Did the Soldier's Response to Rock-Throwing Kids Go Too Far?

  • Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Cross Line
In summary, a soldier in a foreign country was attacked by a group of underage kids and in response the soldier used riot gear to disperse the group.
  • #36
Danger said:
I can see already that you're heading for a stellar career in the Diplomatic Corps. :rolleyes:
Who, me? nah, just delta force (if you don't know what that is, its the only people who are granted immunity from the law by the President himself to assinate people. Fifth freedom, yo!) :-p Aren't i a caring, kind person?

Fibonacci
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
1 said:
Who, me? nah, just delta force (if you don't know what that is, its the only people who are granted immunity from the law by the President himself to assinate people. Fifth freedom, yo!) :-p Aren't i a caring, kind person?

Fibonacci
You seem to be overlooking 'Blue Light'.
 
  • #38
Those soldiers handled it fine but imo could have opened fire on them. They were greatly outnumbered and the situation could have escalated. Good thing they had the bean bags and flash, otherwise it would have been 25 dead kids.

Hey, don't bring a rock to a gun fight. eerrr...yeah.. something like that.
 
  • #39
You guys hsould go talk to the people on my board. It seems as if the Jews in Israel right now are actually arab descendants, the Palestinians have foreever owned the land there through all of history... Jews shouldn't have been relocated and instead, stayed in Germany in 1946... and that the Jews going into what is now Israel is 'like you going up to someones house for no reason other then your own selfish ways and telling them to leave'.

The only reason the Jews have Isael is because if the President doesn't support it then they lose the Jewish vote, and Jews vote in numbers and most live in NY and FL, two states with a lot of electorial votes. Makes you wonder how America found it so imporant to give Jews their "rightful land" while completely ignoring Native Americans. :wink:

(I'm not racists, infact my History teacher, whos Jewish, explained this to our whole class)

As for the children. They got off easy. If you're stupid enough to throw rocks at armed soldiers then, really, do you deserve to live? Think about it. How long could someone that inheirently stupid survive without doing something idiotic like falling off a cliff. I bet the "smart" kids were sitting out of view watching them and laughing.

It reminds me of some kid that was poking an alligator with a stick and then got ripped to pieces (what a suprise). Then the pissed off parents convinced the town to kill all the gators they could find.
 
  • #40
Entropy said:
The only reason the Jews have Isael is because if the President doesn't support it then they lose the Jewish vote, and Jews vote in numbers and most live in NY and FL, two states with a lot of electorial votes. Makes you wonder how America found it so imporant to give Jews their "rightful land" while completely ignoring Native Americans. :wink:
Funny part is that it's always non-voting idiots who say things like "omg jews control washington". No; voters control washington. That includes all races, religions, genders, etc. Jews vote, so you need to remember them. Old people take buses just to vote, so you definitely need to include them. If hillbillies only vote at a 5% rate, there's no real point in helping them. Jesse Jackson tried to get the black vote. California governors always go for the hispanic vote. Pick the groups you want to vote for you, and pick the ones that vote in larger numbers.

You guys hsould go talk to the people on my board. It seems as if the Jews in Israel right now are actually arab descendants, the Palestinians have foreever owned the land there through all of history... Jews shouldn't have been relocated and instead, stayed in Germany in 1946... and that the Jews going into what is now Israel is 'like you going up to someones house for no reason other then your own selfish ways and telling them to leave'.
Palestine was actually a British colony, just like the US was. When it was given away as Israel, Britain had full right to do so. Palestine fights for independence the way the US did, but they're continually losing the battle.
I would tend to think Americans would side with Palestine since they're fighting a battle that's all too familiar.
 
  • #41
mapper said:
Those soldiers handled it fine but imo could have opened fire on them. They were greatly outnumbered and the situation could have escalated. Good thing they had the bean bags and flash, otherwise it would have been 25 dead kids.

Hey, don't bring a rock to a gun fight. eerrr...yeah.. something like that.
Think about that. Is it all right to kill someone because they throw a rock at you?

If the soldiers did not have the grenades or other forms of crowd control, and were armed with only guns, they should have run away.
 
  • #42
1 said:
Who's up for some anarchy? :biggrin:
"The funny thing about anarchists is how quickly they lose their enthusiasm for lawlessness after a completely unprovoked punch in the nose." - DC2005

.
 
  • #43
BicycleTree said:
Think about that. Is it all right to kill someone because they throw a rock at you?

If the soldiers did not have the grenades or other forms of crowd control, and were armed with only guns, they should have run away.

What would that have teached them if the soldiers did run away? Hey let's drive out all the peace keepers in our country by throwing rocks at them? um. kay.
 
Last edited:
  • #44
hahah wow I've never seen this before :)
You all have a normal non-hippie reaction to this.
Usually I get blasted by some of the people I hang around 'cause they think that everything can be solved by flower power.
I think those soldiers are 100% justified in what they did.
If someone is trying to harm you then you retaliate.
It's human nature to fight back when you're threatened.
 
  • #45
Mapper, the lesson to be learned is that it's often good for soldiers to carry riot gear. What if the crowd wasn't throwing rocks but was advancing at the soldiers and insulting them, unarmed, and the soldiers had only guns? Should the soldiers kill the crowd then? Sometimes "teaching a lesson" is less important than saving 25 lives.
 
  • #46
Pengwuino said:
And what kind of person would actually put himself up to strapping a bomb ona lil kid?
This kind of thing where kids are involved is common precisely because it makes a response more difficult. I'll bet the older guys in the group got the younger kids to participate (I couldn't get the link to open to anything). I'd say the soldiers did the right thing.

I was watching a news program some time ago, and what these soldiers do so they and other soldiers can come back home alive/in one piece is amazing to me.
 
  • #47
Think about that. Is it all right to kill someone because they throw a rock at you?

That's like criticising someone for trying to defend against being stabbed by asking if it's right to incapacitate someone because they flexed their triceps.
 
  • #48
Hurkyl said:
That's like criticising someone for trying to defend against being stabbed by asking if it's right to incapacitate someone because they flexed their triceps.

huh? lol, I am lost. whos flexing the tricepts?
 
  • #49
You know, the stabbing motion? At least when I tried to simualte a stabbing motion, that's where the force came from. *shrug* Oh well, you took all of the wind out of my analogy's sails. :frown:
 
Last edited:
  • #50
BicycleTree said:
Think about that. Is it all right to kill someone because they throw a rock at you?

If the soldiers did not have the grenades or other forms of crowd control, and were armed with only guns, they should have run away.
Think about what that would teach them.
throw rocks --> soldiers go away
Then you would have massive crowds throwing rocks at soldiers. One soldier fires, then every soldier fires, and you're left with a massacre.
It's better to kill ~20 stupid children than to massacre ~2000 people doing something that's quite logical.


BicycleTree said:
Mapper, the lesson to be learned is that it's often good for soldiers to carry riot gear. What if the crowd wasn't throwing rocks but was advancing at the soldiers and insulting them, unarmed, and the soldiers had only guns? Should the soldiers kill the crowd then?
It may sounds brutally harsh (because it is), but sometimes mowing down a few people can set a precedent that your army isn't going to tolerate any crap from anyone.
 
Last edited:
  • #51
If someone is attacking you and they _cannot kill you_ or even hurt you seriously, responding with lethal force would be very immoral. The soldiers acted appropriately with the riot grenades, but if they did not have the grenades and only had guns, then the only moral response would be to run. The question you have to ask yourself is, "is avoiding having to run away worth the lives of 25 people?"

If someone is in the process of stabbing you then he CAN kill you or hurt you seriously; in that situation you should do whatever you can. Therefore, that's a poor analogy.
 
  • #52
If the people mass in large numbers then you _would_ most definitely have riot gear. Riot grenades, rubber bullets, tear gas, maybe even fire hoses. Deliberately using lethal force against 2000 rioters who cannot do any real damage would also be unjustifiable.
 
  • #53
The question here is the same basic question faced by the British in India during passive resistance. Is it moral to kill and maim people solely for the purpose of maintaining control, and not for protecting any tangible thing being attacked? Granted that someone throwing rocks is not a passive resistor, but the motivation for killing him would be the same.
 
  • #54
I have a question. Do you think that group of 25 kids were throwing rocks and the such cause they knew the soldiers had riot gear and that they were in no real mortal danger? What if they knew the soldiers only had live ammo?

Not sure how many of you did this when you were a kid. Sometimes while hanging out with our friends (like when we were 10 yrs old) we would egg on an adult or much older kid just so he may chase us. I definitely wouldn’t have done it if I knew he had a gun and planned on using it.

With an angry mob kids or no, the situation could turn from bad to really fookin bad really quick. On the other hand, if the soldiers would have used deadly force I am sure there would be a lynch mob soon to follow.
 
  • #55
Entropy said:
The only reason the Jews have Isael is because if the President doesn't support it then they lose the Jewish vote, and Jews vote in numbers and most live in NY and FL, two states with a lot of electorial votes. Makes you wonder how America found it so imporant to give Jews their "rightful land" while completely ignoring Native Americans. :wink:

And don't forget about 3 billions $ we give to Israel plus latest in military equipment.
 
  • #56
mapper said:
I have a question. Do you think that group of 25 kids were throwing rocks and the such cause they knew the soldiers had riot gear and that they were in no real mortal danger? What if they knew the soldiers only had live ammo?

Not sure how many of you did this when you were a kid. Sometimes while hanging out with our friends (like when we were 10 yrs old) we would egg on an adult or much older kid just so he may chase us. I definitely wouldn’t have done it if I knew he had a gun and planned on using it.

With an angry mob kids or no, the situation could turn from bad to really fookin bad really quick. On the other hand, if the soldiers would have used deadly force I am sure there would be a lynch mob soon to follow.

Just how bad do you think it would be if the soldiers did use deadly force and left 25 kids dead for no good reason? If the soldiers can get away, they should, and should not massacre people just to appear powerful.

The kids were stupid, that's a given. For that you want to kill them? Hey, let's kill all stupid people, right here in the USA. Anyone with road rage--guillotine for them! Anyone engages in street crime and it's off to the death camps. How dumb must you be to shoplift? Better ready the firing squad.
 
  • #57
If someone is attacking you and they _cannot kill you_ or even hurt you seriously, responding with lethal force would be very immoral.

A mob armed with rocks can kill you, and hurt you seriously. The mob could even have had more effective armaments. But, a mob doesn't even have to be armed to kill someone...

So if this statement is correct, it is still irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
  • #58
BicycleTree said:
If someone is attacking you and they _cannot kill you_ or even hurt you seriously
If you think people don't get killed by crowds, think again. People are jailed every day for killing somebody with their bare hands, and that's just 1 on 1. When there's a situation of 25 against 1 or 2 soldiers, those soldiers are in very serious and immediate danger, especially when those people are throwing rocks.

If you've ever had rock wars as a kid, you probably know that rocks mess you up pretty bad. I've been cold cocked many times before. The difference between the situation being discussed and rock wars is that when you're knocked down in rock wars, your friends don't rush over to your unconscious body and try to kill you... well at least my friends didn't. I haven't exactly met your friends.

If the people mass in large numbers then you _would_ most definitely have riot gear.
Military are there to take out military targets, that's why it's very unreasonable to assume they would have riot gear.
If a crowd of 2000 people is rushing towards 200 military personel, it's crazy to think 200 people can stop 2000. You either have your men pull out to later occupy the same region, or you stand your ground. How you stand your ground is really up to your commander.
 
Last edited:
  • #59
Yes, rocks can kill you. So can fists. Here is an interesting thought.

Why did these children/young adults use rocks instead of fists? Somehow they feel safer throwing rocks than punching and kicking soldiers armed with guns. They are not stupid for throwing rocks. They are angry and are testing the boundaries of authority. If they had come close enough to grab these soldiers I can almost assure you that the soldiers would have opened fire on them.

At some point in the film one of the soldiers is on the radio. He is probably reporting the situation and calling for backup. Within minutes of that incident there were probably 50 more soldiers. An overwhelming precense of authority is required to stop an angry population from rioting. This one event had a potential to become something much more serious. These soldiers imo acted very responsibly.
 
  • #60
lol rock wars. As another citizen from Canada i just want to say this isn't a normal pastime we practice. ShawnD must have moved to Alberta from the east cost. :-p

Too bad we didnt have paintball guns when we were kids eh ShawnD. :)
 
  • #61
mapper said:
lol rock wars. As another citizen from Canada i just want to say this isn't a normal pastime we practice. ShawnD must have moved to Alberta from the east cost. :-p

Too bad we didnt have paintball guns when we were kids eh ShawnD. :)
I always lived in Edmonton, and rock wars were big when I was a kid. We used to have them at school until the rules changed so there was no physical contact, no throwing, no running, no fun, etc.

Although paintball guns are less dangerous in a classical sense, they hurt a hell of a lot more. A rock to the leg will bruise but it's not a big deal. A paintball to the inner thigh means you can't walk for 30 minutes because your leg is numb, swollen, and is causing incredible pain.
 
  • #62
If you _run_ from people with rocks, they do not have the range to kill you. Let's say that the soldiers have some means of transportation nearby so that they can easily get away. Say, a couple of bicycles. Probably the soldiers could outrun the kids anyway (after all they are soldiers and have gone through difficult physical training) but say the soldiers have bikes just to be sure.

So situation is: 2 soldiers with only guns and with bicycles nearby for getaway, 25 kids with rocks and no other weapons. Soldiers should run.
 
  • #63
BicycleTree said:
Probably the soldiers could outrun the kids anyway (after all they are soldiers and have gone through difficult physical training)

Not even close. Flak jackets seriously restrict your mobility. Backpacks throw off your balance. Guns prevent you from using your hands as counter weights.

To get a feeling of what being a soldier is like... fill you backpack with textbooks, put on a hockey helmet, put on some dress shoes (any shoes with a platform heel), wear a fur coat (restricts mobility as much as a flak jacket), then find a shovel. Try running while wearing the backpack, the helmet, the shoes, the coat, and carrying the shovel. If anybody makes fun of you for looking weird, just run away since you're not justified in attacking them with your shovel. :-p
 
  • #64
All right, so soldiers are slow on foot, though I am not sure the degree to which I buy that. They are loaded down but not so vastly heavily, and they are necessarily in good shape. But, you say they have bikes. Also since they have helmets the rocks are not going to knock them out.

The question is then essential: inferior force attacks you and it cannot hurt you if you turn tail and run away; and you can kill everyone behind it if you turn around and shoot. You cannot stand still and not run or you will be overwhelmed. You cannot shoot because individually none of them are life-threatening and as a group you have the option of running from them, so they are still not life-threatening. The only moral choice is to run away.
 
  • #65
Running away when you have superior force is distasteful to people's violent instincts and conditioning. It has a stigma of cowardice on the surface but it is actually the bravest thing you can do in that situation. Knee jerk reactions of the "he hits me so I hit back" type are incorrect and would in this situation be needless killing, and thus morally murder.
 
  • #66
BicycleTree said:
If you _run_ from people with rocks, they do not have the range to kill you. Let's say that the soldiers have some means of transportation nearby so that they can easily get away. Say, a couple of bicycles. Probably the soldiers could outrun the kids anyway (after all they are soldiers and have gone through difficult physical training) but say the soldiers have bikes just to be sure.

So situation is: 2 soldiers with only guns and with bicycles nearby for getaway, 25 kids with rocks and no other weapons. Soldiers should run.

What's the point of soldiers being there in the first place if they are going to run from a group of people? They didn't decide to just go out for a stroll in dangerous territory for pleasure. They are there for a reason (another thing which is not explained in the video) They would lose their ability to keep the peace if they run from anyone who uses less than lethal force against them. They must be able to control a situation to remain in authority. Unfortunately, this sometimes means hurting people. Notice the young man that was hit by the bean bag was one of the older participants. He was specifically targeted because he was one of the oldest and strongest of the group and probably the most aggressive as well. They did not attack the weakest of the group as that would inspire more rage. Their target was well chosen and their actions necessary to remain in control of the area.

Morals are not a luxury for a soldier. They have a job to do and if they disobey orders they will be punished. This often means a soldier will have to weigh his personal morals against his orders. This can be the difference between life and death for a soldier, or years in prison and a dishonorable discharge.

Keep in mind the intention of the mob was not to kill or even injure these soldiers, although they would have if given the opportunity. The throwing of rocks is a challenging of the authority of the soldiers.
 
Last edited:
  • #67
When you joke about hitting people with your shovel because they criticize you, it is funny--but it says something about how you would like to react to situations of relatively minor insult like that. Obviously it would be unjustified to hit them with your shovel, and that's the joke, but you're using it as if you might like to--you're joking "on the square."
 
  • #68
Huckleberry: Since the soldiers are patrolling an area where they might confront nonlethal force, they have riot gear and that's the way it should be. If they did not have riot gear and were hence not prepared to meet nonlethal force, they shouldn't and usually wouldn't be patrolling there and they would not be morally permitted to use lethal force against nonlethal force.

This is essentially a moral question outside of the specifics of the situation. Should one use lethal force against nonlethal and ineffective force, for no other purpose but to maintain authority?
 
  • #69
BicycleTree said:
Huckleberry: Since the soldiers are patrolling an area where they might confront nonlethal force, they have riot gear and that's the way it should be. If they did not have riot gear and were hence not prepared to meet nonlethal force, they shouldn't and usually wouldn't be patrolling there and they would not be morally permitted to use lethal force against nonlethal force.

This is essentially a moral question outside of the specifics of the situation. Should one use lethal force against nonlethal and ineffective force, for no other purpose but to maintain authority?

My personal viewpoint is irrelevant here. From the viewpoint of the military they must maintain their authority to be effective.
 
  • #70
Then you have to ask questions like, "is the military's emphasis on maintaining authority too large"? And, "should the soldier disobey orders?" assuming that he was under orders not to run. I think the answer to both questions would be yes; a year in prison versus 25 needlessly dead kids should be a simple trade.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top