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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jiro said:
sigh.....

do you understand that when you are acquitted - you cannot be tried again even if there was a new evidence that implicates him? It's called Double Jeopardy. That's why OJ Simpson is a free man.

Dismissal or Mistrial is not the same as Acquittal. He CAN be tried again in the light of new evidence.
Click to expand...

I do understand, but you seem to not understand WHY the case was dismissed. The witnesses LIED.

That evidence right there can be used if tried again.

You also do not seem to understand that part of the dismissal included a Federal Judge stating that he would not be tried again for MURDER.


They LIED. Prosecutors even withheld evidence in the first case which would have exonerated the Border Agent. They wanted him to be guilty.

Guess what? He is NOT guilty and continues to guard the border. He still has his job.
 
saywhatkid said:
In the old western TV shows, there would be times when someone would draw their weapon, and the other man, a trained marksman, would shoot his hand, making the gun fall out. If we are talking about what a fine patrol officer this guy was, with advanced weapons training and accuracy, why was it necessary to shoot to kill a kid with a rock? Could have just shot him in the hand? The leg?
Click to expand...

I was looking around youtubes for the spaghetti western titles, but I found this real one instead. :shock:
In fact, the suspect seems to be the type you described in your second paragraph.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff4XuPtAOUk"]YouTube - Sniper shoots gun from criminal's hand[/ame]
 
Steinhauer said:
I do understand, but you seem to not understand WHY the case was dismissed. The witnesses LIED.

That evidence right there can be used if tried again.

You also do not seem to understand that part of the dismissal included a Federal Judge stating that he would not be tried again for MURDER.


They LIED. Prosecutors even withheld evidence in the first case which would have exonerated the Border Agent. They wanted him to be guilty.

Guess what? He is NOT guilty and continues to guard the border. He still has his job.
Click to expand...

Yes he has the job but limited to administrative duty. Again - you do not understand that dismissal does not mean Double Jeopardy. He can and will be tried for murder in the light of new evidence.
 
Jiro said:
Yes he has the job but limited to administrative duty. Again - you do not understand that dismissal does not mean Double Jeopardy. He can and will be tried for murder in the light of new evidence.
Click to expand...

so your crystal ball is out of the repair shop? What new evidence?

The witnesses LIED and there is video proof that the Border Patrol Agent acted in self defense.
 
Steinhauer said:
so your crystal ball is out of the repair shop? What new evidence?
Click to expand...
new video. new testimony. whistleblower. any evidence of cover-up. etc.

Steinhauer said:
The witnesses LIED there is video proof that the Border Patrol Agent acted in self defense.
Click to expand...
so why did jury opt for mistrial instead of acquittal?
 
Jiro said:
new video. new testimony. whistleblower. any evidence of cover-up. etc.


so why did jury opt for mistrial instead of acquittal?
Click to expand...

you are confusing the first trial with the second one. The second trial 11 jurors opted for acquittal and one juror opted for conviction.
 
Noticed some of the posters in here were the same ones who condoned the killing of the 7 year old boy in Afghan.

These kids are just barely teenagers (14, 15's) , the countries are not at war nor is a cartel pass attempted, or anything illegal other than running around the borders.
Rocks are just rocks, I doubt military in Iraq are instructed to shoot kids throwing rocks at them.

The interpretation seems to be it's ok for kids to get shot on US soil with justification for crossing borders but it's not ok for them to get killed in other countries for any justified reason.

Wow.
fry-see-what-you-did-there.jpg
 
Wirelessly posted

Well, what about tiny or small rocks you throw at someone else? Does he/she have to be charged by deadly weapon for tiny or small rocks??

If it is medium-sized rocks, it still won't kill a person.

If it is a large-sized rocks, it may or may not kill a person.

I find it is hard to believe that is OK to fire someone else over throwing rocks...

:|
 
KarissaMann05 said:
Well, what about tiny or small rocks you throw at someone else? Does he/she have to be charged by deadly weapon for tiny or small rocks??

If it is medium-sized rocks, it still won't kill a person.
If it is a large-sized rocks, it may or may not kill a person.

I find it is hard to believe that is OK to fire someone else over throwing rocks...

:|
Click to expand...

Me too.
Even then they are just 14-15 year old skinny teens, I doubt they could throw any 10-20 lb rock that far at the officers. It would take some strength.

Plus the biker officers have bike helmets. I'm sure it can protect them against a huge rock or two. :shock:
 
Just speaking from experience. FWIW an 11 year old bully chucked a rock at me when I was 9. He was about 30 feet away and on the top of a hill. One rock hit me in the head and left a deep gash, the other rock hit me in the mouth and nose. It split my lip and broke my nose. I was taken to the hospital and received stitches and surgery for my broken nose.


He was picking on me at the playground because I was the weird HoH kid. Ironically enough, he is now a Law Enforcement Officer :shock: I still know his family and we have long since let bygones be bygones. I **think** he outgrew his bully stage of life, or one should at least hope he did considering his profession.
 
naisho said:
Me too.
Even then they are just 14-15 year old skinny teens, I doubt they could throw any 10-20 lb rock that far at the officers. It would take some strength.

Plus the biker officers have bike helmets. I'm sure it can protect them against a huge rock or two. :shock:
Click to expand...
What I cannot understand is why deadly force was needed. If the kid is shot in the hand, he lives, but I doubt he throws. These guys are supposed to be trained marksmen. Why was the kid killed? Why do some people think this is a good and justifiable death?
 
Steinhauer said:
Just speaking from experience. FWIW an 11 year old bully chucked a rock at me when I was 9. He was about 30 feet away and on the top of a hill. One rock hit me in the head and left a deep gash, the other rock hit me in the mouth and nose. It split my lip and broke my nose. I was taken to the hospital and received stitches and surgery for my broken nose.


He was picking on me at the playground because I was the weird HoH kid. Ironically enough, he is now a Law Enforcement Officer :shock: I still know his family and we have long since let bygones be bygones. I **think** he outgrew his bully stage of life, or one should at least hope he did considering his profession.
Click to expand...

so... 15+ years later... you're a grown-up now as a private citizen with CCW permit. A 14 years old brat was throwing rocks at you. Fearing that you would suffer serious injury like lip laceration, broken nose, head laceration, etc because of your past... you're gonna shoot him?
 
KarissaMann05 said:
Wirelessly posted

Well, what about tiny or small rocks you throw at someone else? Does he/she have to be charged by deadly weapon for tiny or small rocks??

If it is medium-sized rocks, it still won't kill a person.

If it is a large-sized rocks, it may or may not kill a person.

I find it is hard to believe that is OK to fire someone else over throwing rocks...

:|
Click to expand...

if it's medium size, then it's all depend on how pressure when throw hard or drop. Size/weight like penny won't kill us.
 
naisho said:
I was looking around youtubes for the spaghetti western titles, but I found this real one instead. :shock:
In fact, the suspect seems to be the type you described in your second paragraph.
Click to expand...

So why was this method not employed by the border patrol? And why do people support the killing of the minor rock thrower; is it because he is a Mexican?
 
Jiro said:
so... 15+ years later... you're a grown-up now as a private citizen with CCW permit. A 14 years old brat was throwing rocks at you. Fearing that you would suffer serious injury like lip laceration, broken nose, head laceration, etc because of your past... you're gonna shoot him?
Click to expand...

I hope I never have to shoot anyone. I would shoot someone if they were attacking me and only as a last resort. If I feared for my safety and feared bodily injury those are grounds for using deadly force.

Also, Georgia has a stand your ground law.

Don't want to get shot? Don't attack people.

What if a 14-15 year old punk breaks into your house? According to Georgia State Law, you can shoot and kill the home invader.
 
Steinhauer said:
I hope I never have to shoot anyone. I would shoot someone if they were attacking me and only as a last resort. If I feared for my safety and feared bodily injury those are grounds for using deadly force.

Also, Georgia has a stand your ground law.

Don't want to get shot? Don't attack people.
Click to expand...
Killing a 14-years old boy? Good luck at court.

Steinhauer said:
What if a 14-15 year old punk breaks into your house? According to Georgia State Law, you can shoot and kill the home invader.
Click to expand...
no. we're not talking about home break-in or burglary. we're talking about a rock being thrown at you. focus. focus. focus.
 
Jiro said:
Killing a 14-years old boy? Good luck at court.


no. we're not talking about home break-in or burglary. we're talking about a rock being thrown at you. focus. focus. focus.
Click to expand...

I understood your question and I told you what the legal implications were.


Are you claiming it is against the law to defend yourself from attack considering the age of the the person attacking?

Good luck with that in court ..... oh snap .... it was already tried in court ... and lost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top