Thread: Border agent shoots, kills man in Douglas

Originally Posted by DGL_BP

Originally Posted by Newmexican

Thanks James. I have the series on my DVR, including the special episode on Falcon Lake, but sometimes get the channels confused. History, Discovery, Nat Geo etc,

Call me crazy, but there is something that just does not sit right with that shooting on Falcon Lake. I have to admit that the BS meter flicked upward on more than one occasion while watching the widow's account of the incident. I can't imagine going through something like that, and it seemed as though she was more stoic about it than one would expect, considering the graphic and harrowing nature of it all. It's also strange how the Mexican investigator was beheaded. Strange things are afoot, as they say...

It wouldn't surprise if, down the road, more to the story comes out.

well in the days afterwards, you can understand the trauma that she faced and sometimes trying to keep yourself composed after such an incident isnt always easy.
the mexican investigator was beheaded because of the power of the zetas in that region and they didnt want anyone to find out the truth.

if there is something not right, by all means explain yourself

DGL_BP wrote:

Call me crazy, but there is something that just does not sit right with that shooting on Falcon Lake. I have to admit that the BS meter flicked upward on more than one occasion while watching the widow's account of the incident. I can't imagine going through something like that, and it seemed as though she was more stoic about it than one would expect, considering the graphic and harrowing nature of it all. It's also strange how the Mexican investigator was beheaded. Strange things are afoot, as they say...

It wouldn't surprise if, down the road, more to the story comes out.

I read a very interesting STRAFOR assessment. Since I don't have permission to post it here, this is the link.
http://www.14usc89.com/2010/10/stratfor ... lcon-lake/

With the Gunrunner scandal afoot, I can't help but wonder where the guns that were used in the attack that were in the cartels hands were obtained. Also, STRATFOR did not, that I know of, disclose the party that paid them for the assessment. I agree that there are many mysteries afoot.

Heck, those weren't pick-up signals. Those were the state flower!

Stratfor - Wikipedia

Strategic Forecasting, Inc., more commonly known as STRATFOR,
is a global intelligence company founded in 1996 in Austin, Texas by George Friedman who is ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratfor

Originally Posted by DGL_BP

Originally Posted by Newmexican

Thanks James. I have the series on my DVR, including the special episode on Falcon Lake, but sometimes get the channels confused. History, Discovery, Nat Geo etc,

Call me crazy, but there is something that just does not sit right with that shooting on Falcon Lake. I have to admit that the BS meter flicked upward on more than one occasion while watching the widow's account of the incident. I can't imagine going through something like that, and it seemed as though she was more stoic about it than one would expect, considering the graphic and harrowing nature of it all. It's also strange how the Mexican investigator was beheaded. Strange things are afoot, as they say...

It wouldn't surprise if, down the road, more to the story comes out.

What exactly are you saying? Making such a comment must mean you have your own ideas of what may have happened.

I need to express my comments to dgl-bp. I have never heard of any law enforcement agency that uses lethal force so much for rock throwing. Common sense and good judgment cannot be taught. When you have an agency that hires officers that have high school diplomas, former fast food workers, former ex cons, you will have these kinds of problems. It starts from the hiring process. This is not the agents fault, as you said it's above your pay grade. When you have a boss that runs the patrol does not carry a degree of any sort. Shame on him!

Now to the Douglas shooting. All bias aside, if you are well trained officer as you may be. You never shoot someone in back, especially if he's fleeing. Read your use of force policy, you might want to read any policy, not to include prisons. So this is going to be a hard situation for the agent to pull out of.
As you know the border patrol Officers is probably the worse agency to work
for, the turn around rate an officer stays is two to three years and moves on. Suicide
rate is the worse in the industry. Again, this starts from the top down.

Good luck in your endeavors, and I apologize for me being honest blunt. But you need not get to offended about others expressing there feelings. It's
attitudes like yours that give your agency a bad name.

Forgot to mention, I'm sure my writing got you all stirred up.

Originally Posted by Awe123

. . . When you have an agency that hires officers that have high school diplomas, former fast food workers, former ex cons, you will have these kinds of problems. It starts from the hiring process. . .

No law enforcement agency can hire ex-cons because a convicted felon can NOT own or posses a firearm.

You are right, but border patrol will do it. Has long as they don't have a conviction less than 5 years. In addition, just last year they arrested a agent that had a felony warrant they missed. In addition, the academy is weeding out 5 to 6 pontential officers that back grounds were missed. In addition, there have been a least three arrested in the southwest border that were affiliated with gang strings. It sad to say, but true. There in need for officers they lowered there standards. I've heard IA is doing cases on officers that were caught shop lifting candy bars be specific Snickers from Circle K. This is true. It's so bad now, they need to open a new IA agency.

Can you work for border patrol if you're a convicted felon . . .
Dec 4, 2009
Only answer to this question, if you know what you're talking about. . . Absolutely not.
answers.yahoo.com

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Originally Posted by Awe123

. . . When you have an agency that hires officers that have high school diplomas, former fast food workers, former ex cons, you will have these kinds of problems. It starts from the hiring process. . .

No law enforcement agency can hire ex-cons because a convicted felon can NOT own or posses a firearm.

This claim does sound somewhat peculiar. While nothing would surprise my anymore; I cannot see the BP knowingly hiring ex cons (the term "ex con" implies a felony conviction with perhaps prison time served) to serve amongst their ranks. As JD points out, convicted felons cannot possess firearms, that is, unless there is a waiver that I’m unaware of.

They may allow those with misdemeanor convictions to serve, but that's a different issue. I'm not saying this didn't happen, but I find it hard to believe the BP would have a policy of hiring "ex cons," irrespective of standards being lowered to attract recruits.

If this is indeed established policy, I definetly want to know more about it!