7 times from the back?

[oldman]

Come on. Is this accurate?

Autopsy: US Border Patrol agents shot Mexican teen 7 times from behind

[TripleDigitRide]

That's what happens when you bring rocks to a gun fight. As far as I'm concerned, not enough of them are shot, in the back or otherwise. Kill 'em all.

[Spots]

I love how another country's government condemns us for using deadly force. Control your drug and weapons trafficking and help us lock down and patrol our borders, and we wouldn't need to use deadly force so often. Far as I'm concerned we don't use it enough. You wanna control the drug problem? Start shooting traffickers and smugglers on sight, along with dealers and user's. This meth, cocaine and heroin problem is killing this country, almost as bad as the budget, illegal immigrants, and gun control. I was called racist the other day for wanting to lock down the borders. I' m not a racist, I'm a firm believer in the fact that if you want to immigrate here, you should do so peaceably and legally, just as my ancestors did, and just as law abiding people have for the last 200 years. Fill out the forms, become a citizen, pay your taxes, and contribute to society as a whole. Instead they would rather sneak drugs in and government provided guns out, or sneak in, work for a few years, while being on welfare, free healthcare, and God knows what other government assistance, and then once they've milked it long enough, they head back across the border to where they have been shipping that money all along. Nothing but a parasite on the underbelly of this country.

 

/end rant

[Jonnin]

If somone is worth shooting at, the back is as good as the front IMHO.   Trying to gin up sympathy for a criminal due to the age or where the bullets landed does not wash with me.  He attacked them, he got shot, cry moar.

[TMF]

Come on. Is this accurate?

I can't tell how accurate it is without knowing how many rounds he fired, but 7 hits on a moving target ain't bad at all. I'd say he's plenty accurate. Edited February 8, 2013 by TMF

[Guest PapaB]

That article is rather supiciously worded. It doesn't actually say he was shot in the back, it says he was "shot from behind". Why, if he was actually shot in the back, would it not say so. They're describing where the shooters were located, not where the bullets entered his body. Maybe I'm just a suspicious old cuss but I never trust reports that seem to parse words. That's how politicians get away with lying, make it sound like you're saying something that you're not.

Edited February 8, 2013 by PapaB

[glock55]

Well it's good to see the government putting all that ammo they bought to good use.

[Shug]

Looks like the agent was useing those new boomrang bullets the goverment was testing.  Really if the guy didn't want shot in the back he shouldn't have turned around

[Dennis1209]

I love how another country's government condemns us for using deadly force. Control your drug and weapons trafficking and help us lock down and patrol our borders, and we wouldn't need to use deadly force so often. Far as I'm concerned we don't use it enough. You wanna control the drug problem? Start shooting traffickers and smugglers on sight, along with dealers and user's. This meth, cocaine and heroin problem is killing this country, almost as bad as the budget, illegal immigrants, and gun control. I was called racist the other day for wanting to lock down the borders. I' m not a racist, I'm a firm believer in the fact that if you want to immigrate here, you should do so peaceably and legally, just as my ancestors did, and just as law abiding people have for the last 200 years. Fill out the forms, become a citizen, pay your taxes, and contribute to society as a whole. Instead they would rather sneak drugs in and government provided guns out, or sneak in, work for a few years, while being on welfare, free healthcare, and God knows what other government assistance, and then once they've milked it long enough, they head back across the border to where they have been shipping that money all along. Nothing but a parasite on the underbelly of this country.

 

/end rant

 

 

Well said. There's only two words I could add, "anchor baby".

[oldman]

That article is rather supiciously worded. It doesn't actually say he was shot in the back, it says he was "shot from behind". Why, if he was actually shot in the back, would it not say so. They're describing where the shooters were located, not where the bullets entered his body. Maybe I'm just a suspicious old cuss but I never trust reports that seem to parse words. That's how politicians get away with lying, make it sound like you're saying something that you're not.

 

This was my thinking, it was the media spin of the report. Another reason, not to watch the news. Usually some agenda or bias to every story. Sadly, that's what gets picked up and spit back out with even further non-truths.

 

Yes, the threat was eliminated. Kinda dumb bringing rocks to a gunfight.

[Caster]

Cross the border illegally in other countries and see what prize you get. Cross illegally into Israel, Germany, Russia, etc. see what you get. Why do we have to be earths biggest pu££ies?

[battleop]

Seven times in the back seems to be a bit excessive.   Then again if he had not illegally crossed the border then he wouldn't be there throwing rocks and would still be alive today.  In the end it's his own fault.

[Guest nra37922]

Boo Frickin Hoo

[glock55]

  In the end it's his own fault.

Are you sure I've heard "Bushes" name mentioned ?

[RED333]

That's what happens when you bring rocks to a gun fight. As far as I'm concerned, not enough of them are shot, in the back or otherwise. Kill 'em all.

Slow down, shooting in the back is never any good, catching them on this side of the border, put them under the jail,

NEVER letting them out is way better.

Ya I know, we have to pay for their 3 hots and cot, take money from DHS to pay for it, better yet, sell DHS ammo to pay for them.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Technically speaking, I would think anyone entering our country illegally would be considered an enenemy of the state. Why are we not concerned with securing our border, and don't you think that would be the case if our country was at war or under threat of imminent danger from terrorist which we've been fighting for the past 11 years.

NAFTA is just a treaty to help bring America in accord with a soon to be One World Order. Our political leaders are no longer concerned about our border security or national sovernty. Everything we hear from our political leaders is a ruse to fool the sheeple into compliance, and ultimately weaken our nation into the ineveitable One World Order. America is the last bastion of strength against world evils, and if America collapses, everything will be a piece of cake for America complying to this world alliance.

I'm afraid we are witnessing the last days of an exceptional America that we've always known, and I'm pretty sure the world is closely witnessing the beginning of the end of times as prophesied in the Bible. If I'm wrong, then how do you explain the insanity going on in our country and the world? Edited February 9, 2013 by ThePunisher