A 15-year-old Mexican boy is dead after he allegedly threw "big stones" at U.S. border patrol agents attempting to detain other Mexicans trying to enter the U.S. without a permission slip from the government.
Preliminary reports on the incident indicated that U.S. officers on bicycle patrol "were assaulted with rocks by an unknown number of people," Border Patrol Special Operations Supervisor Ramiro Cordero said Tuesday.
"During the assault at least one agent discharged his firearm," he said. "The agent is currently on administrative leave. A thorough, multi-agency investigation is currently ongoing."
Translation: An anonymous U.S. Border Patrol agent has received a paid vacation for firing indiscriminately into a group of Mexicans (kids and perhaps adults) who were responding to an initiation of force against (presumably) nonviolent Mexican citizens, killing one of them.
From a legal perspective, it was the Mexican stone-throwers who initiated violence against the border patrol agents because the general assumption is that laws that are valid (i.e., passed within legislative guidelines) are laws that are to be obeyed, the refusal of which demands swift punishment. From a moral perspective, however, we must consider the actions of individuals and whether those actions account for the threat or initiation of violence. And from a moral perspective, if we assume the immigrants did not initiate a physical confrontation with the agents, it was the border control agents who initiated violence against them, necessarily legitimizing the actions of the stone-throwers, who quite possibly could be viewed as defending the immigrants against unjustified detention (force).
But back to "laws," for they reign supreme here in the ol' land of the free. Even though the immigrants broke the law (thereby earning the title "illegal" through the fault of no one but themselves, the story goes), it is absurd to argue that merely walking across a border ipso facto constitutes a threat, or that by doing so someone intends to cause harm to someone else. But legally it matters not -- laws were broken! On this point alone, anti-immigration activists, bureaucrats, and politicians will insist that the border control agents were victims of these "aggressors." After all, they're "defending the border" simply by showing up for work; from the get-go the implication is that these agents are automatically under attack by anyone who's not a U.S. citizen or who does not possess the proper paperwork. But while this mentality is fostered by and implicit in the law, it is bunk. People who cause no harm to others are not criminals and should not be treated as such, no matter what any unjust law has to say about it.
Of course, another variable complicating this matter is the existence of public property. Because passage on or across government-nabbed land that fails to jive with the law constitutes trespassing, government agents essentially have carte blanche to intervene. However, were all lands privately owned, it stands to reason that some property owners might restrict the flow of immigrants across their lands while others would undoubtedly permit it -- probably for a small fee.
But even if we were to accept the validity of state-owned and -operated land, the crucial question here is whether the use of a firearm is a proper and proportional response to someone slinging a few rocks. I'm not going to attempt to persuade you one way or the other, so I'll just share this segment of the report on this incident:
T.J. Bonner, president of the union representing Border Patrol agents, said rock throwing aimed at Border Patrol agents is common and capable of causing serious injury.
"It is a deadly force encounter, one that justifies the use of deadly force," Bonner said.
Considering the fact that arguing with a police officer and failure to comply (quickly enough) with a "lawful order" also "justify" the use of deadly force by state agents these days, you might almost forgive Bonner for his ignorance.
