If the kid was 5 feet away from the Agent and leveling a brick at his head, I'm A-O-K with plugging him...
OIC, so is there some sort of official object/distance hurled/ object size protocol you follow that justifies lethal and non-lethal force? I'm interested in where you draw the line.
OIC, so is there some sort of official object/distance hurled/ object size protocol you follow that justifies lethal and non-lethal force? I'm interested in where you draw the line.
Draw the line with common sense, is it really that hard?
OIC, so is there some sort of official object/distance hurled/ object size protocol you follow that justifies lethal and non-lethal force? I'm interested in where you draw the line.
Like I said (I'm starting to sound really redundant and you're really coming off like you didn't even read my post which fuels the constant "SS Junk was beaten into retardation by Mike and Al P while Rick Modena sat in the getaway car and laughed at you" crowd), I don't know. I said it right here...
Originally posted by DonSVO
I guess my question would be more along the lines of, "how much force is warranted"?
I can't see by that video if there were more threats (other kids, etc), I can't tell how hard the rock is being thrown, or even where the kid throwing rocks was at in relation to the Agent or the size of the rock. Also, there's a difference between a gangly little punk throwing a golf ball-sized stone and a kid that's been pitching a baseball for 10 years lining you up with a rock the size of his fist. It's definitely an on-spot call... he felt justified in using deadly force.
Originally posted by PGreenCobra
I can't get over the fact that you get to go live the rest of your life, knowing that someone made a Halloween costume out of you. LMAO!!
Draw the line with common sense, is it really that hard?
Apparently since you are not able to grasp it either...
Originally posted by Sean88gt
You can take white off the list. White on anything is the best, including vehicles, women, and the Presidency.
Originally posted by Baron Von Crowder
You can not imagine how difficult it is to hold a half gallon of moo juice and polish the one-eyed gopher when your doin' seventy-five in an eighteen-wheeler.
This.
People say "oh its harmless" well you keep thinking that and let's see how long it takes the harmfull people to find out how easy it is to cross.
Originally posted by Sean88gt
You can take white off the list. White on anything is the best, including vehicles, women, and the Presidency.
Originally posted by Baron Von Crowder
You can not imagine how difficult it is to hold a half gallon of moo juice and polish the one-eyed gopher when your doin' seventy-five in an eighteen-wheeler.
Or you shoot the cartels family and they cross the boarder with real weapons and open fire on innocent bystanders, because the cartels don't give a shit.
Honey Badger doesn't give a shit. Anyone sneaking across that border is aware there are consequences.
OIC, so is there some sort of official object/distance hurled/ object size protocol you follow that justifies lethal and non-lethal force? I'm interested in where you draw the line.
There is no line, every situation is different, with a dfferent set of mitigating circumstances. Lethal force should only be used to prevent lethal actions, or actions intended to cause grave bodily harm. A kid throwing rocks is not justification for using a firearm.
This.
People say "oh its harmless" well you keep thinking that and let's see how long it takes the harmfull people to find out how easy it is to cross.
Harmfull people have been crossing the border for decades, easy or not. Shooting one kid isn't going to affect that one iota.
I can't see by that video if there were more threats (other kids, etc), I can't tell how hard the rock is being thrown, or even where the kid throwing rocks was at in relation to the Agent or the size of the rock. Also, there's a difference between a gangly little punk throwing a golf ball-sized stone and a kid that's been pitching a baseball for 10 years lining you up with a rock the size of his fist. It's definitely an on-spot call... he felt justified in using deadly force.
So what are we talking here... Say a gangly kid has a rock the size of a baseball and throws it at agent at... let's say... 23.746032' away? Would it still be justified? How about if rock star Mexican baseball player throws a golfball sized stone with his non-dominant hand at say... 3 metres away? Is killing him then justified? Wait.. Let's say a 123lb Mexican crackhead with, not a five foot pipe bender, but a TEN foot pipe bender was standing 9.785' away and did a check swing while the other two already mentioned perps threw their rocks, but let's say they were double the distance away? Could the agent blow all three of them away???
Would you be cool if I were standing 20 fathoms away and heaved a cricket sized rock at such an angle to where it would come straight down on your head before you shot me? So many instances!!111
So what are we talking here... Say a gangly kid has a rock the size of a baseball and throws it at agent at... let's say... 23.746032' away? Would it still be justified? How about if rock star Mexican baseball player throws a golfball sized stone with his non-dominant hand at say... 3 metres away? Is killing him then justified? Wait.. Let's say a 123lb Mexican crackhead with, not a five foot pipe bender, but a TEN foot pipe bender was standing 9.785' away and did a check swing while the other two already mentioned perps threw their rocks, but let's say they were double the distance away? Could the agent blow all three of them away???
Would you be cool if I were standing 20 fathoms away and heaved a cricket sized rock at such an angle to where it would come straight down on your head before you shot me? So many instances!!111
Comment