In the scene where the young boy tries to shoot the Ranger and accidently kills his father/brother/friend, would you have shot him?

I think one would have to be there to answer that.

would have at least disarmed him and maybe scared the hell out of him but shooting him probably not.

Keving67

Very good point Major-Murphy.

Well, he WAS an active combative...

Nope.

Would have taken his and the dead guy's AR though.

Even though the kid was crying, he could have picked up either weapon and continued to shoot at U.S. troops.

Then again, the Ranger was in a bit of a hurry.....

You hold a weapon, you are a combatant, in much of the world, boys his age are soldiers, is Annon doing anything about it? THe Ranger would have shot him, then realized it was a boy....., he wouyld have been the one crying. But as the Warlord's man said...killing is negociating

W/O having seen the movie, my answer would be: "Gun in hand is a gun in use. Deal with the threat accordingly."

My first inclination is yes he would be shot. However the Major is correct in that you would have to be there. I would like to think not but that would not be an entirely truthful statement.

I would have wasted him.

[thinking]Ask your self this.  Was he going to shoot you?  If I am there under those conditions.  If it moves and it is not ours it goes down.  PERIOD!!!![kill]

Ask yourself this if a 16 year old breaks into your house and threatens you.  What do you do.  Easy youprotect yourself up to and including shooting him.[soapbox]

I am sure you mean AK..

I wouldn't be proud of it but I think I might have had to. logic says that this individual has a weapon and has just attmepted to kill me with it. consequentally he killed a loved one instead but he did try.


however as with much else in life this is easier said than done.

horrid as it is you do what you have to do to survive. even if it means killing wemon and children. sounds cold I know but war is a cold affair.

I would not knowingly shoot him in the back while he is weeping over the other person and would continue on, keeping one eye on him in case he tries something as I'm moving away.

Francisco

If it were me I would have shot the kid no hesitation period. First off the kid had picked up arms and became a combatint in the first place so just because he had someone he oviously cared about was shot dont mean shit.War is hell and that is the consiquences of war. Would it have been a sad thing to shoot that kid? Of course it would if you were looking at the war situation with american culture belief systems. But in war who's rules are you going to play buy, Just like Hoot said before they went out on the mission in the first place "Once that first bullet goes past your head politics and all that shit goe right out the window". that kid would have shot the ranger without hesitation. Just because at that time of engagement the kid was unarmed does not mean that in a little bit of time that one kid could not pick up his weapon and either reingage in the battle or go out and try to kill rangers for the revenge of the loss of a loved one. So all that said I would have shot that kid on the spot and let him lie right next to his loved one and die right there. War is War and it sucks but that is the way that it is. We will always have wars on the face of this earth it is human nature,age and your gender dont make a bit of difference in war.

It wouldn't even enter my mind to NOT shoot the little bastard!  You hunt me and I WILL kill you!  How old you are means nothing to me.

NEVER leave a flank unprotected!

That sounds as good as communism in theory, but in reality, especially in the reality those rangers were living with at the time, it's unrealistic.  
The guy was alone in a hostile city with thousands of native men, women and children crawling out of every orifice looking to ventilate him if he screwed up even the slightest bit. He lucked out by slipping in the doorway, which saved his ass, but that kid would just as happily blasted him if he hadn't.
Once that kid got over his initial grief, you can bet he'd get back to his rifle, only now he's pissed that the Ranger 'made' him shoot his Pop.
And he know's where you are, and which way you were going.

I can't say what I'd have done in that situation, but if the guy'd shot the kid, I'd have understood. Hell, maybe he could'a just whopped him over the head with the butt of his rifle and taken him out of the fight for the day... but who's to say?
I hate to admit it, but I think I'd have shot him and not worried as much about looking over my shoulder.

I'm just glad someone finally set the record straight on this mission. I have gotten into fist fights with people over this.
    After it happened in 93' there were a lot of people walking around saying the Rangers and Delta got their asses kicked by the Somalis.
    The media at the time was making it sound that way as well. I was very skeptical about this movie when I heard it was coming out, but once I watched the "Behind the scenes" story of the making of the movie I knew it would set the record straight.

    As far as the boy/shooting goes, I don't think anyone would have blamed the guy for drilling him. I think it is more of a personal/moral decision up to the person who was going to pull the trigger.
    Personally I would have had a hard time shooting him, I mean that is something that would haunt you 6 month later while you laid in bed at night. If he would have been pointing a weapon at me that is a different story, but he had shouldered his weapon and had his back turned.... I couldn't do that to a grown man. Would the kid get up later and take a shot at you? Damn right he would, but put a bullet in him then, not when his back is turned. [50]

Try this one. When the Delta trooper got to Durants crash site after Shugart and Gordon were dead he found Sammies looting the wreck. Would you have shot them?

Seems this incident may be more Hollywood fabrication.  I haven't read the book to see if it was an actually incident reported by one of the Rangers to the author.

I know they changed many other true facts such as the guy missing the rope as just arriving the day before or the LtCol leading the convoy.

Shot him. He shot his father/friend because you slipped coming out the door. Had you not slipped it would have been you in the body bag and not the other guy.

If it's wrong to shoot a kid with a gun, then does that mean that all those soldiers who were killed by 'kids with guns' get to live again?

Hmm, I thought not!

If he has a weapon in [u]that[/u] warzone, he has already made up his mind to use it.

If not on you, then on the next US soldier he encounters!

Didn't we learn [u]anything[/u] from the stupid release of 'Steamboat Willie' in [i]Saving Private Ryan[/i]?

Eric The(DeadSoldiersSeldomKillYourFriends)Hun[>]:)]