Militia Man shot at by CBP

[phylodog]

 

[mrjarrell]

I'm sorry. I didn't realize the 4 rules were negotiable based on location.

It has nothing to do with location. It's entirely based on jewelry.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Common sense tells me that if I own private property near the US/Mexico border and I want to dress in camo and carry a long gun in defense of that property I'm gonna let the USBP know that I'm out there.

Well, if it is your property, they should assume you are already on it.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I am as well. My point is that the border patrol guys are down there working in a difficult position (to say the least). I don't know how this thing played out and I don't know if the agent was negligent or the militia member was a complete idiot, or both. I'm prepared to give at least a little benefit of the doubt to the agents when something like this happens. I don't expect them to wait until someone shoots at them to determine if a guy in camo with a long gun is friend or foe.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize the 4 rules were negotiable based on location.

It has nothing to do with location. It's entirely based on jewelry.

Hold on, you two... Phylo made a good point, which is not to say you didn't also, 88GT. He didn't expand on it initially, but did in the post I quoted above yours.

I agree that you should identify a target before squeezing your trigger; it's not like you can call those bullets back, once fired.

I have to ask, though, what you think should happen, given that the agents have been sent to the border area to attempt to apprehend those trespassing into our country?

Should the agent have waited to have lead flying in his direction before firing?

I recognize that you both have expressed many times your hatred and disrespect of those who choose LE as their career, but for the moment, let's put that aside. What would you do if YOU were in their position?

You're on what is ostensibly US soil in name, but is often overrun by those who 1) do not respect our laws, 2) do not want anything here except to break those laws, and 3) presumably hate Americans, particularly LEOs. You have been pursuing said trespassers (in other words, doing your job, for which we, the people, pay you) and you turn to see a man in camo, behind you, armed.

You have as much time as it takes to bring a weapon to bear (not necessarily shoulder it) and squeeze a trigger to decide what you should do about this armed unknown in a presumably hostile area.

Go.

Stop. If you didn't already decide, you might be dead already. Or not. Only way to know is to find out if the other guy got off a lucky shot and scheduled you for a dirt nap.

It's not based on jewelry, it's based on what I will call time economics. You don't have much time to make a decision that is going to stick, and those who will judge you have all the time in the world to MMQB your decision.

If it was based on jewelry, as you indicated is your opinion, mrj, wouldn't the trespassers all have bought cheapo badges, not unlike home invaders shouting the lie of "POLICE" when breaking down a door to rob (or worse) the homeowners? (For clarity's sake, I refer to people who are not cops using SWAT techniques to gain entry)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Friendly fire isn't. Vets, when your unit worked around other units, was your location and mission communicated and coordinated? Challenge phrases? Right. This is why.

 

[level0]

I have to ask, though, what you think should happen, given that the agents have been sent to the border area to attempt to apprehend those trespassing into our country?

Ok I cherry picked this one sentence, but I have to ask - why was the agent attempting to apprehend the illegals and firing on the legal?

And I'm with 88 on this one: RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET.

In the end I suppose this is a case of no harm, no foul.

 

[Dirtebiker]

What it screams to me is "If you're gonna' go play Army, you better announce your intentions well in advance and get prior approval".

Approval from who?
he had permission to be on the PRIVATE PROPERTY!!!

 

[Bill of Rights]

As I read it, the illegals were to be apprehended because they were not committing a crime of force... they were just *here*, as far as we know. And hindsight is 20/20... he was firing (at the time) on the unknown (who turned out to be legal) who his half-second assessment told him "GUN!" and he determined was a threat. Incorrectly, as it turns out, but again... hindsight is 20/20.

To be clear, I'm not an apologist for unsafe acts... I can certainly see how this one happened, though.

Ok I cherry picked this one sentence, but I have to ask - why was the agent attempting to apprehend the illegals and firing on the legal?

And I'm with 88 on this one: RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET.

In the end I suppose this is a case of no harm, no foul.

 

[88GT]

As I read it, the illegals were to be apprehended because they were not committing a crime of force... they were just *here*, as far as we know. And hindsight is 20/20... he was firing (at the time) on the unknown (who turned out to be legal) who his half-second assessment told him "GUN!" and he determined was a threat. Incorrectly, as it turns out, but again... hindsight is 20/20.

To be clear, I'm not an apologist for unsafe acts... I can certainly see how this one happened, though.

Still comes back to the safety rules.

how many times do we condemn the homeowner for shooting first and asking questions later because the end result was the death of a loved one? This is no different.

 

[BE Mike]

Imagine what would have happened if the Border Patrol agent had been better trained with his firearms...

So what do you know about Border Patrol firearms training and recurrent qualification?

 

[BE Mike]

They are still chasing illegals on the U.S. side of the border. They admit they lost contact with the ones they were chasing. But there are enough to secure the border and they don't need help? Right.


Common sense says you don't shoot at a target you haven't identified.

I guess I don't get your points. Of course the Border Patrol is chasing illegals on the U.S. side. If they were chasing them on the Mexican side, the Border Patrol would be the illegals. They lost contact with the people they were chasing because they were distracted by a man with a gun, dressed in camo. Securing the border is not possible. Maintaining some measure of control is. I think the agent identified the target well enough. It was a man with a gun.

 

[BE Mike]

Easy to say from the cornfields of Indiana

Yes, just more Monday morning quarterbacking with little information. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

 

[BE Mike]

Well, if it is your property, they should assume you are already on it.

I didn't read where the man with a gun dressed in camo, owned the property. I only read that he had permission to be there.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I didn't read where the man with a gun dressed in camo, owned the property. I only read that he had permission to be there.

So now their premise should be any individual on private property doesn't have permission to be there until proven otherwise? I'm sorry, I'm not buying that.

I see failure on both sides. The militia should coordinate better with the CBP so they know which properties to expect them on. The government should recognize they need help from these folks, and don't tell me that it is under control. How a statement like that can even be made is beyond me. Oh wait, we don't hold our leaders accountable, that's why.

 

[blink]

There doesn't seem to be enough information to even come a reasonable, certain conclusion. Other pertinant info would be

How many illegals come across in full camo gear?
How many illegals crossing carry weapons?
How many of those weapons are long guns?
If the agents chasing them actually saw them did they see the illegals carrying a long gun?
If they didn't see a long gun why would tbey fire at another person just hoping that person was illegal too?
How experienced was the agent?
Should he have taken more of a back up role until he has the experience?

I've probably made some assumptions someone else will point out. Those questions seem like a good place to start when determining if his choice was justified. I understand that in that situation mistakes can be made. I also feel if people don't bury mistakes that their lapses in training are more evident and can be addressed acordingly.

I'm not saying mistakes were made. Just that it could happen. Not really enough info the article to say one way or the other.

 

[in625shooter]

Just respectfully discussing here but I have been to several Firearms Instructor schools and have worked with a couple Border Patrol folks in my day.

Imagine what would have happened if the Border Patrol agent had been better trained with his firearms...

Most on this forum would struggle to shoot a passing score on the basic Border Patrol qualification course. 3 shots in 3 seconds from the holster to around 3-6 seconds at longer ranges, then various weak and strong hand only stuff.

And when stopping at 4 shots it appears the threat was reduced and the shooting was stopped aka disciplined use of the firearm, the opportunity to apprehend the suspect when he put his weapon down however upon finding out the suspect was not a good ending, everyone should be happy on that one..

So, I need prior approval from the government to protect private property?

No, your property is your property however it's no different than if the Police or say a Conservation officer is called to the area and have reasonable suspicion/Probable Cause are in the area and run into a man with a gun (say you). They will deal with it appropriately until who's who is established. Don't drop a weapon or get in your feelings when confronted by any LEO and bad things could happen whether you are in the right by being there or not.

Still comes back to the safety rules.

how many times do we condemn the homeowner for shooting first and asking questions later because the end result was the death of a loved one? This is no different.

There is a difference between a homeowner investigating a bump in the night and someone with a rifle appearing in the middle of a foot chase.

I am as well. My point is that the border patrol guys are down there working in a difficult position (to say the least). I don't know how this thing played out and I don't know if the agent was negligent or the militia member was a complete idiot, or both. I'm prepared to give at least a little benefit of the doubt to the agents when something like this happens. I don't expect them to wait until someone shoots at them to determine if a guy in camo with a long gun is friend or foe.

^^THIS^^

 

[in625shooter]

Wrong post

 

[Thor]

To bring this back to the cornfields of Indiana. I am dressed in my usual business tactical and out in my woods (or cornfield) with a long arm. I may be out there for any reason...even one that has to do with making sure someone is not stashing meth labs on my property. There is a manhunt in progress which I may or may not know about. A deputy or trooper sees me and just starts shooting? I don't see that being SOP.

 

[in625shooter]

[

To bring this back to the cornfields of Indiana. I am dressed in my usual business tactical and out in my woods (or cornfield) with a long arm. I may be out there for any reason...even one that has to do with making sure someone is not stashing meth labs on my property. There is a manhunt in progress which I may or may not know about. A deputy or trooper sees me and just starts shooting? I don't see that being SOP.

SOP is that they would normally verbally challenge the person unless the situation dictated otherwise (like they were being aimed in at or they could not approach the person without endangering themselves etc) Did that happen there??? I would say either the person did not respond and that.s when it happened. The good thing as mentioned was no one was hurt and he wasn't arrested.

 

[Thor]

That's what I would expect and as I wouldn't be pointing at an LEO I would expect to not be shot at.

Of course if that was DHS Police I don't think I'd trust them not to. I work with some folks in Customs and they call them the Jack Booted Thugs, I've seen them acting just like that in public...in freaking Iowa. I wouldn't be aiming at them either but my spidey senses would be out...