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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
Click to expand...

Only if none of them are able to talk after you are done. ( all dead )
Dead men tell no tales
 
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...
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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........
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top