

Double J
June 10, 2010, 05:49 PM
Seems I've read a related article once. It was titled, "David and Goliath". And as I recall, a rock can be quite a serious weapon.

ATANRA
June 10, 2010, 05:51 PM
I think a rock is how David slew Goliath. Mary Magdeline was being stoned to death when she was spared. It was a common practice in that time period. Throw a rock at the border guards anywhere in the world and watch what happens. The only reason this is being a gang media strike is that it is USA. It is a non issue in the rest of the world.

jhenry
June 10, 2010, 06:21 PM
You know John, I just don't know what it is about situations like this that excapes you. I don't know if it is a lack of experience, a lack of logical thought process, or just a desire to stir the pot with a group of gun enthusiasts.

No one in their right mind could think that a rock is not a potentially deadly weapon. No one who desires a rule by law, could really expect law enforcement officers to simply abandon their duties every time some criminal starts chunking rocks at them. No one with any sense of decency or humanity could expect officers to let their heads get bashed in rather than to use force if necessary in a situation like that. Those men have families too John, and little kids who want their daddies home safe. The idiots who were trying to maim or kill them didn't give a rip about those kids or anyone but themselves.

In case you have failed to notice it in the news, the border has become quite dangerous. Since our "great friend" President Calderon, has begun his oh so effective crackdown on the cartels, there has been just under 23,000 deaths by violent means. That is just since 2006. Beheadings, rape/murders, torture killings, burning alive, bombs, and the more mundane shootings in broad daylight. Our Border Patrol Agents have to patrol and keep us safe despite the dangers, and my hat is off to those guys.

Come see me sometime, I know a bunch of Mexicans, and I'll get a 15 year old with a good arm to bean you with a nice piece of river rock for 10 bucks. I bet he knocks you right off that high horse.

Nunyabiz
June 10, 2010, 06:35 PM
The KID threw a couple of rocks and then RAN.
He was running away and was shot IN THE BACK.
There is no justification for that period.

Southern Rebel
June 10, 2010, 07:20 PM
Stones can be dodged if you know they are coming in. You can also retreat a certain distance away because the stone thrower's range is only so much. The stone throwers in the article appear to be across a river.

John H, I can only hope that you are attempting to be humorous. I guess if they used slingshots, you would retreat a little farther. If they chose to use a catapult, you would again add to your retreating distance. Given your approach, you would soon find your toes being dampened by the Atlantic ocean once they learned to attach the rocks to a missile. I sure hope like heck that you learn to perform a "swim retreat", cause you're sure gonna need it!

JasonWilliam
June 10, 2010, 07:41 PM
Interesting discussion. I've read a few times here that citizens are expected to retreat. In California, at least, that is not at all true. You are under no obligation to retreat, and in fact you are entitled to stand your ground.

So with that in mind, if someone is throwing a rock at you, and continues to do so, legally, you may respond with equal force. You may throw a rock back. If you happen to hit the dude in the temple and kill him, you're going to be cleared of any wrong doing because you were responding in self defense with equal force.

Now if you pull out your gun and shoot... you've upped the stakes. A rock and a gun sitting on a table together are not equal force weapons... so the question becomes would a "reasonable" person fear for their life in this situation, which would in turn justify the response of a greater force being used in the form of a gun?

If your jury feels you were justified, and therefore "reasonable" in your response with deadly force, you're golden. If not, as in a "reasonable" person could have simply moved out of range (or you had rocks at your disposal to throw back that you chose not to use), you're a murderer.

It all comes down to what a jury of your peers will deem "reasonable". At least in California.

Or am I misunderstanding that point in this context?

BGutzman
June 10, 2010, 07:55 PM
You know it is all very situation dependent.... When I was helping build schools in the jungles of Ecuador some idiot lobbed about a pound and a half stone at us from the top of a building.

I was riding in the back of a light truck and the truck had a person driving and a passenger in the passengers seat.

The rock missed me by about 1/2 a inch and landed in-between the driver and the passenger, shattering the back window. No one was hurt beyond some super minor glass cuts but the rock certainly had enough force to seriously injure or kill.

None of us were at the scene and none of us know exactly what happened but I like to think the average officer out there is honest and doing the right thing.... If not were all in a world of hurt........

JasonWilliam
June 10, 2010, 07:58 PM
See thats kinda what I'm saying... in that case, you were under attack while conducting otherwise lawful activities. So you have a right to self defense and to stand your ground. You could not have responded with equal force since you could not have thrown a 1.5lb rock back at the guy with the same force (you fighting gravity, him working with it).

So if you fired your weapon, you responded "reasonably", since your life was in danger (your lawyer would prove that a 1.5 rock landing on your head would kill or seriously injure you).

But on the other hand if he was downhill from you, throwing pebbles, and you pull out your gun...

The answer to this question I guess is "It depends". Its situational.

jhenry
June 10, 2010, 08:06 PM
Yes you are. The point is whether deadly force could be justified against a subject armed with, or throwing a rock. Deadly force does not have to be proportionate force. Deadly is deadly. The standard test for the justified use of deadly force involves determining Means, Opportunity, and Intent. Does the assailant have the Means to do great bodily harm or death, does he have the Opportunity to do great bodily harm or death, and has he demonstrated the Intent to do great bodily harm or death. A person throwing rocks large enough to do great bodily harm or large enough to crack a skull has certainly shown that he has the intent and has taken the opportunity. The crux of the issue at hand is whether a decent sized rock when thrown, gives one the Means to do great bodily harm and or death. I think the first Austrailiopithicus who killed a Bumpalotamus with a rock demonstrated the rocks deadly abilities. Why we would argue that now leaves me shaking my head.

troy_mclure
June 10, 2010, 08:22 PM
different scenario, but same-ish.

while in iraq some young(9-10 yr olds) were throwing bricks at gi's from bridges and overpasses. there were several broken bones from this, but we were not allowed to shoot.

then 1 kid threw a grenade. after that if they threw something it was a grenade. it took about a week and several shot rock(and grenade) throwers before they stopped.

maybe as the word gets out there will be no more rock throwers, or it may require a few more throwers shot before they get the lesson.

Wayfinder
June 10, 2010, 08:29 PM
When one is attacked by one or by many using a weapon and or weapons. It is your responsibility to stop a threat. When wolves attack, it has stopped being a game, they mean to hurt you. End of story. Weather your a Leo or civilian. A rock can kill you. The bible has a story of a warrior being killed by a kid with a sling. Ammo most likely a small pebble. Keeping politics out of it. So far it sound as if justified shooting.

45Gunner
June 10, 2010, 08:39 PM
Several years ago in a neighborhood in South Florida there were a gang of kids that got their kicks tossing bricks and cinder blocks from pedestrian over-passes that straddled I-95 or the Turnpike down into oncoming cars. At first there were some damaged cars and then one day a cinder block goes thru a windshield and kills a woman while she is driving. If memory serves me, she was pregnant. Is this murder or just some stupid little gang-banger playing?

Same scenario plays out in the border incident. Rocks tossed at armed agents don't mean anything until someone gets hit and seriously injured or killed? Are the Mexican kids just playing or is it their intention to do bodily harm?

In my book, rocks coming at me might as well be hand grenades. I am answer deadly threat with deadly threats of my own. It is a classic me or them scenario. I think the Border Patrol Agent should be given a medal to taking out someone that could have caused the death of fellow Agents. Good riddance to bad news.

Hook686
June 10, 2010, 09:16 PM
Interesting opinions. I am left thinking it really does not matter what the majority of opinions here are. My thought is how might the local District Attorney react ? Even forgetting international, and Federal, involvement, the local jurisdiction will most likely result in a citizen at a minimum obtaining a lawyer to reply to the District Attorney. How much will this cost ? If the DA does not agree with 'Justifiable Homicide', how much will it then cost ? Depending upon where you live, what chances to you have of being found innocent in your jurisdiction ? Even though California does not have a duty to retreat law, I'd hate to be in this type scenario in Marin County.

Backing up might be the prudent thing to do, even if you believe you are justified in 'Blowing the punk' away.

MJN77
June 10, 2010, 10:42 PM
Why is it that people think the LEO should back away? Their job is to ENFORCE the law. That does not mean running from some a$$hole with a rock, knife or gun. How do you enforce the law if you run away from the criminals? The people that think they should let the detainee go unless he is a serial killer or some such BS, how exactly do you propose the LEO find that out? Ask him?
LEO: "hey, are you a dangerous criminal bent on causung harm and terror to others?"
Criminal: " Uh, no. No I'm not sir."
Clears it up for me. How about you? Hell, Ted Bundy( well known serial killer, raped and murdered 35+ women) was caught because of a traffic stop. When confronted he tried to fight the cop and run. Should the LEO have retreated? I mean, he didn't know who Bundy was and if he was a threat right? Think before you type, people.

Dre_sa
June 10, 2010, 10:46 PM
it depends on the size of the rocks...

ISC
June 10, 2010, 11:06 PM
What was Goliath killed with...

A rock.

What was the proscribe weapon of execution in the old testament...

multiple rocks

grubbylabs
June 10, 2010, 11:14 PM
If you are dumb enough to through a rock at some one with a gun then you need to die.:mad: It is no ones fault that kid is dead but his own. And any one who thinks other wise is just as dumb. He chose to through the rock at a LEO no one else made the choice for him.

Nunyabiz
June 10, 2010, 11:14 PM
Goliath is a myth unless you also believe in Unicorns and talking snakes.

those stoned to death were usually tied down and had many many people throwing large stones at them.

There is really no excuse to kill a kid throwing rocks when you are outside in the wide open area and should be perfectly capable of that tricky defense move called DUCKING & WEAVING.

Kmar40
June 10, 2010, 11:34 PM
Except that you can't duck and weave while handcuffing another criminal.

Just another dead piece of kaka whose mami says he was a good vato...when he wasn't smuggling.

MJN77
June 10, 2010, 11:36 PM
So a LEO doing his job should run instead of defending him/herself? Why didn't the kid "duck/weave" the bullet? Hide behind the bridge supports? Cops DO NOT have to stand there and let little B A S T A R D S throw rocks at them. That's why they have guns. To defend themselves and others.
Yeah, you're right. Rocks only kill you if you're tied down genius.

Nnobby45
June 11, 2010, 12:01 AM
There is really no excuse to kill a kid throwing rocks when you are outside in the wide open area and should be perfectly capable of that tricky defense move called DUCKING & WEAVING.

Bunk. When you're trying to detain a suspect and his buddies are throwing rocks big enough to cause brain damage, then dodging and weaving aren't an option. And when you hold fire and further embolden the thugs to throw rocks and edge closer, that puts your life in more danger.

The number of Israeili citizens lying in hospitals with brain damage is testimony. Another tactic is steel ball bearings from slingshots that can penetrate a windshield or human skull.

Some folks seem to associate rock throwing with a bunch of Palastinian kids throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers safe in vehicles or behind cover as the news media begins filming on que.

Also saw a video, taken with night vision cameras, showing Mexican citizens being murdered by rock throwing thugs as they were robbed while staging to cross the border. Rocks (big ones) were thrown at close range with deadly accuracy. One individual hit went down and didn't move. Dead.

MJN77
June 11, 2010, 12:23 AM
Nnobby45, you have to be wrong. Blunt force trauma( accidental or intentional) apperently can't kill you. All the people killed that way every year will be mighty glad to hear that I'm sure.

Hook686
June 11, 2010, 12:53 AM
Can't everybody just get along, and stop insulting each other with comments about intelligence degradation and sarcasm ?

I'd still like to know if the kid was killed on the Mexican side of the border.

MJN77
June 11, 2010, 01:01 AM
Well sport, if people would think before they type comments about rocks not being dangerous and LEOs should run when criminals attack them, maybe we could. Yes the kid was in Mexico.

dec41971
June 11, 2010, 01:12 AM
Palestinians throw rocks at Isreali soldiers all the time, but the Isrealis have a whole squad facing off with the scattered stone throwers. Rubber bullets work.

Different Scenario:
US Mexico border, no squads just a few if that, border patrol guys together at a time facing off to an unknown number of illegals who may or may not be armed. If they start throwing rocks at you, you can can't retreat. You have no idea what will happen or how many you are facing or how violent they will get at a border infested with dangerous coyotes, and drug runners. Damn right I am returning fire and don't fault the officer one bit. Don't want to get short? Well stay on your side of the border, and DON'T ever assault the border patrol. :mad:

Does anyone believe they'd dare throw stones at Mexican LEOs? Come on, everyone knows about the restrictive environment US border patrol is in. I'd give them M16s and tell them fire off warning shots when provoked and you don't get compliance take the bastards down. Gotta draw the line at some point. And this is not about immigration or anything, the damn border is not a street in the US, very dangerous place to be. Lots of desperate folk, but at the same time, some willing to do anything it takes, so Leo is in infinitely more danger than your average cop on the beat. Go throw rocks at a cop in town see if you don't get your ass shot too. This whole thing is absurd. I can't believe people suggest retreat. He is LEO has obligation to stand his ground take you down if necessary.

Retired15T
June 11, 2010, 02:03 AM
Look. First off, ANYONE saying the BP guy should have been "ducking and weaving" really needs to learn how to read. The agent was detaining an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT on the ground. Once the Mexican's just on the other side of the border saw this, they started throwing rocks at him.

The BP guy had an OBLIGATION to protect not only himself, but his detainee. The BP guy was being ATTACKED by multiple assailants throwing large rocks. After having been in this Nation's Army for over 20 years and deployed to some of the worst places you could think of, I can GUARANTEE you that when all of those rocks were coming in while the BP guy was arresting an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT, he felt as though HIS life and, that of the criminal, were in jeopardy. He pulled his weapon and fired at the group of Mexican's doing the rock throwing. HE, the Patrol officer, was being ATTACKED by people. Some on the Mexican side, some running back and forth over the border to chuck rocks at him. The Officer did the RIGHT THING in defending himself and ensuring the health of his detainee.

Can you imagine what would have occurred if the illegal immigrant he was arresting had been injured or killed by one of those rocks? That Mexican's family would have sued the heck out of the U.S. for not providing a safe environment for their family member while being arrested. They would of been saying, "Yes, he broke the law by crossing the border. So he deserved to be arrested. But the United States of America FAILED to properly protect our family member and think 45 million dollars should cover it."

And this statement just blows my mind with its stupidity and ignorance:

The KID threw a couple of rocks and then RAN.
He was running away and was shot IN THE BACK.
There is no justification for that period.

Do you REALLY think the BP agent knew the assailants age? Do you REALLY think the agent selected, out of all the people throwing rocks at him from that location, a kid over an adult to shoot? Do you KNOW if the BP agent had just observed this kid throw a big rock that almost hit them and had already observed the individual throw a rock, turn around and run to where more rocks were and then come back towards him to throw them?

Let me tell you something since obviously, the most dangerous situation you've been in is slipping in a puddle of beer next to your fridge. I've been in combat with bad guys and civilians all around us. As a Blackhawk crew chief and door gunner, it was my duty to disembark the helicopter and provide covering fire with my MP5, M16, M4 or one time, my 9mm when my weapons rack had taken a direct hit from a burst of enemy gunfire. There was a crowd of people, some with weapons, some with grenades and some with knives/machetes. Others, probably just dang civilians, just using that chance to throw rocks at us. When I started looking to aquire a target, I selected the FIRST person who could do the most damage with the weapon of their choice. It was a person whose age I could not determine. He was the closest, he was the most immediate threat since I had spinning rotor blades to worry about and, he had a rock the size of a grapefruit he was hefting over his head. He took two three round bursts to the chest and I then moved to the next target. He took one three round burst and dropped his AK. The next immediate threat took two three round burst to drop and he had dang rock too. I didn't have time to ask anyone for their ID so I could make sure I wasn't shooting a kid. It turned out that one of them was 16 years old.

In the heat of the battle, where I was trying to keep a crowd of people who suddenly turned combative towards our medical evacuation helicopter, I had ZERO time to assess the ages of the enemy. All I could assess was the immediate threat and then immediately eliminate that threat through superior fire power and training. Only one AK was fired at us doing almost no damage, but the rocks and sticks and other crap being thrown at our guys trying to egress the area with their wounded was causing injuries to those guys. The helicopter sustained three main rotor blade hits from rocks, all three blades had to be replaced at a cost of $125,000 per copy, and I have a scar on my left arm from a rock that caused a rather nasty injury.

A few years later, in Iraq, I was placed in a situation where GROWN MEN were using 12-15 year old KIDS as a way to interrupt our convoy. They would push these kids in front of the drivers of the trucks hoping one would stop. As soon as that truck stopped, which would cause all the other vehicles in the convoy behind it to stop as well, then the guys with the guns would pop out of their concealed positions and open fire on the convoy. Once everyone was killed/wounded/captured, they would then steal everything they could get their hands on as well as show their torturing and deaths on Al Jazeera T.V. So you can bet your ass that when one of these guys tossed a kid in front of my truck, I did the only thing I could to protect the other 35 Soldiers of my platoon in the trucks behind me. I didn't touch the brake pedal and that resulted in the death of a child. Something that haunts me to this very day.

This just BEGS the question: Where in the WORLD were the parents of these kids? Or were the parents the one putting these kids lives at risk? What about the other ADULTS in the area. Why in the WORLD didn't they have the kids removed from the area before starting their attacks?

The answer is pretty simple. While we American's, and most other civilized nations, place a VERY high value on the lives of children and will do just about anything to prevent injury or death to a child, not all countries and cultures see it that way. Many of them consider a boy a man just because that boy has hair on his sack or is old enough to father a child himself.

How many times have you seen on TV that American protesters at any given rally are allowing kids in that rally? Especially if that rally has a chance of becoming violent?

You've got a severe cultural ignorance issue going on. Your lack of experience and knowledge clearly shines through in your statements. There's simply too much about this we do not know and I'm sure the gov't is looking through all the security tapes and other data to figure out exactly what happened. If the BP guy is guilty of wrongful use of his weapon, he will be held accountable. If he was justified, he will be released of all culpability. Why don't we get the information surrounding this event before we accuse and condemn? It has already been stated that this Mexican Kid was in the crowd of people throwing rocks at the BP agent. So that's one strike against the kid already. Here in America, we are innocent until proven guilty. You would do very well to remember that.

MJN77
June 11, 2010, 02:04 AM
Agree 100%. By the way, every report I have seen said the little -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED- was shot near the eye. Where on your back are your eyes?

ISC
June 11, 2010, 02:08 AM
I'd still like to know if the kid was killed on the Mexican side of the border.

Border patrol has video of Mexican agents crossing the river to the US side, picking something small up (like a spent case), going back into Mexico, and dropping it on the ground next to the kid's body.

Ther's no question that the shooter was in the US. The only real questions that remain are:

1) Was the kid in the US who then died in Mexico after being drug across the border or was he targeted on the mexican side

2) was the kid targeted or did he catch an accidental round aimed at someone else.

3) was the kid one of the people throwing rocks?

Retired15T
June 11, 2010, 02:31 AM
I would also point out that it really shouldn't matter if the kid was on the Mexican side or our side. The rocks were coming from people on the Mexican side of the border and the gunfire came from our side of the border. A border doesn't mean squat when you are being ATTACKED by multiple persons.

IF the Mexican gov't is so worried about a shot being fired from our side, then they should provide enough officers to ensure attacks against our people aren't initiated from the Mexican side. Evidently though, the Mexican officers are too busy trying to find out who cut the hearts out of three people in a cave. Or are too busy trying to keep the drug cartel's from overtaking the whole country.

When your country is so busy trying to secure their own country, and failing horribly at it, you have absolutely ZERO say-so in an incident like this. Of course, if the BP guy incited the Mexicans to throw rocks through his verbal and physical communications, then that agent needs to be prosecuted. However, we don't know yet WHAT the hell happened do we? So chill out with this crap of verbally convicting the BP guy of wrong doing. So far, from what we know, the kid was involved in human smuggling, has a record for that, and was NOT being supervised by any adult. And the kid was shot in the face. Kinda hard to say he was shot in the back while running away with the facts we already have, but facts rarely stop some people from projecting their anti-American agenda, huh Nunyabiz? Let's not hold the ADULTS who initiated this rock throwing incident accountable.....not if they were good, law abiding citizens of Mexico right?

Nnobby45
June 11, 2010, 05:56 AM
And just to make the thread perk up a little, how about the Mexican military on the other side watching it all happen, and then point their weapons at the Border Patrolmen?

I suspect that someone down below has already called Johnny Sutton and demanded the agent be prosecuted---stand by.


Anyone else support Cobra gunships being on call for airstrikes on Mexican soil, should their military attack our nation's Federal LE?:D

MJN77
June 11, 2010, 08:10 AM
I would support cobras.

FreakGasolineFight
June 11, 2010, 08:10 AM
I think just up and shooting someone who's flinging rocks is a bit unreasonable. Especially when you shoot them in the back.

I have no problem with showing a gun and demanding that the rock-throwing cease. If that doesn't happen, and there's no clear way to quickly get to safety, then you'd be justified in opening fire.

ChaosLimited
June 11, 2010, 08:11 AM
Here's from a 2008 news article:

"A U.S. Border Patrol agent was injured after being struck in the head with a large rock while attempting to apprehend illegal immigrants near Douglas on Sunday.

"At about 8:45 p.m., the agent observed five individuals cross illegally into the United States near the international border fence and Bonita Avenue, according to a news release issued by the Border Patrol on Monday.

“As the agent attempted to arrest this group, a shower of rocks was thrown over the fence from Mexico at the agent. The agent was struck in the head with one of these rocks and immediately took cover to avoid further injury. The illegal immigrants were able to abscond back to Mexico,” the release stated."

This has obviously happened before (probably many times) without the use of deadly force as a response. The BP has to have trained its agents in dealing with these situations and have strict rules of engagement.

If the agent followed the rules, then he's doing his job. If not, then he has to deal with the consequences.

And as for rocks as deadly force, try some Google searches. I couldn't find any instance of someone being killed by a thrown rock (excluding dropping rocks off of overpasses onto cars). You may feel that the agent in 2008 would have been justified in shooting the rock throwers to defend himself, but he withdrew. I would assume that's part of their ROE.

MJN77
June 11, 2010, 08:17 AM
Freak...............HE WAS SHOT NEAR THE EYE!

JohnH1963
June 11, 2010, 09:27 AM
I oftentimes post these scenarios that have happened in real life for serious quality discussion. I have learned a lot from this forum from discussing these hot button issues and its changed my philosophy to a more responsible approach.

Someone throwing rocks at another individual and the decision to draw a pistol is a serious discussion issue. It does happen and our discussion here could save a life one day. Oftentimes when I post these threads, I have my own opinions, but through discussion my opinion sometimes changes.

On every hot button topic I post there are always a few guys who decide to thread-jack then it gets closed by a moderator. I would sincerely appreciate it if you could not thread-jack my posts because when something like this gets closed then we can't really discuss the situation anymore. Therefore, we can't think of a course of action when and if it does happen to us one day.

So please be kind and before you post in my hot button threads ask yourself if you are posting something of value or putting on the mask and thread-jacking.

Im not naming any names or pointing fingers, you guys who get the threads closed know who you are;)

Glenn E. Meyer
June 11, 2010, 10:02 AM
This is gone way off track from a tactics issue. Some of you are on thin ice when you start proposing megaviolence in a jocular fashion.

T and T is supposed to be professional and literate regarding those issues.

A hint! :rolleyes:

Closed

Glenn