Is it justified to shoot someone who is throwing rocks at you?

[JohnH1963]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06...-near-el-paso/

Ultimately, I believe the border patrol agents will be found to have used justified force, but lets imagine another scenario. Lets say I was a rancher or a civilian hiking along the Mexican border when a band of illegal immigrants starts throwing rocks at me. Then I pull out my rifle and start shooting. Would that be justified?

As I see it, you have to take other actions before you can use deadly force such as retreating. In this case, the border patrol patrol agent could have retreated. Was he detaining a ruthless killer? I think he was just detaining some vagrant border crossers just looking to get into America. As I understand it, there is a long ways between the border and populated areas. Why couldnt the agent simply withdraw, observe at a distance and proceed to detain the suspects when more backup arrived?

I dont see where its reasonable to fire upon a crowd of rock throwers if you have the option to retreat. I know a rock can hit you in the head, but you can dodge and weave. You can see the rocks coming and can bust into a strong run to get out of the way...

[ZeSpectre]

I can tell you've never had anyone seriously trying to hit you with rocks.

I dont see where its reasonable to fire upon a crowd of rock throwers if you have the option to retreat.

But attempting to harm someone by throwing rocks at them is reasonable?


This whole thing really reminds me of a childhood incident where on a hot, lazy, summer day my cousin was baiting/teasing a bull on the other side of the fence. My Uncle came out and yelled at him to leave the bull alone before he was sorry. My cousin turned to reply and the instant his attention was off that bull it charged the fence, catching my cousin's hand on the top rail and breaking three fingers. He's lucky it was a strong fence or that bull would have done a whole lot worse to him.

I guess I figure if you don't want the horns then don't throw rocks at the bull.

[Longdayjake]

I do believe that a group of individuals throwing rocks at you can cause serious bodily harm and even death. If you are in a situation where people are trying to cause serious bodily harm to you and the danger is readily apparent then you are justified in using lethal force.

[SPIN2010]

YOU BET! A rock, bottle, or similar item can and will kill.

I have been the target of inner city (diversity in action) youths' throwing chunks of blacktop off a three story building in downtown Cincinnati, Ohio in 1998. The targets were "white people" visiting the local diner for a night out.

My date at the time was grazed as I covered her and ran ... we just made it to the car as a piece crashed into the car window. I drove to the nearest police officer and was told "Hey Buddy, I got bigger things to worry about as, I have a guy in a bar with a gun" the officer sped away before I could get a good look at his car number or even a glance at his badge.

That prompted me to go get my CCW. If I am ever assaulted again by the same manner you can believe I will return fire immeadiately. That agent was justified and should be left alone by all the government creep that will ensue. It is time we realize that just because people who do the crime have mental issues or different heritage is NO excuse. Enforce the laws we have 100% and stop this degradation of society.

[booker_t]

Your post makes absolutely no sense.

For one, Border Patrol agents, like others in law enforcement, aren't expected as civilians are to retreat from threat if possible. It is their duty to face threat, while weighing risks.

For your other scenario:

a rancher or a civilian hiking along the Mexican border when a band of illegal immigrants starts throwing rocks at me

If the Mexicans are on the other side of the border, they aren't illegal immigrants. They are legal Mexican citizens, who have rights. While they shouldn't be throwing rocks at you over the border, they aren't illegal immigrants until they cross.

Why are you at the border in the first place? Hiking? There's a million other places to hike other than the US-Mexico border. Putting yourself in a position like that is the "coiled snake" syndrome, looking for a confrontation.

There may be ranchers or people who own land that borders Mexico, in which case I'm not sure how they police their land, but that's another story if somebody is attacking you on your private property.

I know a rock can hit you in the head, but you can dodge and weave.

Sounds like somebody already got hit in the head with a rock.

[cannonfire]

At least in Iraq we were not allowed to shoot people if they threw rocks at our convoy... but I always had rocks to throw at them if they threw one first

[45Gunner]

The true test for using deadly force is: Do you believe that you were in danger of losing your life or being caused serious bodily harm?

In my book, a group/gang of whomever they are throwing rocks at me can cause my death and/or serious bodily injury. Is there a need for further discussion?

I think in the Border Patrol Incident, amazing restraint was utilized in killing just one of them.

[BikerRN]

JohnH1963
Senior Member


Join Date: October 22, 2008
Posts: 414 Is it justified to shoot someone who is throwing rocks at you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06...-near-el-paso/

Ultimately, I believe the border patrol agents will be found to have used justified force, but lets imagine another scenario. Lets say I was a rancher or a civilian hiking along the Mexican border when a band of illegal immigrants starts throwing rocks at me. Then I pull out my rifle and start shooting. Would that be justified?

As I see it, you have to take other actions before you can use deadly force such as retreating. In this case, the border patrol patrol agent could have retreated. Was he detaining a ruthless killer? I think he was just detaining some vagrant border crossers just looking to get into America. As I understand it, there is a long ways between the border and populated areas. Why couldnt the agent simply withdraw, observe at a distance and proceed to detain the suspects when more backup arrived?

I dont see where its reasonable to fire upon a crowd of rock throwers if you have the option to retreat. I know a rock can hit you in the head, but you can dodge and weave. You can see the rocks coming and can bust into a strong run to get out of the way...

Not to pick on you, but it appears that one needs to learn what is justified use of lethal/deadly force.

Rocks can, and do in fact kill. Border Patrol Agents have the obligation and a duty to go into danger and apprehend people that illegaly enter the country. The option to retreat and detain is limited when they are doing their job. Back-up is often a long time coming, and sometimes by another agency, given that your co-workers may be a mountain ridge away from you. As for the non-LEO, it will depend upon your state law. Some states require that one retreat before using deadly force, others don't.

I'll make this simple: Don't throw rocks at people with guns. If you do, expect to get shot. As for detaining a ruthless killer, you don't know what you got until you catch it, and lots of illegals are in fact vicious criminals with past criminal histories.

Biker

[skoro]

If you don't want to risk death by gunfire, don't throw rocks at armed law enforcement agents.

How much simpler could it possibly be?

[LordTio3]

If you don't want to risk death by gunfire, don't throw rocks at armed law enforcement agents.

How much simpler could it possibly be?

It truly can't be simpler. I do not feel sorry for people that have no respect for law enforcement, and I have absoluetly no trouble in affording those LEO the freedom to make decisions themselves in order to enforce the law, within a reasonable limitation. If there is someone with a gun, and you throw a rock at them, you should be shot. It's the progression of our society to say, "One had a rock and one had a gun. It isn't a fair fight. He shouldn't have shot him."

To which my common-sensible response is, "You're damned right it wasn't a fair fight! One guy had a rock and the other had a gun! If I were the guy with the rock I'd kicking up dust to get away from that guy!" I learned early on that you don't pick fights with people twice as big as you. You can defend yourself if the fight gets brought to you, but if you mess with the bull, you tend to get the horns. And it's idiotic to blame the bull when the moron that was messing with him had the audacity and stupidity to do it in the first place.

As my Great-Grandfather used to say quite clearly:
"Well that's what you get for actin' stupid. Now did you learn anything from it?"

~LT

[Barbicatter]

Here is more of the story here: http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_15265746?source=pkg
As far as I'm concerned the agent did his job by stopping the threat. The young smuggler died because of his foolish actions.

[okiefarmer]

They kill their own cops, public officials; cook torture and maim one another and now they are outraged over the death of one street kid involved in suspicious activity at the border. HA.

The kid was known to authorities as a human smuggler. Lay down with the dogs and sometimes ya don't get up.

And how many folks in the USA are killed annually by illegals? Way the heck more than one dufus kid at a known crossing for illegals

[Retired15T]

It's ALWAYS a somber/sorrowful time when a young person is killed during a confrontation like this. Did the kid deserve to be killed? Was he throwing rocks too? Whether or not he was throwing rocks, he was amongst those who were.

The Boarder Patrol guys were doing their jobs. The Mexican Police?/Military? is shown on video coming across the boarder to pick up something, the .40 casing perhaps?, and returning to their side. The boy's body and the shell casing were moved according to some "Official" who asks not to be named. This person says it's on the video surveillance tapes from the border check point.

IMHO, if you play with the pack, don't be surprised when that entity that turns on the pack that is attacking it/them takes one of you out. The kid made a personal choice to be among those throwing rocks, which ARE deadly weapons and have been for thousands of years, so the kid may not of gotten what HE deserved, but by associating with those throwing the rocks, he got what the pack deserved.

It sucks, but that's just the way it is. The Border Patrol guy is most likely now suffering some type of PTSD for having killed a child. It happens. I know, unfortunately, from personal experience in Iraq. Let's focus on SUPPORTING our guy who was involved in this exchange and STOP looking to place the blame on our underpaid BP folks. The BP guy did the right thing even if it is an unsavory thing. He deserves our full support and the Prez should be telling Mexico to STFU.

[TheJ]

I believe what the OP presents is a fallacy of composition.

If the hypothetical "you" referred to by the OP is joe private citizen walking down a public street then yes it would seem logical to retreat from rock throwers before using deadly force. However, the situation in the story was far from that and the same logic simply does not apply.

[TheNatureBoy]

Is it justified to shoot someone who is throwing rocks at you? Please tell me that you aren't serious!

[mygila]

Gents,
For all you guys on both sides of this discussion here some news for you. I live in Las Cruces, N.M.. L.C. is an hour's drive north of Juarez on I-10. Tens years ago "gangs" were not a real problem in L.C. They are now all because of drugs and illegals from 40 milles south of L.C. I have friends who are Border Partol. Local T.V. has reported that 900 + rocks trowing incendents (brick size) have been reported in the past EIGHT months. The Wife & I used to go to El Paso regularly to shop and dine out. Not anymore in the last FIVE years. To many "drive bys" and now we have them in L.C. If we could we'd move but that's not an option at our age. I'm 74. Needless, to say all my handguns are loaded as well as my pump shotgun. My friends in the Border Patrol show far more patience and courage than I can muster. Throw rocks at me , wife, or my dog you'll be shot at. Just my opinion. Mygila

[Slotback]

A rock can be a lethal weapon. It can cause serious bodily injury or death.

Correct use of force by the Agent.

[vladan]

Is it justified to shoot someone who is throwing rocks at you? Please tell me that you aren't serious!

It is you who is apparently not serious.
Ever occurred to you that rock is man's OLDEST weapon ? Used to hunt, fight kill ?

I challenge you to go out and tell first street punk to hit you with the rock from several yards away and if you still can walk after that please do come back and tell

[OldMarksman]

This is a good read--tongue in cheek and very humorous, but full of truth. Courtesy of Canada Free Press.

The following is intended to serve as a useful guide to various activists, protesters, migrants and other completely non-violent folk who happen to be packing knives, guns, rocks and crowbars. You will encounter soldiers, border patrol officers and various law enforcement and military personnel—this is how not to get shot by them.



First of all it’s important to remember that if you attack an armed man in a uniform, he will very probably shoot you. Even given the most restrictive Rules of Engagement in the world which forbid him from opening fire unless he is outnumbered 600 to 1, there is a nuclear war in progress and only when he has been given specific authorization by the UN to use deadly force—there will still come a time when he will open fire on you. This will occur when he feels that he or his comrades are in danger. At this point there will be bullets headed your way, and no matter what you learned at your Madrassa or in Protest Studies at Evergreen State High University, you are not bulletproof. Really, you’re not.

The good news is that there is a very easy way not to get shot. It starts with you not attacking the nice men in uniform. That means not trying to disembowel them with your peaceful knife and not throwing rocks at their head. Because while you might think that legal activism includes attempted murder, the nice men in uniform think that attempted murder should result in sudden death. And when that happens you will realize that fanatical passion for your poorly thought out cause and a medieval weapon are no match for trained law enforcement officers who have guns and know how to use them.

Putting on a Kefiyah or a pair of Birkenstocks does not exempt you from the laws of physics, or the code of common sense
The thing to remember is that while just about every revolution you read about does involve a crowd of people rushing at armed men, those people usually end up dead or in a lot of pain. You should expect to have the same thing happen to you. Putting on a Kefiyah or a pair of Birkenstocks does not exempt you from the laws of physics, or the code of common sense. And considering that Allah failed to save numerous Muslim armies and crystal power never levitated the Pentagon, this kind of story can only have one conclusion. Putting all politics and wacky beliefs about a pedophile who rode a flying horse aside, if you attack someone, you should expect them to respond. And if they have a gun, they will respond with bullets. At that point you will either become a martyr or the world’s ugliest man.

Everyone has their own narrative and play the hero of their own story. And while you might have a great story in which you are the Mahdi or the reincarnation of Che, the man you’re attacking just might have a story in which he’s John Wayne. And just to refresh your memory, Che was shot in his thirties by the Bolivian Special Forces. The last Mahdi died of Typhus in his forties in a besieged city and his remains were tossed into the Nile along with the rest of the trash. John Wayne died peacefully in his seventies. Which fate would you rather have?

Since the dawn of time, men have guarded the borders of their nations. The border indicates that the lands within are the possession of their tribe and their chieftain. That border may only be crossed with the permission of the laws of the people who rule over it. To cross that border without their permission is to invite war, or at least a shower of arrows, spears or more lately, bullets. To cross that border for hostile purposes is to take your life in your hands. And unless you have an army with you, those hands are slick, greasy and operated by a mind completely devoid of common sense.

Once you have a weapon out, then you have put words such as “non-violence” or “pacifist” or “youth” aside
Similarly since the dawn of time men have responded blow for blow, rock for rock and fist for fist. If you claim to be non-violent, that may remove from you the risk of suffering preemptive violence, but it does not give you license to engage in violence yourself under the dubious shield of words. Because words are only good for fighting other words. Once you have a weapon out, then you have put words such as “non-violence” or “pacifist” or “youth” aside. You have given up the moral protection of presumed innocence, for a life and death struggle. And if you do not have the stomach for the consequences of that struggle, then you should not raise that knife or that stone. Because there will be no use complaining afterward about disproportionate violence.

It is also written in the codes of common sense, that only the attacker can be guilty of disproportionate violence, not the defender. It is the business of the defender only to repel you with as little damage to himself as possible. If you have a rock, you should not expect him to put down his gun, and throw rocks at you. And if you have a knife, you should not expect him to set aside his gun for a sharp blade. This is not a duel of honor, but an exchange of force intended to result in injury or death. His business is not to mete out an equivalent level and method of force to yours, but to dispatch you as quickly as possible. Prior to your attack on him, his concern was for your safety. After your attack on him, his concern is only for his own.

What you need to understand is that for you violence is political. To soldiers and law enforcement officers, violence is only a tool. In your mind, your attempt to kill is noble, while his attempt to kill you is vile and cruel. In his mind however there is an equation, violence set against violence. He does not particularly care what you believe, just that you not attack him while you are believing it. To you he is only a rage puppet in a political or religious narrative. To him, once you attack you are nothing more than a moving target. Understanding this will help you to not get shot. Failing to understand this is how martyrs are made. But the thing about martyrdom is that the health plan is terrible and there’s no long term prospects to it at all.

When angry people with rocks, knives, crowbars and a few guns attack trained personnel with guns, the victory goes to the people who are trained to kill
The difference between violent activists and law enforcement and soldiers, is that violent activists want to kill people, but lack the necessary skills to do it well. While law enforcement personnel and soldiers have the skills to kill people, but would rather not do it. When angry people with rocks, knives, crowbars and a few guns attack trained personnel with guns, the victory goes to the people who are trained to kill, not to those who want to kill. And when the blooded radicals complain about disproportionate force, what they’re really doing is whining about how surprisingly hard it is to kill people.

The average radical, lefty or Islamic, is as stupid as he is vicious. His cleverness exhausts itself in invective and rhetoric, which he discovers has surprisingly little application in a firefight. What is left is a would be murderer who rather late in the game discovers that he is trying to kill people, who are better at killing than he is. And that he came woefully unprepared for the encounter. Part of his misguided thinking is the belief that a knife or a rock are more moral weapons than a gun. They are not. A gun is the most moral weapon invented because it is efficient, quick and deadly. Killing a man with a knife is positively horrifying compared to shooting him in the head. Soldiers and law enforcement officers understand this. Subconsciously so do radicals, which is why they long for the knife, the rock and the nail studded bombs. If they kill, they prefer to be brutal and cruel about it.

The terrorist is utterly terrible at the art of war, but excels at the art of making his innocent victims suffer. The soldier dispatches his targets quickly and cleanly. For the terrorist however, inflicting agony is the sadistic purpose of the entire exercise. The suicide bomber gives himself a quick death, while mutilating those in his vicinity. He spreads horror and shock. And of course terror. But the media finds something awful about the soldier who executes his target with one round to the head, and something faintly heroic about the suicide bomber “making a statement” by taking away the arms of a 13 year old girl. Because the media radicals admire murderous passion, but find something horrible about the detachment of the soldier just doing his job. To kill horribly because of passion is somehow better in their eyes, than to kill cleanly and dispassionately to keep the people around you safe.

Terrorists only exist when they are tolerated
But terrorists only exist when they are tolerated. And they are tolerated by people who do not think like soldiers, but think like the media. Who want to find ways of making terrorists less angry, rather than finding ways to make more terrorists dead. Such people write narrowly restrictive rules of engagement, prosecute soldiers for defending themselves, and are outraged when a bullet prevents a massacre, rather than being outraged by the planned massacre instead.

But let us be clear about it. When you pick up a knife or a rock or a gun, you are not facing the politicians or the generals who answer to them. You are facing men who bear you no particular ill will, but do want to get home to their families that night or that month or that week. And if you do anything that risks interfering with that, they will shoot you. They will shoot you without caring about your politics or your fashionable scarf or what Karl Marx wrote about the role of the industrialist in the capitalist society. They will just shoot you. Because you are an aspiring politician trying to leverage your innate violence for political power. They are just guarding the front lines. They are not politicians. They just have guns and know how to use them. And if you attack them, you will die. And in that moment you will realize that neither your moving poems or your protest songs or your passion for the imagined plight of the children of Guatemala or Gaza or Gazambalooza, will do you the least bit of good. Because while you have the passion, they have the training. And the best to not be shot by men trained in the art of violence, is to put down the knife, the rock or the gun and walk the other way.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/24095

Back to the OP: (1) rocks do constitute lethal weapons and (2) NO, Border Patrol agents do NOT have a duty to retreat.

[m.p.driver]

Amen Spin2010,having been downtown on April 10,2001 i would have shown no qualms of defending myself against the mobs throwing bricks,rocks,and hunks of asphalt.I had to be downtown,but my AR-15,Rem 870,and Glock 21 had to be with me also.As a drill sargent once told me"We're not training you to be victims"

[TailGator]

Stoning was the accepted manner of execution in the middle east in biblical times. The community gathered to throw stones, so that each person had a part in the execution of the person deemed unworthy to continue living. That is the background for the widespread use of stone throwing in unrest in the area to this day. If a stone is intended by its user to be a lethal weapon, it certainly can be.

There was an incident on the local news last night in which a relative of a dead teenager said her little angel didn't deserve to die. The teenager was in a stolen car and aimed a firearm at the officer who stopped the car, prompting the office to fire. Same logic as those who condemn the Border Patrol agent.

[Don P]

Lets say I was a rancher or a civilian hiking along the Mexican border when a band of illegal immigrants starts throwing rocks at me. Then I pull out my rifle and start shooting. Would that be justified?

Only if none of them are able to talk after you are done. ( all dead )
Dead men tell no tales

[BGutzman]

The officer was doing his job... The business end of a rifle or pistol says stop and obey me any where in the world you go, think of it as a universal language.

Obviously it would have been better to be able to fire a warning shot but in the current legal environment doing such is almost certainly illegal regardless that it could save lives, especially in unpopulated areas.

I think the guy did his job...

[dnr1128]

A 1 lb rock thrown at 80 mph hits with with about 225 ft/lbs of force. A 9mm round weight 1/60 of a lb "thrown" at 1000 ft/sec hits with about 250 ft/lbs. Yes, when somebody throws a rock at me, and they show that they are intending to hit me, it is a lethal threat.

http://www.usborderpatrol.com/Border_Patrol412b.htm

[JohnH1963]

Stones can be dodged if you know they are coming in. You can also retreat a certain distance away because the stone thrower's range is only so much. The stone throwers in the article appear to be across a river.

I think its right that law enforcement doesnt have to retreat, but what if someone got shot everytime a snowball or rock is being thrown at a cop? That would end up with a lot of community backlash and unknown consequences. It sends a message to the community that its ok to use deadly force when someone doesnt have a knife or pistol which is not what you want to send.

In my personal opinion, I would say if the person throwing the rocks was a known violent offender where if they got away it would mean consequences to the community then I think its neccasary to fire. However, anyone else and I think they should retreat.

If the border patrol encountered so many rock-throwers, then why do they not wear lightweight pro-tec helmets? It seems like many encounters by the Border Patrol involve a little wrestle, why do they not have lightweight helmets and maybe some pads to absorb blows or stones?

http://www.pthelmets.com/products.asp?cat=14