So the question is do you let them in or stop them at the Border?

Kek turmpero said they will be redirected to application centres. If they dont fet they get to gtfo

Next topic

Yeah, so you have two options:
a) let them in and people will die because of them
b) don't let them in and some of them will die.

If they get violent it is very possible that they will be fired upon.

Likely, even.

If they're close-in with soldiers when they get violent, that is.

How common is it globally to treat throwing stones the same as being shot at? I would think it would be somewhat common as being hit in the head with a stone or brick could kill or injure you. It's hard to match force when the weapon scale is mismatched. Stones could be lethal force, but not as effective as firearms, so is it that we should respond with less than lethal weapons when someone uses a poor lethal weapon, or is it acceptable to respond with your group's standard lethal force?

Respond with your own lethal force if the endgoal isn't to just make the opposition run away

It's ultimately up to the soldier, but by the definition of deadly force the soldier is justified in utilizing deadly force if the subject displays intent, and has opportunity and capability. I wasn't really talking about rocks being thrown, but if someone has a knife in the crowd for instance.

It all depends on how close they are when things escalate as well.

David killed Goliath with a sling and a stone, remember.

And it wasn't just because God made the stone deal +105410114365345654665462 piercing damage either

That shit can be as lethal as a gun, especially when the projectile is larger than a bullet

Either way, you're gonna look bad to everyone who's into the idea that immigrants are better when they're also illegal

Yeah I think the optics of the situation might not align perfectly with what we might call an ethical code of violence

People view rockets as somehow harmless, but they were weapons and haven't stopped being so. Damage something can deal is equal to it's mass and velocity. So something going slower than a bullet but with more mass can do as much or more damage. I.e. a truck is more deadly than a bullet.

That said, a gun has higher lethality and will never look good. It's bad optics

But trump is in a lose lose situation

If they are violent, they do not belong here. And we should have a right to defend ourselfs.

Thus we should take a third option:

Stop giving a shit about the people who want the borders either permanently open or permanently removed

Because they want nothing but for Trump to be in an eternal catch-22

You see, you can't because there is a possibility they gain some power back if you are not careful

Time is right, people hate violence and turn to those who can protect them. But if you appear to be the more violent one, they run to the other side.

Water cannons would probably be a better response to rockets

seems like they will deploy active denail system.
pretty cool to see it in action

I did hear theres supposedly new tech

Did anyone write about it?

i dont know if its confirmed.
but it would make sense.
water cannons would be logistical nightmare.
and there is children so tear gas is not that good idea.

Also, active denial or area denial? Cause the latter usually refers to explosive shit like cluster bombs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System

Ihh the heat ray

there is that, there is also those sound based ones too

I agree with Tim that it will be very interesting to see how this plays out. Historically I would have said we'd never open fire on migrants at the border because of the backlash we'd get internationally, but honestly I don't think that would stop Mr Trump. It's possible the President could feel the pulse of the American people and determine it would be acceptable to enough of the electorate to maintain Republican power in 2020. I can't say. I'm also not sure how the military would respond to order to fire on rock throwers. The legal jeopardy for solders could be serious. Constitutionally, though, the President likely does have the power to order it. The question is do other laws contravene soldier's authority to carry the order out. We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto...

Now back to when does life start. Heartbeat and complex neural tissue. Can we call it "human life" if there is no heartbeat and the neural tissue is undifferentiated or poorly differentiated? This gets us to six weeks.

Depends upon the circumstances and the equipment at the disposal of the military. In the US the legal and moral responsibility tends to stop with the officers and those below them are supposed to follow their lead.

@DrYuriMom depends, i would say Codes brought up a somewhat decent point for it starting at conception. Namely it has to be human DNA, contains genetic material that is not 100% from the person carrying the child, with whole chromosomes (number of chromosomes may vary). That does mean it includes people with no brain function or no heart beat, so long as the tissue is not dead.

But we consider someone with no brain function and no heart beat to be dead. We remove life support which I'd say a placenta resembles, and they pass on.

Its unlikely that trump will directly order them to gun down all migrants. He will probably authorize self defense.

i would agree, but codes seems to believe there is a chance they could come back, or that they could be saved