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.
  • #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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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.
 
  • #71
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.
 
  • #72
BicycleTree could sustain a thread even if he were the only poster! hehe jk man. :-p
 
  • #73
BicycleTree said:
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.
 
  • #74
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.
 
  • #75
BicycleTree said:
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...
 
  • #76
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
 
  • #77
Evo said:
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. :redface:
 
  • #78
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?

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.
 
  • #79
Dark said:
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.

Evo said:
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.

BicycleTree said:
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.
 
  • #80
TheStatutoryApe said:
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.
 
  • #81
Certainly, but if those options are tried and the kids are still advancing, what then? Sometimes, the only thing to do is run.
 
  • #82
BicycleTree said:
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.
 
  • #83
Dark said:
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
 
  • #84
BicycleTree said:
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).
 
  • #85
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.
 
  • #86
motai said:
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?
 
  • #87
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.
 
  • #88
Use your imaginations. :-p
 
  • #89
Ninja stars!
 
  • #90
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.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top