Should the military shoot protesters who throw rocks at them?

[DeltrusDisc]

Here's the thing:

Yes, guns and such, are more likely to kill you than sticks and stones.

However, a rock being lobbed at you could potentially kill you, if it hits you in the right place, and if it's heavy enough, it doesn't even need to hit you that hard. It could also do some serious damage.

Do I think we should fire back with more than likely deadly force? Nah, that's extreme. Should they expect something in return? Obviously. If you are trying to hurt someone, it's very likely that someone will try to stop you. Crazy idea: the person to throw the first rock should understand what they're doing, the situation they're putting themselves in, and the situation they're putting those in close proximity to them in.

[Rotted]

Yes... with rubber bullets or bags. Enough to knock someone on their arse not enough to kill. It might sound barbaric, but if you nail the people starting the violence straight away the odds are the rest will settle down. Opposed to using gas which affects everyone even the quiet protesters; that just incites everyone to react.

[Madrak]

Traveling to the boarder seeking asylum in the US is LEGAL.

[sarahtasher]

so, the bunch of freaks is moving throught the border, attacking invaded country's military and police, and we should just stay and watch?

Boy, if you call 4000 gardeners and fast food workers ''uh invazion'', how would you call US ''freedomization'' of random countries ? You know, the ones you do with bombs that cost ten of thousands of dollars and that hit everything except the'' bad guys''

- - - Updated - - -

you're assaulting the military.. whatever you do to them can and will have consequences

so no sympathy for criminals.

Okay, so down with lionizing the treacherous vermin that killed hundred of thousands of loyal US soldiers ?

[draynay]

I'd be impressed if anyone from the caravan was capable of throwing a rock across the 1000 mile distance between them and the US military.

[PACOX]

wow how nice to do some supply drops after killing pakistani soldiers fighting al-qaeda and the taliban in airstrikes!

To their advantage, the military were lifesavers a few year back in my city when hurricanes wiping out or power lines and slowed trucks from getting in. They bought in a bunch of MREs, generators, helped with clean up. Good stuff.

A few reservists also helped fight fires when some asshole was going around lighting fires next to homes.

[sarahtasher]

The fact that this is close to a 50/50 tie on the poll makes me really sad and really scared. Wtf man, people really don't learn at all.

You betcha that the manly dudes who answered yes have dozens of guns at home and call others all the time ''kowards'' online ?

[Zelk]

Idk about you, but my husband didn’t kill any Pakistan soldiers. He’s deployed 3 times any never fired at anyone, nor has he hurt any civilian, and neither did anyone in his Units during any of his deployments.

good for you, has nothing to do with what I said but ok.

[Madrak]

Seeking asylum is legal. Using the army for law enforcement is illegal. But, ignorance is bliss.

[Nerovar]

Wouldn't be the first time the US army shot unarmed civilians. Better keep your tin soldiers at bay.

[s_bushido]

As an alternative to murdering people, how about we invest in riot shields and helmets instead. Trump being despicable again, as per usual.

[Kasierith]

It's a hard call to make, a split second decision that wont be up to any president, but up to the men and women standing on the line. The same one I had to make. I hope the person who does make that call does the right thing.

And this here is the heart of all my arguments. Because in the situation you described, border control agents would have opened fire and left behind a field of bodies. At the end of the day, if things get tense, I have far, far more faith in the US army than agents who have shown themselves willing to open fire even in situations like a single man on the other side of a wall lobbing stones over as a distraction.

[Tabrotar]

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/29/18026...-trump-caravan this is a pretty good breakdown. Basically they stop being civilians when they start using lethal force. Showing up to the border after announcing it beforehand and the president throwing a tantrum over it is perfectly legal.

So it means as soon as the killed (or is it just hurt) the first officer/soldier?

[Kasierith]

I'd be impressed if anyone from the caravan was capable of throwing a rock across the 1000 mile distance between them and the US military.

Honestly I'd be surprised if they have the will and strength to throw a rock more than a couple of meters. I expect the border will see less of a raging Mongol-style horde, and more a bunch of really tired, starving, dehydrated people.

[Bodakane]

If the military opens fire on unarmed people, then every one of them should be held accountable as should Trump, his cabinet, and any of his supporters jerking off thinking about this happening (which we totally know you guys are doing btw)

[Zelk]

It does. You’re only trying to show your anti-military stance, which is fine, but don’t go saying that the military will shoot civilians for any reason and don’t ever protect them. That’s just not true.

You think the us military is interested in looking after undocumented immigrants? The people that have decided to risk their lives to protect Donald Trump's government? You don't join the US military without a dislike of the world outside America, it's ingrained in the armed forces. Just like it is in the UK.

[Nerovar]

If the military opens fire on unarmed people, then every one of them should be held accountable as should Trump, his cabinet, and any of his supporters jerking off thinking about this happening (which we totally know you guys are doing btw)

Do you honestly think people would be held accountable for that? Even under Nixon when the military shot 4 American students no one faced any consequences. That's not how this world works.

[zebreck]

No they should not. Why do we keep pretending like it's necessary to have a serious discussion about every chunk in this mans verbal diarrhea?

[Babadoo]

If you can equip your men with guns, you can just as well give them shields and helmets. Those will protect from most throwable-size rocks. If you're going to shoot at basically unprotected people with sticks and stones, I really hope a tribunal will make sure you're never being allowed into any service where a gun is involved ever again.

And if done sanctioned by the highest in command, the country should be internationally shunned and expelled from all international military collaborations.

Such a cuck attitude.

[Bodakane]

Do you honestly think people would be held accountable for that? Even under Nixon when the military shot 4 American students no one faced any consequences. That's not how this world works.

I didn't say they will, i said they should.