Directed by Clint Eastwood

Damn. Just, damn...

Three words ... Clint Eastwood

'nuff said.

Put yourself in his SHOES, OMG, The sentence you are about to serve. Nooooooooooooooooooo!
You feel yourself die over and over. To may tragedies have evolved like this,please no more.

I would take the shot in that situation. I wouldn't risk the lives of several comrades for the life of one kid.

As for the film, I'll be seeing it.

Thank god you're not a sniper.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU

Did you take a good look at what the woman gave the kid?

And enough already with the smug "superior than thou" spiel. It's old.

A shell of some sort I'm guessing?

I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

I'm really looking forward to the film because Clint Eastwood directed it. I guess my first post came off a little sarcastic or something.

Are you quoting Joe Biden?

As I said, I really like Clint Eastwood's directing style so I made his name three words.

Really looking forward to the film.

I wonder if Jessie Ventura's lawsuit will be in it?

This movie will probably help his estate pay off part of his judgement.

The kid is running with a shell under his jacket towards US troops...sniper or not there is little chance he 'll wake up in his bed the day after, so...fire !

Looks like an RKG-3 anti armor grenade. Report up, track the kid, gets within throwing range you have 2 options. Shoot or not shoot. Intent is not entirely clear believe it or not. But killing this kid if you ID'ed the RKG-3 is probably within ROE. War is a horrible mess. But it is always possible that the kid is doing something strange like turn in a munition. Not likely however. HOPEFULLY....someone gets on the radio to get soldiers to intercept the kid out side of throwing range.

But also is missing from the puzzle here is just what is going on in this area. Is this a known bad guy area? Have their been lots of RKG-3 attacks? Do folks in this area use kids in attacks?

In the end, civvies walking up to soldiers right there sets off the alarm bells. At least in this context of clearing rooms and buildings. A combat unit rolls up and the locals go poof. Not walk at you.

Last bit... An RKG-3 as well as an RPG where shoot on sight weapons. US soldiers knew this...so did the locals. So why on earth would a woman, presumably give her kid something that would get him killed on sight? Who would be the actual perpetrator of this kids death? Next thing to look for, if time (ya right), would be a camera. Any potential attack like this would have some jerk with a video camera somewhere around.



So kill the what? 12 year old boy or maybe send home a few 18 or 19 year old boys in boxes? And the kicker of course....if he is actually about at commit an attack. Which it certainly looks like.

How high is the chance that the kid survives a shoulder hit or some other hit that isn't into the head? I guess that's a risk worth taking.

You would aim center mass. not head. That is a Hollywood fantasy. As is shooting to incapacitate. If your shooting your shooting because you think there is a threat. A running target is a hard target. Even for uber sniper guy. Even if you are the best shot in the world, hitting a running leg or arm would be a damned crazy shot. The distance from the shooter to the kid is probably over 200 meters or more.

I suppose a warning shot could be used. Not really suppose to do that. Crap... Really an ambiguous situation. Of course its a clip of movie. And clearly we are to believe that only this sniper holds the fate of his fellow soldiers lives and the kids in his hands. Guess we have to see the movie right?

I'm not an expert on military stuff. But IIRC it's called a "body shot"? The point I recall is that even if you don't kill the guy, you got him incapacitated (temporarily) and you can get back to him later on (if there are many targets).

As for the kid, can't they alert the ground unit? I mean, if the kid doesn't intend to do harm, an alerted squad shouting, "Stop right there!" with their guns pointed at him should do the trick. Otherwise there's no other choice.

FlashBurn, I know you ain't going to aim for the legs or arms, but I would have thought an off-center mass hit not into vital organs might give you a chance to get the guy sorted.

I wouldn't have. As I was watching, I got the impression that the child may have been directed by the mother to hand the round over. There was no distinct indication of hostile intent. As well, the round didn't appear to be rigged to blow. It just looked like a raw RPG round - no wires, no apparent tampering.

As well, it's just a kid. Not a determined jihadist. A warning shot at his feet will at the very least stop him. Then you can get the terp forward to sort the situation out, have the kid drop the round or whatever. The point is he's stopped and you now have options. If you shoot and he doesn't stop, you still have the option of shooting again.

While I'd never let the kid get close to troops with that, there was enough time and enough space to attempt something else before going straight to deadly force.

You're not going be targeting individual organs or body parts on a moving child while the clock is ticking. It doesn't work like that. Even the best sniper has a certain degree of error in his shots against moving targets in dynamic conditions. That's why he aims for the centre of visible mass - to give himself the widest margin of error on all sides of his point of aim in order to maximize the probability of hit. If you aim for the shoulder, you're giving yourself maybe two or three inches of error margin on the one side before you're shot is a miss - and you're now having to re-cock and start again.

+1.