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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cross Line
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the justification of soldiers' actions when confronted by a group of children and teenagers throwing rocks. Participants debate whether the soldiers should have restrained themselves or if their response was warranted given the potential threat. Some argue that allowing such behavior could escalate aggression towards military personnel, while others suggest alternative non-lethal methods of deterrence. The conversation touches on the influence of adult attitudes on children's behavior in conflict zones and the complexities of self-defense in tense situations. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards the soldiers acting appropriately under the circumstances.
Pengwuino
Gold Member
Messages
5,112
Reaction score
20
Ok here's the situation:

2 Soldiers are just standing around. They pretty much have standard clothing and equpiment on and a normal helmet. About 20 kids run up to them and from about 20 yards away, start hurling fist sized rocks at them. The soldiers respond by first firing a 40mm riot grenade (or bean bag... I am not sure) that hits one guy and gives him a rather nasty gash on teh head. They go back and throw mroe rocks and the guy throws a flashbang grenade about 20 yards away from the kids and they run off.

People on my home forum say: The soldier shouldn't have done anything and have let the kids throw rocks at him. (thats exactly what they said)

I say: soldiers were fully justified in their response.

Notice how i didnt say which country this is in so :P can't argue anything but the situation :D Which view is correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think the soldiers were right. Personally I would have killed the kids, and then burned their houses.
 
Pengwuino said:
Notice how i didnt say which country this is in so :P can't argue anything but the situation :D Which view is correct?
Not enough info about the kids to decide. To me, 95% of the people in this forum are kids. Do you mean pre-teens, t'weens, early teens, or over 17? Also, was the motivation to twit the soldiers, or to injure because they really hate what they stand for?
For little kids just goofing around, I'd take a run at them the first couple of times to scare them back (just for fun), then ignore them unless they started actually hitting me. They'd soon get bored and go away.
For a more serious situation with early teens, I'd go with the flash-bangs first, then tear gas or naseau gas or whatever I had along that line.
If they were older teens intent on causing me physical harm, I'd ask which one was the leader, then kill him. Then I'd ask who was second in command. They'd probably leave.
A similar situation arose here a few years ago when a gang from Calgary decided that they were going to make my favourite bar their 'turf'. The leader was only hospitalized, but the rest of them never came back. :biggrin:
 
They did the right thing...
 
Ok the place where this occoured is considered by many as a 'warzone'.

Also, it was 2 soldiers on patrol and roughly 25 "kids".
These "kids" are roughly as followed: about 6 are around 13 .. 'preteens' to be exact. About 6 or so more are about 14-18... teenagers... rest are 18+ and all are throwing stones at them.
 
There are things I would've done differently, but I'm not going to court martial them or anything. Unless of course they're american, in which case they should've laid down and died because they're the scum of the earth.

So, where was this anyways?
 
Pengwuino said:
People on my home forum say: The soldier shouldn't have done anything and have let the kids throw rocks at him. (thats exactly what they said)
I disagree. Throwing rocks at soldiers is pretty stupid. No one (with a brain) would do that and not expect the soldiers to retaliate.

If there are soldiers in gear, that aren't on a military base, I would think that there is some "situation" and some "tension" and that makes what the kids did even more stupid.
 
That sounds like an angry dangerous mob. It's lucky that the soldiers were riot-equipped. Now, what if the soldiers had only guns?
 
These situations can be very tricky. If this happened in a 'warzone' then these soldiers are going to be more concerned about acts of aggression. You don't mention anyone getting killed in the scenario so I would say that these soldiers acted with the proper amount of force to regain control of the situation. If they allowed the kids(guys) to continue to throw rocks at them then these (children/teenagers) would escalate their attack. If they suffer no penalties for attacking soldiers then this group will attack other soldiers. You can see where this is going.
Bottom line- Soldiers have a right to defend themselves. Thankfully these ones used some restraint.
 
  • #10
If two soldiers armed only with guns are attacked by a 20 person mob armed with rocks, what should they do?
 
  • #11
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2668853

Ok there's the actual film; whos opinion changes based on where it is and who the people are? :) And my approximations for ages are probably kinda crappy...
 
  • #12
A friend of mine died In Viet Nam when a small girl walked up to him loaded with explosives and blew herself up. His buddy said she was no more then 5 or 6, a double tragedy, because she was to young to understand, and he was to caring to harm a child.
 
  • #13
hypatia said:
A friend of mine died In Viet Nam when a small girl walked up to him loaded with explosives and blew herself up. His buddy said she was no more then 5 or 6, a double tragedy, because she was to young to understand, and he was to caring to harm a child.
That's horrifying if you really think about it. No 5-6 year old knows how to rig themselves up with explosives, some adult did it.
 
  • #14
Pengwuino said:
Ok there's the actual film; whos opinion changes based on where it is and who the people are? :) And my approximations for ages are probably kinda crappy...
I can't watch it; wrong version of Real Player. (The right one won't work with my OS.) I read the tag line, though, so I know where and what it was. My opinion hasn't changed.
Hypatia has a really good point there, too. Kid-bombs were a real big deal for the Viet Cong, and older teens do the same deal for Islam. Also, anyone of those 'rocks' could have turned out to be a grenade.
 
  • #15
Evo said:
That's horrifying if you really think about it. No 5-6 year old knows how to rig themselves up with explosives, some adult did it.

And what kind of person would actually put himself up to strapping a bomb ona lil kid?
 
  • #16
Pengwuino said:
And what kind of person would actually put himself up to strapping a bomb ona lil kid?
Fanatics and/or sociopaths. It's easy to justify it if you convince yourself that you're martyring them for the greater good.
 
  • #17
I wouldn't assume a child was innocent. They can be efficient killers as they don't have much of an understanding of death. They can learn quickly to kill with less remorse than most adults.

I saw the film and my opinion hasn't changed. They greatly outnumbered those 2 soldiers and the cameraman. There was no doubt they were hostile. They were not small children and could harm those soldiers even with only rocks. I feel for the guy that got hit with the bag, but that could just as easily have been a bullet. He will live and see his family again. It makes me wonder if he thought about the consequences of his actions before he decided to join the mob. Would it have been worth it if he had died?

I don't like these short film clips. They only show the violence. I want to see the few minutes before everything escalated. That tape could have been 20 minutes long but they only show about 2 or 3 minutes of violence. It can be misleading.
 
  • #18
Yah you really wonder about the rest of the film (but obviously its difficult to put up a 20 minute clip on the internet... and cameras can never be rolling 24/7 lest they keep truckloads of video tapes all over the place to record everything). I wonder why they would even do this though. Who in the world throws stuff at people with guns?
 
  • #19
Angry, desperate people who don't have much to lose I imagine. Or as Danger said, fanatics and sociopaths.
 
  • #20
wonder why they would even do this though. Who in the world throws stuff at people with guns?

I guess they are heavily influenced by the Palestian adults. Kids don't know what's right from wrong so they develop their judgement based on what those they look up to do. These kids have probably been brought up feeling resentment towards the Israelies because of what they've heard from the time they were children as well. They also probably even feel that they are fighting for Islam and that death will only bring them martyrdom. Then when these kids grow up and become adults, having their own children, their kids will then follow in their footsteps creating this everlasting cycle...I don't know if their will ever be peace in the Middle East sometimes.
 
  • #21
Yah but... i don't see it as right and wrong.. it feels like common sense vs... non-common sense hehe. I mean what ideology can dictate that throwing rocks at people with rifles won't create a problem... but then again yah.. if they blieve it strongly enough they might want to be shot at.
 
  • #22
Pengwuino said:
People on my home forum say: The soldier shouldn't have done anything and have let the kids throw rocks at him. (thats exactly what they said)
That's warped.

That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard in my life.
 
  • #23
Even if these kids were influenced by their adult role models, unless they have a disability that doesn't allow them to see future consequences, I think it's pretty easy to figure out that the man with the gun rules.
 
  • #24
Pengwuino said:
And what kind of person would actually put himself up to strapping a bomb ona lil kid?


The same people the Democrats believe we shouldn't fight.
 
  • #25
ShawnD said:
That's warped.

That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard in my life.

I've heard far worse.

But as far as that situation goes the soldiers were justified.

If they only had guns the answer was simple. Fire a few rounds into the ground a few feet from the kids(being careful to just scare them, and NOT hit them).

If the kids are dumb enough to keep antagonizing the soldiers, they deserve to be shot, that's just simple darwinism. The soldiers would be doing humanity a favor at that point.
 
  • #26
franznietzsche said:
If the kids are dumb enough to keep antagonizing the soldiers, they deserve to be shot, that's just simple darwinism. The soldiers would be doing humanity a favor at that point.
Hello, myself.

It's been a long time since I've known anybody who takes natural selection as seriously as I do.
 
  • #27
I would have killed them all, it would rid the genepool of idiot scum. Also, if i was the PM of israel, i would occupy those arab countries and take their land, not give it back. I think that arabia went downhill after people tookover islam and made it a religion of hate and death, so it should be rid of scumbags who think 'allah' will give them sluts in paradice to screw. It would help alot. I think there is a lot of people out there who really need to die, and people who are dump enough to pick a fight with soldiers who can kick their asses in a couple of seconds are included. Kinda like picking a fight with the worlds superpower and whining when they fight back. If you trace it back, they started it, not us.

My views on life and war are not appreciated here, but i don't care, better than being a big whimp and letting people kick your ass.

Fibo
 
  • #28
1 said:
My views on life and war are not appreciated here
I wouldn't say that.

When a group of people disagree, it's called a discussion.
When a group of people agree on everything, it's called a circle jerk.
This isn't a circle jerk is it? :-p
 
  • #29
A little additon to my earlier post:

Tom clancly has printed on the back of the book "Teeth of the tiger" the quote:

"If you want to kick a tiger in his ass, you better have a plan for dealing with his teeth."

Fibonacci
 
  • #30
franznietzsche said:
If they only had guns the answer was simple. Fire a few rounds into the ground a few feet from the kids(being careful to just scare them, and NOT hit them).

Naa, shoot into the air. Shooting near them can cause a ricochet and hit them.
 
  • #31
Whats a circle jerk lol. I thought ajerk was a guy who gave out soda... calling him fat? is that a remark towards fat people?? *calls the fatass civil liberties union and pizza hit*
 
  • #32
1 said:
Kinda like picking a fight with the worlds superpower and whining when they fight back.

Haha yup. Kinda like when people say it was wrong for the US to attack Japan... (not that the US was a superpower at that point)... but i mean what the hell.. were we suppose to go "whoops, guess we shouldn't let our guard down like that... guess we deserved that... oh well, whos up for some tea".

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'.
 
  • #33
Who's up for some anarchy? :biggrin:
 
  • #35
1 said:
I would have killed them all, it would rid the genepool of idiot scum. Also, if i was the PM of israel, i would occupy those arab countries and take their land, not give it back. I think that arabia went downhill after people tookover islam and made it a religion of hate and death, so it should be rid of scumbags who think 'allah' will give them sluts in paradice to screw. It would help alot. I think there is a lot of people out there who really need to die, and people who are dump enough to pick a fight with soldiers who can kick their asses in a couple of seconds are included. Kinda like picking a fight with the worlds superpower and whining when they fight back. If you trace it back, they started it, not us.

My views on life and war are not appreciated here, but i don't care, better than being a big whimp and letting people kick your ass.

Fibo
I can see already that you're heading for a stellar career in the Diplomatic Corps. :rolleyes:
 
  • #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
 
  • #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:

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top