We Can’t Just Pull Our Gun And Shoot Someone
BY Herschel Smith
7 years, 4 months ago
NYT:
In a classroom on the campus of the Border Patrol Academy here at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Andrew Andrade, an instructor, is guiding a group of future Border Patrol agents through an intensive Spanish language-training course.
Across campus, Ryan Choi instructs another group of Border Patrol trainees in self-defense tactics. “It’s not like the movies,” he said as the trainees paired off. “They aren’t going to stand up and fight, they’re going to charge you.”
In another part of the campus, a Border Patrol instructor enters a building set up to look like a barn where he finds two men counting money with what appears to be packages of drugs. One of the men yells at him in English, while the other man yells in Spanish. Both men move around, gesturing wildly with their hands. Dan M. Harris, chief of the academy, stands nearby urging the instructor to size up the situation. This simulated encounter is used to teach new trainees to consider all options before using deadly force.
“We have to slow it down and think,” Mr. Harris said. “We can’t just pull our gun and shoot someone to get out of bad situation. We have to use our brain.”
Hmm … so let me think about this. Cops all over America policing U.S. citizens pull their guns out all of the time, and oftentimes let go a barrage of rounds, sometimes hitting their target, sometimes not, sometimes killing innocent people, all because of “officer safety.” They must get home safely at the end of their shift, no matter what, even if innocent people perish at their hands. They do this with utter impunity, with no accountability by the courts, the people, or their blue-costumed buddies. Every little Podunk town now has a SWAT team with tacticool officers who want more than anything to go raid somebody’s house.
And yet the border patrol must think before unholstering their weapons in the middle of an invasion across our borders. What’s wrong with this picture? I think I’ve seen it before in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, I know I have.
|
|
On August 22, 2017 at 11:39 am, Allen said:
The invaders are a protected class. Kind of like a bald eagle.
On August 22, 2017 at 2:09 pm, Stuart said:
Perhaps we shouldn’t excoriate the Border Patrol for NOT doing what we condemn the local police FOR doing.
On August 22, 2017 at 2:18 pm, Herschel Smith said:
@Stuart,
Then again, there are those (like me) who believe we should deploy the U.S. Marines to the Southern border with orders to use their DMs to kill any armed intruder upon sight, long distance, short distance, it doesn’t matter. The “mules” and armed gang members would drop to zero. I’ll stipulate that women and children should be captured and sent immediately back after having been given water. For the males of military age (MAMs), it’s up to the situation on the ground. In a war, one has to fight it like a war.
Betcha the invasion would cease in a day. I’d give it one day upon deployment of the USMC. One day. Only an idiot would assert that we can’t stop the invasion. We could do it in a single day.
On August 22, 2017 at 5:06 pm, Stuart said:
Yes Herschel, we could and I’ve long believed that we should “leave them where they lay” as an example. Perhaps that’s because I live on that border and witness the stupidity daily.
However, it does seem hypocritical (and unworkable in practice) to expect the local yokel to refrain from summary execution of the citizenry if we implement that policy. After all, how is he supposed to sort out who it’s OK to plug on the streets of Topeka?
On August 22, 2017 at 5:16 pm, Herschel Smith said:
But then how would anyone do it at the border, including USMC? Anyone crossing the border should be assumed to be an invader, anyone living in the states cannot be. If later found to be illegal, give them some water and drop them off across the border. No trial, nothing. No rights.
On August 22, 2017 at 5:37 pm, Stuart said:
“But then how would anyone do it at the border, including USMC?”
Exactly, therein lies the problem. How far “inland” does the shoot-on-sight extend?
Are they invaders or just a bunch of TexMex citizens returning from getting some “shine” in Juarez? When I was younger – hell, all my life – we (denizens of the border) have canoed across to Mexico to get some food and drink in small Mexican border towns. NEVER had a problem. Now we would be prosecuted by our own District Attorney upon re-entry. Mexicans have done the same for generations. (they would only be returned to Mexico. Not prosecuted. Think about that one) Boundaries are political creations. I don’t want to be shot by a Federal for exercising my fundamental freedom in my own back yard.
It’s not that we disagree philosophically – we don’t. But the devil is in the details and I don’t trust ANY Federal government employee with the immunity to shoot on sight in my backyard. (think TSA) I would however trust land owners with that authorization. There is so very much that happens here that never makes the news.
BTW, I found you through a link from The Woodpile Report. Good thoughtful stuff.
On August 22, 2017 at 10:13 pm, Herschel Smith said:
There is no problem. It doesn’t extend inland, it all happens at the border. I’d say that if you’re coming across the border, you must be assumed to be an invader.
If you were doing so to obtain liquor in Juarez or anywhere else South of the border, you shouldn’t have been. Not the liquor, that is, but South of the border. I’m sure had I been born in Murphy N.C. or Franklin County Va under different circumstances, I’d probably have tried making tax-free liquor.
Then again, not that anyone would actually implement my counsel in this matter.