TexasCHLforum.com

Boy, our Border Patrol is using some pretty big rounds nowadays! Look at the third paragraph, lol.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100609/ap_ ... l_shooting" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm assuming that this is another reporter who thinks that 40mm and .40 Caliber are the same thing.

oh I know, just thought it amusing.

The comments are pretty harsh, but seem to indicate that the readers are tired of the current situation with illegal immigration.

and another very telling slant of the "journalist" is found in the last sentence of his "work":

"Last week the San Diego medical examiner's office ruled that death a homicide"

regarding the take down with the stun gun.

Now, what have we, as CHL's, learned about the meaning of the word "homocide"? Most readers of that rag would automatically think that the medical examiner "ruled" the death a "murder". Disgusting amount of power through suggestion wielded by the sleazy media.


surv

Sergio Adrian Hernandez Huereka could have very easily avoided what happened to him.

The media down here in El Paso has been having a field day crying out about the unnecessary shooting of a 14 year old. It is a sad thing, no doubt about it, but there were a lot of witnesses. Remember, this happened right underneath a busy bridge with both foot and car traffic, so a lot of people saw it.

The facts don't seem to be too much in dispute. A large group of men and boys attempted to cross underneath the bridge and were spotted by two bicycle agents. The agents gave chase and grabbed two of the guys. The rest kept hoofing it back toward the border, but when they saw that two of their friends had been caught, they turned back towards the agents and started throwing rocks in an attempt to rescue their buddies. At least one of the agents drew his weapon and ordered them to stop. When they continued to advance, he fired a shot which struck the boy and killed him.

It is tragic that a boy was killed, but I just don't see how the agent was at fault. This was not a case of some kids throwing rocks from across the border. These agents were under attack by a group of men intent on stopping them from arresting their friends. That is at least how I understand the facts. One of the TV stations had a quote from a family noting that the agents were wearing bicycle helmets so the rocks would not have hurt them anyway.

They really do need to just put out land mines with PLENTY of signs in English, Arabic, and Spanish for anyone trying to invade the country and attack our citizens, troops, police or agents illegally.. Then, if a criminal gets hurt, they were warned and it was their choice to assume the risk. We could have cameras and helicopters standing by and if any need medical attention, we could do them a favor and fly them to Mexico where medical care is cheaper so they could afford it.

RPB wrote:They really do need to just put out land mines with PLENTY of signs in English, Arabic, and Spanish for anyone trying to invade the country and attack our citizens, troops, police or agents illegally.. Then, if a criminal gets hurt, they were warned and it was their choice to assume the risk. We could have cameras and helicopters standing by and if any need medical attention, we could do them a favor and fly them to Mexico where medical care is cheaper so they could afford it.

There have been plenty of people stoned to death over the past couple of thousand years. I also don't see a problem with shooting someone in the head. If someone has determined they need to use deadly force to stop a threat, an attack on the central nervous system is the quickest way to achieve that end. From the limited information I see a justified shotting by a skilled shooter.

The clump of minerals thrown by the attacker by hand, slingshot, Petrary, Trebuchet, catapult, onager, mangonel, ballista, or other method, was bigger than the clump of minerals thrown by the defender.

The defender just had the aid of some powder that propelled his clump of minerals faster and a method of achieving more accuracy, which is good ... wouldn't want any innocent bystanders injured.

The wiser choice would have been not to invade a country/city in the first place, as there are certain risks involved when ones invades another city/country using violence, a risk which is assumed by the one choosing to invade.