Boarder issues getting out of control

[Thinkingstuff]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1285302/Mexico-demands-investigation-U-S-border-agent-shoots-teenager-dead--throwing-stones-him.html

I find the comments section at the bottom to be revealing.

 

[Winman]

Well, you would think even a 14 year old boy would know it is not a smart thing to throw rocks at a man carrying a gun, but I guess stupid is, as stupid does.

Pro 26:17 He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears.

 

[just-want-peace]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...hoots-teenager-dead--throwing-stones-him.html

I find the comments section at the bottom to be revealing.

I know it's extremely obvious, but liberal thinking has muddied the water so that many don't get it------

"You are free to choose; BUT you are not free to choose the consequences of your choice!":thumbsup:
​

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Well, you would think even a 14 year old boy would know it is not a smart thing to throw rocks at a man carrying a gun, but I guess stupid is, as stupid does.

Pro 26:17 He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears.

So its ok to shoot 14 year old boys throwing rocks if he's mexican and illegal? Just want to clear it up a bit.

 

[Winman]

So its ok to shoot 14 year old boys throwing rocks if he's mexican and illegal? Just want to clear it up a bit.

I didn't say that at all. What I said is that it is plain dumb to throw rocks at a man holding a rifle. This story also said this young man was meddling. He wasn't being arrested, he was watching illegals on the U.S. side being arrested, and decided to throw rocks at them. You know, rocks can kill a man, ask Stephen. And that is what Proverbs 26:17 says, it says that meddling in a strife you have no business in is like taking a dog by the ears. Dogs don't like that, and you have a good chance of being bitten. Well, this story proved this proverb very true.

You know, if I was being pelted by rocks and I happened to be holding a rifle, I might very well take a shot at or near the folks throwing them. It is self defence.

I would really love to see how you would react if a group of young people started pelting you with rocks.

 

[Dr. Bob]

So its ok to shoot 14 year old boys throwing rocks if he's mexican and illegal? Just want to clear it up a bit.

It is always right for a law enforcement officer to protect himself/herself from imminent bodily harm/deadly force of others.

Don't care about the age or ethnicity. Cop is arresting a criminal and is viciously attacked in fear of his life - I'd pull the trigger in a heart beat (if I still had one). These were "kids" tossing "pebbles". Watch the video and see the size of these 1/2 bricks being aimed at the police. One hit and your arm/leg is broken . . or skull . .

We're not talking, as much liberals want to make believe, of "peaceful resistance", showering Kent State police with flowers and they just wanted to kill. These are CRIMINALS INVADING AMERICA and a nation that does not protect its borders is a bunch of cowards that will soon be overrun by the criminal invaders.

 

[Jon-Marc]

While I believe the officer had a right to defend himself, I'm not convinced that he had to kill the boy. He couldn't wound him in a shoulder or leg? On the other hand, I don't agree with calling the boy a "victim" when he was throwing rocks at the police. As was stated, rocks (if big enough) can kill.

 

[billwald]

If he was frightened he probably wasn't aiming at anyone.

 

[HankD]

Boarder issues getting out of control

With an estimated 10-20 million illegal aliens in America, the border issue is already out of control.

HankD

 

[go2church]

When a police officer fires his or her gun, it is never to just "wound" someone. That is happens in the movies, not real life. Usually it is tap-tap-tap (chest-chest-head) before they check to see what they have hit.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I didn't say that at all. What I said is that it is plain dumb to throw rocks at a man holding a rifle. This story also said this young man was meddling. He wasn't being arrested, he was watching illegals on the U.S. side being arrested, and decided to throw rocks at them. You know, rocks can kill a man, ask Stephen. And that is what Proverbs 26:17 says, it says that meddling in a strife you have no business in is like taking a dog by the ears. Dogs don't like that, and you have a good chance of being bitten. Well, this story proved this proverb very true.

You know, if I was being pelted by rocks and I happened to be holding a rifle, I might very well take a shot at or near the folks throwing them. It is self defence.

I would really love to see how you would react if a group of young people started pelting you with rocks.

There is a bit of difference with Stephen being stoned to death by a crowd and a kid throwing rocks. It was stupid of the boy to throw rocks. However, stupidity is the provence of young people and adults should be more responsible.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It is always right for a law enforcement officer to protect himself/herself from imminent bodily harm/deadly force of others.

Don't care about the age or ethnicity. Cop is arresting a criminal and is viciously attacked in fear of his life - I'd pull the trigger in a heart beat (if I still had one). These were "kids" tossing "pebbles". Watch the video and see the size of these 1/2 bricks being aimed at the police. One hit and your arm/leg is broken . . or skull . .

We're not talking, as much liberals want to make believe, of "peaceful resistance", showering Kent State police with flowers and they just wanted to kill. These are CRIMINALS INVADING AMERICA and a nation that does not protect its borders is a bunch of cowards that will soon be overrun by the criminal invaders.

I differ with you on several points. These arent criminals in the sense of having been criminals in Mexico (some are but most aren't). They are only criminals in the sense they crossed the boarder without proper paperwork. Your statement suggest they are harden murders invading the US. This is not the case. Next they aren't invading so much as being invited. How you may ask? business owners want to take advantage of these people for their cheep labor and other uses. If employers would not hire them it wouldn't be such a problem. Note many mexicans are legal and have been in the US for generations. So its not really a military invasion either. They don't want to take over the government. They want to make some money to send home to have their families better off. And the US aren't cowards. We don't protect our boarders because we want to take advantage of what the illegals have to offer. The US is great at exploiting people. Look at how the coal companies exploited poor in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee in our recent past. Look at how legistlation has been passed to ensure a weaking of the middle class a consolidation of wealth for the wealthy and the reliance of the poor on the government system and wealthy. Yes the sad truth is we are exploiting these people for our uses. These people are also exploited by their own country where there are no jobs and no wealth with which to help their families survive. So I don't think these are invaders. They are the exploited doing their best to survive in a world that has demonized them.

 

[targus]

Business owners want to take advantage of these people for their cheep labor and other uses. If employers would not hire them it wouldn't be such a problem. We don't protect our boarders because we want to take advantage of what the illegals have to offer. The US is great at exploiting people. Yes the sad truth is we are exploiting these people for our uses.

Should you not then support closing the border to keep out illegal immigrants and also sending back illegal immigrants when ever they are found to keep them from being exploited by the U.S.?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Should you not then support closing the border to keep out illegal immigrants and also sending back illegal immigrants when ever they are found to keep them from being exploited by the U.S.?

I do indeed support it but I purposely want to stay away from Rhetoric such as "They are ciminals invading the country" which is inaccurate statement. I also want to look at the bigger picture which includes affecting our economy and how best to deal with the problem without demonizing a people who are doing their best to preserve their families.

 

[pinoybaptist]

There is a bit of difference with Stephen being stoned to death by a crowd and a kid throwing rocks. It was stupid of the boy to throw rocks. However, stupidity is the provence of young people and adults should be more responsible.

A swimming instructor told a young boy to submerge his face in the water while holding his breath and let go of the bottom by lifting his legs.
The young boy looked at the instructor and said, "no, you do it".
that young feller didn't seem to be in the province of stupidity.
He is my grandson.
Three years old.

By the way, are we talking about a boarder, or the borders ? lol.
sorry, couldn't resist it.

 

[billwald]

In France and Russia a criminal is anyone who has been accused of a crime. In the US and Canada a criminal is one who has been convicted of a crime. You pays your money and makes your choice.

 

[Winman]

I do indeed support it but I purposely want to stay away from Rhetoric such as "They are ciminals invading the country" which is inaccurate statement. I also want to look at the bigger picture which includes affecting our economy and how best to deal with the problem without demonizing a people who are doing their best to preserve their families.

Well, this is where you are completely wrong. They are committing a criminal act whether you want to see that or not. And saying they want to preserve their families does not change that.

Let's say the family that lives next to you is low on food. So they decide to break into your house. Is that OK? After all, they are just trying to preserve their family.

Would you be OK with that? I seriously doubt it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Well, this is where you are completely wrong. They are committing a criminal act whether you want to see that or not. And saying they want to preserve their families does not change that.

Let's say the family that lives next to you is low on food. So they decide to break into your house. Is that OK? After all, they are just trying to preserve their family.

Would you be OK with that? I seriously doubt it.

Let me ask you a question. In Uzbekistan there is a lot of poverty and fighting where people are dying regularily. In order to survive many are crossing the boarder to Kyrgistan who have closed the boarder. Are these people criminals? No they are human beings who have an God endowed right to survive. Mexicans crossing have very little difference with the people in Uzbekistan. It is not a crime to attempt to provide for your family. In Ethiopia many years ago people were dying of starvation. Sam Kenison made a humorous statement saying they are starving because they live in a desert. Move! Well if they did and cross boarders you would call them illegal immigrants and thus criminals. For Shame! You've de-humanized a whole populace of people by catagorically calling them criminals. When they are just people wanting to survive their lack of resources, bad economy, and drug wars.
And by the way. I would give them food. In fact, I came accross this very problem about a year ago. A family accross the street were low on food. When I found out we bought them groceries for a couple of months. Here is the problem. The its and incorrect analogy. A better analogy is that people accross the street are starving your wife tells them they can work by doing her chores for a couple of dollars which they make the most of. You come home and see these people and ask your wife if she let them in and she says no knowing you don't like the look of them. So you pull out your shot gun and run them out only to have the next day your wife telling them yeah common back just don't get caught.

 

[Trotter]

I purposely want to stay away from Rhetoric such as "They are ciminals invading the country" which is inaccurate statement

Are they entering legally? No. That makes them criminals.

Are they coming by way of an invitation? No. That means they are invading.

You've de-humanized a whole populace of people by catagorically calling them criminals. When they are just people wanting to survive their lack of resources, bad economy, and drug wars.

If they cross the border outside of legal channels, they ARE criminals pure and simple. They are no different than any other person breaking the law... except they are also foreigners who have crossed out borders.

Honestly, I don't give a rip what they are giving as excuses. No matter how you cut it they are coming here illegally and they should be punished for it. My solution would be to shoot any who try to cross, but that;s not my call to make. It would sure deter the tide. Instead our government takes your stance... "Oh, how pitiful. Here, take everything we have, cuss us like dogs, ignore our laws. It's OK."

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Are they entering legally? No. That makes them criminals.

Are they coming by way of an invitation? No. That means they are invading.

If they cross the border outside of legal channels, they ARE criminals pure and simple. They are no different than any other person breaking the law... except they are also foreigners who have crossed out borders.

Honestly, I don't give a rip what they are giving as excuses. No matter how you cut it they are coming here illegally and they should be punished for it. My solution would be to shoot any who try to cross, but that;s not my call to make. It would sure deter the tide. Instead our government takes your stance... "Oh, how pitiful. Here, take everything we have, cuss us like dogs, ignore our laws. It's OK."

So you would also ignore the refugees from Uzbekistan illegally moving to Kygizstan, Ethiopia, Somalia, etc... Its all the same thing. If you differentiate you just show yourself to be prejudicial against the mexicans. The fact is your charity is suffering. Especially when you deny a human the right to survive which is God given.