So you're OK with the BP shooting that kid across the border because he was throwing rocks from a distance where it wasn't the least bit deadly
1 sentence, 26 words, no punctuation, so much fail.
1) You assume that just because I refute your asinine statement that a rock is not deadly that I am ok with what happened.
2) You assume you know the distance involved. The article says they were "under" the bridge. They could be under the bridge and on opposite sides of the border and be as close as inches apart or as far as a couple dozen meters.
3) You assume that it was as simple as 'kid throws rock, agent shoots kid'. From the account given the agents and their detainee were "surrounded" by foreign nationals and under assault by said nationals on BOTH sides of the border.
From the chain of responses you've given so far it is obvious that you want to pass judgment based on personal reasons and not information.