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
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the actions of soldiers responding to a group of children throwing rocks at them. Participants explore the justification of the soldiers' response, the context of the situation, and the implications of the children's behavior. The conversation touches on themes of self-defense, the nature of aggression in a conflict zone, and the moral considerations surrounding the use of force.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the soldiers were justified in their response to being attacked with rocks, suggesting that self-defense is a reasonable reaction.
  • Others express extreme views, with one participant suggesting lethal force against the children, indicating a belief in a harsh response to perceived threats.
  • A participant questions the age and intent of the children, suggesting that the response should vary based on whether they are younger or older and whether they are acting out of malice or playfulness.
  • Some participants note that the context of a 'warzone' influences the soldiers' need to respond to aggression, emphasizing the potential for escalation if no action is taken.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of children being involved in aggressive actions, with references to historical instances where children have been used in conflicts, leading to a discussion about innocence and manipulation.
  • Several participants express skepticism about the motivations of the children, suggesting they may be influenced by adults or societal pressures, which complicates the moral landscape of the situation.
  • There is a discussion about the limitations of video evidence in understanding the full context of the incident, with some participants wanting more information about the events leading up to the confrontation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the soldiers' actions were justified. There are multiple competing views regarding the appropriateness of the soldiers' response, the nature of the children's aggression, and the moral implications of using force in such situations.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the lack of information about the children's motivations and the specific context of the incident, which complicates the discussion. There is also mention of the potential for escalation of violence if the soldiers do not respond to the initial aggression.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring the ethics of military engagement, the psychology of conflict, and the implications of youth involvement in violence.

  • #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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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.
 

Similar threads

Do Movies Teach Us Realistic Life Skills?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K