15 years old mexican killed...update

cincybearcat

mermelada_alucinogena wrote:

.i just belive that the Border Agent killed a boy that was on the mexican side and needs to be punished

And if the investigation proves that he wasn't under threat, etc than I agree with you 100%.

Heck...even if the investigation itself doesn't conclude the officer was at fault, based upon the facts I see I still may agree with you and not the investigation.

cincybearcat

dimitrispearljam wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

dimitrispearljam wrote:

[
tell that to the mother of the kid was killed in cold blood...

Will do. What's her phone number?
.

i miss this comment,i just read it.,now im sure i waste my time,no respect for human life and a mother 's pain lost her child..im out..

You are totally misunderstanding me. I would tell the mother of a child that was killed that it isn't representative of our laws and that if the officer is found guilty after an investigation he should be (and will be) disciplined (jail). Is that more clear? Because that is what I was trying to tell you.

dimitrispearljam

Cosmo wrote:

dimitrispearljam wrote:

in my country when u shoot and someone killed from your bullets we have the word ,merderer..i dont know other word for that...
if u like a system,that support merderer,people cos have uniform can shoot anyone(when they arent in dangerous,or some civilian is),,enjoy it..im NOT..nothing personal,just diferent Philosophy of life..and yes philosophy is a Greek word..

...
Well... it depends.
If you kill someone that is trying to kill you...Of if you kill someone that is trying to kill someone else, it is not considered murder.
Also, our police officers cannot shoot anyone they want. In most large cities, as soon as an officer discharges his weapon, he must turn over his weapon to a supervisor and is placed on administrative leave while the shooting is investigated. In Los Angeles, the investigation is conducted by an independent board that includes both, police and civilians.
I know a few cops... and although some of them have had to draw their weapons on suspects... not one that I know of has actually fire his weapon other than in trainning. Most officers go a complete career, without firing a shot.

if policeman is in danger,someone carry a gun,ofcourse he can use his gun..if other civilians are in danger,he must protect them...maybe he thought that the poor kid looking from the otherside will steal his bike..and protect the bike..

dimitrispearljam

cincybearcat wrote:

You are totally misunderstanding me. I would tell the mother of a child that was killed that it isn't representative of our laws and that if the officer is found guilty after an investigation he should be (and will be) disciplined (jail). Is that more clear? Because that is what I was trying to tell you.

i think i did,now i read something different of what i understand before..if i didnt understand u im sorry,,cant believe that someone thinks,policeman use the gun with no serious reason,must get away cos he has uniform or he is from our side of the river..

blackredyellow

Cosmo wrote:

If this goes to trial... where will the trial be held? In Texas or Mexico?

Good question... I'm guessing the river itself is the border, and the agent was on the US side and the kid on the Mexico side? There has to be some sort of international law precedent for shots fired over a border?

Could be a mess. I'm guessing Mexican authorities would fight long and hard to prosecute him in Mexico...

cincybearcat

dimitrispearljam wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

You are totally misunderstanding me. I would tell the mother of a child that was killed that it isn't representative of our laws and that if the officer is found guilty after an investigation he should be (and will be) disciplined (jail). Is that more clear? Because that is what I was trying to tell you.

i think i did,now i read something different of what i understand before..if i didnt understand u im sorry,,cant believe that someone thinks,policeman use the gun with no serious reason,must get away cos he has uniform or he is from our side of the river..

No worries, I must have misunderstood your real intentions as well.

Though, I would wait for an investigation before deciding this guys fate. I hope it is unbiased and thorough.

cincybearcat

blackredyellow wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

If this goes to trial... where will the trial be held? In Texas or Mexico?

Good question... I'm guessing the river itself is the border, and the agent was on the US side and the kid on the Mexico side? There has to be some sort of international law precedent for shots fired over a border?

Could be a mess. I'm guessing Mexican authorities would fight long and hard to prosecute him in Mexico...

Good point. This could get messy.

If it were the other way around, I'm sure the US would fight hard to prosecute.

Cosmo

dimitrispearljam wrote:

if policeman is in danger,someone carry a gun,ofcourse he can use his gun..if other civilians are in danger,he must protect them...maybe he thought that the poor kid looking from the otherside will steal his bike..and protect the bike..

...
I am not defending the border agent's actions. I don't see any justification in the shooting.
If he felt his life was in danger because rocks were being thrown at him... he is in the wrong business. If 100 people were throwing rocks at him... or if someone was firing rocks at him with a power band slingshot... then, maybe... yeah, there is justification. But, a guy throwing rocks from a distance similar to the distance from center field to home plate is not life or death. Pain, yeah... death? I don't think so.

Cosmo

cincybearcat wrote:

Good point. This could get messy.

If it were the other way around, I'm sure the US would fight hard to prosecute.

...
That's what I was thinking.
If the recognized border is the river (water mark), then the border agent was clearly on the U.S. side, the kid on the Mexico side. And shooting over the wire is a serious offense... killing someone as the result of shooting over the wire is probably a lot worse.
I think that since the victim was a Mexican citizen in Mexico at the time of the shooting... it goes to the Mexican judicial and corrections system... just as if the roles were reversed, I sure as hell would want a Mexican officer stand trial in the U.S., if his actions killed an American citizen in a cross border shooting.

polaris_x

Cosmo wrote:

...
That's what I was thinking.
If the recognized border is the river (water mark), then the border agent was clearly on the U.S. side, the kid on the Mexico side. And shooting over the wire is a serious offense... killing someone as the result of shooting over the wire is probably a lot worse.
I think that since the victim was a Mexican citizen in Mexico at the time of the shooting... it goes to the Mexican judicial and corrections system... just as if the roles were reversed, I sure as hell would want a Mexican officer stand trial in the U.S., if his actions killed an American citizen in a cross border shooting.

there is no way the US will allow the BA to be tried in mexico ... for the same reasons why the US will not sign onto any international treaties pertaining to the consequences of military action (see int'l criminal court) they will not allow this to happen ...

depending on much press this gets: i suspect we will have a suspended BA or at least transferred to somewhere else ... no way he spends any time in jail and at most he loses his job ...

that's my gut

dimitrispearljam

Cosmo wrote:

dimitrispearljam wrote:

if policeman is in danger,someone carry a gun,ofcourse he can use his gun..if other civilians are in danger,he must protect them...maybe he thought that the poor kid looking from the otherside will steal his bike..and protect the bike..

...
I am not defending the border agent's actions. I don't see any justification in the shooting.
If he felt his life was in danger because rocks were being thrown at him... he is in the wrong business. If 100 people were throwing rocks at him... or if someone was firing rocks at him with a power band slingshot... then, maybe... yeah, there is justification. But, a guy throwing rocks from a distance similar to the distance from center field to home plate is not life or death. Pain, yeah... death? I don't think so.

we are in the same page Cosmo..

dimitrispearljam

polaris_x wrote:

depending on much press this gets: i suspect we will have a suspended BA or at least transferred to somewhere else ... no way he spends any time in jail and at most he loses his job ...

that's my gut

thats the issue here..he is like an exable,,if he goes on court and give him a big penalty,next one will not put out his gun without thinking..if just transfers ,no jain,no loose his job,then the next shooting will be heard soon..

mermelada_alucinogena

i just read this...the grandfather of the boy was born in New Jersey and fought for the U.S in the World War II.... ironic huh?

unsung

dimitrispearljam wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Bullshit, ignorant comment.

tell that to the mother of the kid was killed in cold blood...

What was he doing there in the first place? Playing in the sand?

ed243421

unsung wrote:

dimitrispearljam wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Bullshit, ignorant comment.

tell that to the mother of the kid was killed in cold blood...

What was he doing there in the first place? Playing in the sand?

you are like talkin to a brick
we been here 7 pages and you think that we think he's innocent?
we know he's not innocent
we know he is dead
over what?
you seem to be very cool with his death

unsung

Obviously you can't read because I said it isn't good that someone died. However, I'm not for one second believing the BA's were not under attack, as they have been hundreds of times before.

Smellyman

I will sleep better knowing our borders are protected from these 15 year old Mexican turrists...

USA!USA!USA!

_

polaris_x wrote:

scb wrote:

Better question: Would they kill you for walking on their lawn after you were already back on your own property? What if it was illegal for them to shoot you on your own property?

i found it interesting that he would shoot someone on the mexican side ... and then basically leave him there to die ... i mean ... maybe the kid could have been saved if someone got to him sooner ...

It really struck me as well that he was just left there to die, like no big deal.

_

Godfather. wrote:

[edit] Conquest of California
Main article: Conquest of California
In 1846 at the outset of the Mexican-American War (1846–1848), American military forces invaded and seized California, after several small-scale battles.

U.S. Navy Commodore John Drake Sloat, on hearing of imminent war and the Bear Flag Revolt in Sonoma (which came under the control of U.S. Army captian John C. Frémont, ordered his naval forces to occupy Yerba Buena (present San Francisco) on July 7 and raise the American flag. On July 15, Sloat transferred his command to Commodore Robert F. Stockton, a much more aggressive leader. Commodore Stockton put Frémont's forces under his orders. On July 19th, Frémont's "California Battalion" swelled to about 160 additional men from newly arrived settlers near Sacramento, and he entered Monterey in a joint operation with some of Stockton's sailors and marines. The official word had been received -- the Mexican-American War was on. The American forces easily took over the north of California; within days they controlled San Francisco, Sonoma, and Sutter's Fort in Sacramento.

In the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 the U.S. paid Mexico $10 million for California and New Mexico. Also in 1848 gold was discovered at Sutter's Mill near Sacramento, touching off the California Gold Rush.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_California

Godfather.

Yeah, I guess we didn't take the Native "Americans'" land by force either then. :roll: Do a little more history.

_

cincybearcat wrote:

ed243421 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Better question: Would you shoot someone that was just on your lawn when they have been helping millions of their friends sneak into your lawn over years and years and years...

Of course you shouldn't...but I can see how some might lose their grip and do something terrible.

even better question: would you shoot someone on your land, a land which was stolen by your ancestors who then murdered every innocent human who was living there prior to the genocide?

So do you think the frustration level of the officer due to this being his daily life and the frustration of the 15 year old kid due to an even from over 100 years ago is probably the same?

An event from over 100 years ago? I wasn't aware that the white people had left the continent and returned it to its rightful owners.