(11-27-2017 04:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:05 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 03:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 03:48 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  speculations ≠ inside information

You didn't know anything about it did you?

about the BP Agent getting killed? Yes I did.

The family is saying that the FBI told them he died of a heart attack

Did you know that?

Heart attacks are common in blunt trauma incidents to the thoracic region. It's called traumatic cardiac arrest.

So when a victim is beat to death with a stone or a bat you tell the family they died of cardiac arrest?

That isn't exactly telling you how they died is it?

(11-27-2017 05:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:05 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 03:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  You didn't know anything about it did you?

about the BP Agent getting killed? Yes I did.

The family is saying that the FBI told them he died of a heart attack

Did you know that?

Heart attacks are common in blunt trauma incidents to the thoracic region. It's called traumatic cardiac arrest.

So when a victim is beat to death with a stone or a bat you tell the family they died of cardiac arrest?

That isn't exactly telling you how they died is it?

Better than telling them they died because some illegal immigrant crushed their chest with a rock because we are too soft as a country to properly deal with the threat the border poses.

Eventually we are going to realize the national security threat that the border is and adopt the appropriate policies. It's probably going to take a dirty bomb or a chemical weapons attack on one of our cities but as reactionary as we are to security threats that shouldn't be surprising. It'll probably also result in us engaging in another punitive military actions against the corrupt and failed Mexican government and installing a puppet government.

But that's getting in the way of you once again trying to discredit a law enforcement officer with your troll thread based on some BS you "watched" but can't provide a link to in 2017 when everything is available online.

beaten to death by a rock or bat or fists isn't a medical definition that would be used on an official 'causes of death' certificate

(11-27-2017 05:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:05 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 03:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  You didn't know anything about it did you?

about the BP Agent getting killed? Yes I did.

The family is saying that the FBI told them he died of a heart attack

Did you know that?

Heart attacks are common in blunt trauma incidents to the thoracic region. It's called traumatic cardiac arrest.

So when a victim is beat to death with a stone or a bat you tell the family they died of cardiac arrest?

That isn't exactly telling you how they died is it?

You need a link for that dude.

(11-27-2017 05:41 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 05:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:05 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  about the BP Agent getting killed? Yes I did.

The family is saying that the FBI told them he died of a heart attack

Did you know that?

Heart attacks are common in blunt trauma incidents to the thoracic region. It's called traumatic cardiac arrest.

So when a victim is beat to death with a stone or a bat you tell the family they died of cardiac arrest?

That isn't exactly telling you how they died is it?

Better than telling them they died because some illegal immigrant crushed their chest with a rock because we are too soft as a country to properly deal with the threat the border poses.

Eventually we are going to realize the national security threat that the border is and adopt the appropriate policies. It's probably going to take a dirty bomb or a chemical weapons attack on one of our cities but as reactionary as we are to security threats that shouldn't be surprising. It'll probably also result in us engaging in another punitive military actions against the corrupt and failed Mexican government and installing a puppet government.

But that's getting in the way of you once again trying to discredit a law enforcement officer with your troll thread based on some BS you "watched" but can't provide a link to in 2017 when everything is available online.

Adopting the approprate policies?

What are those?

(11-27-2017 05:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:05 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 03:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  You didn't know anything about it did you?

about the BP Agent getting killed? Yes I did.

The family is saying that the FBI told them he died of a heart attack

Did you know that?

Heart attacks are common in blunt trauma incidents to the thoracic region. It's called traumatic cardiac arrest.

So when a victim is beat to death with a stone or a bat you tell the family they died of cardiac arrest?

That isn't exactly telling you how they died is it?

Yes. A 'causes' worksheet submitted to the state and the funeral home generally wouldn't say anything about it. It would only speak to the medical/clinical actions... i.e. acute cardiac arrest secondary to respiratory failure and pulmonary embolism... and not the 'blunt force trauma by a rock' that we seen in the cop shows

That may be what caused the PE/Cardiac Arrest... but the stopping of the heart is why he died.

(11-28-2017 01:07 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 05:41 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 05:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  The family is saying that the FBI told them he died of a heart attack

Did you know that?

Heart attacks are common in blunt trauma incidents to the thoracic region. It's called traumatic cardiac arrest.

So when a victim is beat to death with a stone or a bat you tell the family they died of cardiac arrest?

That isn't exactly telling you how they died is it?

Better than telling them they died because some illegal immigrant crushed their chest with a rock because we are too soft as a country to properly deal with the threat the border poses.

Eventually we are going to realize the national security threat that the border is and adopt the appropriate policies. It's probably going to take a dirty bomb or a chemical weapons attack on one of our cities but as reactionary as we are to security threats that shouldn't be surprising. It'll probably also result in us engaging in another punitive military actions against the corrupt and failed Mexican government and installing a puppet government.

But that's getting in the way of you once again trying to discredit a law enforcement officer with your troll thread based on some BS you "watched" but can't provide a link to in 2017 when everything is available online.

Adopting the approprate policies?

What are those?

That any one committing an illicit entry across our border is a national security threat and is dealt with as such.

(11-27-2017 05:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  beaten to death by a rock or bat or fists isn't a medical definition that would be used on an official 'causes of death' certificate

That's what I thought. So now the latest is that now that the family has gone public that they were told their son died of cardiac arrest, the new story is that the death was likely an accident.

(11-28-2017 01:41 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 01:07 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 05:41 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 05:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Heart attacks are common in blunt trauma incidents to the thoracic region. It's called traumatic cardiac arrest.

So when a victim is beat to death with a stone or a bat you tell the family they died of cardiac arrest?

That isn't exactly telling you how they died is it?

Better than telling them they died because some illegal immigrant crushed their chest with a rock because we are too soft as a country to properly deal with the threat the border poses.

Eventually we are going to realize the national security threat that the border is and adopt the appropriate policies. It's probably going to take a dirty bomb or a chemical weapons attack on one of our cities but as reactionary as we are to security threats that shouldn't be surprising. It'll probably also result in us engaging in another punitive military actions against the corrupt and failed Mexican government and installing a puppet government.

But that's getting in the way of you once again trying to discredit a law enforcement officer with your troll thread based on some BS you "watched" but can't provide a link to in 2017 when everything is available online.

Adopting the approprate policies?

What are those?

That any one committing an illicit entry across our border is a national security threat and is dealt with as such.

BTW the video is still not available so my only conclusion is that they will not post it until the next one airs which will be next Sunday.

You can watch it here when it is uploaded.

http://www.kvia.com/news/abc-7-xtra

In the mean time, perhaps you can educate us on how security threats to the United States are dealt with.

(11-28-2017 01:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 01:41 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 01:07 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 05:41 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 05:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  So when a victim is beat to death with a stone or a bat you tell the family they died of cardiac arrest?

That isn't exactly telling you how they died is it?

Better than telling them they died because some illegal immigrant crushed their chest with a rock because we are too soft as a country to properly deal with the threat the border poses.

Eventually we are going to realize the national security threat that the border is and adopt the appropriate policies. It's probably going to take a dirty bomb or a chemical weapons attack on one of our cities but as reactionary as we are to security threats that shouldn't be surprising. It'll probably also result in us engaging in another punitive military actions against the corrupt and failed Mexican government and installing a puppet government.

But that's getting in the way of you once again trying to discredit a law enforcement officer with your troll thread based on some BS you "watched" but can't provide a link to in 2017 when everything is available online.

Adopting the approprate policies?

What are those?

That any one committing an illicit entry across our border is a national security threat and is dealt with as such.

BTW the video is still not available so my only conclusion is that they will not post it until the next one airs which will be next Sunday.

You can watch it here when it is uploaded.

http://www.kvia.com/news/abc-7-xtra

In the mean time, perhaps you can educate us on how security threats to the United States are dealt with.

So a link that doesn't back up anything you are saying?



Threats to national security are eliminated by either incarcerating them or killing them. The federal government owns a crap-ton of empty land out west. Build a huge prison and when you catch them hold them there doing hard labor until they are begging to be sent home. If they run when you try to apprehend them you shoot them. I'm willing to risk killing a few innocent foreigners to protect innocent Americans.

One of two things will happen. 1. They'll stop coming after a few incidents or 2. They'll stop running and we'll have plenty of aggregate for all the infrastructure projects we need.

(11-28-2017 01:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 01:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 01:41 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 01:07 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 05:41 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Better than telling them they died because some illegal immigrant crushed their chest with a rock because we are too soft as a country to properly deal with the threat the border poses.

Eventually we are going to realize the national security threat that the border is and adopt the appropriate policies. It's probably going to take a dirty bomb or a chemical weapons attack on one of our cities but as reactionary as we are to security threats that shouldn't be surprising. It'll probably also result in us engaging in another punitive military actions against the corrupt and failed Mexican government and installing a puppet government.

But that's getting in the way of you once again trying to discredit a law enforcement officer with your troll thread based on some BS you "watched" but can't provide a link to in 2017 when everything is available online.

Adopting the approprate policies?

What are those?

That any one committing an illicit entry across our border is a national security threat and is dealt with as such.

BTW the video is still not available so my only conclusion is that they will not post it until the next one airs which will be next Sunday.

You can watch it here when it is uploaded.

http://www.kvia.com/news/abc-7-xtra

In the mean time, perhaps you can educate us on how security threats to the United States are dealt with.

So a link that doesn't back up anything you are saying?



Threats to national security are eliminated by either incarcerating them or killing them. The federal government owns a crap-ton of empty land out west. Build a huge prison and when you catch them hold them there doing hard labor until they are begging to be sent home. If they run when you try to apprehend them you shoot them. I'm willing to risk killing a few innocent foreigners to protect innocent Americans.

One of two things will happen. 1. They'll stop coming after a few incidents or 2. They'll stop running and we'll have plenty of aggregate for all the infrastructure projects we need.

The link is there if you care to watch the video when it becomes available. We know you won't however because you are simply deflecting.

Now back to your policy changes. It sounds like a lot of time and effort. Are you sure that all of this could be done without changing one single law?

I ask because we are talking about the death of one agent and you have a big plan to stop it.

But when it comes to mass shootings, you don't want to move a finger.

I find that ironic.

(11-28-2017 02:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Now back to your policy changes. It sounds like a lot of time and effort. Are you sure that all of this could be done without changing one single law?

I ask because we are talking about the death of one agent and you have a big plan to stop it.

But when it comes to mass shootings, you don't want to move a finger.

I find that ironic.

Mass shootings are not a threat to national security. An unsecured border is.

And I never said anything about changing one law. I have no problem with changing laws that do not work, especially when it doesn't involve the rights of American citizens.

(11-28-2017 02:15 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Now back to your policy changes. It sounds like a lot of time and effort. Are you sure that all of this could be done without changing one single law?

I ask because we are talking about the death of one agent and you have a big plan to stop it.

But when it comes to mass shootings, you don't want to move a finger.

I find that ironic.

Mass shootings are not a threat to national security. An unsecured border is.

And I never said anything about changing one law. I have no problem with changing laws that do not work, especially when it doesn't involve the rights of American citizens.

I'm just trying to find consistency here.

The death of one Border agent is a matter of national security but the mass shooting of hundreds of innocent Americans is not?

How do you figure?

(11-28-2017 02:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:15 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Now back to your policy changes. It sounds like a lot of time and effort. Are you sure that all of this could be done without changing one single law?

I ask because we are talking about the death of one agent and you have a big plan to stop it.

But when it comes to mass shootings, you don't want to move a finger.

I find that ironic.

Mass shootings are not a threat to national security. An unsecured border is.

And I never said anything about changing one law. I have no problem with changing laws that do not work, especially when it doesn't involve the rights of American citizens.

I'm just trying to find consistency here.

The death of one Border agent is a matter of national security but the mass shooting of hundreds of innocent Americans is not?

How do you figure?

The death of the Border Patrol agent is a symptom, not the cause. The cause is a massive, unsecured border where uneducated, malnourished peasants who just left a mud hut from whatever third world shithole they came from can just waltz across as they please.

(11-28-2017 02:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:15 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Now back to your policy changes. It sounds like a lot of time and effort. Are you sure that all of this could be done without changing one single law?

I ask because we are talking about the death of one agent and you have a big plan to stop it.

But when it comes to mass shootings, you don't want to move a finger.

I find that ironic.

Mass shootings are not a threat to national security. An unsecured border is.

And I never said anything about changing one law. I have no problem with changing laws that do not work, especially when it doesn't involve the rights of American citizens.

I'm just trying to find consistency here.

The death of one Border agent is a matter of national security but the mass shooting of hundreds of innocent Americans is not?

How do you figure?

The death of the Border Patrol agent is a symptom, not the cause. The cause is a massive, unsecured border where uneducated, malnourished peasants who just left a mud hut from whatever third world shithole they came from can just waltz across as they please.

Once again you show how ignorant you truly are.

You have no idea how difficult it is to come to this country. Thousands of people have died attempting to make it to this country.

It is beyond belief that you have such little regard for what people go through just to try and have the kind of life we take for granted on a daily basis.

But how much is it going to cost us right?

(11-28-2017 02:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:15 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Now back to your policy changes. It sounds like a lot of time and effort. Are you sure that all of this could be done without changing one single law?

I ask because we are talking about the death of one agent and you have a big plan to stop it.

But when it comes to mass shootings, you don't want to move a finger.

I find that ironic.

Mass shootings are not a threat to national security. An unsecured border is.

And I never said anything about changing one law. I have no problem with changing laws that do not work, especially when it doesn't involve the rights of American citizens.

I'm just trying to find consistency here.

The death of one Border agent is a matter of national security but the mass shooting of hundreds of innocent Americans is not?

How do you figure?

20 million illegals here, all of the illegal drugs come through the southern border. Illegals kill a lot of citizens in various ways. Yes it is an epidemic.

(11-28-2017 01:50 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 05:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  beaten to death by a rock or bat or fists isn't a medical definition that would be used on an official 'causes of death' certificate

That's what I thought. So now the latest is that now that the family has gone public that they were told their son died of cardiac arrest, the new story is that the death was likely an accident.

This sounds to me like someone expecting a 'crushed by a rock' finding who gets a 'heart attack' finding (because that's the clinical description) who then assumes that being crushed by a rock wasn't what precipitated the heart attack because they THINK they know what 'causes' are because they watch Law and Order. Not you, the people telling the 'new story'. One has to wonder what their motivation for this is (if any).

This is where the distinction between murder and manslaughter comes in. Did they intend to kill him? Murder. Did they merely intend to keep him from catching them/being able to stop them from crossing? Manslaughter.

Either way, it's not an 'accident' in the traditional vernacular. The death may have been accidental, but the actions that resulted in the death were not. That's why I wonder the motivation of the story-tellers. It seems to be a deflection from the fact that there was an intentional act that directly lead to someone's death. Whether the death was accidental or not is somewhat immaterial. Calling it an accidental death implies that it might have happened WITHOUT the intentional acts

I doubt if many who drive drunk intend to kill people thus it is an accident, but it's still a VERY serious crime as it is an easily foreseeable outcome of the act.

(11-28-2017 04:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 01:50 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 05:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  beaten to death by a rock or bat or fists isn't a medical definition that would be used on an official 'causes of death' certificate

That's what I thought. So now the latest is that now that the family has gone public that they were told their son died of cardiac arrest, the new story is that the death was likely an accident.

This sounds to me like someone expecting a 'crushed by a rock' finding who gets a 'heart attack' finding (because that's the clinical description) who then assumes that being crushed by a rock wasn't what precipitated the heart attack because they THINK they know what 'causes' are because they watch Law and Order. Not you, the people telling the 'new story'. One has to wonder what their motivation for this is (if any).

This is where the distinction between murder and manslaughter comes in. Did they intend to kill him? Murder. Did they merely intend to keep him from catching them/being able to stop them from crossing? Manslaughter.

Either way, it's not an 'accident' in the traditional vernacular. The death may have been accidental, but the actions that resulted in the death were not. That's why I wonder the motivation of the story-tellers. It seems to be a deflection from the fact that there was an intentional act that directly lead to someone's death. Whether the death was accidental or not is somewhat immaterial. Calling it an accidental death implies that it might have happened WITHOUT the intentional acts

I doubt if many who drive drunk intend to kill people thus it is an accident, but it's still a VERY serious crime as it is an easily foreseeable outcome of the act.

The family is obviously torn apart by this. Maybe they are just reacting emotionally. Maybe they are somewhat ignorant ( as I am ) as to how this is all explained.

Either way, the family is talking to the media and the media is reporting, at least her locally, that the FBI is misleading the family. Whether that is diliberately or not remains to be seen.

I guess this isn't a big deal nation wide but it's been reported here daily.


https://www.texastribune.org/2017/11/21/...ays-later/

(11-28-2017 04:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 04:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 01:50 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 05:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  beaten to death by a rock or bat or fists isn't a medical definition that would be used on an official 'causes of death' certificate

That's what I thought. So now the latest is that now that the family has gone public that they were told their son died of cardiac arrest, the new story is that the death was likely an accident.

This sounds to me like someone expecting a 'crushed by a rock' finding who gets a 'heart attack' finding (because that's the clinical description) who then assumes that being crushed by a rock wasn't what precipitated the heart attack because they THINK they know what 'causes' are because they watch Law and Order. Not you, the people telling the 'new story'. One has to wonder what their motivation for this is (if any).

This is where the distinction between murder and manslaughter comes in. Did they intend to kill him? Murder. Did they merely intend to keep him from catching them/being able to stop them from crossing? Manslaughter.

Either way, it's not an 'accident' in the traditional vernacular. The death may have been accidental, but the actions that resulted in the death were not. That's why I wonder the motivation of the story-tellers. It seems to be a deflection from the fact that there was an intentional act that directly lead to someone's death. Whether the death was accidental or not is somewhat immaterial. Calling it an accidental death implies that it might have happened WITHOUT the intentional acts

I doubt if many who drive drunk intend to kill people thus it is an accident, but it's still a VERY serious crime as it is an easily foreseeable outcome of the act.

The family is obviously torn apart by this. Maybe they are just reacting emotionally. Maybe they are somewhat ignorant ( as I am ) as to how this is all explained.

Either way, the family is talking to the media and the media is reporting, at least her locally, that the FBI is misleading the family. Whether that is diliberately or not remains to be seen.

I guess this isn't a big deal nation wide but it's been reported here daily.


https://www.texastribune.org/2017/11/21/...ays-later/

You need a link for that. Nothing in the linked article states your claim.

(11-28-2017 04:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  The family is obviously torn apart by this. Maybe they are just reacting emotionally. Maybe they are somewhat ignorant ( as I am ) as to how this is all explained.

Either way, the family is talking to the media and the media is reporting, at least her locally, that the FBI is misleading the family. Whether that is diliberately or not remains to be seen.

I guess this isn't a big deal nation wide but it's been reported here daily.

I obviously don't know the facts.... and I'm a bit confused as to whom the 'new story' is coming from....

but IMO, the media shouldn't be reporting the 'facts' of the families misunderstandings (if that is what it is)... but instead they should be finding out the facts and reporting them, even politely and compassionately correcting the family if necessary. The family obviously wants to know the truth, and there are people who can help them discover the truth.

If they don't do that, they're selling a families grief and people's emotions and not 'facts'.

Said differently... If the family only reports what they THINK they know, and the paper calls the FBI and they (appropriately) say 'no comment' or 'see the report', then someone seeking the truth and really wanting to help the family should be telling them what i just told you/asking that the family let them speak to the medical examiner for or with them.

But that person needs to NOT have an agenda.

FTR, whether it was a fight between the deputies or a fight with illegals wouldn't make any difference to the fact that the death was caused by a fight... and not an 'accident' in the common vernacular.... i.e. the other deputy or the border crossers were playing a trick on him and he had a heart attack and died.