Better And Better

If you don't draw yours, I won't draw mine.

Saturday, April 28, 2007

More Border Patrol stuff.

I found that my link on the Good Shoot was picked up at a site called "The SquawkBox."
"I just watched the Video, showed a Border Patrol Agent shooting an
unarmed man in the chest at point blank range. He had plenty of time to react
and subdue the small young man who was less than 50 feet from home and was
running home to Mexico, BTW the camera pans out to show how close he
was from the Border. Undoubtably the agent will be charged, a rock the
size of a pebble - which was in his hand is not a threat in the eyes of the
court otherwise these earth day demonstrations and college and sports riots
would see 100’s
of people shot dead.
"

Hm. The agent was at "point blank" range. Point blank range for an average-sighted M4 carbine would be about 25 yards and 200 yards. See, "point blank" doesn't mean muzzle distance; it means the distance at which the bullet strikes at point of aim, without allowance for drop or windage. I suppose that, if you're making the whole chest area to be the target, then point blank range would be zero to about 300 yards, given a windless day, or even in a slight breeze.

Of course, if the agent were 50 yards or more away from the guy, he would have no reason to shoot, because the guy was so far away, either because he could get out of the way, or because "no one can throw that far."

Undoubtedly the agent with NOT be charged. When you go back on the job after three days' paid leave, that's a pretty damned strong endorsement for a shoot being good.

Some folk are apparently worked up about the fact that the camera seems to jerk away from the agent in the video of the shooting. The problem is that they're watching the magnified and enhanced version, that doesn't show what the original camera saw-- that there was a group of men heaving rocks to the veiwer's left of the agent, at the agent and the cars. The original angle kept the shooting scene in view at the same time. But it's a cover-up! Righhhht. Any doubt that the shooter knew, and prayed, that the Calexico station tower had the camera on him the whole time, with the magnification turned up full? Thank Gawd it was. I love video cameras, but get a little weary of things being taken out of context.

Oh, and he was "unarmed." 'Cuz no one's ever died from a rock. ("Well, I would not feel so all alone..." [/Dylan])

So anyway, I've dropped a comment over there, and even a link to here. If anyone follows the link here, I trust that they'll be met with open minds. I just hope that they have open minds as well. Bad cops need to be fired and/or prosecuted to the fullest extent. But making the assumption that a cop, just because he's a B.P. agent who shot a Mexican national who wasn't blazing away with an AK-47, is dirty... well, it's prejudicial and wrong.

Sorry to beat this dead horse, but I noticed that they were linking through me, so I figured I'd rebut.

Labels: , , , , ,

6 Comments:

At Saturday, April 28, 2007 10:56:00 AM, Anonymous EricPWJohnson said...

No, the agent clearly shot an unarmed man, reports show there was no injuries or damage to the Suv. Did a check for Border patrol deaths since 1959, only 4 were killed by GUNFIRE and one by strangulation from illegal immigrants. In fact none in the last ten years.

Being in law enforcement a rock less the size of your hand is not deemed by the courts to warrent deadly force as rocks are easily dodged.

Otherwise few would escape football games in Chicago and Phily where rock throwing is a stupid but common pastime as well as bottle throwing etc.

Please google anyone, anyone anywhere who has shot a kid throwing a rock.

Only BP agents and they all have been prosecuted and so will this one

 
At Saturday, April 28, 2007 11:02:00 AM, Anonymous EricPWJohnson said...

Also Matt, to pull out a rifle, you have to be taking fire.

BP agents are bound by law governing their actions, so are police, I know its hard to realize but honestly he has no more rights than you or I to pull out a gun, he has the right to defend himself only.

The Video is fine, so philipinos tech guys enhanced it and saw a very small object fal out of his hands also his feet were clearly planted towards the vehicle and I'm sure the autopsy is going to show he was shot from the side.

What doomed the BP agent is that he retreated and then confronted again the suspect, the rules are if the are heading home, leave em alone, he was 30 ft from his fence.

His partner had nothing to do with it and the Feds are interviewing him and everyone who made the decision to put him back on the street. Any shooting like that warrants a long review not three days.

 
At Saturday, April 28, 2007 11:49:00 AM, Anonymous Rabbit said...

I dunno about you, but I recall the IDF seems to shoot at a lot of rock throwers, too. I don't begrudge them, not do I find many problems with the USBP defending themselves against criminals.

I'll say it again. Just in case you missed it.

Criminals.

First and foremost, they are on U.S. territory without documentation or permission. They are a foreign national. They are here illegally by trespass. It's not 'the border crossed them!'. It's not the Gran Reconquista. The crossing through the fence is in of itself a criminal act.

Factor to that the act of assault on a federal officer, with intent to kill or injure him. I don't doubt that the Mexican would turn the Agent's gun back on him if that rock had connected.

Still have problems with the treatment of criminals?
I politely suggest a counter-experiment. Suppose you sneak south across the border into Mexico without documentation. When stopped and asked for your visa, throw rocks at the Federales. Detail what happens in your field notebook. Publish your findings for peer review.

Regards,
Rabbit.

 
At Sunday, April 29, 2007 2:06:00 AM, Blogger Matt G said...

Thanks for dropping by, Eric.

Eric, I can throw a rock much smaller than the size of my hand fast enough to: blind a man, close an airway, break a nose, cause a concussion. I've got a very probably torn rotator cuff, too.

Pitchers at 60 feet,6" regularly throw rubber balls wrapped wih yarn and bound with leather and stitching, hard enough to injure batters. Those missiles are smaller than fist-sized and weigh between 5 and 5.25 ounces. Their density is far, far less than that of any stone. As I say, people DIE from stones being thrown. Consider also, that temporarily incapacitating a man with a gun is tantamount to disarming him and arming the aggressor.

Eric, my knowledge of the law is not so great-- it's only what a degree and graduate classes in Criminal Justice, advanced in-service certificates in law enforcement, and years as a police officer can give me in addition to my personal reading and interest in the subject.

But I have heard of, nor read of, NO exemptions for the humble stone as a weapon of aggression, sufficient to cause death, the threat of death, or serious bodily injury, or the threat of serious bodily injury. Deadly force is authorized by an officer when he finds himself in fear of those situations, or when he feels that another is in imminent danger of those situations.

Imminence? The guy's arm was cocked back in full-wind-up.

Reaasonable fear? The guy had run up to threaten an armed officer. Such an activity is dangerous, and known to be so. A reasonable person would believe that the man's intent was to inflict serious bodily harm upon the officer; who would run up to plink a pebble as hard as he could at an armed officer? A reasonable person would believe that he was attempting to make an all-or-nothing attempt to incapacitate the officer.

The agent has the duty to intervene. Right to assault without need or provocation? No. But his duty involved intervention on the border, and he was threatened with assault for that. Understand me when I say: He was the victim in this shoot.

Interesting how these Filipinos that you mention were able to enhance a video that already is highly pixelated and was shot at extreme distance. I would be genuinely interested in seeing it. Got a link?

"Also Matt, to pull out a rifle, you have to be taking fire."
Eric, I'm curious-- where are you getting your information? I certainly do not work for the U.S. Border Patrol, so I don't personally have before me their S.O.P., but I have NEVER heard a rifle policy that requires waiting for gunfire before getting out a rifle. In my P.D., I am encouraged to unlimber my patrol rifle whenever I feel that there is a reasonable belief that a threat may be encountered.

You don't think several men throwing stones at you, one of whom runs up toward you with a stone to throw it, is a significant threat?

Would you care to make a little wager on the outcome of this case? I'll spot you a buck or two.

 
At Sunday, April 29, 2007 3:30:00 AM, Blogger Matt G said...

Just because a guy crossed the border illegally, he doesn't deserve to get shot or mistreated. Make no mistake on my point of view on that. If the BP agent would have been wrong in committing the same actions to a citizen, then he was wrong to do so to an illegal immigrant. Illegal immigrants, and even prisoners in jail, don't give up that most basic of human rights.

But he was not wrong.

 
At Sunday, April 29, 2007 9:33:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Couple years back, one of our neighbor's kids put his little brother in the hospital, in a coma, for about a week. Got mad and threw a rock at him. The younger boy pulled through with no significant permanent damage, but it was a near thing.

No damage to nearby cars was reported.

pax

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Add to Technorati Favorites
.