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

[ZeSpectre]

JohnH1963, I feel like you have an amazing command of the "blame the victim" mentality here.

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.

And I repeat, you apparently have never had someone trying to hit you with rocks. It's not a damned game, it's someone trying to injure you as much as they can with what is on hand.

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.

Actually it is the message that should be sent. Or to put it more clearly, if one assaults an armed official don't be surprised if they do whatever it takes to stop the assault as fast as possible....that often means one risks getting shot.

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.

Are you saying that someone under assault should say "hey, wait a minute while I run a background check"? What utter nonsense, at that moment in time all you need to know is that someone is attacking you and you need to protect yourself.

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?

So it's the Border Patrol's responsibility to "absorb" any rock attacks? I think maybe you need to consider the concept of "problem ownership" and then look again to see where the actual problem is originating here.

[Hook686]

I personally think it depends. Depends upon:

-range of rock throwers
-number of rock throwers
-did the throwing consist of one rock, or a continuous barrage
-can you run away faster than the assailants
-if you retreat, do assailants pursue
-are you outnumbered

I think one rock already thrown is no longer a threat.

[Ivo Suarez]

dnr1128,

While those numbers are true, I don't know who in the world could chuck a 1lb stone at 80 mph. Mexico would have some impressive pitchers...

With that said, a thrown stone is still a deadly weapon, even if it's under 80 mph. While I would have fired a warning shot first, I think that the officer wasn't wrong for defending himself.

[10mm man]

while I certainly don't condone rock throwing, several questions come to mind. was the kid on the mexican side of the river? if yes, this raises other issues, the officer could have retreated to a safer distance on the US side and waited for the punk to cross before shooting. shooting across the border opens a floodgate of political issues, whereas if the kid was on the US side then all bets are off.

the OP asked if it were you or I shooting back at a rock thrower would net the same results. I dont believe it would. as a "civilian", I would be required to retreat and if not possible then I could defend myself. HOWEVER, if I shot someone across the river in mexican territory, I would be hung out to dry.

[Double J]

Seems I've read a related article once. It was titled, "David and Goliath". And as I recall, a rock can be quite a serious weapon.

[ATANRA]

I think a rock is how David slew Goliath. Mary Magdeline was being stoned to death when she was spared. It was a common practice in that time period. Throw a rock at the border guards anywhere in the world and watch what happens. The only reason this is being a gang media strike is that it is USA. It is a non issue in the rest of the world.

[jhenry]

You know John, I just don't know what it is about situations like this that excapes you. I don't know if it is a lack of experience, a lack of logical thought process, or just a desire to stir the pot with a group of gun enthusiasts.

No one in their right mind could think that a rock is not a potentially deadly weapon. No one who desires a rule by law, could really expect law enforcement officers to simply abandon their duties every time some criminal starts chunking rocks at them. No one with any sense of decency or humanity could expect officers to let their heads get bashed in rather than to use force if necessary in a situation like that. Those men have families too John, and little kids who want their daddies home safe. The idiots who were trying to maim or kill them didn't give a rip about those kids or anyone but themselves.

In case you have failed to notice it in the news, the border has become quite dangerous. Since our "great friend" President Calderon, has begun his oh so effective crackdown on the cartels, there has been just under 23,000 deaths by violent means. That is just since 2006. Beheadings, rape/murders, torture killings, burning alive, bombs, and the more mundane shootings in broad daylight. Our Border Patrol Agents have to patrol and keep us safe despite the dangers, and my hat is off to those guys.

Come see me sometime, I know a bunch of Mexicans, and I'll get a 15 year old with a good arm to bean you with a nice piece of river rock for 10 bucks. I bet he knocks you right off that high horse.

[Nunyabiz]

The KID threw a couple of rocks and then RAN.
He was running away and was shot IN THE BACK.
There is no justification for that period.

[Southern Rebel]

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.

John H, I can only hope that you are attempting to be humorous. I guess if they used slingshots, you would retreat a little farther. If they chose to use a catapult, you would again add to your retreating distance. Given your approach, you would soon find your toes being dampened by the Atlantic ocean once they learned to attach the rocks to a missile. I sure hope like heck that you learn to perform a "swim retreat", cause you're sure gonna need it!

[JasonWilliam]

Interesting discussion. I've read a few times here that citizens are expected to retreat. In California, at least, that is not at all true. You are under no obligation to retreat, and in fact you are entitled to stand your ground.

So with that in mind, if someone is throwing a rock at you, and continues to do so, legally, you may respond with equal force. You may throw a rock back. If you happen to hit the dude in the temple and kill him, you're going to be cleared of any wrong doing because you were responding in self defense with equal force.

Now if you pull out your gun and shoot... you've upped the stakes. A rock and a gun sitting on a table together are not equal force weapons... so the question becomes would a "reasonable" person fear for their life in this situation, which would in turn justify the response of a greater force being used in the form of a gun?

If your jury feels you were justified, and therefore "reasonable" in your response with deadly force, you're golden. If not, as in a "reasonable" person could have simply moved out of range (or you had rocks at your disposal to throw back that you chose not to use), you're a murderer.

It all comes down to what a jury of your peers will deem "reasonable". At least in California.

Or am I misunderstanding that point in this context?

[BGutzman]

You know it is all very situation dependent.... When I was helping build schools in the jungles of Ecuador some idiot lobbed about a pound and a half stone at us from the top of a building.

I was riding in the back of a light truck and the truck had a person driving and a passenger in the passengers seat.

The rock missed me by about 1/2 a inch and landed in-between the driver and the passenger, shattering the back window. No one was hurt beyond some super minor glass cuts but the rock certainly had enough force to seriously injure or kill.

None of us were at the scene and none of us know exactly what happened but I like to think the average officer out there is honest and doing the right thing.... If not were all in a world of hurt........

[JasonWilliam]

See thats kinda what I'm saying... in that case, you were under attack while conducting otherwise lawful activities. So you have a right to self defense and to stand your ground. You could not have responded with equal force since you could not have thrown a 1.5lb rock back at the guy with the same force (you fighting gravity, him working with it).

So if you fired your weapon, you responded "reasonably", since your life was in danger (your lawyer would prove that a 1.5 rock landing on your head would kill or seriously injure you).

But on the other hand if he was downhill from you, throwing pebbles, and you pull out your gun...

The answer to this question I guess is "It depends". Its situational.

[jhenry]

Yes you are. The point is whether deadly force could be justified against a subject armed with, or throwing a rock. Deadly force does not have to be proportionate force. Deadly is deadly. The standard test for the justified use of deadly force involves determining Means, Opportunity, and Intent. Does the assailant have the Means to do great bodily harm or death, does he have the Opportunity to do great bodily harm or death, and has he demonstrated the Intent to do great bodily harm or death. A person throwing rocks large enough to do great bodily harm or large enough to crack a skull has certainly shown that he has the intent and has taken the opportunity. The crux of the issue at hand is whether a decent sized rock when thrown, gives one the Means to do great bodily harm and or death. I think the first Austrailiopithicus who killed a Bumpalotamus with a rock demonstrated the rocks deadly abilities. Why we would argue that now leaves me shaking my head.

[troy_mclure]

different scenario, but same-ish.

while in iraq some young(9-10 yr olds) were throwing bricks at gi's from bridges and overpasses. there were several broken bones from this, but we were not allowed to shoot.

then 1 kid threw a grenade. after that if they threw something it was a grenade. it took about a week and several shot rock(and grenade) throwers before they stopped.

maybe as the word gets out there will be no more rock throwers, or it may require a few more throwers shot before they get the lesson.

[Wayfinder]

When one is attacked by one or by many using a weapon and or weapons. It is your responsibility to stop a threat. When wolves attack, it has stopped being a game, they mean to hurt you. End of story. Weather your a Leo or civilian. A rock can kill you. The bible has a story of a warrior being killed by a kid with a sling. Ammo most likely a small pebble. Keeping politics out of it. So far it sound as if justified shooting.

[45Gunner]

Several years ago in a neighborhood in South Florida there were a gang of kids that got their kicks tossing bricks and cinder blocks from pedestrian over-passes that straddled I-95 or the Turnpike down into oncoming cars. At first there were some damaged cars and then one day a cinder block goes thru a windshield and kills a woman while she is driving. If memory serves me, she was pregnant. Is this murder or just some stupid little gang-banger playing?

Same scenario plays out in the border incident. Rocks tossed at armed agents don't mean anything until someone gets hit and seriously injured or killed? Are the Mexican kids just playing or is it their intention to do bodily harm?

In my book, rocks coming at me might as well be hand grenades. I am answer deadly threat with deadly threats of my own. It is a classic me or them scenario. I think the Border Patrol Agent should be given a medal to taking out someone that could have caused the death of fellow Agents. Good riddance to bad news.

[Hook686]

Interesting opinions. I am left thinking it really does not matter what the majority of opinions here are. My thought is how might the local District Attorney react ? Even forgetting international, and Federal, involvement, the local jurisdiction will most likely result in a citizen at a minimum obtaining a lawyer to reply to the District Attorney. How much will this cost ? If the DA does not agree with 'Justifiable Homicide', how much will it then cost ? Depending upon where you live, what chances to you have of being found innocent in your jurisdiction ? Even though California does not have a duty to retreat law, I'd hate to be in this type scenario in Marin County.

Backing up might be the prudent thing to do, even if you believe you are justified in 'Blowing the punk' away.

[MJN77]

Why is it that people think the LEO should back away? Their job is to ENFORCE the law. That does not mean running from some [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] with a rock, knife or gun. How do you enforce the law if you run away from the criminals? The people that think they should let the detainee go unless he is a serial killer or some such BS, how exactly do you propose the LEO find that out? Ask him?
LEO: "hey, are you a dangerous criminal bent on causung harm and terror to others?"
Criminal: " Uh, no. No I'm not sir."
Clears it up for me. How about you? Hell, Ted Bundy( well known serial killer, raped and murdered 35+ women) was caught because of a traffic stop. When confronted he tried to fight the cop and run. Should the LEO have retreated? I mean, he didn't know who Bundy was and if he was a threat right? Think before you type, people.

[Dre_sa]

it depends on the size of the rocks...

[ISC]

What was Goliath killed with...

A rock.

What was the proscribe weapon of execution in the old testament...

multiple rocks

[grubbylabs]

If you are dumb enough to through a rock at some one with a gun then you need to die. It is no ones fault that kid is dead but his own. And any one who thinks other wise is just as dumb. He chose to through the rock at a LEO no one else made the choice for him.

[Nunyabiz]

Goliath is a myth unless you also believe in Unicorns and talking snakes.

those stoned to death were usually tied down and had many many people throwing large stones at them.

There is really no excuse to kill a kid throwing rocks when you are outside in the wide open area and should be perfectly capable of that tricky defense move called DUCKING & WEAVING.

[Kmar40]

Except that you can't duck and weave while handcuffing another criminal.

Just another dead piece of kaka whose mami says he was a good vato...when he wasn't smuggling.

[MJN77]

So a LEO doing his job should run instead of defending him/herself? Why didn't the kid "duck/weave" the bullet? Hide behind the bridge supports? Cops DO NOT have to stand there and let little B A S T A R D S throw rocks at them. That's why they have guns. To defend themselves and others.
Yeah, you're right. Rocks only kill you if you're tied down genius.

[Nnobby45]

There is really no excuse to kill a kid throwing rocks when you are outside in the wide open area and should be perfectly capable of that tricky defense move called DUCKING & WEAVING.

Bunk. When you're trying to detain a suspect and his buddies are throwing rocks big enough to cause brain damage, then dodging and weaving aren't an option. And when you hold fire and further embolden the thugs to throw rocks and edge closer, that puts your life in more danger.

The number of Israeili citizens lying in hospitals with brain damage is testimony. Another tactic is steel ball bearings from slingshots that can penetrate a windshield or human skull.

Some folks seem to associate rock throwing with a bunch of Palastinian kids throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers safe in vehicles or behind cover as the news media begins filming on que.

Also saw a video, taken with night vision cameras, showing Mexican citizens being murdered by rock throwing thugs as they were robbed while staging to cross the border. Rocks (big ones) were thrown at close range with deadly accuracy. One individual hit went down and didn't move. Dead.