Militia Man shot at by CBP

[88GT]

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.

the claim was made that BP has it under control. Clearly, they don't. What's not to understand?

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

You also take the position that firing upon an unidentified individual on the sole basis that said individual possesses a firearm is justifiable? Possession of a firearm is grounds for shooting at him? That's what you're saying.

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.

There's no difference. Unless you want to go on record as saying that the shooter in one case is negligent for shooting without identifying and the other is not. I can only imagine the ****-canning of the BP agent had the individual possessing the gun been someone more sympathetic. A child. Another BP agent.

 

[in625shooter]

You also take the position that firing upon an unidentified individual on the sole basis that said individual possesses a firearm is justifiable? Possession of a firearm is grounds for shooting at him? That's what you're saying.


There's no difference. Unless you want to go on record as saying that the shooter in one case is negligent for shooting without identifying and the other is not. I can only imagine the ****-canning of the BP agent had the individual possessing the gun been someone more sympathetic. A child. Another BP agent.

I don't believe anyone took it that the mere possession of the firearm was the reason they were fired at, was the BP assaulted with rocks by the original suspects etc etc ????

I will go on record as saying the same thing I did earlier. There is a BIG difference in trying to apprehend a suspect when someone else with a firearm enters the area and not identifying your target during a bump in the night shooting it/them. Also Hitting someone in the act of a legitimate act of self defense usually lands one to not be criminally charges in most jurisdictions (yes NY, NJ, Mass, IL and Calf are maybe the exceptions) Civil maters are a whole different animal.

Vigo county had a perfect example of that about 15 years ago. A homeowner shot at a person running away from his house after burglarizing it hitting and killing him. The Homeowner was not charged when under the letter of the law he could have had a tough time justifying it since the threat was running away and was not armed.

 

[88GT]

I don't believe anyone took it that the mere possession of the firearm was the reason they were fired at, was the BP assaulted with rocks by the original suspects etc etc ????

This thread is full of people who said it was a justified shooting because the militia member had a gun.

I will go on record as saying the same thing I did earlier. There is a BIG difference in trying to apprehend a suspect when someone else with a firearm enters the area and not identifying your target during a bump in the night shooting it/them.

You keep saying that. So indulge me and provide in detail why one person is held to one standard and the other person is not. When, exactly, is it no longer necessary to know who/what one is shooting at?

Also Hitting someone in the act of a legitimate act of self defense usually lands one to not be criminally charges in most jurisdictions (yes NY, NJ, Mass, IL and Calf are maybe the exceptions) Civil maters are a whole different animal.

While this is true, this wasn't legitimate self defense.

Vigo county had a perfect example of that about 15 years ago. A homeowner shot at a person running away from his house after burglarizing it hitting and killing him. The Homeowner was not charged when under the letter of the law he could have had a tough time justifying it since the threat was running away and was not armed.

Well, when a BP agent shoots in self defense, we can discuss self defense legal nuances. Shooting at a man just because you see he has a firearm is not justifiable self defense.

 

[phylodog]

This thread is full of people who said it was a justified shooting because the militia member had a gun.

Where?

 

[BE Mike]

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.

I was speaking to the statements made associating an owner of the property to someone who has permission to be on the property. In my mind, there is a difference.

 

[BE Mike]

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.

There is a huge difference in your being on your property in the cornfields of Indiana and owning property on the banks of the Rio Grande. I'm not making any judgments about the use of deadly force in this specific situation, until all the facts are known.

 

[BE Mike]

the claim was made that BP has it under control. Clearly, they don't. What's not to understand?


You also take the position that firing upon an unidentified individual on the sole basis that said individual possesses a firearm is justifiable? Possession of a firearm is grounds for shooting at him? That's what you're saying.


There's no difference. Unless you want to go on record as saying that the shooter in one case is negligent for shooting without identifying and the other is not. I can only imagine the ****-canning of the BP agent had the individual possessing the gun been someone more sympathetic. A child. Another BP agent.

You are putting words in my mouth. I am withholding judgement until all the facts are brought to light. The article alluded to the security of the border, but it was not a direct quote from the sheriff. The sheriff said that the militia wasn't needed. I agree with that. IMHO the border problems are best left to the people best trained and experienced to handle them, not a group of people with unknown training. Every time I hear the term "secure" in regards to the border, I want to laugh. There is no way, no how, that it will ever be secure. Even in the former East Berlin, with a no man's land of armed troops, dogs, mines, barbed wire, tank traps and machine guns that fired automatically (no human behind the trigger); people still found a way to escape to the west.

 

[Thor]

There is a huge difference in your being on your property in the cornfields of Indiana and owning property on the banks of the Rio Grande. I'm not making any judgments about the use of deadly force in this specific situation, until all the facts are known.

If I owned property on the banks of the Rio Grande (and I know people who do) I don't see the difference. Now if I was on the other bank there would be a huge difference. Because tensions are higher they should expect folks to be armed and protecting themselves.

I also agree with withholding judgment until all the facts are out.

 

[BE Mike]

If I owned property on the banks of the Rio Grande (and I know people who do) I don't see the difference. Now if I was on the other bank there would be a huge difference. Because tensions are higher they should expect folks to be armed and protecting themselves.

I also agree with withholding judgment until all the facts are out.

I sure hope that you don't have large groups of people routinely trespassing on your property, some of them carrying large quantities of contraband.

 

[BE Mike]

Well, when a BP agent shoots in self defense, we can discuss self defense legal nuances. Shooting at a man just because you see he has a firearm is not justifiable self defense.

And unless you can say what the BP agent saw and felt, you cannot say whether or not his use of deadly force was justified. If BP agents were routinely shooting people for simply displaying a firearm, Texas would be littered with bodies, especially during hunting season.

 

[Thor]

I sure hope that you don't have large groups of people routinely trespassing on your property, some of them carrying large quantities of contraband.

I don't, but as I implied I have friends and coworkers who do and they have armed up to defend their properties against the criminals. The signs warning folks of danger on the borders are 40+ miles north of their homes. There is no way that a Border Agent could know if someone in camo with a weapon is the owner, an approved friend, or a trespasser. To just start shooting is inexcusable.

As I stated earlier, if the person began drawing a bead on them that would be different.

Now if things change radically here I still would not expect that an LEO would start shooting at me if I was on my property defending it against illegal intrusions. I would really rather hope that they'd be on my side.

 

[Bill of Rights]

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.

And indeed, this is what SHOULD have happened. Thor's point that the deputy/trooper/officer/whatever sees you and immediately lights you up with 4 JHPs is well-made, though the manhunt the homeowner doesn't know about hardly indicates that the entire area is hostile, as the border probably is (I say probably because I've not been to that border in over 20 years)

88GT, the homeowner shooting a family member is an exceptionally rare occurrence, thankfully, but even among the infrequent times that happens, it's a rare occurrence for the person shot to be carrying a long gun and/or wearing camo, not that either of those makes someone deserve to be shot.

The agent sees that the person he just became aware of, behind him, is armed and able, even prepared to fight, and hard enough to stop him. He, the agent, thus took preemptive action. I'm not saying he was right. I'm saying I can see how it happened.

We're all MMQBing the hell out of this, just as I commented, 20/20 hindsight. We can all tear this down and break it apart and analyze and decide, "He should have confronted verbally first!", and indeed, we don't know that he did not do so. All we do know is that it's been reported that the agent was chasing some suspected trespassers, lost them, and saw an armed man in a position to do him harm... and acted to prevent that from happening, within a very brief time frame, measured (probably) in split seconds. Any other details are unreported at this time, as far as I know.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I see a lot of guesses about the facts. I see a lot of inventing a scenario and then trying to apply it to the real scenario with no idea if that's how it went down or not.

The militia member is also trying to apprehend illegals. Do you suppose it is at least a possibility that he was approaching in a manner that was likely to be perceived as aggressive until HE realized the illegals were gone and the person he'd caught up to was Border Patrol? He is not unaware of the man hunt in a cornfield, he's engaged in the same man hunt.

Regardless, securing the border in the same manner as we've secured the Korean border for decades would eliminate both the need for civilian volunteers to police the border and the opportunity for forces who are allied yet not in communication to cause accidents.

 

[red_zr24x4]

There is no way that a Border Agent could know if someone in camo with a weapon is the owner, an approved friend, or a trespasser. To just start shooting is inexcusable.

As I stated earlier, if the person began drawing a bead on them that would be different.

This right here^^

Say your wife, or husband for our ladies, called the police about a home break-in and the crook takes off before the po-po arrives.
Your wife has the home defense shotgun in her hands as the police enter the house. They know (a) A crime is occurring at this location. ( b) They see someone with a gun.
Some of you guys are saying its ok for the cop to shoot before yelling commands to drop the weapon.

 

[BE Mike]

I see a lot of guesses about the facts. I see a lot of inventing a scenario and then trying to apply it to the real scenario with no idea if that's how it went down or not.

The militia member is also trying to apprehend illegals. Do you suppose it is at least a possibility that he was approaching in a manner that was likely to be perceived as aggressive until HE realized the illegals were gone and the person he'd caught up to was Border Patrol? He is not unaware of the man hunt in a cornfield, he's engaged in the same man hunt.

Regardless, securing the border in the same manner as we've secured the Korean border for decades would eliminate both the need for civilian volunteers to police the border and the opportunity for forces who are allied yet not in communication to cause accidents.

Interesting. I just saw a program on PBS about North Korean defectors. I'm not sure how current the program was, but they estimated that there were at least 20,000 North Koreans living in South Korea. There is no comparison. The North Koreans are intent on keeping their people in, as much as the south is intent on preventing an invasion. Mexico does nothing to stop their people from crossing illegally into the U.S.

 

[phylodog]

Some of you guys are saying its ok for the cop to shoot before yelling commands to drop the weapon.

Haven't heard anyone say that. I've heard quite a few say they'd like to have some details before passing judgement which seems infinitely more reasonable than filling in the blanks to reach a desired conclusion. Quite a lot of that in this thread.

 

[BE Mike]

Now if things change radically here I still would not expect that an LEO would start shooting at me if I was on my property defending it against illegal intrusions. I would really rather hope that they'd be on my side.

If you are as familiar with the border problem as you say, would you say that your friends who own ranches on the US-Mexico border cooperate and coordinate with the local U.S. Border Patrol?

 

[Denny347]

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.

Sort of similar. Sept 17, 2001, Deputy Jason Baker was shot and killed by guys he was chasing in a car pursuit. They shot him with an AK clone and a SKS through the rear window of their car. When they bailed, they went in different directions. Well, as officers showed up for the perimeter, one bank security guard in his house inside the perimeter decided he wanted to help the officers. So, he went outside in with his pistol in his hand. He started low crawling to the officers from behind them. Seeing him, they shot him, he survived. While that is not exactly the same situation as the OP, I have learned LONG ago not to judge the validity of most shootings from the comforts of my home. As a firearms and combatives instructor, I am quite aware of how sideways REAL LIFE gets and that 20/20 hindsite is a poor method of judging.

 

[88GT]

Border Patrol spokesman Omar Zamora said agents had been chasing a group of immigrants east of Brownsville Friday afternoon when an agent saw a man holding a gun near the Rio Grande. The agent fired four shots, but did not hit the man. The man then dropped his gun and identified himself as a member of a militia. Zamora said no other details were immediately available.

Based on the available information, allowing that this BP agent acted appropriately is the same as saying that it was okay to shoot at the militia member simply because he had a gun.

This isn't the media trying to connect dots. This is the BP spokesman official version. That nothing more than a man with a gun prompted the BP agent to shoot at him.

In the absence of evidence that the militia member had the firearm pointed at the BP agent or that the militia member had fired on the BP agent, there is no justification for shooting at the militia member.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

In the absence of evidence that the militia member had the firearm pointed at the BP agent or that the militia member had fired on the BP agent, there is no justification for shooting at the militia member.

They flashbang babies , shoot dogs for target practice , no knock the wrong houses , chainsaw through the wrong doors , will tear your house apart over 1 joint , tackle 70+ year old women for holding unloaded revolvers , get to hold you indefinitely under NDAA until they get tired of it and you think there's no justification for shooting at a guy camo'd up holding a gun ?

You think you live some place with a Constitution and bill of rights or what ?