If you are new to domains and looking to buy, sell and learn about domains then you have come to the right place. DNForum is the largest domain name community on the internet and continues to grow every day. There are over 105,000 domainers on DNForum doing everything from buying domains, selling domains, learning about domains and discussing domains. Take a minute and Register.
Register Today on DNForum IT'S FREE!
I think you are wrong about this. Using deadly force is not allowed to simply 'enforce the law'. The only time an officer is "allowed" to use deadly force is if their life or the lives of others are directly threatened. Simply breaking the law is not a life threatening situation, especially when they are unarmed.Originally Posted by Raider
In the article I cited and most other media releases, they note; "The teen was shot during a rock-throwing incident, Mexican and U.S. officials said."
Doc believes if you cant see rocks flying in the air from a a grainy cell phone video over 100 ft away, it must mean it didn't happen.
Does anybody wonder why they paint golf balls white?
Please vote Republican in 2012, America can not sustain another 4 years
of Liberal policies that are fiscally and socially destroying the country..
Seems like many people are having difficulty grasping this concept.
"Just a lot of embarrassment, embarrassed to be part of group of domainers who would do this to their fellow man.",
Condemnation of Mobee boys and investors by our precious Mother Theresa of Domaindom
Get a life... Are you really as stupid as Doc that you didn't get what I was saying? Using deadly force while enforcing the law like these border patrol agents were and having their life threatend in the act of enforcing the law DOES warrant deadly force. READ post 60, it makes the very same point.
Please vote Republican in 2012, America can not sustain another 4 years
of Liberal policies that are fiscally and socially destroying the country..
The dunce who believes this officer acted heroically by dragging a kid while walking towards the danger (if rocks were being thrown) and shooting his gun is sadly mistaken about the use of deadly force in this instance, not to mention firing across the border into another country.
It thinks there is video edited out. What would that possibly show? That rocks were thrown? If so, where or why was the officer not taking cover to protect himself and his prisoner?
Would we see the rocks? Would we see the officer dodging and bobbing and masterfully avoiding being hit?
Here is his account of the incident BEFORE the video was released.
U.S. authorities said Tuesday a Border Patrol agent was defending himself and colleagues when he fatally shot the 15-year-old as officers came under a barrage of big stones while trying to detain illegal immigrants on the U.S. side of the Rio Grande.
Preliminary reports on the incident indicated that U.S. officers on bicycle patrol "were assaulted with rocks by an unknown number of people," Border Patrol Special Operations Supervisor Ramiro Cordero said Tuesday.
Doc doesn't think rocks would show up on a cell phone video. I am still looking for the "colleagues" he is protecting and hoping to see the "barrage of big stones".
Doc does not see a border patrol agent protecting himself and colleagues. Doc sees an agent pull up on a bicycle and immediately confront the teens, pulls out his weapon, a few of the teens escape, he grabs one. Doc sees the border agent with his gun drawn, pointing it across the canal/ravine/river. Doc does not see the officer coming under attack of a "barrage of big stones". Doc does see the officer continue to advance closer with his prisoner being dragged by the agent, while the agent has his gun drawn. Doc sees the agent continue to advance towards "the danger" and begin shooting. Shooting at "unknown number of people", across the border, into another country, fatally killing a kid.
Doc does not see the officer attempt to take cover, protect himself, "his colleagues, or his prisoner, or run behind the bridge support for protection.
Some believe that there is missing video that would exonerate the agent. Sort of like the missing Nixon tapes or WMD's - just because they have not been found does not mean they do not exist - at least, that is the line of thinking of some people.
And I really, really, really think it is lame to say this video is suspect because it was shot by Mexicans and Mexican propaganda.
Now, unfortunately for the officer, he gave his account of events BEFORE the tape surfaced. And, unfortunately for this officer, there is not a thing on the tape that supports his claims. Even for those of you wanting to "see proof", consider what you have seen.
How about this?
The Full undedited video of the officer firing three times.
"Just a lot of embarrassment, embarrassed to be part of group of domainers who would do this to their fellow man.",
Condemnation of Mobee boys and investors by our precious Mother Theresa of Domaindom
Here's actual video camera footage of Tiger Woods, the video has far more clarity than the cell phone vid and it was taken at a much closer distance, And yet the only part of that ball you see in the air is a speck of white for a brief second, Now imagine if that ball was the color of stone and 4 times the distance away, you very likely would NOT see it at all, especially on a cell phone video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkax-ymFDHY
Please vote Republican in 2012, America can not sustain another 4 years
of Liberal policies that are fiscally and socially destroying the country..
I don't have time to read the whole thread. I just read that post and was quite surprised that despite differing views, I didn't think you would have such an extreme view that enforcing the law via deadly force is acceptable.
Ok, end of discussion.
We have evolved into Tiger Woods and White Golf Balls and the threat it creates.
Use of deadly force is acceptable on the Gulf Course just like skeet shooting.
And now we are given a lesson why golf balls are white.
Bravo.
The border patrol officer is hereby exonerated because the rocks do not show up on the video therefore no one can dispute rocks were not being thrown.
This has to be one of the first cases of innocence proven not by what the video does show but by what the video does not show.
Therefore, even if rocks were being thrown from a distance of 50 feet away and even though the officer was fearful for his life, he chose to not take cover but to move forward and engage the enemy shooting three times.
So, let me get this straight.
First, the video is suspect because there are minutes missing.
Next, the video is not going to show rocks being thrown.
Next, the unedited full video is found and shown.
Still, there are no rocks seen being thown because many believe the rock would not show up (even though they were described as "big stones") in a "grainy" phone video shot by Mexicans and used as Mexican propaganda.
Because there are no rocks seen and the theory stands that rocks would not show up, simply because they are not seen does not mean they were not being thrown.
Therefore, because the rocks are not seen no one can claim they were not being thrown.
The agent faces the enemy, moves forward, is never seen dodging and ducking these "big stones" that put his life in peril but shoots at the group who just ran from the US to Mexico.
From the US to Mexico?
And it is concluded the agent acted in self defense
even though no stones are seen (perhaps they would not show up),
even though the agent is not seen dodging or trying to get out of the way of those lethal stones,
and rather than seek cover from the lethal rocks,
that agent advances forward towards the enemy and the barrage of big stones,
dragging his prisoner as he advances to the enemy and the barrage of big stones,
and without thought of his own life being in peril,
while dragging his prisoner he is seen shooting once, twice, three times
across the border into Mexico
having never once attempted to seek cover
even though his life was in danger.
If the glove does not fit,
you must acquit.
If you see no stones being thrown
assume there are stones being thrown.
Good luck selling that story to a jury.
"Just a lot of embarrassment, embarrassed to be part of group of domainers who would do this to their fellow man.",
Condemnation of Mobee boys and investors by our precious Mother Theresa of Domaindom
yes 10 years down the lane it will drag Britain also in to the toilet
you have to learn economics pal
No Doc, GOOD LUCK selling that cell phone video to a Jury.... I cant wait.
You must feel very proud of yourself wanting to bring down a law enforcement officer while taking the side of a illegal alien smuggler, Like I said, only a Liberal TURD like you can turn a criminal into victim and a victim into a criminal..
Maybe sooner, We already extorted 20 BILLION from a British Corporation, or rather from it's shareholders. And Obama indicated it's not going to stop there.yes 10 years down the lane it will drag Britain also in to the toilet)
I wonder what the Brits think of Mr. Obama now?
Please vote Republican in 2012, America can not sustain another 4 years
of Liberal policies that are fiscally and socially destroying the country..
Posting Permissions
View Profile
View Forum Posts
View Forum Threads
View Friends
View Blog Entries
Bookmarks