United States 70% spike in assaults on Border Patrol agents

Discussion in 'Border Controls, Customs and Immigration' started by Mike, Mar 20, 2013.

  1. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Dear Border Patrol,

    Has it ever occurred to you that people simply don't like you, perhaps because of the way you treat them, their friends and their family?

    Karma comes around.

    Love,

    Citizen


    NBC Bay Area: U.S. Border Patrol Sees 70 Percent Spike in Assaults (Mar 14 2013)
     
  2. DeafBlonde

    DeafBlonde Original Member

    Ok, question...:confused:
    Is throwing rocks considered an "assault"?:rolleyes:
     
  3. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    what is the percent increase in beatings and shootings of individuals by the CBP? Mike is exactly right. CBP violence is surely a contributor to this.
     
  4. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Legitimacy to govern & consent of the governed are slowly being withdrawn from this sector of government, as evidenced by several trends:
    • Numerous cold-blooded assaults and murder by Border Patrol personnel
    • Increasing resistance to internal (Papieren, bitte!) Border Patrol checkpoint, it's now starting to hit main-stream media
    • High rate of arrests & convictions of CBP personnel for corruption and personal criminal activities
    • Increasing reluctance of foreign visitors to return to the U.S. due to hassles with immigration personnel
     
  5. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    Depends entirely on the situation. If they are throwing 1/2 oz rocks from 75 yards away, then probably not. If they are throwing those 12-15 lbers from 10 feet away, then yes. This is a subjective opinion, as some folks can really do damage with rocks (some day I will relate my experiences with Haitian Nationals - and no, a full sized riot shield did nothing to stop the assaults, merely caused placement in unprotected areas).
     
  6. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    Nobody objects to self defense in the parameters you mention, Rugape, and the cases cited in these threads are not typically about those cases. The objection is to fatal gunshots placed into the backs of fleeing persons, persons climbing fences to get away, and into teenagers throwing rocks across the Rio Grande.
     
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  7. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    I don't like CBP because they've been consistantly disrespectful and obnoxious to me and the other women in my family when we've traveled back and forth between Canada and the U.S. I have performed such travel since I was an infant. Things didn't get bad until the DHS was created. Suddenly CBP started acting like a disgusting pack of thugs. I began to dread coming home to the U.S. after holidays in Canada.

    There's something about the DHS that corrupts evey agency under their pervue. The DHS needs to be broken up, and its respective subordinate agencies returned to their former state. The DHS does nothing FOR citizens. The DHS squanders our taxes abusing us. It needs to stop.

    Nobody in my family would dream of returning their bad manners and disrespect with like behavior, much less throwing stones. I can well understand why young boys might be tempted though. There's something about the CBP that invokes feelings of helpless fury. Who are they to stomp on everyone who comes near them? Who died and made them the scourge of the U.S. borders? Why won't they behave decently?
     
  8. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    Agreed. That is why the subjective angle is so important. Cases like you mentioned (throwing them across the Rio) are not supposed to inspire a teenager being shot (although, there may be some information we are missing that could change the scenario somehow), they are supposed to have a measured response. The same problems exist in these situations that exist in many of the stories we see daily, there is no video, no audio, only they said, they said. In some of these cases forensics can determine the actual story, but forensics are limited to the material collected and processed, and this is often done by the same people that participated in the orignal scenario. Like always, I hope there can be some justice done (whichever direction that requires the cases to go).
     
  9. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    For a complete investigation, you need to jot all the t's and dot all the i's, as you say. But the facts in the notorious cases do not require a complete investigation to get a pretty good idea of what happened. Citing the need for a complete investigation is basically throwing up a 200 yard hail mary pass and hoping that the man who just killed an unarmed teenager more than a hundred yards away was not doing what the physical evidence clearly shows he was doing--killing someone who was not a real threat in a pique of rage. Because he could and thought he could get away with it using really awful department policy as a cover.

    I think the general rule here is that deadly force should be justified immediately by the facts on the ground. If there is any doubt whatsoever, then this indicates that deadly force should not have been used, as there were other ways out. Instead, deadly force is being applied the instant you think you can make a legal case for using it. It encourages a too-quick trigger finger.
     
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  10. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    I can't disagree with what you are saying at all. Preponderance of evidence can carry many cases to a just conclusion, however, criminal courts act with the reasonable doubt factor, which is much harder (at least in my experience). Deadly force should always be a last resort, always, always, always. Even the instructors in MP school beat that point into the ground. When deadly force comes into play, the initial target is always in danger of being killed or seriously injured, ditto any innocents in the same direction, ditto any other "bad guys" that are already in a surrender/submit position. After the actual event is over, there is the emotional baggage (for all involved, getting shot or shooting someone is a pretty big deal for most of us, and it causes some pretty serious/heavy thought patterns). Then later on there is the good shoot/bad shoot process, and court and the families involved either getting some closure or not getting that closure. In a case where deadly force is applied, it is exactly as you say, the initial fact gathering should be able to determine good shoot/bad shoot fairly easily. There will be the odd case here and there that are exceptions to this rule, but the majority of them will be preliminarily slated within a couple of hours.
     
  11. Frank

    Frank Original Member

    Department of Homeland Security = GESTAPO. 'Nuff said.
     

Share This Page