Should the military shoot protesters who throw rocks at them?

[Venant]

Powerful NYT political cartoon on the matter:




It seems to me like it is a really bad idea to attack the US military. Trump just stated that soldiers would respond with force if attacked by members of the caravan. Do you agree with this position?

[Natta Lmo]

if u attack the military physically u should expect that they can fire at u...

[AwkwardSquirtle]

If there's not that much difference between sticks and guns, can we restrict the 2nd amendment to only include sticks, stones, and and combinations of the two? Trebuchets new meta.

[sarahtasher]

Jesus fracking christ, is this a competition to see who is the most sociopath

You don't need , edgelords, to say ''YES THEY SHOULD AND THEY SHOULD FIRE TANKS GUNS AT THEM, KAUZE TANKS GUNS ARE KOOLER AS THEY MAKE MORE BOOM-BOOM NOIZES''. We all know you think this, that's what your kind call ''DISKUSSION''. And we also know that you drool at the kind of war that involve firing machine guns at people with rocks-a war where the other side fire back is way less fun, since you precious MAGArats skins would be at risk.

[callipygoustp]

Thank god we, the USA, did NOT elect a warmonger.

[Laerrus]

Yeah, no.

That would be a major International incident, the consequences of which we are not prepared to deal with.

[sarahtasher]

Just for giggles, usual suspect, is there ANY scenario in which ''A real american'' (AKA, a white ultra conservative gun toting MAGA/CSA licker) is annoyed at someone not like him'' should not end up according to you by ''and he pulls up his big manly Glock and shot him dead in the head'' ?

[Venant]

Jesus fracking christ, is this a competition to see who is the most sociopath

You don't need , edgelords, to say ''YES THEY SHOULD AND THEY SHOULD FIRE TANKS GUNS AT THEM, KAUZE TANKS GUNS ARE KOOLER AS THEY MAKE MORE BOOM-BOOM NOIZES''. We all know you think this, that's what your kind call ''DISKUSSION''. And we also know that you drool at the kind of war that involve firing machine guns at people with rocks-a war where the other side fire back is way less fun, since you precious MAGArats skins would be at risk.

Yeah, but in this case its the other side that is initiating violence. If one side says 'if you attack us, we are going to shoot you' and then the other side attacks them with rocks, isn't the side throwing the rocks essentially choosing to commit suicide?

[Weeps]

If you would think further than your own little penis' reach, you'd find that shooting people never ends well.

Trump is being a 100% moron. There are other measures you can take without shooting.

[Laerrus]

Any soldier that fires on these innocent people will become the biggest blue falcon in the service.

[NED funded]

No. Just no, thats stupid and inhumane af.

[LedZeppelin]

i watched rules of engagement once so im on expert on this type of thing. It doesnt go well for anyone not worrying old glory.

[Venant]

Just for giggles, usual suspect, is there ANY scenario in which ''A real american'' (AKA, a white ultra conservative gun toting MAGA/CSA licker) is annoyed at someone not like him'' should not end up according to you by ''and he pulls up his big manly Glock and shot him dead in the head'' ?

I'm talking about actually attacking a military formation.

[Renedric]

You people do know that rocks can be just as fucking deadly? If you're throwing rocks at someone you're doing it with the intention to hurt. Killing someone with a rock is just a matter of rock size. You throw a rock at armed forces, expect retaliation. The only real question here is why the fuck would you even do that in the first place you suicidal moron?

[Jastall]

Yeah, because shooting people armed with sticks and stones is obviously going to defuse the situation, you guys. Military personnel in warzones have stricter rules of engagement than this.

Also, if there's actually not much difference between guns and rocks, ya'll are ok with giving up your guns, no?

[Machismo]

Any soldier that fires on these innocent people will become the biggest blue falcon in the service.

Thanks, that's not a term I hear nearly often enough these days.

[Independent voter]

Border Patrol has shot some Mexicans who were throwing rocks. I think it depends on how much of a threat it is. A hundred people up close and throwing rocks is pretty dangerous.

U.S. border agent who repeatedly shot Mexican teen through a fence acquitted of murder

The teen was throwing rocks.

[Kasierith]

This sort of question, and the implied fetishization of military violence behind it, is actually the reason why I 100% support the decision to have the military handle this and not local law enforcement. Not because they have more guns which is what Trump had in mind, but because they have more discipline, and would actually be able to enter tense situations with guns involved and not end up panicking and opening up. Military with NCOs who served in situations like Iraq who have experience keeping things in line is going to be far safer than pooling random officers from across a bunch of police districts.

[Deletedaccount1]

It depends on the scenario.

[PACOX]

It's Anti-American for the military to assume policing roles on over civilians on US soil.

Also shooting at civilians because they threw a rock at you is barbaric authoritarian nonsense.

Rocks hurt but they aren't worth killing someone over. And what you're really doing is setting up some others soldiers life to be taken by created insurgents.

They might have thrown the first work but you killed the first person and that stain will forever follow your side.