Border Patrol Agent Shoots Down Teen Boy At Bridge?

[torchbearer]

http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212306057.shtml

Has a U.S. Border Patrol officer shot a 15-year-old boy who was trying to make it into America? According to reports, the U.S. and Mexican authorities are trying to figure out if a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Texas is to blame or acted correctly.

A video at the border showed four Mexican law enforcers crossing the border to grab an undetermined item and return to Mexico.

Soon after, there were Mexicans who were throwing rocks at the U.S. border patrol. One of the Patrol officers in the U.S. allegedly shot down a 15-year-old Mexico boy in Ciudad Juarez on Monday night.

Border patrol officers claim that the illegal immigrants tried to lead a sneak rock attack on U.S. border patrol officers on bicycles. Officers said it was unknown how many people were throwing rocks. The agent who discharged his firearm is currently on administrative leave.

Mexico's Foreign Ministry released a statement saying "that the use of firearms to repel a rock attack represents a disproportionate use of force, particularly coming from authorities who receive specialized training on the matter."

FBI Special Agent Andrea Simmons told CNN, "Another agent arrived on his bicycle along the cement apron that forms the riverbank on the U.S. side. That agent detained a second subject, Augustin Alcaraz Reyes, but other subjects ran into Mexico and began to throw rocks at the agent. This agent, who had the second subject detained on the ground, gave verbal commands to the remaining subjects to stop and retreat.

"However, the subjects surrounded the agent and continued to throw rocks at him. The agent then fired his service weapon several times, striking one subject who later died."

The body was found on the Mexican border. The boy is said to be a secondary student named Sergio Adrian Hernandez Huereca. Sergio was shot in the head. Sergio allegedly did not have a weapon. (c) tPC

[squarepusher]

the agents were getting lynched!

[torchbearer]

the agents were getting lynched!

gotta watch out for sneak rock attacks. i don't think border patrol is trained to handle such intense ambushes.
thank god they shot that brown kid in the head.

[specsaregood]

gotta watch out for sneak rock attacks. i don't think border patrol is trained to handle such intense ambushes.
thank god they shot that brown kid in the head.

Throwing rocks at somebody with a gun isn't a winning strategy. It doesn't sound to me like the border agent violated the non-aggression principle.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

gotta watch out for sneak rock attacks. i don't think border patrol is trained to handle such intense ambushes.
thank god they shot that brown kid in the head.

yeah, it's a relief. I think he won't bother us again.

who is next?

[torchbearer]

Throwing rocks at somebody with a gun isn't a winning strategy. It doesn't sound to me like the border agent violated the non-aggression principle.

doesn't sound like a strategy to kill at all.
looks more like a dislike for the murderers at the border.

http://alexweidmann.com/images/iraqkids.jpg

[sratiug]

Throwing rocks at somebody with a gun isn't a winning strategy. It doesn't sound to me like the border agent violated the non-aggression principle.

I'll bet he did. Give it a few hours. I think he has also violated the I don't smoke crack and I'm not a Nazi principle.

[squarepusher]

the kid throwing rocks was clearly a hamas terrorist

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Throwing rocks at somebody with a gun isn't a winning strategy. It doesn't sound to me like the border agent violated the non-aggression principle.

He violated the NAP by being a border patrol agent.

[John Taylor]

the kid throwing rocks was clearly a hamas terrorist

No, but the guys blowing themselves up in a grocery store or next to a nursery are, and they happen to be the people governing Gaza.

[John Taylor]

He violated the NAP by being a border patrol agent.

Bullshit. The Border Patrol stop more than just illegals, they are involved with the interdiction of criminals from both sides of the border.

[torchbearer]

the border guard with helmet and kevlar-
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/SiteCollectionImages/issues/2007/August/images/National-Guard_000.jpg

It is important to note that the above armor was tested against rifle bullets and not rocks, so the guard couldn't be sure of their safety during a rock attack.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Bullshit. The Border Patrol stop more than just illegals, they are involved with the interdiction of criminals from both sides of the border.

There is no such thing as victimless crime.

[John Taylor]

gotta watch out for sneak rock attacks. i don't think border patrol is trained to handle such intense ambushes.
thank god they shot that brown kid in the head.

Sneak rock attacks? Throwing rocks at someone isn't aggression now??? This isn't a case of an eight year old throwing a pebble, these are man-sized people throwing rocks at a grown man. It appears to be unexceptable aggression on their part.

[John Taylor]

There is no such thing as victimless crime.

No? I think there is, the U.S. penal code is full of them. ;)

[John Taylor]

the border guard with helmet and kevlar-
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/SiteCollectionImages/issues/2007/August/images/National-Guard_000.jpg

It is important to note that the above armor was tested against rifle bullets and not rocks, so the guard couldn't be sure of their safety during a rock attack.

Border Patrol agents don't wear full body armor of the kind you show, nor do they wear kevlar helmets. Sorry.

[torchbearer]

Sneak rock attacks? Throwing rocks at someone isn't aggression now??? This isn't a case of an eight year old throwing a pebble, these are man-sized people throwing rocks at a grown man. It appears to be unexceptable aggression on their part.

oh, I know. Rock attacks are one of the leading causes of death in violent crimes.
in fact, so many people die from rocks being thrown, they don't even keep up with the statistics.
we have whole brigades of rock thowers to reinforce our artillery in the military.
let me tell you, if someone breaks into my home, the first thing i'm going to do is throw a rock at them to repel them.

[specsaregood]

doesn't sound like a strategy to kill at all.

You don't think a 15yr old could potentially kill you by throwing rocks or stones at you?

[torchbearer]

Border Patrol agents don't wear full body armor of the kind you show, nor do they wear kevlar helmets. Sorry.

that photo came from national defense magazine. it shows a border guard armored. take it up with the police state magazine if you think they are lying.

[torchbearer]

You don't think a 15yr old could potentially kill you by throwing rocks or stones at you?

if i stood still, and let him get close enough for a point blank shot at my head. maybe. but then again, i've pitched many of games, and my skill at dodging objects moving slower than 70 mphs is quite sufficient.

http://www.whitespace.bz/ws/web/images/pulse/PulseWeek19/bullettime.jpg

[John Taylor]

that photo came from national defense magazine. it shows a border guard armored. take it up with the police state magazine if you think they are lying.

Come on down here TO THE BORDER here in AZ and it will be confirmed that you are mistaken on this point.

I drive past the border patrol regularly, and in all the years I have driven by, I have never seen even one armored the way you present them. That picture looks like a National Guardsman deployed to the border, not a Border Patrol Agent. The Border Patrol wear GREEN, not desert camo.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

No? I think there is, the U.S. penal code is full of them. ;)

haha. Yeah, and they're bs. That's why the US has over 7.3 million [2007 stat] <so a lot more now most likely> people in the penal system. What a waste of money to say the least!

It's really retarded. It's all "feel good," it doesn't do anything but run up the deficit, increase crime, and ruin lives. sad

[John Taylor]

haha. Yeah, and they're bs. That's why the US has over 7.3 million [2007 stat] <so a lot more now most likely> people in the penal system. What a waste of money to say the least!

It's really retarded. It's all "feel good," it doesn't do anything but run up the deficit, increase crime, and ruin lives. sad

I agree with you 100%, in addition to the problem of violating the non-aggression principle, as a former prosecutor I think they are a massive waste of legal resources to boot...

[torchbearer]

let me put it this way, if a kid on my street was maliciously throwing rocks at me on my street, and I, in return, use my glock to paint the street with his brain matter. i'm going to prison.
it would be hard to prove just use of force in such a case.

[Lord Xar]

gotta watch out for sneak rock attacks. i don't think border patrol is trained to handle such intense ambushes.
thank god they shot that brown kid in the head.

Torch, stop being a demogogue! you will make yourself look more like an ass than you already appear to be.

Would you like if I posted every single time an american citizen was murdered by an illegal? I'd be posting everyday! We know you love open borders and will do whatever you can to make "the border situation" appear to be a heinous american blight that "us" oppressive americans want to impose on the sacred illegals.. but cry me a river somewhere else.

Not sure you are aware of this, but being pummeled by rocks could be fatal. To me, its an assault with a deadly weapon. I am sure you would NOT be posting if that patrol agent was killed by a rock to the head.. infact, you had some snide remarks for that rancher that was killed by the illegal, didn't you? You are classless tool.

[specsaregood]

let me put it this way, if a kid on my street was maliciously throwing rocks at me on my street, and I, in return, use my glock to paint the street with his brain matter. i'm going to prison.
it would be hard to prove just use of force in such a case.

Ok, so what would you do in that situation?

[torchbearer]

Torch, stop being a demogogue! you will make yourself look more like an ass than you already appear to be.

Would you like if I posted every single time an american citizen was murdered by an illegal? I'd be posting everyday! We know you love open borders and will do whatever you can to make "the border situation" appear to be a heinous american blight that "us" oppressive americans want to impose on the sacred illegals.. but cry me a river somewhere else.

Not sure you are aware of this, but being pummeled by rocks could be fatal. To me, its an assault with a deadly weapon. I am sure you would NOT be posting if that patrol agent was killed by a rock to the head.. infact, you had some snide remarks for that rancher that was killed by the illegal, didn't you? You are classless tool.


we need to shot all brown people who come close to our border.
we don't need rocks for excuses anymore.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Ok, so what would you do in that situation?

I'd shoot him in the leg and kick him. Then make him swim back over the border so that I don't get into trouble.

/sarc

[torchbearer]

Ok, so what would you do in that situation?

well, shooting in the head doesn't come to mind, it would either be a retreat or a tackle/subdue tactic. but i'm not as highly trained as our border guards...

[torchbearer]

if you need anymore proof of an "invasion" than this.. you are a tool.
it is obvious the mexicans are invading us, and if rock ambushes doesn't prove it, nothing will.

[SooperDave]

Didn't Obama just send more troops down to the border? And now this happens! Possible false flag job? Attempt to change public/int'l sentiment even more against securing the border.

Didn't the BP incident happen within a week or so of Obama announcing more offshore drilling? These Bilderbergs and Neo-cons are getting really sloppy by trying to speed things up too rapidly.

[specsaregood]

well, shooting in the head doesn't come to mind, it would either be a retreat or a tackle/subdue tactic. but i'm not as highly trained as our border guards...

So anytime people start throwing rocks at our border patrol, your solution is to retreat. I dont' really see that as an option.

I don't like to see anybody killed, but I was raised smarter than to throw rocks at people with guns, especially as a means of offense.

[torchbearer]

Didn't Obama just send more troops down to the border? And now this happens! Possible false flag job? Attempt to change public/int'l sentiment even more against securing the border.

Didn't the BP incident happen within a week or so of Obama announcing more offshore drilling? These Bilderbergs and Neo-cons are getting really sloppy by trying to speed things up too rapidly.

then you think they killed the kid and made up the rock story because he was unarmed when they found him?
our government servants would never lie about something so serious.

[torchbearer]

So anytime people start throwing rocks at our border patrol, your solution is to retreat. I dont' really see that as an option.

I don't like to see anybody killed, but I was raised smarter than to throw rocks at people with guns, especially as a means of offense.

the second option was subdue. which is easy to do, even with someone throwing rocks.
you know what the difference between a thrown rock and bullet being shot is?
One you can deflect with your hands and arms, one you cannot.

[specsaregood]

the second option was subdue. which is easy to do, even with someone throwing rocks.
you know what the difference between a thrown rock and bullet being shot is?
One you can deflect with your hands and arms, one you cannot.

That is a bold statement to make without seeing the terrain or the rocks being thrown, the sizes of the people involved etc.

[torchbearer]

That is a bold statement to make without seeing the terrain or the rocks being thrown, the sizes of the people involved etc.

well, in baseball, a 15 year old cannot throw a baseball as fast as a 20 year old.
you are looking at best, an 80 mph projective IF it is baseball size and weight.
the bigger the rock, the slower it will travel.

[torchbearer]

That is a bold statement to make without seeing the terrain or the rocks being thrown, the sizes of the people involved etc.

now, as devil's advocate, add in a tool like a sling and now you are talking "bullet like" velocity. (though it really isn't going the same speed, just too fast to really deflect)
but that isn't this story.

[specsaregood]

well, in baseball, a 15 year old cannot throw a baseball as fast as a 20 year old.
you are looking at best, an 80 mph projective IF it is baseball size and weight.
the bigger the rock, the slower it will travel.

And lets say they are elevated say on a cliff edge overhead? How much would say a 30lb rock hurt? if it was thrown/dropped on you? You know nothing of the situation.

[Tinnuhana]

So how many people were throwing rocks? These patrols were on bicycles? If there were 7 or 8 people throwing rocks at me, I'd feel somewhat in fear for my life. It's not like I could jump in my car and take off. I'm not excusing the shooting since we don't have all the facts, but if I felt my life threatened I might use my weapon. Though, as has been mentioned, I'd probably aim for the legs.

[ClayTrainor]

the second option was subdue. which is easy to do, even with someone throwing rocks.

Some asshole in grade school came up from behind and start whipping rocks at me, and actually made my head bleed. I turned around, whipped a few rocks at him as i charged and fought him to defend myself.

Clearly we need armed guards in the schools, to shoot such problematic kids. :rolleyes:

[torchbearer]

Some asshole in grade school came up from behind and start whipping rocks at me, and actually made my head bleed. I turned around, whipped a few rocks at him as i charged and fought him to defend myself.

Clearly we need armed guards in the schools, to shoot such problematic kids. :rolleyes:

look at post 38, it could have been a bunch of kids on a cliff above you, while you sat their unable to move, and they dropped a big rock on your head.

[torchbearer]

So how many people were throwing rocks? These patrols were on bicycles? If there were 7 or 8 people throwing rocks at me, I'd feel somewhat in fear for my life. It's not like I could jump in my car and take off. I'm not excusing the shooting since we don't have all the facts, but if I felt my life threatened I might use my weapon. Though, as has been mentioned, I'd probably aim for the legs.

this kids head was blown apart for throwing rocks. (supposedly)

lets propose, you are a frightened lil' border guard who knows all mexicans are just savages out to kill whitey.
you see a bunch of kids so you shoot one in the head. come to find out he doesn't have any weapons.
you start to think, "oh shit, i'm going to prison".
then your buddy comes up to the scene and sees what happens. he tells you, these kids are known to throw rocks, and since it would be hard to prove he wasn't throwing rocks at you- he suggest you take that line since the mexican deserved it anyway. so you both agree, in the idea of justice, to just let everyone know that you were simply defending yourself against a very aggressive ambush of rock throwers.

I'd like the police state advocates to start posting all the incidents in which mexicans were throwing rocks at our border guards and caused harm. (even scratches)

[Dr.3D]

Those kids apparently brought rocks to a gun fight. Please don't try to tell anybody rocks can't kill. It used to be a common form of execution in the middle east. When you have a large number of people throwing rocks at you, I seriously doubt you will be able to dodge them.

[ClayTrainor]

look at post 38, it could have been a bunch of kids on a cliff above you, while you sat their unable to move, and they dropped a big rock on your head.

Well that's how Piggy in Lord of the Flies died...

[torchbearer]

This kids apparently brought rocks to a gun fight. Please don't try to tell anybody rocks can't kill. It used to be a common form of execution in the middle east. When you have a large number of people throwing rocks at you, I seriously doubt you will be able to dodge them.

yes, bind me and place me against a wall with no kind of backup support, set 20 people around me with rocks, and you will kill me.
come at me in an open field with a few of your friends, and you won't have a shot at killing me.
especially if i'm holding a gun and have backup, i could simply disable all of you or run until superior numbers join me. it wouldn't take a headshot either.

[ClayTrainor]

Do border patrol guards not have non-lethal procedures for such events? I mean, you'd think they'd have some rifles nearby loaded with rubber bullets or something. That'd be far more practical for this type of threat.

[torchbearer]

Well that's how Piggy in Lord of the Flies died...

must have been a mexican that killed him. you know how they are with their rocks.

[torchbearer]

Would you like if I posted every single time an american citizen was murdered by an illegal?

your support of a police state border ended this child's life.
your beliefs have consequences, and the blood is on your hands.
i know that you will not lose any sleep over this at all. Simply because you think that people born on a different part of this rock doesn't have the same rights as you.

[RM918]

this kids head was blown apart for throwing rocks. (supposedly)

lets propose, you are a frightened lil' border guard who knows all mexicans are just savages out to kill whitey.
you see a bunch of kids so you shoot one in the head. come to find out he doesn't have any weapons.
you start to think, "oh shit, i'm going to prison".
then your buddy comes up to the scene and sees what happens. he tells you, these kids are known to throw rocks, and since it would be hard to prove he wasn't throwing rocks at you- he suggest you take that line since the mexican deserved it anyway. so you both agree, in the idea of justice, to just let everyone know that you were simply defending yourself against a very aggressive ambush of rock throwers.

I'd like the police state advocates to start posting all the incidents in which mexicans were throwing rocks at our border guards and caused harm. (even scratches)

I don't think blatant caricatures exist in reality, so I don't think that's what happened.


your support of a police state border ended this child's life.
your beliefs have consequences, and the blood is on your hands.
i know that you will not lose any sleep over this at all. Simply because you think that people born on a different part of this rock doesn't have the same rights as you.

He could equally argue with just as much absurdity that YOU have blood on your hands for NOT supporting a secure border every time an illegal kills someone. Is it necessary to dumb down debate by calling everyone you disagree with a soulless murdering goose-stepper? If the border was already a 'police state', it wouldn't be so easy to get across.

[torchbearer]

I don't think blatant caricatures exist in reality, so I don't think that's what happened.

have you already forgotten G.W. Bush? a blatant caricature.
what i wrote is a human reality. had the guard got spooked and went trigger happy, killed a kid with no weapon. I promise you, he would lie. He would lie to protect his life, his family, his name.
The best of all possible lies is a rock fight. no weapon needed, all you need are rocks on the ground. very probable.

[torchbearer]

He could equally argue with just as much absurdity that YOU have blood on your hands for NOT supporting a secure border every time an illegal kills someone. Is it necessary to dumb down debate by calling everyone you disagree with a soulless murdering goose-stepper? If the border was already a 'police state', it wouldn't be so easy to get across.

actually, no- the blood couldn't be on my hands, I have never advocating killing people just because they weren't born here. try again.

[Dr.3D]

must have been a mexican that killed him. you know how they are with their rocks.

If you believe they are good with rocks... you should see how good they are with knives.

Now before you start calling me a racist or something along those lines... I married a native American woman who is part Mexican. So I doubt you can make that stick.

It's a matter of sovereignty. If you want to talk about the philosophy of open borders, perhaps you should make a post in the Philosophy forums.

[torchbearer]

If you believe they are good with rocks... you should see how good they are with knives.

Now before you start calling me a racist or something along those lines... I married a native American woman who is part Mexican. So I doubt you can make that stick.

It's a matter of sovereignty. If you want to talk about the philosophy of open borders, perhaps you should make a post in the Philosophy forums.

this isn't about philosophy, its about the first principle. each Man is born with the same rights. You cannot tell me where i can live, i cannot tell you where you can live because that is our individual right. Not a right granted by the U.S. government, but a right granted by our creator to all Men.

[torchbearer]

just because my neighbors get the city government to pass a law that says i can't build a house on the other side of the street, doesn't mean i don't have the natural right to do so.

[torchbearer]

groups don't have rights, only individuals.

[Dr.3D]

this isn't about philosophy, its about the first principle. each Man is born with the same rights. You cannot tell me where i can live, i cannot tell you where you can live because that is our individual right. Not a right granted by the U.S. government, but a right granted by our creator to all Men.

No one has the right to enter into the home of another without being invited. The United States is my home and the home of all who already live here, and those people who come here without an invitation should first get one before they try to enter into our home.

I don't usually welcome people who enter my home without an invitation.

[torchbearer]

No one has the right to enter into the home of another without being invited. The United States is my home and the home of all who already live here, and those people who come here without an invitation should first get one before they try to enter into our home.

I don't usually welcome people who enter my home without an invitation.

remember that post where i declared that only individuals have rights?
you don't have the right to build on another individuals PROPERTY.
But the COLLECTIVE(of individuals through government), can't tell you where you can buy property.

You are advocating that the collective can tell individuasl where they can build their homesteads.
You will lose this argument. You will lose it badly. I know, I've had this very conversation many times before, and everytime- the other person leaves in shame.

[Dr.3D]

remember that post where i declared that only individuals have rights?
you don't have the right to build on another individuals PROPERTY.
But the COLLECTIVE(of individuals through government), can't tell you where you can buy property.

You are advocating that the collective can tell individual where they can build their homesteads.
You will lose this argument. You will lose it badly. I know, I've had this very conversation many times before, and everytime- the other person leaves in shame.

I won't leave in shame... I'll just leave you to stew in your own juices.

This isn't that important to me to stay around here and argue about it.

[torchbearer]

I won't leave in shame... I'll just leave you to stew in your own juices.

This isn't that important to me to stay around here and argue about it.

then you will leave in shame.
you cannot defend the collective right without defending the other collective rights we are force to endure now.

[ClayTrainor]

you cannot defend the collective right without defending the other collective rights we are force to endure now.

Torch, sorry to derail a little, but i have to ask. Do you still support the Nuclear destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima as necessary measures by the American collective?

[bkreigh]

Dont bring rocks to a gun fight.

Im not upset by this at all.

[daviddee]

...

[daviddee]

...

[torchbearer]

Torch, sorry to derail a little, but i have to ask. Do you still support the Nuclear destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima as necessary measures by the American collective?

i've held the position that you can't prove something that didn't happpen. so to say the war would have ended without many more americans dying in a mainland invasion of japan is dishonest. i would say it is better to kill your enemy without losing one man, than to lose a million men just to say you didn't kill all of your enemy with a single weapon.

[torchbearer]

I totally agree with your statement (minus your attempts at sarcasm).

If someone was throwing rocks at me, I would shoot them also.

At what point does a person have a right to defend themselves? Once they are injured? Once they have woken up from fractured skull?

The shooting was justified... Lets hope we see more of them.

i think they use degrees of retaliation in the determination of just force.
someone is attacking you with a newspaper, your shoot them in the face, that is not consider self defense.
if someone is attacking you with a rock, you better be able to prove that rock thrower really had the ability to end your life to a jury of your peers.

[ClayTrainor]

i've held the position that you can't prove something that didn't happpen.

Of course and I don't want to get into that, but you can choose to justify or condemn something that did happen.



so to say the war would have ended without many more americans dying in a mainland invasion of japan is dishonest.

edit: Are american soldiers lives more valuable than innocent Japanese lives?


i would say it is better to kill your enemy without losing one man, than to lose a million men just to say you didn't kill all of your enemy with a single weapon.

Your enemy included thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women and children who didn't even throw rocks at the Americans. A warning shot in the ocean wasn't even discussed, i dont think.

Was their mass murder justified in order to ensure the safety of the individuals in the American collective, any more than the boy who threw rocks?

[daviddee]

...

[torchbearer]

Of course and I don't want to get into that, but you can choose to justify or condemn something that did happen.



edit: Are american soldiers lives more valuable than innocent Japanese lives?



Your enemy included thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women and children who didn't even throw rocks at the Americans. A warning shot in the ocean wasn't even discussed, i dont think.

Was their mass murder justified in order to ensure the safety of the individuals in the American collective, any more than the boy who threw rocks?

the "ifs" we would discuss are-
was Japan the real aggressor? (a case can be made for both sides)
if Japan was the real aggressor, and it was controlled by a god emperor (which it was)- would there be a surrender short of certain defeat?
what would be the real point of certain defeat?

all of these hypotheticals are things that can't be proven, because we don't have that info.
all i know is that the bomb ended the war. ending the war is good. so the bomb, in that instance, was good.
otherwise, i assume war continues.
and i don't believe that some people are out of bounds in war. war is everyone.
everyone makes the resources that go to the soldiers who are trying to kill you. (assuming we are talking about a just war- one in which, your life and your system of government is really threatned)

[torchbearer]

If someone is attacking me with a newspaper (aggressive/threatening) I have every legal right to shoot them I feel my life is in danger. The person is assaulting me with a newspaper now... how long before it escalates? Where I live, if someone is doing this to another person I also have the legal right to shoot them in defense of the person being attacked.

It is not the victim's legal responsibility to determine intent of their attacker.

If an individual chooses to violate the space/liberties/etc of another individual then they must accept the consequences of their actions.

The right to protect oneself and ones property is a right that can not be infringed.

The above would also apply to someone entering my house through and unlocked door. If someone enters my home, it is not my responsibility to determine why they are in my home.

My Body/My Home... No difference.


just giving you a heads up on what you will face if you kill someone over hitting you with a newspaper.
i just hope to god, this isn't your defense.

[crushingstep7]

I think people should respect the law, officers and civilians alike.
Although, this does bring the Boston Massacre to mind... it's sad that our country has become the new England of the world.

[torchbearer]

I think people should respect the law, officers and civilians alike.
Although, this does bring the Boston Massacre to mind... it's sad that our country has become the new England of the world.

what if the law is that you should kill your neighbor if they don't put out their trash? just because its a law, do you follow it? or is there a set of principles that guide your life?


From American Jurisprudence

(footnote numbers excluded: 29-47)

Note from E. J. Pagel - the following applies to the so-called "victimless crimes", and also the income tax.


16 Am Jur 2d CONSTITUTIONAL LAW § 256

D. EFFECT OF TOTALLY OR PARTIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES

1. TOTAL UNCONSTITUTIONALITY

§ 256. Generally.

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it, an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. No repeal of such an enactment is necessary.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. A contract which rests on an unconstitutional statue creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid.

[ClayTrainor]

the "ifs" we would discuss are-
was Japan the real aggressor? (a case can be made for both sides)

Was the boy the real aggressor in this border incident?



if Japan was the real aggressor, and it was controlled by a god emperor (which it was)- would there be a surrender short of certain defeat?
what would be the real point of certain defeat?


Regardless, it was clear that Japan was not going to win. It was just a question of when they are either in certain defeat, or wave the white flag. Japan was no longer capable of attacking Americans on the mainland, So my non-hypothetical question to you... How many American soldiers is an innocent Japanese child worth?

[jmdrake]

let me put it this way, if a kid on my street was maliciously throwing rocks at me on my street, and I, in return, use my glock to paint the street with his brain matter. i'm going to prison.
it would be hard to prove just use of force in such a case.

Please watch.

YouTube - Video Shocker: U.S. Border Patrol Agents Attacked (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKMgPN_ZRPA)

Agents have been charged with murder for such shootings in the past. And agents have been seriously wounded by rock throwing illegal immigrants. Do I approve of what happened? No. But it's not as black and white as you're trying to make it seem.

[constituent]

If you believe they are good with rocks... you should see how good they are with knives.

"They," huh?

'Cuz as everyone knows, all mexicans carry knives (as the common stereotype goes).

But, but, but!!!! I regularly fuck the whores down in Nuevo Laredo so don't bother calling me a racist. :rolleyes:




Now before you start calling me a racist or something along those lines... I married a native American woman who is part Mexican. So I doubt you can make that stick.

Indeed, and some of my best friends are quarter-jewish... or black, or something.



It's a matter of sovereignty. If you want to talk about the philosophy of open borders, perhaps you should make a post in the Philosophy forums.

So just to be clear, you're opposed to the constitution but just on this one little thing, right?

Otherwise you're totally into "constitutional conservatism." riiiiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:


(as long as it's convenient, I suppose.)

[constituent]

No one has the right to enter into the home of another without being invited. The United States is my home and the home of all who already live here, and those people who come here without an invitation should first get one before they try to enter into our home.

That's patently absurd, you're confusing home (real property that you have a legitimate paper claim to) with your country of origin.

You know the difference, so it makes me wonder why you'd spew such ideologically driven horse-shit.



those people who come here without an invitation should first get one before they try to enter into our home.

I invited them, what's the problem?




I don't usually welcome people who enter my home without an invitation.

Yet you believe that you have the right to deny others whom I have invited entry into my home... how about you mind your own damn business?

You know, the real American way... :)

[constituent]

No? I think there is, the U.S. penal code is full of them. ;)

...and I'm sure that an individual with your moral compass would never profit off of such a system knowing that it's wrong, right?

Oh wait...


as a former prosecutor...

You were a prosecutor? Imagine my surprise!

Really speaks to the kind of scum one encounters when they enter a "court of law."

Wonder how many people you had locked away using your standard rhetorical tricks, bunk evidence, false-accusations, false-attributions, all the while seeking to enforce arbitrary, b.s. laws all while accepting stolen loot as payment... not that it would matter a lick to you one way or the other. ;)

:)

[constituent]

I totally agree with your statement (minus your attempts at sarcasm).

If someone was throwing rocks at me, I would shoot them also.

At what point does a person have a right to defend themselves? Once they are injured? Once they have woken up from fractured skull?

The shooting was justified... Lets hope we see more of them.

What's kind of crazy is that this guy, trained to shoot for the center of mass (particularly when in trouble and popping rounds in defense), managed to pull off a head shot with a handgun while these kids were allegedly pummeling him with rocks...

nothing fishy about that... nope, move along folks. nothing to see here. ;) :D

[constituent]

My Body/My Home... No difference.

Well, unless you invite some "illegal mexicans" over. Then it's Dr. 3D's home. :cool:

[tremendoustie]

Throwing rocks at somebody with a gun isn't a winning strategy. It doesn't sound to me like the border agent violated the non-aggression principle.

Unwarranted excessive violence is not consistent with the NAP.

If someone accidentally steps on your property, for example, or spills their drink on your shoe, you don't have a right to blow their head off. Now, obviously that's an exaggerated case, but this sounds like an excessive use of force to me.

[tremendoustie]

If someone is attacking me with a newspaper (aggressive/threatening) I have every legal right to shoot them I feel my life is in danger. The person is assaulting me with a newspaper now... how long before it escalates? Where I live, if someone is doing this to another person I also have the legal right to shoot them in defense of the person being attacked.

It is not the victim's legal responsibility to determine intent of their attacker.

If an individual chooses to violate the space/liberties/etc of another individual then they must accept the consequences of their actions.

The right to protect oneself and ones property is a right that can not be infringed.

The above would also apply to someone entering my house through and unlocked door. If someone enters my home, it is not my responsibility to determine why they are in my home.

My Body/My Home... No difference.

So a three year old kid wanders onto your front lawn ... you have the right to shoot her?

Guess again mad max.

[MelissaWV]

Rocks should be outlawed. That will stop this from happening.

[tremendoustie]

Rocks should be outlawed. That will stop this from happening.

..^
/ | \
..|
..|

Winner :D

[tremendoustie]

the "ifs" we would discuss are-
was Japan the real aggressor? (a case can be made for both sides)


I think people are aggressors, not nations. The fact that a large number of people who worked in the Japanese government were agressors does not make average citizens of Japan aggressors.



all i know is that the bomb ended the war. ending the war is good. so the bomb, in that instance, was good.

A giant bomb to kill everyone in Japan would have also ended the war. Would that be good?

I think your logic is flawed here. Consider: Shooting that guy in the head and taking his wallet enabled me to buy my kid a bicycle. Buying my kid a bicycle is good. So shooting that guy in the head, in this instance, was good.

The ends do not justify the means



and i don't believe that some people are out of bounds in war. war is everyone.
everyone makes the resources that go to the soldiers who are trying to kill you.

Define "everyone"? Everyone in the country? The region? The world? Resources may be traded with people from distant places, without them even being aware of how those resources will be used. Do those people deserve to die? What of those who don't contribute resources, or who are forced to do so?

I think non-aggressors are out of bounds for any person or group of people defending themselves -- and the fact that a person lives in an area the government you're fighting claims control over, doesn't make them responsible for the actions of that government.

[Dr.3D]

"They," huh?

'Cuz as everyone knows, all mexicans carry knives (as the common stereotype goes).

Wondered how long it would be before someone caught that.


But, but, but!!!! I regularly fuck the whores down in Nuevo Laredo so don't bother calling me a racist. :rolleyes:

Thanks for calling my wife a whore.




Indeed, and some of my best friends are quarter-jewish... or black, or something.



So just to be clear, you're opposed to the constitution but just on this one little thing, right?

Nothing unconstitutional about self defense.


Otherwise you're totally into "constitutional conservatism." riiiiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:


(as long as it's convenient, I suppose.)

You seriously need to pull your head out.