Project Reality Forums

Usally when you encounter a civillian he throws rocks at you this can make you bleed or even die. I know about the restrainer the way thats a type of killing a civi but IRL if someone in a battlezone threw stones at a solider the soilder would be able to open fire as it would defeintly seem as the civi would be on the oppstion forces. I was thinking when a cicvi hurts any collation forces the soilder will be able to engage the civi without any penlty. But the only thing is if this happens and he shoots at him he will get the same intellgenc as the equvielnt to another solider.

myles wrote:I know about the restrainer the way thats a type of killing a civi but IRL if someone in a battlezone threw stones at a solider the soilder would be able to open fire as it would defeintly seem as the civi would be on the oppstion forces.

source ? as i believe this to be false.

gazzthompson wrote:source ? as i believe this to be false.

Well IRL stones would be weapon and your not going to let some guy stone you while he makes you bleed to death and the rpg isnsurgents have stones aswell and your aloud open fire on them if they throw stones

Um what if they are pissed that you are breaking into their home and breaking things.

i got your source i downloaded this from the internet and it offical just google rules of engagement and im sure you will find this. Its rule 20 out of the Britsh rules of engagement in iraq.

British Rules of Engagement in Iraq

These are the rules of engagement for British and supporting troops in British sector in Iraq. They outline the situations where European governments have agreed to use force.
Rules of Engagement (ROE)

1. Conduct of simulated attacks against potentially hostile elements as a non-lethal escalatory warning option is authorised.
2. Designation of targets by use of Laser Target Designation equipment is authorised.
3. Designation of targets by fire control radar for the purposes of height finding by maritime forces is authorised.
4. Counter harassment to a similar extent and degree to that experienced by MND(SE) forces in the AO is authorised.
5. Counter harassment including riding off to a similar extent and degree to that experienced by any vessel is authorised.
6. Use of riot control means where necessary for the purpose of controlling detainees and internees, is authorised.
7. Use of riot control means where necessary for the conduct of Public Order Control is authorised.
8. Use of force up to but not including deadly force to prevent interference with MND(SE) personnel during the conduct of their mission is authorised.
9. Use of minimum force to defend designated non-MND(SE) forces/personnel is authorised.
10. Use of minimum force to prevent the taking possession of or destruction of MND(SE) property or the weapons and ammunition and explosives seized in the execution of the MND(SE) mission is authorised.
11. Use of minimum force to defend against intrusion into Military Restricted Areas or other areas designated by an authorised commander is authorised.
12. Use of minimum force to enforce compliance with diversion and/or boarding instructions is authorised.
13. Use of covert actions in Iraq is permitted to the extent necessary for mission execution.
14. Deployment of indirect fire and crew-served weapon systems is authorised.
15. Use of indirect fire and crew-served weapon systems is authorised.
16. Use of demolitions in Iraq is permitted.
17. Use of non-explosive obstacles in Iraq is permitted.
18. Unrestricted use of ECM is authorised.
19. Laying of anti-personnel mines is prohibited.
20. Use of minimum force against elements demonstrating Hostile Intent against MND(SE) forces or elements under MND(SE) protection is authorised.

6. Use of riot control means where necessary for the purpose of controlling detainees and internees, is authorised.
7. Use of riot control means where necessary for the conduct of Public Order Control is authorised.

Riot control is not the same as shooting someone.

crazyasian11 wrote:Riot control is not the same as shooting someone.

If you read i said to look at rule #20.

i highly doubt "Use of minimum force" means shooting them.

agreed

You have to be specific when you have examples it never specifies to shoot, specifically..

now if the minimum force is shooting due to the civi having a BOMB, well then by all means...

[quote=""myles"]IRL if someone in a battlezone threw stones at a solider the soilder would be able to open fire[/quote]

[quote="myles""]20. Use of minimum force against elements demonstrating Hostile Intent against MND(SE) forces or elements under MND(SE) protection is authorised.[/quote]

i lol'd.
and if you're late paying your bills, police will drag you out of the house and burn your belongings? ;D

Stop being lazy and go give him a punch in the face...if he IS going to kill you kill him...I see no reason why not too...its not like someone else WOULDN'T shoot him...even if he wasn't throwing rocks...

Would it be justified to shoot a kid that was throwing stones at your house or rather you? Stones shouldn't kill you though.

Ok,let someone throw 3 sharp stones close to ur ear,see what happends.

I would throw the rocks right back at the kid...better yet I'd peg him in the head with my grenade

SkaterCrush wrote:I would throw the rocks right back at the kid...better yet I'd peg him in the head with my grenade

And where would you find said grenade? But anyway, I'm sure soldiers aren't allowed to blow away anyone who's angry at them... Plenty of riots have happened all over the world, and probably the worst military or law enforcement personal would have done is shoot someone, and thats in extreme cases. Most of the time they just beat them down with shields and batons. But, a ziptie simulates grabbing the man, throwing him on the ground, and handcuffing him. So pretty much I don't think that you should be able to shoot civilians... they just don't on normal occasions...

jaspercat444 wrote:And where would you find said grenade? But anyway, I'm sure soldiers aren't allowed to blow away anyone who's angry at them... Plenty of riots have happened all over the world, and probably the worst military or law enforcement personal would have done is shoot someone, and thats in extreme cases. Most of the time they just beat them down with shields and batons. But, a ziptie simulates grabbing the man, throwing him on the ground, and handcuffing him. So pretty much I don't think that you should be able to shoot civilians... they just don't on normal occasions...

TAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZZZZZEERR BULLETSS!!!

myles wrote:Usally when you encounter a civillian he throws rocks at you this can make you bleed or even die. I know about the restrainer the way thats a type of killing a civi but IRL if someone in a battlezone threw stones at a solider the soilder would be able to open fire as it would defeintly seem as the civi would be on the oppstion forces. I was thinking when a cicvi hurts any collation forces the soilder will be able to engage the civi without any penlty. But the only thing is if this happens and he shoots at him he will get the same intellgenc as the equvielnt to another solider.

I see you're from Ireland, North Ireland perhaps? I know North Ireland has a lot of experience with simular situations as in Afghanistan but I don't believe there or in Afghanistan that you are allowed to shoot rock throwing civilians. In N.Ireland 10 year old kids use to throw moval cocktails at cops and soldiers. They couldn't shoot back.

In afghanistan kids throw rocks at soldiers all the time, but there RUE doesn't count it as a enemy. Only somebody with a actual weapon can be labeled as a valid target. Some soldiers do get tierd of being attacked by rocks and chase after the kids and give them a spanking (seen videos of it). Quite funny actually but that's all they can do.

Demonic wrote:I see you're from Ireland, North Ireland perhaps? I know North Ireland has a lot of experience with simular situations as in Afghanistan but I don't believe there or in Afghanistan that you are allowed to shoot rock throwing civilians. In N.Ireland 10 year old kids use to throw moval cocktails at cops and soldiers. They couldn't shoot back.

In afghanistan kids throw rocks at soldiers all the time, but there RUE doesn't count it as a enemy. Only somebody with a actual weapon can be labeled as a valid target. Some soldiers do get tierd of being attacked by rocks and chase after the kids and give them a spanking (seen videos of it). Quite funny actually but that's all they can do.

Du..dude...yo-...you w-w-w-w-weren't there man...you just WEREN'T THERE!

SkaterCrush wrote:Du..dude...yo-...you w-w-w-w-weren't there man...you just WEREN'T THERE!

lol, I got family up there. They told me about it. My mom use to go up there and lived there for a couple of months and everywhere she went there were soldiers in every street pointing guns at you. There were lots of military road-blocks and at night choppers with spot lights would scan the streets.

Almost nobody would drive cars because the IRA would always put bombs in them. The police rode APC's instead of police cars and were always fully body armored with full swat gear just incase. Would have have those police shields for when some kids throw those cocktails at them.

It was pretty hecktick up there but it has died down a lot.

Realism infraction!!!