Mexican Officials Point Rifles and threaten U.S. Border Agents

[jillio]

in Cochise County - he's guilty of murder
in federal court - it's a mistrial

And mistrial can be for any number of reasons. Doesn't support innocence at all. Many obviously guilty have gotten off on a technicality that resulted in a mistrial.

 

[jillio]

hhmmm...... so you were reading her mind on what she thought about you?

I knew there was some projecting going on here. And an admission of targeting someone specifically.

 

[Steinhauer]

I knew there was some projecting going on here. And an admission of targeting someone specifically.

that would be you targeting me.

You do not have to respond to any of my threads you know .....

 

[Steinhauer]

And mistrial can be for any number of reasons. Doesn't support innocence at all. Many obviously guilty have gotten off on a technicality that resulted in a mistrial.

If he was guilty (and he is innocent until proven guilty) would a judge have declared a mistrial?

Could it be someone wants a guilty verdict and intentionally mishandled the case?

 

[jillio]

that would be you targeting me.

You do not have to respond to any of my threads you know .....

And, yet, I have the right to, now, don't I? In fact, I would almost have to say I am obligated to point out the holes in the logic so that misinformation is not allowed to proliferate.

 

[jillio]

If he was guilty (and he is innocent until proven guilty) would a judge have declared a mistrial?

Could it be someone wants a guilty verdict and intentionally mishandled the case?

Uhh...yes. It happens all the time. Guilty people are set free on technicalities.

 

[Steinhauer]

And, yet, I have the right to, now, don't I? In fact, I would almost have to say I am obligated to point out the holes in the logic so that misinformation is not allowed to proliferate.

such as the fallacy in your logic that a thrown rock is not considered a deadly weapon?

Or that Federal Agents do not have the right to defend themselves?

Or .... that I wanted to see a video because you claimed I like to glorify violence? (you mind reader you .... :roll: )

You back pedaled when I explained why I wanted to see the video. For clarification, I wanted to see the video to determine if the Border Patrol Agent was truthful. That was my .... intent.

You know .... Federal Agents carry guns for a reason. For him to make that shot from that far away is very telling in how much firearms training Federal Agents receive.

Maybe you feel that Federal Agents should not defend themselves because a hurled rock cannot incapacitate someone? After all, you have been saying that.

I simply disagree with everything you have said. I am not attacking you, but yet, you constantly insult me at every turn.

 

[Steinhauer]

Uhh...yes. It happens all the time. Guilty people are set free on technicalities.

Like O.J. yeah, I know. But you just implied this man is guilty. Seems you want a guilty verdict.

I still believe he is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[jillio]

such as the fallacy in your logic that a thrown rock is not considered a deadly weapon?
Again with your failure to read the words in front of you.
Or that Federal Agents do not have the right to defend themselves?
You are really stretching on this one. Point out exactly where I said that.
Or .... that I wanted to see a video because you claimed I like to glorify violence? (you mind reader you .... :roll: )

Again, failure to read words as written. Show me where I said that.
You back pedaled when I explained why I wanted to see the video. For clarification, I wanted to see the video to determine if the Border Patrol Agent was truthful. That was my .... intent.

I wasn't backpedaling. Perhaps it looked that way to you because you were moving backward at such a high rate of speed attempting to cover the places you had made such glaringly obvious errors.
You know .... Federal Agents carry guns for a reason. For him to make that shot from that far away is very telling in how much firearms training Federal Agents receive.
What does that have to do with anything?

Maybe you feel that Federal Agents should not defend themselves because a hurled rock cannot incapacitate someone? After all, you have been saying that.
Never said anything of the kind. You really need to start reading what is written. Both in the posts here and the articles you dig up.[/COLOR
]I simply disagree with everything you have said. I am not attacking you, but yet, you constantly insult me at every turn.

And I disagree with everything you have said. Yet, you claim that I am attacking you. So, how is it you are not attacking me simply by disagreeing? Double standards.

 

[Jiro]

such as the fallacy in your logic that a thrown rock is not considered a deadly weapon?

Or that Federal Agents do not have the right to defend themselves?

Or .... that I wanted to see a video because you claimed I like to glorify violence? (you mind reader you .... :roll: )

You back pedaled when I explained why I wanted to see the video. For clarification, I wanted to see the video to determine if the Border Patrol Agent was truthful. That was my .... intent.

You know .... Federal Agents carry guns for a reason. For him to make that shot from that far away is very telling in how much firearms training Federal Agents receive.

Maybe you feel that Federal Agents should not defend themselves because a hurled rock cannot incapacitate someone? After all, you have been saying that.

I simply disagree with everything you have said. I am not attacking you, but yet, you constantly insult me at every turn.

1. by your logic - if I were walking on public street with a rock in middle of city... I would be charged with deadly weapon.

2. Federal Agent must abide by ROE and policy. You'll have to show me that Border Patrol agent did what the protocol said

3. A boy throwing a rock from considerable distance.... yep... that's gonna incapacitate a well-trained, armed federal officer :roll:

 

[Steinhauer]

And I disagree with everything you have said. Yet, you claim that I am attacking you. So, how is it you are not attacking me simply by disagreeing? Double standards.

No, I do not have double standards. I do not hijack your threads and make statements that you are targeting me.

You are a delusional person.

 

[Jiro]

You are a delusional person.

hmm... Persecutory Type. a feeling that one is being treated malevolently....

 

[jillio]

No, I do not have double standards. I do not hijack your threads and make statements that you are targeting me.

You are a delusional person.

You have them...you simply fail to see them. I have not hijacked your thread. I have been on topic throughout.

You are not qualified to make a diagnosis. And, BTW...that is an ad hominem attack. Evidence in black and white of your double standards. And you are also hijacking your own thread by going off topic in order to make that attack.

 

[jillio]

hmm... Persecutory Type. a feeling that one is being treated malevolently....

Yep. Projection again.

 

[Steinhauer]

1. by your logic - if I were walking on public street with a rock in middle of city... I would be charged with deadly weapon.

If you throw it at someone ... yes

2. Federal Agent must abide by ROE and policy. You'll have to show me that Border Patrol agent did what the protocol said

No, I don't have to show you ..... a Judge will have to make that determination.

3. A boy throwing a rock from considerable distance.... yep... that's gonna incapacitate a well-trained, armed federal officer :roll:

You have obviously never had a rock thrown at you :roll:

A rock that is thrown at a person can kill a person. It can also turn them into Rain Man. It can cause a concussion and any other number of injuries.

That, by definition, is "bodily harm".

I see you are trying to justify the actions taken by a criminal yet again.


Now ..... if they had been playing baseball .... different story.

Persecute type?

 

[jillio]

A rock that is thrown at a person can kill a person. It can also turn them into Rain Man. It can cause a concussion and any other number of injuries.

That, by definition, is "bodily harm".

I see you are trying to justify the actions taken by a criminal yet again.

"Bodily harm" is not necessarily "deadly force", nor does a "deadly weapon" need to involved.

Maybe you need to take another look at who the actual criminal in this case is.

 

[Steinhauer]

"Bodily harm" is not necessarily "deadly force", nor does a "deadly weapon" need to involved.

Maybe you need to take another look at who the actual criminal in this case is.

Oh, of course, the Border Patrol Agent that was doing his job?

No .... by all means it wasn't the individuals entering illegally .... heavens have mercy ... I think I may have the vapors!!

 

[jillio]

Oh, of course, the Border Patrol Agent that was doing his job?

No .... by all means it wasn't the individuals entering illegally .... heavens have mercy ... I think I may have the vapors!!

You already had the vapors. It is interfering with your ability to read words as they are written. You might want to get that checked out.

 

[jillio]

G'night, Jiro. This is quickly becoming another battle of the wits with an unarmed opponent. Boring.

 

[Jiro]

If you throw it at someone ... yes

Not really.

No, I don't have to show you ..... a Judge will have to make that determination.

Cochise County has already made a determination. guilty. murder.

You have obviously never had a rock thrown at you

I've had worse. Still doesn't justify using deadly force in self-defense.

A rock that is thrown at a person can kill a person. It can also turn them into Rain Man. It can cause a concussion and any other number of injuries.

That, by definition, is "bodily harm".

I see you are trying to justify the actions taken by a criminal yet again.

I don't support one making a law as he sees fit. The current law does not agree with you. Plus - the officer's report conflicts with the video. What does that mean? a liar perhaps?

example of Connecticut Law

CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR USING DEADLY FORCE

The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution prohibits the use of deadly force to effect an arrest or prevent the escape of a suspect unless the police officer reasonably believes that the suspect committed or attempted to commit crimes involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and a warning of the intent to use deadly physical force was given, whenever feasible (Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U. S. 1 (1985)). Thus, our statutory standards for using deadly force seem to parallel the federal constitutional standards.

The Court has said that the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of “precise definition” or “mechanical application. ” “[T]he reasonableness of a particular use of force must be viewed from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight…. ” Moreover, “allowance must be made for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. ” The question is whether the officers' actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them “(Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 396, 397 (1989)).

PROSECUTION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR USING DEADLY FORCE

A law enforcement officer who is prosecuted for murder or manslaughter would be able to claim as a defense that he complied with the statutory standard for using deadly force. Once this defense has been properly raised at trial, the state would have to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt in order to get a conviction (State v. Hardwick, 1 Conn. App. 609, cert. den 193 Conn. 804 (1984)). To meet the initial burden of proof to establish this defense either the state or the defense must present sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of a rational juror as to whether the officer's use of deadly force was justified under CGS § 53a-22 (State v. Lewis, 220 Conn. 602 (1991) and State v. Bailey, 209 Conn. 322 (1988)).

The test for evaluating self-defense claims under CGS § 53a-22 is a subjective-objective test. The jury must first determine whether the defendant honestly believed that the use of deadly force was necessary in the circumstances. If the jury determines that the defendant in fact had believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, the jury must make a further determination as to whether that belief was reasonable, from the perspective of a reasonable police officer in the defendant's circumstances (State v. Smith, 73 Conn. App. 173, cert den. 262 Conn. 923 (2002)).

Thus, if the officer properly asserted a defense that he used deadly force to defend himself from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force, the prosecutor would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the police officer did not believe that the person was using or about to use deadly force against him, (2) the officer did not use the deadly force to protect himself, or (3) the officer's belief was unreasonable.

in this case -

Since When Is a Rock Deadly Force?

There has been a lot of confusion about when it is permissible to kill and assailant who is using substantially less sophisticated and deadly weaponry. First, the question of proportional response was raised when Israeli soldiers shot and killed Flotilla passengers brandishing sticks and rods. Today, it was reported that a U.S. border guard shot and killed a teenager flinging rocks over the border in his direction.

Thankfully, we have legal terms that help us sort out this dilemma.

The right to self-defense in criminal law is born out of necessity. In other words, you can't kill someone in self-defense without proving that the deadly force was necessary. (United States v. Peterson, 1973). There must be an imminent threat. The belief that killing in self-defense was necessary must be objectively reasonable (New York v. Goetz) and the force used must be proportional. So, for example, a police officer may only use deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect if they have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm to others (Tennessee v. Edward Garner, 1985).

The Model Penal Code supports this common law interpretation, stating "A person is justified in using force upon another person if he believes that such force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the exercise of unlawful force by the other on the present occasion." (MPC § 3.04(1))

When the border official was interrupted in the middle of making an arrest by flying rocks, he was certainly subject to imminent harm. Because the border patrol officer was at work, he was not obligated to retreat and avoid confrontation (the idea here is that his retreat would allow the suspects to go free, thus undermining law and order). It was necessary that something be done.

What is not supported, however, is the decision to take a break from arresting suspects on the border, turn to the child throwing the rocks and shoot him in the head. The officer did not, according to all accounts, ask for assistance in stopping the child from throwing the rocks, call over to the Mexican border patrol and ask them to stop the child from throwing the rocks or ask for assistance from another officer in moving the suspects he was arresting away from the reach of the rocks.

Because deadly force was not necessary to escape the harm -- a harm that was likely not serious enough to justify the shot in the first place -- the officer clearly acted outside of his legal right to defend himself.