The Mexican government is requesting a quick and transparent investigation into the fatal shooting by a U.S. Border Patrol agent of a Mexican teen in Ciudad Juarez on Monday night, the Foreign Ministry said Tuesday. The teen was shot during a rock-throwing incident, Mexican and U.S. officials said.

 

Mexico "reiterates that the use of firearms to repel a rock attack represents a disproportionate use of force, particularly coming from authorities who receive specialized training on the matter," the Foreign Ministry said Tuesday in a news release.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/08/texas.bor...?eref=rss_crime

 

The kid was on the Mexico side, the agent on the US side. There is no proof if the kid was throwing rocks, although kids around him were.

 

 

 

Where is the "It depends on what type of rock they're throwing" option?

Where is the "It depends on what type of rock they're throwing" option?

 

 

^^^ They can be deadly, but it depends on a lot of circumstances. And I would add is usually pretty unlikely. Who really knows though? These could have been unusual circumstances so I have no place to say either way.

Edited June 9, 201015 yr by vandy125

Yeah, I’m in the: if you get by a giant rock, it's going to hurt like hell and potentially cause long-term damage camp. This kid made a lot of bad choices that day. Not saying he deserved to die, I’m just saying that there may have been provocation here.

Reality is, if they're throwing across the border, presumably they're at a distance that they're not throwing 50 lb bricks up there, they're throwing small handheld stuff.

 

Of course, they could be throwing iron meteorites. Those things would hurt.

I warning shot would have sufficed. They went over the line.

I warning shot would have sufficed. They went over the line.

Warning shots are not part of any sort of police training, nor should they be. If you fire a gun, it had better be a deadly force situation, because there is no telling where that bullet will land. Remember that behind the target in this case, is the city of Juarez, a dense urban area.

 

If the crowd and the police were close enough that the rocks were actually potentially injurious, this is the actual type of situation the Taser is designed for; a case where deadly force might wind up being necessary but where a less-lethal weapon could be used instead.

If the crowd and the police were close enough that the rocks were actually potentially injurious, this is the actual type of situation the Taser is designed for; a case where deadly force might wind up being necessary but where a less-lethal weapon could be used instead.

Tazers have a very short effective range, like 10 feet for it to be of real use. They can go further, but with like zero accuracy.

 

no. Wear a helmet.

Tazers have a very short effective range, like 10 feet for it to be of real use. They can go further, but with like zero accuracy.

If the police were farther than 10 feet away, then the rocks they were being hit with are non-threatening.

If the police were farther than 10 feet away, then the rocks they were being hit with are non-threatening.

 

Is that a scientific conclusion? I'm pretty sure I could take a small rock from 25 feet away and if I hit you you'd be severly injured. I'm not saying what this guy did was right, but, at some point yout gotta think throwing rocks at guys with guns is gonna end badly.

Is that a scientific conclusion? I'm pretty sure I could take a small rock from 25 feet away and if I hit you you'd be severly injured. I'm not saying what this guy did was right, but, at some point you gotta think throwing rocks at guys with guns is gonna end badly.

If I'm standing out in the open and you hit me from behind at 25 feet with a rock of a few pounds, yes, I'd probably be bruised, but that's because I'm neither prepared for it nor wearing any sort of protection. Furthermore, it's not going to severely injure me.

 

Once you start getting to the weight of rocks that would cause any actual damage beyond a small bruise on an unpadded person, you can't throw it that far. Maybe the exact number is 25 feet, maybe it's 10, but either way, there is no way that they're going to throw a rock far enough that would actually put people's lives in danger unless they're reasonably within non-lethal ordinance range.

If I'm standing out in the open and you hit me from behind at 25 feet with a rock of a few pounds, yes, I'd probably be bruised, but that's because I'm neither prepared for it nor wearing any sort of protection. Furthermore, it's not going to severely injure me.

 

Once you start getting to the weight of rocks that would cause any actual damage beyond a small bruise on an unpadded person, you can't throw it that far. Maybe the exact number is 25 feet, maybe it's 10, but either way, there is no way that they're going to throw a rock far enough that would actually put people's lives in danger unless they're reasonably within non-lethal ordinance range.

 

Unless those guys are wearing riot gear, which i'm assuming they're not, they probably don't even have helmets. So, if I'm one of those guys getting hit by rocks, of any size, i'm at risk for serious injury and i'm going to feel threatened.

 

 

If I'm standing out in the open and you hit me from behind at 25 feet with a rock of a few pounds, yes, I'd probably be bruised, but that's because I'm neither prepared for it nor wearing any sort of protection. Furthermore, it's not going to severely injure me.

 

Once you start getting to the weight of rocks that would cause any actual damage beyond a small bruise on an unpadded person, you can't throw it that far. Maybe the exact number is 25 feet, maybe it's 10, but either way, there is no way that they're going to throw a rock far enough that would actually put people's lives in danger unless they're reasonably within non-lethal ordinance range.

 

It might not be *lethal*, but if someone whipped a baseball-sized rock into your face, it would do some major damage.

 

Ok so it may not be lethal, but would being bombarded with rocks large enough to cause permanent damage to say, your eye(s), be enough justification for retaliation? Or is vision loss not a big enough deal?

Warning shots are not part of any sort of police training, nor should they be. If you fire a gun, it had better be a deadly force situation, because there is no telling where that bullet will land. Remember that behind the target in this case, is the city of Juarez, a dense urban area.

 

Not to mention if you fire a warning shot, there is a good chance the other party could fire back at you, not knowing that it is a warning shot. Especially in a case where language could be a problem

Ok so it may not be lethal, but would being bombarded with rocks large enough to cause permanent damage to say, your eye(s), be enough justification for retaliation? Or is vision loss not a big enough deal?

In other cases that I am aware of, throwing rocks has generally been considered positive justification for deadly force. BUt I am sure there are shades of grey to be considered here.

 

The most interesting aspect of this, to me, is that there is apparently some surveillance video showing Mexican law enforcement officers crossing over to the US side, picking up an object, and bringing it back to Mexico. Coincidentally, there was a .40 cal shell found on the Mexican side near the shooting.

 

If a coyote tries to push a boulder on top of me from a cliff, does that institute deadly force?

If a coyote tries to push a boulder on top of me from a cliff, does that institute deadly force?

That would be one Wily Coyote.

 

It might not be *lethal*, but if someone whipped a baseball-sized rock into your face, it would do some major damage.

Baseball sized rocks are heavy. Whip a few of those and you're going for Tommy John.

Americans didn't have much of a problem when Irish Catholics were throwing rocks at British soldiers occupying their neighborhoods.

 

Strange...

Americans didn't have much of a problem when Irish Catholics were throwing rocks at British soldiers occupying their neighborhoods.

 

Strange...

 

Yes, strange that they wouldnt care about something happening across the Atlantic in the same way they care about something happening on their own border. Baffling even.

This is a tricky one... I went back and forth on it.

 

I'd assume riot gear would have sufficed, so I went with "no".

This is a tricky one... I went back and forth on it.

 

I'd assume riot gear would have sufficed, so I went with "no".

How does riot gear "suffice"? These guys were on foot or bike patrol. They don't carry riot gear around with them. That's not a real option. Besides, would you want to walk around on patrol around El Paso in the summer wearing full tactical gear? Half of them would die of heat exhaustion. The ballistic vests they are probably wearing are bad enough.