NationStates Jolt Archive

I know the asnwer of course. I am just curious how the anti-semites and anti-americans out there can claim that when a soldier shoots someone who has been hucking rocks, the soldier is using deadly force against an unarmed foe. Obviously the rock hurlers are armed with deadly weapons: they have the rocks. And if you have ever been whacked by a rock, you know firsthand that they can blind you, crack your skull, and kill you. While I find it sad that soldiers fire on people who have been throwing stones, and while I find it sad that anybody would be stupid enough to throw a rock at a man armed with an m16, I don't particularly find it wrong to return fire.

Anybody notice the relationship between stoning in riots in the middle east and stoning as a frm of capital punishment there?

shoot them in the leg or wack 'em in the head with your rifle.

I know the asnwer of course. I am just curious how the anti-semites and anti-americans out there can claim that when a soldier shoots someone who has been hucking rocks, the soldier is using deadly force against an unarmed foe. Obviously the rock hurlers are armed with deadly weapons: they have the rocks. And if you have ever been whacked by a rock, you know firsthand that they can blind you, crack your skull, and kill you. While I find it sad that soldiers fire on people who have been throwing stones, and while I find it sad that anybody would be stupid enough to throw a rock at a man armed with an m16, I don't particularly find it wrong to return fire.

Anybody notice the relationship between stoning in riots in the middle east and stoning as a frm of capital punishment there?OH, "CAN a thrown rock kill?"

I was wondering about that...

and yes. that's the reason why some use stones. Religion. also, stones are easier to get than M-16's or other guns.

But is there actually any precedent for a soldier (wearing a helmet) to be killed by a thrown rock?

if you die from a rock hurled by a 12 year old kid you are a wuss and it's just natural selection weeding you out.

especially if you are part of an occupying army. they are inevitably on a rung below that of the normal population of the world.
/feeling militant

The correct response to someone throwing rocks is to using escalating force. If they throw one rock, you should fire warning shots over their heads. You should only shoot them after you've done this and they are continuing to throw rocks. Also, rocks being thrown in your general direction, but not coming near you don't qualify in my eyes as a deadly threat. I spent a year in Iraq and never once had to actually kill anyone for throwing rocks at me. And I'd get rocks thrown in my direction at least twice a week.

However, yes a rock can do a great deal of damage. I knew a soldier who was hit in the face with a rock and it cracked his eye socket. Deadly force is only to be used in cases of threat to life, limb, or eyesight, and a rock does qualify.

edit: Also, in my HMMWV I kept a small stash of very small rocks to throw back when little kids threw rocks. That'd generally send them off, as I'm a pretty good shot with a rock.

But is there actually any precedent for a soldier (wearing a helmet) to be killed by a thrown rock?

no, because, unlike the kid throwing the rock, they have protection. So what we end up with is a dead 13 year old boy, and an uninjured soldier using "necessary" force.

I know the asnwer of course. I am just curious how the anti-semites and anti-americans out there can claim that when a soldier shoots someone who has been hucking rocks, the soldier is using deadly force against an unarmed foe.

so tell me your thoughts on the boston massacre

yes indeedy there is. South Korea 1994. They have aprotest season. I was standing on the wall of our EMbassy watching. Rocks and bottle came flying over the crowd. South Korean pokiceman got hit at the edge of his helmet and face mask by a brick. Said brick shatered face mask, and drove into his eye, killing him. And most soldiers don't have the luxury of a face mask. Not that it matters. You use dealy force on me, you get shot. And the rule is: shoot center mass. NEVER shoot to wound. It's too easy to miss ond too likely to hit an innocent bystander.


as for my trhead title: WHOOPSIE! I even edited myself but I forgot the title he he he:rolleyes:

so tell me your thoughts on the boston massacre

That was all hype. THe Americans started it, by harassing the Brits, surrounded the Brits, who fough ttheir way out of a crowd. We just turned it into a massacre for the publicity. WOrked to :p

The correct response to someone throwing rocks is to using escalating force. If they throw one rock, you should fire warning shots over their heads. You should only shoot them after you've done this and they are continuing to throw rocks. Also, rocks being thrown in your general direction, but not coming near you don't qualify in my eyes as a deadly threat. I spent a year in Iraq and never once had to actually kill anyone for throwing rocks at me. And I'd get rocks thrown in my direction at least twice a week.

However, yes a rock can do a great deal of damage. I knew a soldier who was hit in the face with a rock and it cracked his eye socket. Deadly force is only to be used in cases of threat to life, limb, or eyesight, and a rock does qualify.

edit: Also, in my HMMWV I kept a small stash of very small rocks to throw back when little kids threw rocks. That'd generally send them off, as I'm a pretty good shot with a rock.

Taht's hilarious! I did too in Bosnia *giggles*

the thread title makes no sense whatsoever

It worked on Goliath, didn't it?

Hey, until you pick up another one, once you've thrown your rock, you're unarmed. ;)

Taht's hilarious! I did too in Bosnia *giggles*

Anyone who kills a kid for tossing a couple of little rocks at you is wrong on every level. Now, if it's a grown man throwing baseball sized rocks that's another story.

the thread title makes no sense whatsoever

Nasal congestion :p

Anyone who kills a kid for tossing a couple of little rocks at you is wrong on every level. Now, if it's a grown man throwing baseball sized rocks that's another story.

Dude, if you huck a rock at me I will shoot you. I promise. Either the ROE has changed since I was in, or you're trying to claim that the US army won't sanction troops protecting themselves. Rocks are deadly weapons. Simple as that. Always have been, always will be considered as such. Now, your commander might have a different veiw, but the ROE certainly never did.
YEs, we were allwoed to shoot over their heads first shot. Second shot was up to us. If they are dumb enough to pick up #2, they were going to get dead. I got ot in 98', and things may be different in Iraq, but I have fought in Panama, Somolia, Yugoslavia, and a few other places. Rock throwing was always on the ROE.

Dude, if you huck a rock at me I will shoot you. I promise. Either the ROE has changed since I was in, or you're trying to claim that the US army won't sanction troops protecting themselves. Rocks are deadly weapons. Simple as that. Always have been, always will be considered as such. Now, your commander might have a different veiw, but the ROE certainly never did.
YEs, we were allwoed to shoot over their heads first shot. Second shot was up to us. If they are dumb enough to pick up #2, they were going to get dead. I got ot in 98', and things may be different in Iraq, but I have fought in Panama, Somolia, Yugoslavia, and a few other places. Rock throwing was always on the ROE.

ROE is exactly the same now. What I was referencing to was the popular imagine people have (an image that isn't anywhere near reality) of a couple of kids hucking some small rocks and getting gunned down immediately. Our ROE was on the first rock it was one over the head, on the second it was two in the chest and one in the head. With rock throwers I never had to get past the first step as they decided to quickly leave the AO every time.

Oh, and I got out in 2004, so I'm referencing ROE from then, but I can't imagine that it's changed. My "couple of little rocks" comment was about using discretion. I had a few incidents where a kid would run up and throw some extremely small, less than marble sized rocks and I'd just peg him with a slightly larger one (a feat I'm proud of, since it's not easy to throw rocks frmo the turret of a HMMWV). I'm not talking about a kid throwing actual stones that could do damage, which would of course trigger ROE escalation. While a soldier may be sanctioned for escalating force in some of the instances where they were throwing little pebbles, I myself didn't see it as a big enough threat to warrant warning shots.

I really don't see why shooting someone throwing rocks at you is a bad thing. Unfortuantely the media will play it up so you can not do it. Doesn't matter that rocks can be very dangerous and is clearly a hostile act. People still want you to not defend yourself against such aggression. :rolleyes:

Oh, and I got out in 2004, so I'm referencing ROE from then, but I can't imagine that it's changed. My "couple of little rocks" comment was about using discretion. I had a few incidents where a kid would run up and throw some extremely small, less than marble sized rocks and I'd just peg him with a slightly larger one (a feat I'm proud of, since it's not easy to throw rocks frmo the turret of a HMMWV).
I'm just picturing that scene in my head, and for some reason I am highly amused.

No see, what you've got to keep a really close eye on are the smaller ones, armed with sharpened mangoes.

Wall---I see what you were saying now. SOrry. O agree completely with you then. ALthough I wouldn't throw a rock at somebody. I always felt like they needed to know immedialtly that I was not playing a game--in Bosnia we had kids who would huck rocks at the Hummvees as we drove by to scare the shit out of us (not STONES mind you, just a rock) cause it would go "THWAK" and if you were asleep you would try to clim out the window to get away. That was playing, and different. But I also had a guy throw a fist sized stone at me there and I did shoot over him and "arrest him". Had he not stopped and listened to my "stani Ili Putsam" He would be dead now.

so tell me your thoughts on the boston massacre

No warning shots.

Of course, in that instance, the best bet would have been to call out the local constabulary and toss 'em in the drunk tank. If I were the British soldiers, that's what I'd have done.

i don't think that was an option.

if you die from a rock hurled by a 12 year old kid you are a wuss and it's just natural selection weeding you out.

especially if you are part of an occupying army. they are inevitably on a rung below that of the normal population of the world.
/feeling militant

On the other hand, if you feel it's a good idea to throw a rock at someone with a gun and get shot, that's natural selection too.

i don't think that was an option.

Not really, we threw razors at them....

Really all that needs to be said. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6374541193330071016&q=American+Soldiers&hl=en)

i get the point with that link, though i cant see shooting a kid for that:sniper: .....doesnt seem right, as a kid your impartionable and getting cheered on for that.......i dont know its a pain in the ass im sure but i wouldnt kill a kid for it....having said that if i was on the street and not in a vehicle driving by and someone throw a rock AT ME i would certanly fire a warning shot no questions asked...did it again a nice two rounds to the center of the thrower...

problem is those little kids have also thrown grenades. Could YOU tell the difference between a grenade chucker and a rock chucker? Andso what? THat was two windshields broken--could have just been a soldier wi9tha broken skull if it had gone through the window. Shitty 1SG but I am sure it came down the pipe from some idiot up top.

I know the asnwer of course. I am just curious how the anti-semites and anti-americans out there can claim that when a soldier shoots someone who has been hucking rocks, the soldier is using deadly force against an unarmed foe. Obviously the rock hurlers are armed with deadly weapons: they have the rocks. And if you have ever been whacked by a rock, you know firsthand that they can blind you, crack your skull, and kill you. While I find it sad that soldiers fire on people who have been throwing stones, and while I find it sad that anybody would be stupid enough to throw a rock at a man armed with an m16, I don't particularly find it wrong to return fire.

Anybody notice the relationship between stoning in riots in the middle east and stoning as a frm of capital punishment there?Of course, the deadliness of a rock is reduced considerably if you're wearing a helmet and body armor or sitting in an armored vehicle or tank.

if you die from a rock hurled by a 12 year old kid you are a wuss and it's just natural selection weeding you out.

especially if you are part of an occupying army. they are inevitably on a rung below that of the normal population of the world.
/feeling militant

Dude, I've met 12YO's who were 6'2" and massive. Somebody like that chucks a rock at me, I'm going to take it mighty serious.

I am just curious how the anti-semites and anti-americans

That's where I stopped reading.

That's where I stopped reading.Well, you missed a few interesting posts in the rest of the thread.

Well, you missed a few interesting posts in the rest of the thread.

I guess I'll just have to live with that, seeing as you're being stingy with links.

shoot them in the leg or wack 'em in the head with your rifle.

unfortunately people like you are responsible for decreases to the budget that would allow the U.S. to train soldiers well enough for that to even be possible. Granted the Pentagon would probably spend that money on paying more generals to sit in offices smoking crack while making power points about some Future Force Warrior shit that will never materialize, but hey you gotta work with what you got.

Really all that needs to be said. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6374541193330071016&q=American+Soldiers&hl=en)

Damn .. that one kid had a good arm, cracked that windshield. They certainly shouldn't shoot them. If anything be able to get out and give them a good ass whooping. But these guys aren't there for daycare, so they just have to deal with it and get their windows replaced. Just that small bit of footage shows just how much we are wanted over there, when the freakin kids are throwing rocks.

I guess I'll just have to live with that, seeing as you're being stingy with links.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12076125&postcount=6
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12076140&postcount=9
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12076361&postcount=18
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12076384&postcount=20

I find people talking about actual military experience a bit interesting since it's something I know very little about.

jeesh I can't believe I just linked someone to posts in a three page thread. /resigned

That's where I stopped reading.So you are saying there is another nation out there that receives thrown rocks and is condemned for shooting at "children and unarmed civilians"? BS. We're the big kid on the block, and so everybody likes to hate us. I'm not even particularly patriotic (I refuse to fly or show the American flag) but it's patently obvious that this particular issue has been distorted by the world nedia to show the US and Israel as thugs.

unfortunately people like you are responsible for decreases to the budget that would allow the U.S. to train soldiers well enough for that to even be possible. Granted the Pentagon would probably spend that money on paying more generals to sit in offices smoking crack while making power points about some Future Force Warrior shit that will never materialize, but hey you gotta work with what you got.

wow... are you actually serious? are you that kind of person that says that our vehicles were unarmored?

training soldiers dissapated when the army made it mandatory to treat recruits as actual people. thats just not the way training goes now. its different. in iraq, you either kill or be killed...

though i dont see 12-year old kids killing fully armored GIs in iraq with rocks...

by late 98 when I got out the Basic BS was goin away. We were having too many children getting hurt because they weren't soldiers. By now you can bet Basic is actually hard again.
As for children killing soldiers with rocks, you bet they can.

We should bomb those rock-throwers back to the stone age.

No, wait...

We should bomb those rock-throwers back to the stone age.

No, wait...

they ARE...:eek:

If you throw a rock at a cab it can cause an accident. but a fatal accident? Maybe.

those are not bulletproof windows. Just regular safety glass. And those kids are doing it in the hope that they really will get one of us and be a hero. And I have seen someone killed by a brickbat when the guys was wearing a face sheild and a helmet. The protective gear soldiers wear are for bullets and shrapnel. They have little or no impact on kinetive force, nor do they stop things like knives, glass etc. being driven through them. SO yes, they could easily kill a troop if the window went outr or something. I am not saying I would drive down the road guning them down, but Israeli troops who shoot at kids who are flinging rocks and molotov cocktails have every right to shoot hose kids dead. And seeing in the world pree complaints that they are using deadly force while armored against injury are just not true.

I know the asnwer of course. I am just curious how the anti-semites and anti-americans out there can claim that when a soldier shoots someone who has been hucking rocks, the soldier is using deadly force against an unarmed foe. Obviously the rock hurlers are armed with deadly weapons: they have the rocks. And if you have ever been whacked by a rock, you know firsthand that they can blind you, crack your skull, and kill you. While I find it sad that soldiers fire on people who have been throwing stones, and while I find it sad that anybody would be stupid enough to throw a rock at a man armed with an m16, I don't particularly find it wrong to return fire.

Anybody notice the relationship between stoning in riots in the middle east and stoning as a frm of capital punishment there?

Would it be accepted in the West? No, it would not. That simple.

I am just curious how the anti-semites and anti-americans out there can claim that when a soldier shoots someone who has been hucking rocks, the soldier is using deadly force against an unarmed foe.
Ah, but that's not a very interesting question. Wouldn't the interesting question be on what basis the people who aren't anti-semites and anti-americans claim those things?
However, you went and punctured any potential for a real discussion with your opening. Well done, jolly well done indeed. :rolleyes:

That's where I stopped reading.
Quite understandable.

The quality of English in this thread makes Samuel L Jackson cry.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/t81b4c.jpg

I know the asnwer of course. I am just curious how the anti-semites and anti-americans out there can claim that when a soldier shoots someone who has been hucking rocks, the soldier is using deadly force against an unarmed foe. Obviously the rock hurlers are armed with deadly weapons: they have the rocks. And if you have ever been whacked by a rock, you know firsthand that they can blind you, crack your skull, and kill you. While I find it sad that soldiers fire on people who have been throwing stones, and while I find it sad that anybody would be stupid enough to throw a rock at a man armed with an m16, I don't particularly find it wrong to return fire.

Anybody notice the relationship between stoning in riots in the middle east and stoning as a frm of capital punishment there?

But aren't the soldiers wearing helmets? 'Course, if someone started pelting me with rocks, say, several someones, I might just start shooting. I hope I'd have the restraint not to do so though.

Shooting one person throwing rocks is excessive force. Shooting a crowd of people throwing rocks is self-defense.

Would it be accepted in the West? No, it would not. That simple.

Actually, in some circumstances, I think it probably would be. The real difference is that in the West we have Police and not Soldiers doing the civil disturbance control - and Police, unlike soldiers, have both extremely limited ROE's and training in non-lethal options.

I know the asnwer of course. I am just curious how the anti-semites and anti-americans out there can claim that when a soldier shoots someone who has been hucking rocks, the soldier is using deadly force against an unarmed foe. Obviously the rock hurlers are armed with deadly weapons: they have the rocks. And if you have ever been whacked by a rock, you know firsthand that they can blind you, crack your skull, and kill you. While I find it sad that soldiers fire on people who have been throwing stones, and while I find it sad that anybody would be stupid enough to throw a rock at a man armed with an m16, I don't particularly find it wrong to return fire.

Anybody notice the relationship between stoning in riots in the middle east and stoning as a frm of capital punishment there?

Here's the solution to rockthrowers.

http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/may01morales.htm

You can use it without fear of killing "innocent civilians".

And they'll remember the pain...

Well hey ban guns in the US and give people the right to bear rocks. Join the National Rock Association.

It worked on Goliath, didn't it?

No, actually. That was a rock from a sling, not thrown, not even bringing into account divine intervention and the question of whether it actually.

wow... are you actually serious? are you that kind of person that says that our vehicles were unarmored?

training soldiers dissapated when the army made it mandatory to treat recruits as actual people. thats just not the way training goes now. its different. in iraq, you either kill or be killed...

though i dont see 12-year old kids killing fully armored GIs in iraq with rocks...

hehe. CUrrently, trainee's are tought all kinds of useful things, the chain of command, how to shoot their guns, how to take cover etc. Nowhere in the three months of training does any soldier receive enough instruction in marksmanship to competently hit anything smaller than a man sized target at any reasonable range. That is not nearly as easy a ask as it may sound since many soldiers have never fired a rifle, let alone a short barreled assault rifle prior to entering service.

Now, there are special courses that can be taken through the army to achieve this level of marksmanship, but those schools don't receive the focus given to MOUT and FISH training (Military Operations in Urban Terrain and Fighting In Somebodies House respectively).
So soldiers are being trained to fight the current war, but the aren't being trained to shoot the current agressor (in as much as the current agressor includes twelve year olds flinging rocks) because people don't like seeing money going to making marksmanship required now, but like spending money on less than lethal alternatives that may see service in ten to twenty years and will only require soldiers to carry more equipment when they're already loaded near the breaking point.

Now the marines know what their doing, every marine from the lowest grunt to the highest general is required to be an accomplished rifle marksman and if they ever fail a marksmanship test then its time to retire, this both cuts down on excessive staff and provides soldiers with a basic ability to fire their weapons in a non lethal manner (shooting a kid in the leg for example) that an army soldier lacks. And even then, anyone whose actually fired an M-16/M-4 etc will tell you that the weapon is not physically designed for that kind of accuracy and actually hitting a kid flinging rocks in the leg is chancy at best.

Here's the solution to rockthrowers.

http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/may01morales.htm

You can use it without fear of killing "innocent civilians".

And they'll remember the pain...


Turn the water cannons on them-it'd be the first bath half of them had.

The universal language everyone understands-swift,overwhelming force.

Let them live and think about it.