Border problems, what border problems?

hm1996

Moderator
Staff member
Guess this indicates the intent of recent HLS rules of engagement to retreat and seek cover when facing armed assailants was to apply to armed officers as well as clerical personnel, doesn't it? Quote:The agent “fired his service weapon in defense” when he was unable to take cover, the statement said

Untitled-8-2.jpg



Quote:
FBI investigates Texas border shooting
Published July 10, 2012
FoxNews.com

U.S. authorities investigating a Saturday morning shooting along the Texas-Mexico border said one person was deceased when they were taken to a hospital in Mexico shortly after the incident.

It was unclear if the person, described as a 29-year-old male, was involved in the shooting, but some claim the man was shot by a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection released a statement Tuesday recalling “two dangerous encounters.”

In one instance, an unidentified individual threw rocks at a border agent. The agent “fired his service weapon in defense” when he was unable to take cover, the statement said.

At about the same time, another agent said he saw a person aim a weapon at him and he, too, fired his gun in defense, the statement said.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating the incidents. Mexico has been notified by the encounters and calls them a disproportionate use of force.

The Mexican Foreign Ministry said late Sunday that a citizen had been killed by a gunshot fired by a U.S. agent at the Los Tomates-Veterans international bridge. It did not identify the victim or provide details about the incident. Mexico said its consulate in Brownsville had sent U.S. authorities a message demanding an exhaustive investigation without regard to the consequences.

"The Mexican government has said once again that the disproportionate use of force for purposes of immigration enforcement is unacceptable under any circumstances," the Foreign Ministry said.

Juana Maria Soto of Matamoros said her brother, 30-year-old Juan Pablo Perez Soto, was shot and killed by a Border Patrol agent Saturday morning. She said she had received little information, but she believes her brother was on the Mexican river bank cutting firewood and said she understood that the agent crossed to the Mexican side to shoot him.

Border Patrol spokesman Henry Mendiola said Monday that the incident remains under investigation and they have not confirmed that someone was shot, but he disputed any suggestion that agents crossed the border into Mexico.

"Our agents are not going to go into Mexico to neutralize something like this," Mendiola said.

He said Border Patrol agents came upon a group of people on the U.S. side Saturday morning. They detained some while others retreated toward the river and began throwing rocks.

One agent who was not able to escape the rocks fired toward the group, Mendiola said. At the same time, another agent at the scene saw a person across the river in Mexico point a rifle toward them. That agent fired across the river, Mendiola said.

Soto said her 14-year-old son was one of those detained by Border Patrol. She has not been able to speak with him, but said the Mexican Consulate told her he was unharmed.

Mendiola said several people had been taken into custody but that he could not provide details about the suspects or charges they face.

Border Patrol agents seizing 4,000 pounds of marijuana in March got into a shootout with drug smugglers. In that incident, it also was not known whether anyone on the Mexican side was hit.

Last summer, authorities said Border Patrol agents and rangers with the Texas Department of Public Safety exchanged about 300 rounds of gunfire with suspected drug smugglers. Officials said the suspects threw rocks at U.S. lawmen in that incident, too.

In 2010, a Border Patrol agent in El Paso shot and killed a 15-year-old Mexican boy across the Rio Grande. Investigators say the agent fired after being attacked by people throwing rocks.

Fox News' Edmund DeMarche and the Associated Press contributed to this report

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/10/fbi...s#ixzz20FXnaatJ

Regards,
hm
 
Quote:Border Patrol agents seizing 4,000 pounds of marijuana in March got into a shootout with drug smugglers. In that incident, it also was not known whether anyone on the Mexican side was hit....Sounds like I need to head south and do some specialized firearms accuracy training...
lol.gif
 
Originally Posted By: OldTurtleQuote:Border Patrol agents seizing 4,000 pounds of marijuana in March got into a shootout with drug smugglers. In that incident, it also was not known whether anyone on the Mexican side was hit....Sounds like I need to head south and do some specialized firearms accuracy training...
lol.gif


Yep, OT, I'm sure Bill Jordan is turning over in his grave. He was one of the last "old school" BP agents stationed along the S. Texas border. Incredibly fast and extremely accurate!

Bill Jordan

Regards,
hm
 
Tell the Messican Goverment to keep their peeps in their country and then nobody gets hurt!

Orders on the border should be - SHOOT TO KILL! Period!
Then see how many drug carriers, illegals and illegal criminals try coming into the USA!

Our Goverment has become a big group of BED WETTERS!!


PM has 39,992 members correct?

2 of them don't count, so, let's have a PM meeting along the border this fall and do some serious Border Patrol of our own?

We will have all of the members that like to shoot after dark run the night crew with their hi tech night vision, and during the day we could have the short range Tactical shooters manning the rivers while being covered by the long range shooters from the hills.

Sounds like a great vacation too me!

Then we could all do the job that our Federal Goverment is failing to do day after day!

Protecting our Borders, our people and our LEO nationwide!!

Votre out the TRAITORS!!!!!!!!!
 
DDW that sounds like an excellent plan. Be nice to have a mid winter PM desert hunter rendezvous right there along the border where the signs say it's unsafe to go.
I'd make the trip for some of that fun. (it is still America there isn't it?)
 
Quote:2 of them don't count, so, let's have a PM meeting along the border this fall and do some serious Border Patrol of our own?....If you are referring to HB and Rimmy,,,They should be included as well...We could use them like "Decoy Dogs" are used and have them wandering around with cases of bottled water and bags of Tacos...
thumbup1.gif
 
On a serious note: I really feel bad for our border state PM Members,I can not imagine having to worry about two legged scum bags killing me while out callin. When I go out the worst thing I worry about is maybe a bear or Bigfoot
scared.gif
,chasin my butt.!!
Stay safe guys,I hope you load down with ammo and back up fire power!!
Leave the bean bag guns at home!!LOL!!
 
BAYSTATE YOTE said:
On a serious note: I really feel bad for our border state PM Members.

BAYSTATE YOTE,

I too feel for our Border Patrol and all LEO throughout this once wonderful nation. I think it is a travesty to close 9 Border Patrol offices when we should be opening additional offices throughout the country.

I am also in favor of arming our agents with better weaponry than the cartels and that is not the case! Many times a knife in a gunfight doesn't work out so well.


On another note i have been downloading some new sounds to my Krakatoa and i got them from Nancy Pelosi, Eric Holder, Joe Biden and Barrack Obama.

#1. Free Tacos
#2. Free Healthcare
#3. Free Welfare
#4. Free Schooling
#5. Free Voter ID Cards
#6. Tax free living
#7. Goverment Housing



**God Bless all of our Armed Forces here and abroad, our LEO officers, Border Patrol, Coast Guard, National Guard and Firefighters and THANK YOU for your service Past and Present!
 
You're not going to get the desired response to those calls. Try these instead.

1. Tacos gratis
2. Asistencia sanitaria gratuita
3. Bienestar gratuito
4. Escolarización gratuita
5. Tarjetas de identificación de votante libre
6. Viven libres de impuestos
7. Vivienda del Gobierno (Spanish)
 
I'm still not sure the rules of engagement to retreat and seek cover apply to armed officers. That officer was simply explaining why he resorted to deadly force when a more prudent action may have been to retreat...not suggesting the officer should have allowed himself to be injured.
 
Originally Posted By: HunterBear71I'm still not sure the rules of engagement to retreat and seek cover apply to armed officers. That officer was simply explaining why he resorted to deadly force when a more prudent action may have been to retreat...not suggesting the officer should have allowed himself to be injured.

Well, HB, I don't know how much clearer it can be made than a direct quote from the horses mouth! BP union leader Brandon Judd:


Originally Posted By: Brandon Judd We are now taught in an ‘Active Shooter’ course that if we encounter a shooter in a public place we are to ‘run away’ and ‘hide’

Then there is the statement released regarding the border shooting which uses very strangely similar language:

Quote:The U.S. Customs and Border Protection released a statement Tuesday recalling “two dangerous encounters.”

The agent “fired his service weapon in defense” when he was unable to take cover, the statement said.



Originally Posted By: hm1996Border Patrol agents in Arizona are blasting their bosses for telling them, along with all other Department of Homeland Security employees, to run and hide if they encounter an "active shooter."

It's one thing to tell civilian employees to cower under a desk if a gunman starts spraying fire in a confined area, say members of Tucson Local 2544/National Border Patrol Council, but to give armed law enforcement professionals the same advice is downright insulting. The instructions from DHS come in the form of pamphlets and a mandatory computer tutorial.

“We are now taught in an ‘Active Shooter’ course that if we encounter a shooter in a public place we are to ‘run away’ and ‘hide’" union leader Brandon Judd wrote on the website of 3,300-member union local. “If we are cornered by such a shooter we are to (only as a last resort) become ‘aggressive’ and ‘throw things’ at him or her. We are then advised to ‘call law enforcement’ and wait for their arrival (presumably, while more innocent victims are slaughtered)."


How can the policy be interpreted to apply only to clerical employees?

Regards,
hm
 
Originally Posted By: NdIndyYou're not going to get the desired response to those calls. Try these instead.

1. Tacos gratis
2. Asistencia sanitaria gratuita
3. Bienestar gratuito
4. Escolarización gratuita
5. Tarjetas de identificación de votante libre
6. Viven libres de impuestos
7. Vivienda del Gobierno (Spanish)

Thanks Indy!
 
Originally Posted By: hm1996Originally Posted By: HunterBear71I'm still not sure the rules of engagement to retreat and seek cover apply to armed officers. That officer was simply explaining why he resorted to deadly force when a more prudent action may have been to retreat...not suggesting the officer should have allowed himself to be injured.

Well, HB, I don't know how much clearer it can be made than a direct quote from the horses mouth! BP union leader Brandon Judd:


Originally Posted By: Brandon Judd We are now taught in an ‘Active Shooter’ course that if we encounter a shooter in a public place we are to ‘run away’ and ‘hide’

Then there is the statement released regarding the border shooting which uses very strangely similar language:

Quote:The U.S. Customs and Border Protection released a statement Tuesday recalling “two dangerous encounters.”

The agent “fired his service weapon in defense” when he was unable to take cover, the statement said.



Originally Posted By: hm1996Border Patrol agents in Arizona are blasting their bosses for telling them, along with all other Department of Homeland Security employees, to run and hide if they encounter an "active shooter."

It's one thing to tell civilian employees to cower under a desk if a gunman starts spraying fire in a confined area, say members of Tucson Local 2544/National Border Patrol Council, but to give armed law enforcement professionals the same advice is downright insulting. The instructions from DHS come in the form of pamphlets and a mandatory computer tutorial.

“We are now taught in an ‘Active Shooter’ course that if we encounter a shooter in a public place we are to ‘run away’ and ‘hide’" union leader Brandon Judd wrote on the website of 3,300-member union local. “If we are cornered by such a shooter we are to (only as a last resort) become ‘aggressive’ and ‘throw things’ at him or her. We are then advised to ‘call law enforcement’ and wait for their arrival (presumably, while more innocent victims are slaughtered)."


How can the policy be interpreted to apply only to clerical employees?

Regards,
hm

I mean what do you say to that???????? thanks for posting that HM!!
 
Originally Posted By: HunterBear71I'm still not sure the rules of engagement to retreat and seek cover apply to armed officers. That officer was simply explaining why he resorted to deadly force when a more prudent action may have been to retreat...not suggesting the officer should have allowed himself to be injured.

HB,

You are not sure of much other than how to get out from under your Boy's desk to grab your Obama Bucks!

SHOOT TOO KILL!

Our Border, our land, our safety - what is so hard to figure out.



Sounds like a trip to the border, is in order!
 
HB, we're all waiting on your spin about HM's post. I know that most democrats have problems accepting facts, how about you? I still have hope for you to see the light and come around to reality.
 
A shooter in a public place...I'm guessing the logic is that a gun fight in a public place is dangerous to bystanders. It is a policy that should be examined more closely. It is really hard to understand why armed officers wouldn't be instructed to neutralize a shooter...I have no spin or explanation for this one.
 
Quote:A shooter in a public place...I'm guessing the logic is that a gun fight in a public place is dangerous to bystanders. It is a policy that should be examined more closely. It is really hard to understand why armed officers wouldn't be instructed to neutralize a shooter...I have no spin or explanation for this one.....HB, I think I understand some of your perspective, based on the statement above...Certainly, the best thing any officer can do is to obtain adequate cover, but a criminal shooter in any circumstance is already a danger to all bystanders to start with...Most of them are not trained adequately or, in most cases, emotionally stable enough to be proficient shots to hit their intended targets...LEOs, on the other hand, have a duty to protect the public in general and should be sufficiently trained (not always the case) and emotionally stable enough to neutralize the incident, by deadly force if necessary...and as immediate as possible...

Do you think for one second that if I were in a public restaurant and a disgruntled boyfriend of one of the servers walked in and started shooting in her direction, that I would run to the walk in cooler for cover???...Or, would I more likely charge the shooter and start emptying my firearm at him, regardless of other patrons in the background...Not saying that it would be the better course of action, but at the moment, my concern would be to stop his actions, as quickly as possible...

Our illustrious Director of Homeland Security obviously needs to check in to a facility that offers severe Reality Check services, as do many of the current administration's minions, including the leader...
 
Back
Top