Violence at US Border

[diana]

Mexicans are getting pissed (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100609/ap_on_re_us/us_border_patrol_shooting)

Mexicans are seething over the second death of a countryman at the hands of U.S. Border Patrol agents in two weeks, an incident near downtown El Paso that is threatening to escalate tensions over migrant issues.

U.S. authorities said Tuesday a Border Patrol agent was defending himself and colleagues when he fatally shot the 15-year-old as officers came under a barrage of big stones while trying to detain illegal immigrants on the U.S. side of the Rio Grande.Should we be guarding our border? If so, is deadly force justified in any case?

d

[Politesse]

No. I'd rather have an illegal person in the country than a dead person on our fence.

[diana]

I feel the same way. I'm not sure how the rising storm can be quelled, though.

d

[Schneibster]

Should we be guarding our border? Well, probably. We don't really want wanted people from Mexico or Canada, or anywhere else for that matter, being able to escape justice by coming here, if for no other reason. Whether we should be trying to stop people from coming here and making an honest living is entirely a different question, and the answer to that is probably "no."

If so, is deadly force justified in any case? Eventually, if enough wanted people try to get in they may just form a gang and storm the border. If the Mexican Police don't do anything about it, should we just stand aside and let 'em do whatever they want?

How about if an officer who wasn't using deadly force finds hirself threatened with deadly force? Should s/he be prohibited from defending hirself?

If you got hit in the head with a good-sized rock coming at a fair clip, would you feel your life was threatened? I wouild. If I had a gun I'd fire a warning shot first, but if the rocks kept comin' I'd start shootin' for targets. And there's an argument that says they only fire warning shots in movies. Depending on what I thought was going on I might not.

[diana]

Good points, Schneibster.

As you mentioned, though, the issue at the moment isn't that we have a problem with people coming here to escape justice.

I can see how rocks can be "deadly force" if they're big enough and/or fired from a slingshot (which wasn't the case here, it seems). But this incident strikes me as little more than harassment. I rather doubt a rock hucked by a 15-year-old would count for much more than that (and I've seen no reason to believe the victim in this case was even throwing rocks in the first place).

Maybe the question should be if we should be "guarding our borders" with weapons at all, considering the current situation.

d

[Politesse]

There've been an awful lot of violent incidents justified by the accusation of rock throwing over the years.

[Schneibster]

Good points, Schneibster. Thanks, diana. Good thread.

As you mentioned, though, the issue at the moment isn't that we have a problem with people coming here to escape justice. Actually, we do. They're coming across from Nuevo Laredo into Laredo to smuggle drugs, escape the Mexican State Police and other Mexican law enforcement, and smuggle guns. The Laredo Police are on record complaining they're encountering bad guys who have better weapons, communications, and body armor than they do. There were quite a few articles on it going back quite a few years; here's (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/International/story?id=1477964) one from 2006 from a major US news organization, ABC News. A search on "mexico border drug war" will net a slew of others.

I can see how rocks can be "deadly force" if they're big enough and/or fired from a slingshot (which wasn't the case here, it seems). But this incident strikes me as little more than harassment. I rather doubt a rock hucked by a 15-year-old would count for much more than that... I will absolutely guarantee I could kill and eat with rocks, and I could when I was 15. Most people can. Skinny-ass gym-rat Timmy Lincecum can throw a baseball at a hundred miles an hour, and if it hits you in the head you're going to the hospital. And he can hit a square six inches on a side from a hundred feet, 99 times out of a hundred. I could name several hundred guys who are as good. Similar skill on the part of a 15-year-old kid is probable; say 80 mph and a square a foot on a side. Believe me when I tell you that if I pick up a rock you better run; people a lot bigger than I am have after getting hit a couple times, once it was clear I was going to hit them every time I threw one, and that I could throw as many as I could carry in about ten seconds.

(and I've seen no reason to believe the victim in this case was even throwing rocks in the first place). The article you linked says the FBI has video, and that the Mexican Police were observed violating the border and picking something up, and putting it by the body. A .40 caliber shell was found by the body, which is kinda funny if the video never shows the Border Patrol crossing it, and the body was a long way from the border. I'm thinking the same surveillance will have the rock throwing, and from the comments I'd say lots of people have seen it. Furthermore, the Border Patrol had to know they were under surveillance, and that their reports would be gone over with a fine-toothed comb.

And this is the FBI. Not the cowboys over at the CIA, and not the local yokels. Your statement about "no reason to believe" is a bit over the top. The FBI isn't gonna lie for some Border Patrol guy. They don't like 'em much, and if they think it's a bad shoot, they're gonna roll the guy over with a great deal of glee while pointing out that there wouldn't have been such a big problem if they'd let the professionals do the job. Wink wink.

Maybe the question should be if we should be "guarding our borders" with weapons at all, considering the current situation. I don't get the impression we're guarding the borders with weapons. I get the impression the Border Patrol are carrying weapons, and are permitted to, because of the violence down in Laredo to protect themselves, not the border. :dunno: I don't believe I'd care to be a Border Patrol if they didn't let me carry one.

[diana]

Well, I admit I haven't been following this much and only recently became aware (and interested) because of the updates I get from a friend on Facebook. I appreciate your filling in some blanks for me.

My statement that I have no reason to believe the victim was throwing rocks in the first place may be over the top in general, but for me, it's accurate. But I haven't watched the video, either.

I've been wondering what I would have done, and I can't say I wouldn't have fired shots myself. That doesn't make killing a 15-year-old who throws a rock right, of course, but honestly...what would be a fair response to rock throwing?

d

[Schneibster]

Well, I admit I haven't been following this much and only recently became aware (and interested) because of the updates I get from a friend on Facebook. I appreciate your filling in some blanks for me. My pleasure. Not everyone is as reasonable as you about having their assumptions challenged. You are admirably flexible.

My statement that I have no reason to believe the victim was throwing rocks in the first place may be over the top in general, but for me, it's accurate. But I haven't watched the video, either.Ah. That's honest; after their talk-talk I hope they have the goods. I might go look if I get curious enough.

I've been wondering what I would have done, and I can't say I wouldn't have fired shots myself. That doesn't make killing a 15-year-old who throws a rock right, of course, but honestly...what would be a fair response to rock throwing?Ever the problem- reasonable use of force, and natural and logical consequences, often conflict. Personally, if I was a 15-year-old kid I'd like to think I'd be smart enough not to throw rocks at the guys with guns. It's not a particularly bright move. As you say, not worth a death penalty, but nevertheless oftentimes stupidity gets a death penalty and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

[Politesse]

IMO, if you need to kill someone to get them to stop throwing rocks, you've no business carrying a gun.

[diana]

You'll enjoy Fox News' version (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/09/mexican-teen-killed-border-known-juvenile-smuggler-source-says/), I'm sure.

I like how they say "Associated Press contributed to this report." That is their way of saying, "Check AP if you want the verifiable facts."

d

[diana]

IMO, if you need to kill someone to get them to stop throwing rocks, you've no business carrying a gun.Fair enough. How would you stop them?

d

[Schneibster]

IMO, if you need to kill someone to get them to stop throwing rocks, you've no business carrying a gun.Fair enough. How would you stop them?

dDo you know, I think I might be in favor of responding in kind. Bet there's plenty of rocks on the US side of the river. Bet it'd be a long time before the kids threw rocks again, too.

[diana]

IMO, if you need to kill someone to get them to stop throwing rocks, you've no business carrying a gun.Fair enough. How would you stop them?

dDo you know, I think I might be in favor of responding in kind. Bet there's plenty of rocks on the US side of the river. Bet it'd be a long time before the kids threw rocks again, too.:)

I meant generally speaking.

d

[Politesse]

I think a scaling hierarchy works, depending on what is necessary. Deliberate killing should be a last resort, and immobilization should come before it, especially in the case of something like rock-throwing.

[Schneibster]

I'm not sure I'd consider discharging a firearm over getting hit with a rock. OTOH, I'm not sure I wouldn't depending on how good the aim of the thrower was and what they did afterward.

OTOOH, technically throwing a rock at someone over the border is a violation of the border.

This stuff gets complicated quickly.

[Ana H]

the video they have been showing on the news here in Mexico shows a completely different story! that is why they are pissed. It shows that the U.S. Border Patrol were crossing over onto Mexican soil. It is plastered all over the news here. It isn't looking good for the U.S. at all! The Mexican Military was called out to protect that part of the border from the U.S.

Border Patrol on the U.S. side has been known to take random shots over into the Mexican side for funsies. this time they happen to hit someone and had to act fast for a cover story since there are witnesses.

here is yet another article if you are interested (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100609/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/border_patrol_shooting)

[Schneibster]

the video they have been showing on the news here in Mexico shows a completely different story! link plz

[Ana H]

no link. it is on the Mexican news. not on the internet. Maybe you can check wikileaks, I am sure some one will let it spill onto the U.S. media at some point.

[Schneibster]

The Internet doesn't stop at the border. Perhaps you hadn't noticed.

There are no such tapes, are there?

[Ana H]

still looking for it, but here is some more good reading while you are waiting:

http://www.aztlan.net/us_border_patrol_killing.htm

several articles where US Border Patrol have killed Mexicans. 2 US Border Patrol agents took turns raping my 13 year old niece in the town of Laredo. They did that on Mexican soil as well. I just do not have a high opinion of them and know that they lie to cover their ass 90% of the time. I have no sympathy if MX mafia goes after the man who did this and kills him. None at all.

[Ana H]

well, yes there are or I would not have said there are tapes. No, internet does not stop at the border, but I can not find it on the net, nor do I have a lot of time to look for it. You can search for them if you wish. I saw the video on the local news cast here where I live. It has been on all day.

[Ana H]

The Internet doesn't stop at the border. Perhaps you hadn't noticed.

There are no such tapes, are there?

you can search for it. I am not interested in looking for it anymore. I have seen it, don't really care if anyone in the U.S. sees it. Sorry I did not find it within 5 minutes of your asking. Perhaps if I were getting paid, or there were no smartass comments, I would feel compelled to help you out and find it. but I am in no mood now. Thanks.


Yea, Diana, I looked around, not to impressed. Think I'll stick with where I am at. Thanks anyways.

[Schneibster]

Well, looks like that was an inconvenient question, hmmm?

[diana]

I don't get it, guys. She said the video was on the news--not on the internet. What is your stake in calling her a liar?

d

[LoneWolf]

I don't get it, guys. She said the video was on the news--not on the internet. What is your stake in calling her a liar?

d

Some people have been spoiled by the internet. There isn't a link to everything reported out there in real life. Not yet at least. And especially not to news stories on Mexican television.

When I was working at the US Embassy in Mexico City I ran into that problem all the time. We would be reporting back to DC about local events happening in Mexico and they would want a "link" to the news report. Uh, sorry. It isn't always that simple. Not yet, at least.

[Ana H]

The Internet doesn't stop at the border. Perhaps you hadn't noticed.

There are no such tapes, are there?

I don't get it, guys. She said the video was on the news--not on the internet. What is your stake in calling her a liar?

d

Some people have been spoiled by the internet. There isn't a link to everything reported out there in real life. Not yet at least. And especially not to news stories on Mexican television.

When I was working at the US Embassy in Mexico City I ran into that problem all the time. We would be reporting back to DC about local events happening in Mexico and they would want a "link" to the news report. Uh, sorry. It isn't always that simple. Not yet, at least.

exactly!! thank you very much. I am sure it will leak at some point. It just hasn't yet. They also ran footage of the guy killed last week in a scuffle with BPA. he was stun gunned and beaten to death by what looked to be at least 20 BPA. Unbelievable.

they do it to American citizens crossing back into the US as well. I am scared half to death to drive back over the border!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVMZUgmrJrk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meGJ0Wiou3U

the pastor sued and won. your US tax dollars at work.

[Ray Moscow]

I don't get it, guys. She said the video was on the news--not on the internet. What is your stake in calling her a liar?

d

Some people have been spoiled by the internet. There isn't a link to everything reported out there in real life. Not yet at least. And especially not to news stories on Mexican television.

When I was working at the US Embassy in Mexico City I ran into that problem all the time. We would be reporting back to DC about local events happening in Mexico and they would want a "link" to the news report. Uh, sorry. It isn't always that simple. Not yet, at least.

I have a couple of friends at the BBC whose job is to watch foreign-language TV and websites for news that might interest BBC news and its viewers. And no, not everything on TV makes it to the web -- most still doesn't.

[Schneibster]

Because if there were any such tapes that were reliable enough to use to defend a defamation lawsuit, they'd be all over US TV. You know that as well as I do. Might as well be Canute telling the tide to stop.

ETA: And they'd be charging kickbacks for scheduling your commercial in the middle of the story, too.

[Schneibster]

Food for thought (http://www.thirdamendment.com/photos.html). I don't know how much image manipulation folks have done, but these days a $3000 computer and a good monitor and about $500 worth of software is all you need. There's photoshopping, and then there're people who know how to write scripts to do the same modification to a whole series of images automatically. In case it's not clear, a series of images is a moving picture, like a video. I had to fix up some lighting problems in a videotape I made of myself giving a technical class at work, and there was no problem about it with a 2004-vintage standard programmer's workstation. It altered every frame in a four hour video in about two hours of processor time. There'd be no problem doing the same for a security tape.

There is a major problem brewing over photographic/video evidence. Keep your eyes open.

[Politesse]

I doubt that there are tech-manic Mexicans doctoring videos for the evening news about this.

[PostMortem]

Ana, was this the video footage you were talking about?


Border Patrol Shooting Video: Footage Emerges Of Moments Before Teenager Was Shot (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/10/border-patrol-shooting-vi_n_608181.html)

Scroll down a bit to find the videos.

[diana]

Thanks, PM.

d

[LoneWolf]

Ana, was this the video footage you were talking about?


Border Patrol Shooting Video: Footage Emerges Of Moments Before Teenager Was Shot (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/10/border-patrol-shooting-vi_n_608181.html)

Scroll down a bit to find the videos.

What took you so long? It must be photoshopped.

;)

[Loren Pechtel]

There've been an awful lot of violent incidents justified by the accusation of rock throwing over the years.

Because it looks relatively benign. The chance of being killed by a thrown rock is low, it's not zero.

[Loren Pechtel]

IMO, if you need to kill someone to get them to stop throwing rocks, you've no business carrying a gun.

Mind explaining how???

If you close with the guy you're just going to be hit more.

If you run away you're not going to have any chance of dodging.

[Loren Pechtel]

Ana, was this the video footage you were talking about?


Border Patrol Shooting Video: Footage Emerges Of Moments Before Teenager Was Shot (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/10/border-patrol-shooting-vi_n_608181.html)

Scroll down a bit to find the videos.

What took you so long? It must be photoshopped.

;)

Actually, it doesn't look very honest. Before and after is in bright light. The film cuts before an after the actual shooting scene and the light level is far lower.

[LoneWolf]

IMO, if you need to kill someone to get them to stop throwing rocks, you've no business carrying a gun.

Mind explaining how???

If you close with the guy you're just going to be hit more.

If you run away you're not going to have any chance of dodging.

There are circumstances in which I would say using a gun against people throwing rocks would be justified. This doesn't appear to be such a case. Given the distances involved and the fact they said the stones were "large", it should have been pretty easy to just, you know, move away from the rock. Now that might have meant letting the guy he had pinned down on the ground get away. Seeing that the end result is the kid will just be sent back across the border anyway, I would say letting the kid go and taking cover behind their SUV is what would have been the best course of action.

But I will continue to wait for more information.

[Schneibster]

Slam-cut just before the shots.

C'mon, I seen better jobs from high school kids.

[diana]

Schneibster, I'm just curious here....

Are you convinced Mexicans are making it up, or are you just playing devil's advocate?

If the former, why?

d

[Schneibster]

diana, that was about the most sophomoric piece of video editing I've ever seen. I have no idea who put it together, but it's clearly leaving out some of the most important parts in order to support a story that would clash with them.

You are assuming allegations into existence that do not exist. I strongly suggest you carefully consider whether you think it's a good idea to condemn someone else's viewpoint for things they never said, because that's what you're doing right now. It's a propaganda technique, and not a particularly friendly one.

[Schneibster]

And by the way, looks like they figured a way to get them on US TV, doesn't it? Not having seen the videos from the other side of the fence, and not having seen any videos whatsoever other than the botched hack job linked above, I reserve judgement. Note most carefully: I draw no conclusion; I assert that the drawing of conclusions is premature.

[LoneWolf]

I strongly suggest you carefully consider whether you think it's a good idea to condemn someone else's viewpoint for things they never said, because that's what you're doing right now. It's a propaganda technique, and not a particularly friendly one.

Where is she doing that? She asked what your point of view is.

[LoneWolf]

And by the way, looks like they figured a way to get them on US TV, doesn't it? Not having seen the videos from the other side of the fence, and not having seen any videos whatsoever other than the botched hack job linked above, I reserve judgement. Note most carefully: I draw no conclusion; I assert that the drawing of conclusions is premature.

The quality is poor. But it was shot from a cell phone from a long distance. The editing was done by the CNN affiliates. I don't think we will get better quality video since it was from a phone but I would like to see a completely uncut version of it.

[Ana H]

it is one of 3 that I have seen on the news here. this one was shot by teenagers with a cellphone from a distance. it still shows a BPA dragging one by the hair over the border toward the Mexican side to shoot a child who was trying to run. I do not think a rock from that distance is going to kill anyone. The prosecutor in that MX state is filing charges against the BPA who shot the boy. If he is arrested, he will be held in jail, and I am afraid he will never make it to trial. It just isn't good PR from either side. We have enough to fear as Americans living in MX without USBPA doing things such as this.

Is anyone missing the fact that a CHILD has been killed? throwing rocks or not, someone's child has been killed. If your kid were throwing rocks at some one, would it really be OK if someone shot him? Really?

[Politesse]

There've been an awful lot of violent incidents justified by the accusation of rock throwing over the years.

Because it looks relatively benign. The chance of being killed by a thrown rock is low, it's not zero.

Considering where it was being thrown from and by, that'd have to be a pretty damn lucky rock. Even if the kid was actually aiming at them. I'm not seeing any evidence of contusions. For that matter, it was not the smartest time to be trying to arrest the kid on the ground in the first place. What's he gonna do? "Deport" him twenty feet back over the canal to where he probably lived anyway? Are border patrol agents that stupid, going after teenagers who are obviously just trying to piss them off? Stupid, yes, to be taunting a trigger-happy Texan. But not half as stupid as being a trigger-happy Texan.

[Schneibster]

I strongly suggest you carefully consider whether you think it's a good idea to condemn someone else's viewpoint for things they never said, because that's what you're doing right now. It's a propaganda technique, and not a particularly friendly one.

Where is she doing that? She asked what your point of view is.What is your stake in calling her a liar? :nada:

[Schneibster]

And by the way, looks like they figured a way to get them on US TV, doesn't it? Not having seen the videos from the other side of the fence, and not having seen any videos whatsoever other than the botched hack job linked above, I reserve judgement. Note most carefully: I draw no conclusion; I assert that the drawing of conclusions is premature.

The quality is poor. But it was shot from a cell phone from a long distance. The editing was done by the CNN affiliates. I don't think we will get better quality video since it was from a phone but I would like to see a completely uncut version of it.The initial repetition superficially supports the allegations Ana reported on (no, Ana, I don't think you're a liar, but if you're going to just be nasty I don't believe I'll bother explaining why) from the Mexican news media. That's only true, though, if you ignore the slam cut to the two shots.

Other articles said witnesses reported seeing the Mexican Police investigating walking onto US soil, and picking something up. Later a .40 caliber shell is found next to the body, despite the fact that the Border Patrol agent never approached the body, either before the young man was shot, while he was being shot, or after he was shot, so where did the .40 caliber shell, evidence in a US investigation (which is automatic in the US, but not in Mexico, when someone is shot) come from? The inference is pretty obvious, and pretty damning. Then we got amateur video hour with the most obvious sophomoric slam cut hack job and a bunch of propaganda from the Mexican News.

Sorry, story's over, another major human rights violator pointing at the US going "they started it" again. No, sorry, we don't round up people in our own country and take them out and shoot them, and no, sorry, we always hold an investigation when someone gets shot, not just if we think there might be political advantage in it.

I'm sorry to say it was about what I expected. This is not the first time and not the fiftieth.

ETA: So I'm not cryptic, weren't some farmers down in Southern Mexico getting hassled and shot up by the government over some land deal or other down there? Seems to me that was about two years ago. They rounded some folks up and took 'em out and shot 'em, I don't recall what came of it after that. They hushed it up somehow or other.

[diana]

I strongly suggest you carefully consider whether you think it's a good idea to condemn someone else's viewpoint for things they never said, because that's what you're doing right now. It's a propaganda technique, and not a particularly friendly one.

Where is she doing that? She asked what your point of view is.What is your stake in calling her a liar? :nada:I'm missing your point, I'm afraid.

d

[Loren Pechtel]

Schneibster, I'm just curious here....

Are you convinced Mexicans are making it up, or are you just playing devil's advocate?

If the former, why?

d

We are saying that the video is edited in a fashion that makes it likely that it's a fake.

The reason is probably that reality shows something other than what they are claiming.

[Loren Pechtel]

And by the way, looks like they figured a way to get them on US TV, doesn't it? Not having seen the videos from the other side of the fence, and not having seen any videos whatsoever other than the botched hack job linked above, I reserve judgement. Note most carefully: I draw no conclusion; I assert that the drawing of conclusions is premature.

Actually, the video implies that the US guy was in the right. If things were as claimed there would be no reason to edit the video. Thus things aren't as claimed.

[diana]

Schneibster, I'm just curious here....

Are you convinced Mexicans are making it up, or are you just playing devil's advocate?

If the former, why?

d

We are saying that the video is edited in a fashion that makes it likely that it's a fake.

The reason is probably that reality shows something other than what they are claiming.

Actually, the video implies that the US guy was in the right. If things were as claimed there would be no reason to edit the video. Thus things aren't as claimed.So...which? And why do you think so?

If the video is likely a fake, then you cannot trust what it appears to tell you, yes? If it isn't, then your previous post needs some editing, perhaps?

I don't have a problem with people being sceptical of videos. I am, myself. However, I try to leave the question open, as I generally have no way of telling. For this reason, I think it's premature to accuse the Mexican government/media/people of intentionally lying about it.

d

[Ana H]

yea, they are all liars in Mexico, especially the government. As we all know, the U.S. government has never lied to the American people (WMD, Iran Contra/Oliver North/Reagan, Nixon, ..etc) ever, ever! Nope. never. ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE CROOKED. one of the videos we saw on the news was very clear, and was unedited.


an I do not think I was being rude until someone started implying that I was lying.

[Politesse]

Mostly what was edited out was several minutes of the kids running around the gully and throwing rocks, and the person shooting the video saying a bunch of random shit. The moment of the crime is as you see it on the edited tape; there's no verbal warning, much less warning shots, so at the very least the agent himself is lying about his actions. He got pissed off, drew his firearm, and shot a fifteen year old in the head. As he was running away. Can't believe you're both defending this murdering piece of shit.

[premjan]

That video looks too poor quality to have been doctored. We know the record of the police - imagine some kid in the US throws a rock at a policeman hard enough to hurt - he won't get away with it. Add to that that the US policeman does not have to answer to the community to which the kid belonged, rather in the current climate he may have to answer to his superior if the kid gets through. This kid is a casualty of the border as much as the police. I do wonder why he was throwing rocks at a policeman though.

[Loren Pechtel]

Schneibster, I'm just curious here....

Are you convinced Mexicans are making it up, or are you just playing devil's advocate?

If the former, why?

d

We are saying that the video is edited in a fashion that makes it likely that it's a fake.

The reason is probably that reality shows something other than what they are claiming.

Actually, the video implies that the US guy was in the right. If things were as claimed there would be no reason to edit the video. Thus things aren't as claimed.So...which? And why do you think so?

If the video is likely a fake, then you cannot trust what it appears to tell you, yes? If it isn't, then your previous post needs some editing, perhaps?

You're misunderstanding.

We *CAN* draw probable conclusions from such fakes. If they need to fake the video to make the US look bad that says the reality probably makes the US look good.

I don't have a problem with people being sceptical of videos. I am, myself. However, I try to leave the question open, as I generally have no way of telling. For this reason, I think it's premature to accuse the Mexican government/media/people of intentionally lying about it.

d

I don't know who faked it.

[Loren Pechtel]

yea, they are all liars in Mexico, especially the government. As we all know, the U.S. government has never lied to the American people (WMD, Iran Contra/Oliver North/Reagan, Nixon, ..etc) ever, ever! Nope. never. ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE CROOKED. one of the videos we saw on the news was very clear, and was unedited.


an I do not think I was being rude until someone started implying that I was lying.

Nobody's saying that they always lie.

We are saying that this video is a bad fake. That doesn't mean everything Mexico says is fake.

[Loren Pechtel]

That video looks too poor quality to have been doctored. We know the record of the police - imagine some kid in the US throws a rock at a policeman hard enough to hurt - he won't get away with it. Add to that that the US policeman does not have to answer to the community to which the kid belonged, rather in the current climate he may have to answer to his superior if the kid gets through. This kid is a casualty of the border as much as the police. I do wonder why he was throwing rocks at a policeman though.

Why does the light level change so dramatically?

[LoneWolf]

That video looks too poor quality to have been doctored. We know the record of the police - imagine some kid in the US throws a rock at a policeman hard enough to hurt - he won't get away with it. Add to that that the US policeman does not have to answer to the community to which the kid belonged, rather in the current climate he may have to answer to his superior if the kid gets through. This kid is a casualty of the border as much as the police. I do wonder why he was throwing rocks at a policeman though.

Why does the light level change so dramatically?

It was recorded with a phone. I have the same problem with my wife's phone camera.

[diana]

Schneibster, I'm just curious here....

Are you convinced Mexicans are making it up, or are you just playing devil's advocate?

If the former, why?

d

We are saying that the video is edited in a fashion that makes it likely that it's a fake.

The reason is probably that reality shows something other than what they are claiming.

Actually, the video implies that the US guy was in the right. If things were as claimed there would be no reason to edit the video. Thus things aren't as claimed.So...which? And why do you think so?

If the video is likely a fake, then you cannot trust what it appears to tell you, yes? If it isn't, then your previous post needs some editing, perhaps?

You're misunderstanding.

We *CAN* draw probable conclusions from such fakes. If they need to fake the video to make the US look bad that says the reality probably makes the US look good.That's circular, though. You're assuming they faked the video to make the US look bad and concluding the same.

I don't have a problem with people being sceptical of videos. I am, myself. However, I try to leave the question open, as I generally have no way of telling. For this reason, I think it's premature to accuse the Mexican government/media/people of intentionally lying about it.

d

I don't know who faked it.And we aren't even sure it's faked. Right?

d

[Ray Moscow]

yea, they are all liars in Mexico, especially the government. As we all know, the U.S. government has never lied to the American people (WMD, Iran Contra/Oliver North/Reagan, Nixon, ..etc) ever, ever! Nope. never. ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE CROOKED. one of the videos we saw on the news was very clear, and was unedited.


an I do not think I was being rude until someone started implying that I was lying.

A good rule to remember is that all governments lie, as a habit. Why? As Howard Zinn put it: they are beholden to rich and powerful interests to get elected, and yet to get elected (and re-elected) they also have to pretend to be represent and "stand up for" the average person.

I'd trust the word of an average person over a government spokesman or politician, any day.

[Frikki]

There've been an awful lot of violent incidents justified by the accusation of rock throwing over the years.

Because it looks relatively benign. The chance of being killed by a thrown rock is low, it's not zero.

Considering where it was being thrown from and by, that'd have to be a pretty damn lucky rock. Even if the kid was actually aiming at them. I'm not seeing any evidence of contusions. For that matter, it was not the smartest time to be trying to arrest the kid on the ground in the first place. What's he gonna do? "Deport" him twenty feet back over the canal to where he probably lived anyway? Are border patrol agents that stupid, going after teenagers who are obviously just trying to piss them off? Stupid, yes, to be taunting a trigger-happy Texan. But not half as stupid as being a trigger-happy Texan.

Don´t even try to argue with Loren, If the US or Israeli government does it, it is just and fair.

And he is a self styled Libertarian.

[Schneibster]

I strongly suggest you carefully consider whether you think it's a good idea to condemn someone else's viewpoint for things they never said, because that's what you're doing right now. It's a propaganda technique, and not a particularly friendly one.

Where is she doing that? She asked what your point of view is.What is your stake in calling her a liar? :nada:I'm missing your point, I'm afraid.

dPlease show where I called anyone a liar.

[Schneibster]

Schneibster, I'm just curious here....

Are you convinced Mexicans are making it up, or are you just playing devil's advocate?

If the former, why?

d

We are saying that the video is edited in a fashion that makes it likely that it's a fake.

The reason is probably that reality shows something other than what they are claiming.Loren, after your recent debacle over on the IDF piracy thread (yes, armed takeover of a foreign-flag ship on the high seas is piracy) I'd really kind of appreciate it if you'd leave this one to me.

[Schneibster]

Mostly what was edited out was several minutes of the kids running around the gully and throwing rocksUmmm, yep.

, and the person shooting the video saying a bunch of random shit. The moment of the crime is as you see it on the edited tape; there's no verbal warning, Oopsie. And you know this because...

...you're psychic?
...you've managed to untangle the audio better than the several million bucks worth of equipment the various professional audio engineers used?

Actually, I think we all know what it is. Don't we?

[Schneibster]

an I do not think I was being rude until someone started implying that I was lying.You mean, you hadn't found an excuse to be rude until someone accused your source of lying and you decided you could make some points by trumping it up and acting all offended.

Thanks for playing, please keep this horseshit to the social boards where people aren't serious about really wanting to know what's going on.

[Politesse]

Oopsie. And you know this because...

...you're psychic?
...you've managed to untangle the audio better than the several million bucks worth of equipment the various professional audio engineers used?

Actually, I think we all know what it is. Don't we?

Because I watched it, they were showing the whole thing without the breaks on the Mexican stations. And what's hard about untangling the audio? Even if I weren't a Spanish speaker, there are subtitles.

So do you really think the border patrol guy is innocent of the charges? Do you think he acted correctly? Would you have done the same?

[Schneibster]

Ummmm, apparently you weren't listening to yourself when you both stated that the videographer was talking loudly in a foreign language, and that the far away person being videoed did not say something or other.

I asked how you knew what was NOT said, which would be very difficult to maintain since you don't know what the subject was saying while the videographer was talking. This is your own words being repeated back to you, which do not support your claim.

Good luck with that.

[Schneibster]

So do you really think the border patrol guy is innocent of the charges? Do you think he acted correctly? Would you have done the same?Do you jump to conclusions like this all the time?

[Politesse]

So do you really think the border patrol guy is innocent of the charges? Do you think he acted correctly? Would you have done the same?Do you jump to conclusions like this all the time?

I'm asking you, not telling you. What do you think?

[Politesse]

Ummmm, apparently you weren't listening to yourself when you both stated that the videographer was talking loudly in a foreign language, and that the far away person being videoed did not say something or other.
No, I didn't. I said it was a bunch of random nonsense, not that I didn't understand it. Like "look at that" and "omigod" and "stupid kids blah". Irrelevant, not unintelligible.

As for the trooper, I guess he could have quietly warned them without being heard on tape. Not after drawing his gun, supposedly his testimony, but before maybe. Do you think he did?

[Schneibster]

So do you really think the border patrol guy is innocent of the charges? Do you think he acted correctly? Would you have done the same?Do you jump to conclusions like this all the time?

I'm asking you, not telling you. What do you think?About the same as I would about someone asking me if I've stopped beating my wife yet, who objects they're "just asking" when I tell them I'm gonna punch them in the nose for calling me a wife-beater. After all, someone on this very thread has used even flimsier evidence than that to claim I'm calling them a liar. It seems to be endemic.

[Schneibster]

Ummmm, apparently you weren't listening to yourself when you both stated that the videographer was talking loudly in a foreign language, and that the far away person being videoed did not say something or other.
No, I didn't. I said it was a bunch of random nonsense, not that I didn't understand it. Like "look at that" and "omigod" and "stupid kids blah". Irrelevant, not unintelligible.You avoided the point. You still can't say that the faraway person didn't say this or that, because they could have said it and you not heard because it was covered up by "omigod" and "look at that" and "stupid kids blah."

You can't logically draw the conclusion you claim you are from the evidence you've presented. "No I didn't" is not a response; it's what little kids say, "nuh-uh" and so forth. You said it; it's right there in black and white. You should know me well enough by now that until you answer this the conversation will not go further.

[Politesse]

So do you really think the border patrol guy is innocent of the charges? Do you think he acted correctly? Would you have done the same?Do you jump to conclusions like this all the time?

I'm asking you, not telling you. What do you think?About the same as I would about someone asking me if I've stopped beating my wife yet, who objects they're "just asking" when I tell them I'm gonna punch them in the nose for calling me a wife-beater. After all, someone on this very thread has used even flimsier evidence than that to claim I'm calling them a liar. It seems to be endemic.

So are you saying that the agent was in error? All I want is your opinion. Why is so hard for you to ever just state your opinion about something and defend it?

[diana]

The Internet doesn't stop at the border. Perhaps you hadn't noticed.

There are no such tapes, are there?Schneibster, this looks to me like you were calling Ana a liar.

No, you didn't specifically use the word "liar," but I don't think my understanding of your response was unreasonable at all. I do try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and that extends to you, as well. If this was not meant to imply that Ana was lying about seeing a specific video on Mexican television, I'm open to understanding what you meant to convey.

Thank you.

d

[Schneibster]

The Internet doesn't stop at the border. Perhaps you hadn't noticed.

There are no such tapes, are there?Schneibster, this looks to me like you were calling Ana a liar.

No, you didn't specifically use the word "liar," but I don't think my understanding of your response was unreasonable at all. If I intend to call someone a liar, I will do so in as many words. It doesn't scare me any. If I don't, there's a reason, I meant not to, and I expect people to pick up on that.

I do try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and that extends to you, as well. If this was not meant to imply that Ana was lying about seeing a specific video on Mexican television, I'm open to understanding what you meant to convey.

Thank you.

dI'm sure she saw a video. I'm equally sure, if it was the one with the slam cut, that she's remarkably uncritical, not to say naive. To say the least. I am skeptical about the existence of anyone actually that naive.

[Schneibster]

So are you saying that the agent was in error? All I want is your opinion. Why is so hard for you to ever just state your opinion about something and defend it?It's difficult to state my opinion when I haven't formed one yet. I haven't seen enough evidence.

Like I said, do you always jump to conclusions like this?

[Schneibster]

Ummmm, apparently you weren't listening to yourself when you both stated that the videographer was talking loudly in a foreign language, and that the far away person being videoed did not say something or other.
No, I didn't. I said it was a bunch of random nonsense, not that I didn't understand it. Like "look at that" and "omigod" and "stupid kids blah". Irrelevant, not unintelligible.You avoided the point. You still can't say that the faraway person didn't say this or that, because they could have said it and you not heard because it was covered up by "omigod" and "look at that" and "stupid kids blah."

You can't logically draw the conclusion you claim you are from the evidence you've presented. "No I didn't" is not a response; it's what little kids say, "nuh-uh" and so forth. You said it; it's right there in black and white. You should know me well enough by now that until you answer this the conversation will not go further.I repeat, you avoided the point. Are you now changing your position? Or just hoping I won't notice you don't have anything reasonable to say about it?

[Schneibster]

Key point: people who try to get you to jump to conclusions are generally pushing propaganda. This is particularly true if they try an emotional gambit like Ana did. It's not necessarily their fault; many of them are unaware of the use of this kind of propaganda, which uses its victims to spread itself further.

[Loren Pechtel]

Schneibster, I'm just curious here....

Are you convinced Mexicans are making it up, or are you just playing devil's advocate?

If the former, why?

d

We are saying that the video is edited in a fashion that makes it likely that it's a fake.

The reason is probably that reality shows something other than what they are claiming.Loren, after your recent debacle over on the IDF piracy thread (yes, armed takeover of a foreign-flag ship on the high seas is piracy) I'd really kind of appreciate it if you'd leave this one to me.

Continuing to call it piracy doesn't make it so. Check the San Remo manual.

[diana]

The Internet doesn't stop at the border. Perhaps you hadn't noticed.

There are no such tapes, are there?

Schneibster, please forgive me for being so dense, slow, or whatever, but you're saying that in the post above, what you meant was this?

I'm sure she saw a video.I'm not understanding how "There are no such tapes, are there?" means "I'm sure you saw a video." The first comment implies "no such video exists" and the other implies "such a video exists," ideas which strike me as mutually exclusive.

Help me here, please.

d

[Loren Pechtel]

Mostly what was edited out was several minutes of the kids running around the gully and throwing rocksUmmm, yep.

, and the person shooting the video saying a bunch of random shit. The moment of the crime is as you see it on the edited tape; there's no verbal warning, Oopsie. And you know this because...

...you're psychic?
...you've managed to untangle the audio better than the several million bucks worth of equipment the various professional audio engineers used?

Actually, I think we all know what it is. Don't we?

Because anything those opposed to America say is automatically true.

[Schneibster]

Schneibster, I'm just curious here....

Are you convinced Mexicans are making it up, or are you just playing devil's advocate?

If the former, why?

d

We are saying that the video is edited in a fashion that makes it likely that it's a fake.

The reason is probably that reality shows something other than what they are claiming.Loren, after your recent debacle over on the IDF piracy thread (yes, armed takeover of a foreign-flag ship on the high seas is piracy) I'd really kind of appreciate it if you'd leave this one to me.

Continuing to call it piracy doesn't make it so. Check the San Remo manual.Loren, don't avoid the point. The point is, if you can't support your arguments they're meaningless.

[Schneibster]

The Internet doesn't stop at the border. Perhaps you hadn't noticed.

There are no such tapes, are there?

Schneibster, please forgive me for being so dense, slow, or whatever, but you're saying that in the post above, what you meant was this?

I'm sure she saw a video.I'm not understanding how "There are no such tapes, are there?" means "I'm sure you saw a video." The first comment implies "no such video exists" and the other implies "such a video exists," ideas which strike me as mutually exclusive.

Help me here, please.

dNo. You're confounding things again. I made no such claim.

"Such tapes" comprises ones that have the damning evidence of the claims she repeated. And, in fact, there are no such tapes, precisely as I claimed; and in fact, that has happened without her lying.

What's happened is you've conflated several things with one another. It's no wonder you're confused. As I said, you should ask rather than jumping to conclusions. Particularly ones that are fueled by some fairly professionally done propaganda.

[Schneibster]

Mostly what was edited out was several minutes of the kids running around the gully and throwing rocksUmmm, yep.

, and the person shooting the video saying a bunch of random shit. The moment of the crime is as you see it on the edited tape; there's no verbal warning, Oopsie. And you know this because...

...you're psychic?
...you've managed to untangle the audio better than the several million bucks worth of equipment the various professional audio engineers used?

Actually, I think we all know what it is. Don't we?

Because anything those opposed to America say is automatically true.Ummm, nope. Please, Loren.

[diana]

The Internet doesn't stop at the border. Perhaps you hadn't noticed.

There are no such tapes, are there?

Schneibster, please forgive me for being so dense, slow, or whatever, but you're saying that in the post above, what you meant was this?

I'm sure she saw a video.I'm not understanding how "There are no such tapes, are there?" means "I'm sure you saw a video." The first comment implies "no such video exists" and the other implies "such a video exists," ideas which strike me as mutually exclusive.

Help me here, please.

dNo. You're confounding things again. I made no such claim.

"Such tapes" comprises ones that have the damning evidence of the claims she repeated. And, in fact, there are no such tapes, precisely as I claimed; and in fact, that has happened without her lying.

What's happened is you've conflated several things with one another. It's no wonder you're confused. As I said, you should ask rather than jumping to conclusions. Particularly ones that are fueled by some fairly professionally done propaganda.Well, thank you. I think the reason I understood your comment as an accusation of her lying is that we all (now) acknowledge that she saw tapes that she interpreted differently from you. Such tapes did, in fact, exist. You just are convinced they are fake. :dunno:

Also...I thought I did ask. Perhaps you can recommend a preferred way for me to clarify what you are saying than simply asking you questions.

d

[laughing dog]

Schneibster, I'm just curious here....

Are you convinced Mexicans are making it up, or are you just playing devil's advocate?

If the former, why?

d

We are saying that the video is edited in a fashion that makes it likely that it's a fake.

The reason is probably that reality shows something other than what they are claiming.Loren, after your recent debacle over on the IDF piracy thread (yes, armed takeover of a foreign-flag ship on the high seas is piracy) I'd really kind of appreciate it if you'd leave this one to me.

Continuing to call it piracy doesn't make it so. Check the San Remo manual.Loren, don't avoid the point. The point is, if you can't support your arguments they're meaningless. Actually, they are usually pretty meaningless even when he does support them.

[Schneibster]

Well, thank you. I think the reason I understood your comment as an accusation of her lying is that we all (now) acknowledge that she saw tapes that she interpreted differently from you. Such tapes did, in fact, exist. You just are convinced they are fake. :dunno: At the time I wrote the comment, a) we had not seen any tapes and no one could find them on the 'Net, and b) I was convinced that there were some tapes being flogged on some show or other, but equally convinced that there were no tapes that showed firing without a warning being given (other than because the part with the warning had been cut out, as obviously happened with the slam-cut containing stuff from CNN). I said so. You misinterpreted this as an accusation of lying and the conversation has gone from there. There was no interpretation necessary; I had stated obvious facts. You added an interpretation that was wrong and made a mish-mash of things; Ana then followed up deliberately confusing the emotional atmosphere in order to gather emotionally driven non-thinking people to her cause and to get revenge for having been shown to have abandoned critical thinking so clearly.

Also...I thought I did ask. Perhaps you can recommend a preferred way for me to clarify what you are saying than simply asking you questions.

dAsking me if I've stopped beating my wife isn't going to work out well. I've already covered this here with someone else; I have nothing to add to that treatment.

[Schneibster]

Actually, they are usually pretty meaningless even when he does support them.Snicker.

[diana]

Well, thank you. I think the reason I understood your comment as an accusation of her lying is that we all (now) acknowledge that she saw tapes that she interpreted differently from you. Such tapes did, in fact, exist. You just are convinced they are fake. :dunno: At the time I wrote the comment, a) we had not seen any tapes and no one could find them on the 'Net, and b) I was convinced that there were some tapes being flogged on some show or other, but equally convinced that there were no tapes that showed firing without a warning being given (other than because the part with the warning had been cut out, as obviously happened with the slam-cut containing stuff from CNN). I said so. You misinterpreted this as an accusation of lying and the conversation has gone from there. There was no interpretation necessary; I had stated obvious facts. You added an interpretation that was wrong and made a mish-mash of things; Ana then followed up deliberately confusing the emotional atmosphere in order to gather emotionally driven non-thinking people to her cause and to get revenge for having been shown to have abandoned critical thinking so clearly.One comment you should consider in the future: with language, interpretation is always necessary.

This is why assuming you yourself are under attack when others have clearly understood something you've said in a way you didn't intend isn't helpful.

And by the way, now that you mention it: are you still beating your wife?

d

[Politesse]

With a dead horse, at the very least.

[diana]

Nice. :)

Speaking of which, we're back to the videos, right? Which were shot and possibly doctored but not definitely so.

I'm still curious what would be a good response if you were a cop carrying a firearm when someone began throwing rocks at you.

d

[Schneibster]

One comment you should consider in the future: with language, interpretation is always necessary. Yes. I'll say something about that in a moment. You're correct; I was searching for a non-insulting way of saying what I was trying to tell you and went wide of the mark of my intended meaning.

This is why assuming you yourself are under attack when others have clearly understood something you've said in a way you didn't intend isn't helpful. There are three basic ways to handle a situation of interpretation: assume the worst, assume the best, and refuse to assume anything and seek clarification. I would say the three are "You're calling me a liar," "I know you wouldn't call me a liar but it sure sounds that way," and "My first impression is you're calling me a liar, but I'm not confident that's what you intended, what do you mean?" These of course are subject to further variations, smartass, hangdog, etc. Without alleging that you intended it that way, I have to point out that the approach was the first, but the claim is now that it was the third. You are being reasonable, so (and here's how it applies) I assume you are unaware of this and did not intend it. Which is, of course, the second approach- the friendliest of the three. That approach is chosen carefully and with forethought and consideration of your behavior so far.

There are a number of well-worn adages that cover this type of situation. "Don't borrow trouble." "You get more flies with honey." "First impressions are hard to change." "A beginning is a delicate time."

You'll note that my beginning with Ana was not friendly. There were several reasons for this; the first was that several characteristics I have already mentioned (though in at least one case I merely referred to it rather than describing it) of her behavior set off immediate propaganda alarms. You can think of them as virus scanners that operate on memes. Without further consideration, the fact that alarms are going off has biased me immediately. Upon further consideration, I am still undecided- and she has now attacked me, setting off further alarms- and of the same type, but of higher priority. If she does not immediately cease this behavior and become at worst neutral, it will trigger yet further alarms, and at a third repetition it's a habit and she is on my ignore list.

ETA: and I should probably mention, I remain unconvinced that the Border Patrol did anything wrong, but I confess I do not find it important enough in my life to bother trying to find out. I am sure that if they did, it will come out, and loudly enough that I'll hear about it. I'll then keep it in mind when I'm voting. If they did wrong, and I find out about it, I'll consider that as a negative factor for anyone who I feel should have done something about it. But at this point, all the evidence I've seen is ambiguous at best. It's on another sort of scanner's list, one that watches incoming information for "ah-HAH!!!"s. I'd have to carefully consider whether I was in favor of the death penalty for Border Patrol who misused their office to shoot little Mexican kids; I'm a death penalty opponent, but that's fuckin' heinous. OTOH, that's worst-case; and there's nothing so far to support it.

And by the way, now that you mention it: are you still beating your wife?

dSnicker.

[Ana H]

finished with this thread. don't really care anymore.

[Schneibster]

Good bye.

[diana]

There are a number of well-worn adages that cover this type of situation. "Don't borrow trouble." "You get more flies with honey." "First impressions are hard to change." "A beginning is a delicate time."I'm glad we agree on this.

I do make a point of following those adages. Obviously, I sometimes fall short.

Incidentally, I find some nice irony in your explanation. ;)

d

[diana]

So...to underail this train:

...we're back to the videos, right? Which were shot and possibly doctored but not definitely so.

I'm still curious what would be a good response if you were a cop carrying a firearm when someone began throwing rocks at you. Thoughts?

d

[Schneibster]

There are a number of well-worn adages that cover this type of situation. "Don't borrow trouble." "You get more flies with honey." "First impressions are hard to change." "A beginning is a delicate time."I'm glad we agree on this.

I do make a point of following those adages. Obviously, I sometimes fall short. As do we all.

Incidentally, I find some nice irony in your explanation. ;)

dIndeed. Just because it's ironic, however, doesn't mean it's bad- just inconsistent. I never claimed to be consistent. ;)

[Rie]

I don't care anymore either. I got lost in a morass of 'words words words... I'm so sick of words'.
The emotional meaning, to deconstruct, seemed defensive on the hand of the person saying this and pushing for factual statement on the person saying that.