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

[BicycleTree]

Particularly if the kids' intentions were to challenge authority and not directly to inflict harm. Probably their intentions were mixed between the two, but when you bring in the rock-throwing as challenge of authority it gets down to killing someone because they defy you. That's certainly not the whole of the issue but the possibility of it strengthens the case for not killing them.

 

[mapper]

BicycleTree could sustain a thread even if he were the only poster! hehe jk man.

 

[ShawnD]

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.

You should never disobey orders. Your commander has a plan; he's not stupid. If you start running away, it screws up his plan. As a grunt on foot patrol, you won't be briefed on the entire plan, so for all you know, not following orders could somehow lead to fellow soldiers being killed.

 

[Huckleberry]

Think of the throwing of rocks as a testing of the waters for a riot. If they can throw rocks at soldiers and the soldiers run away then they will escalate their aggression against the military in the future. Those two soldiers may be unharmed and all the children will live but if a riot begins then many will die.

It is my believe that every human must act according to their own moral beliefs. Its surprising how flexible these are under certain conditions, for example when your life is threatened. If this group of young men knew that the soldiers would not shoot them they would have grabbed these soldiers and beat them and probably have killed them with their own weapons and dragged their bodies through the streets in pieces. Then they would be praised as heroes for their bravery.

I think it is great that you believe in peace and high moral standards. In a large part you have that luxury because of soldiers like the ones in this video. Without them and all who fought in the wars before them you would not have the same moral freedom you enjoy today. We enjoy a certain moral freedom that a soldier does not. Should we resent them for giving us that freedom?

It's unfortunate that evolution favors prejudice.

 

[Evo]

Particularly if the kids' intentions were to challenge authority and not directly to inflict harm. Probably their intentions were mixed between the two, but when you bring in the rock-throwing as challenge of authority it gets down to killing someone because they defy you. That's certainly not the whole of the issue but the possibility of it strengthens the case for not killing them.

You're arguing about a scenario that didn't happen. As you yourself pointed out, the two military personnel were armed only with riot gear, so they were appropriately (and morally, according to you) armed for the situations they were likely to encounter.

You're doing it again...

 

[Dark]

If I find those sodliers I would throw a gernade at them :). There rocks.. jeeze.. and their kids.. how hard is it ? JEEZE!... soldiers... heartless people... killing... stupid reasons.. stupid people

 

[BicycleTree]

You're arguing about a scenario that didn't happen. As you yourself pointed out, the two military personnel were armed only with riot gear, so they were appropriately (and morally, according to you) armed for the situations they were likely to encounter.

You're doing it again...

I have said a few times that I think the soldiers in the incident as it happened did act correctly. The conflict as it happened turned out fairly well; the soldiers didn't try to kill anyone, they didn't use their guns first, they mainly tried to scare away the crowd, and it worked.

I thought that bringing in a more morally challenging (and hypothetical) situation might be more revealing. Basically, I'm trying to counter the unstated idea that the use of force to maintain control of a situation is necessarily good; sometimes it's better to abandon the situation than to do unnecessary harm.

I'm sorry if I've been seeming overly aggressive.

 

[franznietzsche]

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?

No, but you shouldn't away either.

And your statement about running away being the bravest thing is the dumbest thing I've heard all day. No one is saying they should shoot the kids. I stand by my suggestion that firing a few rounds into the dirt solves the problem real quick.

And if it doesn't, then i repeat that those kids are too stupid to deserve to be alive, natural selection needs to take care of them quick, for the sake of the species.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If I find those sodliers I would throw a gernade at them :). There rocks.. jeeze.. and their kids.. how hard is it ? JEEZE!... soldiers... heartless people... killing... stupid reasons.. stupid people

Dark: They didn't kill anyone. Most of what is being discussed currently is hypothetical.

You're arguing about a scenario that didn't happen. As you yourself pointed out, the two military personnel were armed only with riot gear, so they were appropriately (and morally, according to you) armed for the situations they were likely to encounter.

You're doing it again...

I think Bicycle was argueing what some have stated about shooting the kids if they didn't have riot gear on hand. The hypothetical scenario was being discussed before Bicycle showed up so it's not just a strawman.

Kill 25 kids or run away? (simplification)

I think that you are leaving out options. As already suggested one could give warnings and fire warning shots. In the time gained by holding them at bay with those shots you could radio for back up and the arrival of extra soldiers would likely deter the kids from further action.
As already stated, if authority is present there is a reason for it. If a mob of trouble making kids is given the impression that the authorities will not stand up to them then the possability of further problems and people being injured or killed increases.

 

[motai]

I think that you are leaving out options. As already suggested one could give warnings and fire warning shots. In the time gained by holding them at bay with those shots you could radio for back up and the arrival of extra soldiers would likely deter the kids from further action.

Those are probably the best ways to deal with a situation like this. Even calling in a helicopter or more reinforcements to cause a significant imposing presence will work. Otherwise firing warning shots is the best option, so long as their intent is only to warn, not to kill.

 

[BicycleTree]

Certainly, but if those options are tried and the kids are still advancing, what then? Sometimes, the only thing to do is run.

 

[motai]

Certainly, but if those options are tried and the kids are still advancing, what then? Sometimes, the only thing to do is run.

It doesn't seem very likely to me that they would still be advancing if the soldiers call in artillery strikes or rocket attacks all around them. Personally, i'd be scared to the dickens and run away.

 

[Pengwuino]

If I find those sodliers I would throw a gernade at them :). There rocks.. jeeze.. and their kids.. how hard is it ? JEEZE!... soldiers... heartless people... killing... stupid reasons.. stupid people

Lol kids and young adults throwing rocks at people with machine guns and the SOLDIERS are the stupid, heartless people? You sound like the type who likes having stones thrown at them for a good laugh :D

 

[Pengwuino]

Certainly, but if those options are tried and the kids are still advancing, what then? Sometimes, the only thing to do is run.

Sometimes the only thing to do is open fire. When your outnumbered, there's always the possibility they'll run up you and steal your weaponsa nd kill you. I say make good use of flash bangs but if they get too close, open fire. Once you get too close, you've crossed the line and whatever actions result are your own fault. For all they know, the kids might have wanted to kill them (and don't say "oh that's stupid" or "oh there not that dumb" because they obviously are if they are throwing stones at people with machine guns and hypothetically, would have advanced on soldiers after they had fired warning shots).

 

[Hurkyl]

I were a terrorist the very first thing I'd do when I saw soldiers run away is whip up another mob and plant explosives in the other direction.

Running is far from a safe option, especially if it's into hostile territory.

 

[BicycleTree]

It doesn't seem very likely to me that they would still be advancing if the soldiers call in artillery strikes or rocket attacks all around them. Personally, i'd be scared to the dickens and run away.

It doesn't seem too likely that the artillery strikes &c would actually arrive by the time the whole incident would be over. Nor, Hurkyl, does it seem too likely that another mob could be organized and bombs planted in the soldiers' area of retreat in the minute or two it would take for the soldiers to escape. If there were people around with bombs and other weaponry and they saw the soldiers slaughter 25 people, how long would the soldiers live?

You're right, Penguino, if the kids got too close the soldiers would have to kill them to save their own lives. What a waste of life that would be--how could that be prevented?

 

[Pengwuino]

You can call in artillery strikes very quickly in some cases... but just SOME cases to be sure. I also don't understand how a mob could plant bombs in the soldiers area of retreat. Unless there was a big plan associated with it and it wasnt spur of the moment... but seems unlikely even that would happen.

And to prevent such things... with a small small # of soldiers and a large mob caught up in the moment... all there really is is flashbangs or maybe a few magazines of rubber bullets (if their rifles can even fire them). But can never rule out the use of deadly force. You can only hold so many flashbangs.

 

[Hurkyl]

Use your imaginations.

 

[Pengwuino]

Ninja stars!

 

[FredGarvin]

Every soldier is issued a chemical mask and MOPP gear. Standard issue for all street patrols should include a couple of CS grenades. That will dispurse a crowd real quick. Especially if they can't tell the difference between a fragmentation and a CS round from a distance.