Nigerian Army Uses Trump’s Words to Justify Fatal Shooting of Rock-Throwing Protester

[Dill]

(11-03-2018, 12:42 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, the last is the part I have a problem with:

Folks are moving to cross into our country illegally
POTUS deploys troops to dissuade this crossing. 
They cross illegally, someone gets shot

POTUS fault!!

Well yes, if moving the troops is unnecessary.  Is it clear the caravan members are all about "crossing illegally"? Reports so far are that they are mostly asylum seekers.

Trump's own intel informed him last week that less than 20% of the caravan would make it to the U.S. border, that's less than 1500, and that there was NO EVIDENCE OF ISIS infiltration at all.  So we rapid deploy over 5,000 troops in addition to the thousands already on the border? That intel was likely leaked because the military does not like being deployed for political purposes rather than actual defense of the nation.
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-administration-migrant-caravan-border-troops-1193694

As I say above, the more serious threat to our troops may be the militia, who are showing up uninvited and armed to defend against the "invaders."

[*michaelsean*]

(11-02-2018, 11:16 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Yes. Using troops as political pawns. And now putting them in harms way and tying their hands. 

An absolute leadership failure. Smearing his rotten shit where it doesnt belong. Keep your racist loud mouth bullshit on reddit or wherever those two shitheads from last week shared their opinions .

Any escalated tensions on the border in the coming weeks is blood on his hands

I meant the Trump disagrees part.

[GMDino]

(11-03-2018, 12:42 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, the last is the part I have a problem with:

Folks are moving to cross into our country illegally

People are walking this way...won't be here for weeks (most won't be here at all) and they are coming to seek legal asylum.

(11-03-2018, 12:42 AM)bfine32 Wrote: POTUS deploys troops to dissuade this crossing. 

There are people there trained to handle this legally request.

(11-03-2018, 12:42 AM)bfine32 Wrote: They cross illegally, someone gets shot

Is that our policy now? Kill anyone crossing the border?

(11-03-2018, 12:42 AM)bfine32 Wrote: POTUS fault!!

Well, yes. HE is is the one who put the troops there with orders to shoot anyone throwing rocks.

Should the commander not take the blame for the order?

[fredtoast]

(11-03-2018, 12:42 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks are moving to cross into our country illegally

I thought they were seeking asylum.  When did that become illegal?

I have never seen a group like this try to force their way across the border using violence before, but as soo as Trump calls it an "invasion" the only thing that can be seen from the echo chamber is a violent mob over powering the border patrol.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-05-2018, 12:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I thought they were seeking asylum.  When did that become illegal?

I have never seen a group like this try to force their way across the border using violence before, but as soo as Trump calls it an "invasion" the only thing that can be seen from the echo chamber is a violent mob over powering the border patrol.

I think it's still considered an illegal border crossing even when it's for asylum.  But I think the government can waive that like they did with Cuba.  I'm just going off the top of my head so this could also be completely wrong.

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2018, 12:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I thought they were seeking asylum.  When did that become illegal?

I have never seen a group like this try to force their way across the border using violence before, but as soo as Trump calls it an "invasion" the only thing that can be seen from the echo chamber is a violent mob over powering the border patrol.

If you and your alt would actually read what I typed instead of having me say what you want me to say perhaps you would both understand. It become illegal once they do not cross our border legally. Believe it or not that's been illegal for quite some time. I have 0 problem with someone seeking asylum through legal channels, just don't think you shouuld be rewarded for cutting in line.


I do not think they are violent, I'm just one of those "echo chamberers" that think. If you are injured while trying to commit a crime; it's your fault, not the person upholding the law. 

[GMDino]

(11-05-2018, 01:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you and your alt would actually read what I typed instead of having me say what you want me to say perhaps you would both understand. It become illegal once they do not cross our border legally. Believe it or not that's been illegal for quite some time. I have 0 problem with someone seeking asylum through legal channels, just don't think you shouuld be rewarded for cutting in line.


I do not think they are violent, I'm just one of those "echo chamberers" that think. If you are injured while trying to commit a crime; it's your fault, not the person upholding the law. 

Again, weeks away, most won't make it here at all, seeking legal asylum.

*IF* they try and run across and not seek legal asylum then they are "illegals".   Should we shoot them then?

Everything else is fear mongering for votes.

"alt" or not...lol.

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2018, 01:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: Again, weeks away, most won't make it here at all, seeking legal asylum.

*IF* they try and run across and not seek legal asylum then they are "illegals".   Should we shoot them then?

Everything else is fear mongering for votes.

"alt" or not...lol.

Seems the best time to deter them from participating in any illegal activity than when they are still weeks away. Perhaps they will decide being a Mexican is not such a bad thing.

We should not shoot them for crossing illegally. We should deport them immediately. 

Not sure knowing your POTUS will defend your sovereign boarders is fear mongering. 

[fredtoast]

(11-05-2018, 01:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do not think they are violent, I'm just one of those "echo chamberers" that think. If you are injured while trying to commit a crime; it's your fault, not the person upholding the law. 

What do you mean by "injured"?  Do you mean shot?

If so then who is "upholding the law" by shooting people for committing a non-violent misdemeanor?

Seriously, when was the last time immigrants entered our country by using force or violence to overpower our border patrol?  I may be wrong, but I don't know of it ever happening

[GMDino]

(11-05-2018, 01:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems the best time to deter them from participating in any illegal activity than when they are still weeks away. Perhaps they will decide being a Mexican is not such a bad thing.

Using that "logic" then the ones that continue do not plan on any illegal activity but will seek legal asylum.

(11-05-2018, 01:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We should not shoot them for crossing illegally. We should deport them immediately. 

If they try to do so illegally I agree with you. You might want to speak to the POTUS about it though.

(11-05-2018, 01:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure knowing your POTUS will defend your sovereign boarders is fear mongering. 

No, calling them dangerous, lying about who is in the caravan, claiming they are violent and will be violent at our border is fear mongering.

Knowing that your POTUS does and says such things *should* bother you.

[fredtoast]

(11-05-2018, 01:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure knowing your POTUS will defend your sovereign boarders is fear mongering. 

What about this...…

“You have some very tough criminal elements within the caravan. But I will seal off the border before they come into this country, and I’ll bring out our military, not our reserves. I’ll bring out our military.” (Trump remarks to reporters, Oct. 20)

“Criminals and unknown Middle Easterners are mixed in. I have alerted Border Patrol and Military that this is a National Emergy [sic]. Must change laws!” (Trump tweet, Oct. 22)

“Go into the middle of the caravan, take your cameras and search. Okay? Search. . . . You’re going to find MS-13, you’re going to find Middle Eastern, you’re going to find everything.” (Trump remarks to reporters, Oct. 22)

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-02-2018, 02:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not commenting on if the military should be there in the first place, but anyone who attacks the military with anything should expect to get shot.

I don't want our military anywhere they should not be, but if people attack them with rocks they should be shot.

I think this is the second time we have ever agreed on something (non-Bengal related).

I don't want the military to have to shoot to defend themselves, we all know how this is going to go down.
Women and children pushed to the front lines and the men stay behind them and throw rocks. And as soon as our military shoots, it will be all over the news that we are shooting innocent Women and Children.

Anyone of you that things otherwise is just kidding themselves.

[GMDino]

(11-05-2018, 03:07 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I think this is the second time we have ever agreed on something (non-Bengal related).

I don't want the military to have to shoot to defend themselves, we all know how this is going to go down.
Women and children pushed to the front lines and the men stay behind them and throw rocks. And as soon as our military shoots, it will be all over the news that we are shooting innocent Women and Children.

Anyone of you that things otherwise is just kidding themselves.

But we have AERO idea if that would/will happen.

Zero.

In fact that's not even as deep as the POTUS got.  He said if they throw rocks shoot them.

Then he backed off for some reason.

But it's just fear mongering.  

[fredtoast]

(11-05-2018, 03:07 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I don't want the military to have to shoot to defend themselves, we all know how this is going to go down.
Women and children pushed to the front lines and the men stay behind them and throw rocks. And as soon as our military shoots, it will be all over the news that we are shooting innocent Women and Children.

Anyone of you that things otherwise is just kidding themselves.

Considering this has never once happened in the history of our southern border how is it that you "Know" this is what is going to happen.

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2018, 02:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What do you mean by "injured"?  Do you mean shot?

If so then who is "upholding the law" by shooting people for committing a non-violent misdemeanor?

Seriously, when was the last time immigrants entered our country by using force or violence to overpower our border patrol?  I may be wrong, but I don't know of it ever happening

You and you alt don't get to manipulate every situation to try to make a point that you are unable to make given the facts provided.

No one here has advocated shooting anyone for a non-violent act; not sure POTUS has advocated shooting anyone for a nonviolent act. Protecting our borders from unlawful entry is upholding the law. I have 0 idea why you chose to put it in quotes. 

[GMDino]

(11-05-2018, 03:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Considering this has never once happened in the history of our southern border how is it that you "Know" this is what is going to happen.

No, we've shot rock throwers before.

https://www.apnews.com/934c5377c2d84e6a95dbbb347eef299e

Quote:A U.S. Border Patrol agent was fed up with cross-border rock throwers when he deliberately shot at a Mexican teenager, a federal prosecutor said Wednesday as the agent’s second trial began in the 2012 killing.


Lonnie Swartz was acquitted of murder earlier this year in Arizona and now faces manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter charges in the death of 16-year-old Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez, who was shot in the back multiple times.

It is rare for a Border Patrol agent to be prosecuted on charges involving use of force. Swartz, who has pleaded not guilty, is being retried after the previous jury deadlocked on a manslaughter verdict.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Wallace Kleindienst said in an opening statement that Swartz shot Elena Rodriguez after the teen and others threw rocks at agents who were chasing two drug smugglers on Oct. 10, 2012.

Kleindienst said other agents and police retreated from the rock throwers at the time of the shooting but that Swartz had been involved in previous rock-throwing incidents and had gotten fed up with the tactic used by smugglers to distract agents.

“There is no justification for what he did when took the life Jose Elena Rodriguez,” Kleindienst said.

Defense attorney Sean Chapman said Swartz and other border agents and local police in Nogales, Arizona, were in serious danger. He said Swartz did the right thing by using lethal force because they could have been maimed or killed by the flying rocks.

Chapman said Elena Rodriguez chose to help drug smugglers and endangered the lives of the agents and officers. “This was a smuggling operation. That’s what this case is about,” he said.

In addition to the criminal charges, Swartz is facing a civil rights lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the teen’s mother.

The shooting sparked outrage and came at a time when the Border Patrol was increasingly under scrutiny for its use of force, especially in rock-throwing incidents.

The agency has said rocks can be deadly. Chapman says the agency’s training calls for use of deadly force when agents are attacked and believe they’re in serious danger, even if it’s from rocks.

The prosecutor said Swartz didn’t have to shoot the teen or move to another spot and keep firing for a total of 16 shots, 10 of which struck Elena Rodriguez in the back and head.

The trial is expected to last up to a month.

[GMDino]

(11-05-2018, 01:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you and your alt would actually read what I typed instead of having me say what you want me to say perhaps you would both understand. It become illegal once they do not cross our border legally. Believe it or not that's been illegal for quite some time. I have 0 problem with someone seeking asylum through legal channels, just don't think you shouuld be rewarded for cutting in line.


I do not think they are violent, I'm just one of those "echo chamberers" that think. If you are injured while trying to commit a crime; it's your fault, not the person upholding the law. 

(11-05-2018, 03:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You and you alt don't get to manipulate every situation to try to make a point that you are unable to make given the facts provided.

No one here has advocated shooting anyone for a non-violent act; not sure POTUS has advocated shooting anyone for a nonviolent act. Protecting our borders from unlawful entry is upholding the law. I have 0 idea why you chose to put it in quotes. 

Is that hard to believe that more than one person could disagree with you?  

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2018, 03:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: Is that hard to believe that more than one person could disagree with you?  

What have i actually said that are you disagreeing with? It seems a couple folks (the same "2" folks) are just making up scenarios and then attributing them to other folks, because the facts that we should defend our borders cannot be rationally refuted.  

[Dill]

(11-05-2018, 03:07 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I think this is the second time we have ever agreed on something (non-Bengal related).

I don't want the military to have to shoot to defend themselves, we all know how this is going to go down.
Women and children pushed to the front lines and the men stay behind them and throw rocks. And as soon as our military shoots, it will be all over the news that we are shooting innocent Women and Children.

Anyone of you that things otherwise is just kidding themselves.

Would you stay behind your wife and child and throw rocks?

[Dill]

(11-05-2018, 01:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote:
If you and your alt would actually read what I typed instead of having me say what you want me to say perhaps you would both understand. It become illegal once they do not cross our border legally. Believe it or not that's been illegal for quite some time. I have 0 problem with someone seeking asylum through legal channels, just don't think you shouuld be rewarded for cutting in line.


I do not think they are violent, I'm just one of those "echo chamberers" that think. If you are injured while trying to commit a crime; it's your fault, not the person upholding the law. 

Getting back to my question--is it clear the intent of the 1.500 or so people who actually make it to the border is to "cross illegally"?  I have only heard that in Trump's echo chamber, along with claims they bring disease, ISIS and guns.   

I add that even if people do cross illegally, shooting them is a tremendous escalation

(11-05-2018, 01:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems the best time to deter them from participating in any illegal activity than when they are still weeks away. Perhaps they will decide being a Mexican is not such a bad thing.

We should not shoot them for crossing illegally. We should deport them immediately. 

Not sure knowing your POTUS will defend your sovereign boarders is fear mongering. 

The majority will remain in Mexico, according to the military intelligence which Trump has.

Fear mongering occurs when the President is told by his own military intel that there is no evidence that these asylum seekers harbor ISIS, or bring diseases, or are funded by a Jew named George Soros, but he nevertheless calls them "invaders" and encourages people to believe all manner of unfounded conspiracy theory about threat they pose.

Is a Commander-in-Chief REALLY supposed to protect the border that way? You don't see any possible connection between the fear mongering and midterms and a president without scruples?