Israeli military charges soldier who shot and killed wounded Palestinian attacker with manslaughter

by Ben Reilly Thu Apr 14, 2016 10:48 pm

JERUSALEM (AP) — The Israeli military on Thursday said prosecutors have announced their intention to file a manslaughter charge against a soldier who was caught on video shooting a wounded Palestinian attacker in the head.

The soldier appeared in a military court, where his detention was extended until Monday. The military said that prosecutors informed the court that they plan on charging the soldier with manslaughter, but are still working out some technical details before formally indicting him.

The shooting took place last month in Hebron, a West Bank city that has been a focal point of a seven-month wave of Israeli-Palestinian violence.

At the time, the military said two Palestinians stabbed and wounded an Israeli soldier before troops shot and killed the pair.

But in a video later released by the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, one of the attackers was shown still alive after the initial shooting. The video, taken by a Palestinian volunteer for the group, shows the wounded attacker lying on the ground, slowly moving his head before a soldier raises his rifle and fires. Blood is then seen streaming from the Palestinian's head. An autopsy determined the bullet to the head was the cause of death.

The incident has triggered uproar in Israel, with the country's defense minister, military officials and many Israelis calling it contrary to the army's values. That has led to widespread support for the soldier, with many calling his actions appropriate for a country reeling from months of Palestinian attacks.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/israel-palestinian-ax-attacker-killed-soldiers-130831599.html?nhp=1

by eddie Thu Apr 14, 2016 10:49 pm

With all the shit done to, and by, both sides, this makes them have an uproar?

by Guest Thu Apr 14, 2016 10:53 pm

I've seen the video. They killed one boy and ijured another (even though they only managed to produce 1 knife). The injured one was lying on the ground moaning and moving his head, with body wounds. They were stepping over him (later the soldier claimed he might have had a suicide vest, didn't seem to bother them when they were stepping over him).

While this was going on paramedics and ambulance crew were seeing to a soldier who was sitting up on the stretcher talking, didn't appear to be in pain.

A second ambulance arrived, and as it was drawing up a soldier shot the injured Palestinian lying on the floor, absolutely no threat, in the head, killing him instantly.

And that is supposed to be manslaughter. Are we to think that he thought shooting him in the head wouldn't kill him?

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 15, 2016 9:42 am

I also watched a video of the incident, and there doesn't seem to be much doubt that a soldier shot the man in the head whilst he was lying on the ground, right in front of other soldiers, paramedics, and a few other people. Nobody made any attempt to stop him, and a couple of other soldiers appeared to step back slightly because they were in the way.

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 9:52 am

Actually what many people are unaware, if that because of his jacket for that time of year a fear he was wearing a suicide vest, this is why ambulance crew as well as others were told to stand back. Soldiers are going to be nervous if they feel someone is wearing a suicide vest and who can blame them.
Anyway, as to the fact he was terrorism scum, the reality is who carers. He went to murder and now he is dead, it just shows Israel will prosecute its soldiers if they deem them to have committed a crime.

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:02 am

Nobody was standing back. There were people milling around. As I said, two soldiers stepped back slightly just before the gun shot but they were still very close to the guy. I will look into the story more, but I'm just saying what I saw on the video. The moment the shot rang out, the gun is actually obscured by the two soldiers, but I think it's fairly safe to conclude that it was the guy who stepped forward pointing the gun at the man in the road who fired the shot.

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:07 am

Raggamuffin wrote:Nobody was standing back. There were people milling around. As I said, two soldiers stepped back slightly just before the gun shot but they were still very close to the guy. I will look into the story more, but I'm just saying what I saw on the video. The moment the shot rang out, the gun is actually obscured by the two soldiers, but I think it's fairly safe to conclude that it was the guy who stepped forward pointing the gun at the man in the road who fired the shot.

Again I suggest you read the witness reports and yes they were standing back from him
Again placed in that position if this was an American cop he would have emptied his entire firearm into such an assailant.
They are lucky the IDf wound many of them, because I would have no hesitation in blowing the head of a terrorist scum that came to murder people. Again its easy for you to sit there but I suggest you read what people have stated

http://www.timesofisrael.com/soldier-who-shot-disarmed-palestinian-wont-go-back-to-jail/

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:09 am

didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Nobody was standing back. There were people milling around. As I said, two soldiers stepped back slightly just before the gun shot but they were still very close to the guy. I will look into the story more, but I'm just saying what I saw on the video. The moment the shot rang out, the gun is actually obscured by the two soldiers, but I think it's fairly safe to conclude that it was the guy who stepped forward pointing the gun at the man in the road who fired the shot.

Again I suggest you read the witness reports and yes they were standing back from him
Again placed in that position if this was an American cop he would have emptied his entire firearm into such an assailant.
They are lucky the IDf wound many of them, because I would have no hesitation in blowing the head of a terrorist scum that came to murder people. Again its easy for you to sit there but I suggest you read what people have stated

http://www.timesofisrael.com/soldier-who-shot-disarmed-palestinian-wont-go-back-to-jail/

They were standing back a few feet - not far enough if the guy had been wearing a suicide vest. I watched the video, so I trust my own eyes.

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:12 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:

Again I suggest you read the witness reports and yes they were standing back from him
Again placed in that position if this was an American cop he would have emptied his entire firearm into such an assailant.
They are lucky the IDf wound many of them, because I would have no hesitation in blowing the head of a terrorist scum that came to murder people. Again its easy for you to sit there but I suggest you read what people have stated

http://www.timesofisrael.com/soldier-who-shot-disarmed-palestinian-wont-go-back-to-jail/

They were standing back a few feet - not far enough if the guy had been wearing a suicide vest. I watched the video, so I trust my own eyes.

Again not concerned, they should give the man a medal, for ridding the world of some terrorist scum, not locking him up.
Again its only because Israel does apply the law that it is looking to charge him.
In the position of many IDF soldiers who are placed into a very difficult position, I would not even look to wound, why would you?
If he is found guilty, then Israel has served justice but imagine if the killers of Lee Rigby had been taken out?
I doubt anyone would have batted an eyelid over it

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:20 am

It appears that the soldier who did the shooting was called over by another soldier, and they exchanged a few words. Of course I don't know what they said, but it's possible that the soldier shot the guy as a result of what he'd been told. The guy who called him over took something off him and held it - I think it was a helmet - and he was clearly aware of what was about to happen.

Is it possible that they thought the guy on the ground was dead, but then they saw him move, so decided he was still a threat?

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:26 am

I Wrote the IDF Code of Ethics. Here’s My Take on the Hebron Shooting.
Asa Kasher

Israeli public debate is focused these days on a seemingly simple incident: In Hebron, two Palestinian terrorists attacked a team of Israel Defense Forces soldiers, managing to stab one of them before they themselves were shot. One terrorist was killed and the other injured. The latter was lying on the road when a soldier arrived, observed the scene and, without being commanded to do so, shot the terrorist once in the head. An autopsy, performed by Israeli forensic doctors in the presence of a Palestinian forensic doctor, revealed that that last shot was what killed the terrorist.

For more than 20 years now, I have been active in studying the military ethics of the IDF and in writing related documents such as the 1994 IDF Code of Ethics. I would like to make a few observations about the incident from that perspective.

The first thing to note is that the incident was immediately reported to the relevant IDF commanders, who at once conducted their routine debriefings. The professional military investigation was repeated several times along the chain of command, from the platoon and battalion level, through the brigade and division level, to the chief of staff. They all reached the conclusion that what the soldier had done was utterly wrong, in stark violation of commands, Rules of Engagement and the values specified in the “Spirit of the IDF,” the code of ethics that requires respect for human dignity (and especially human life) and restraint of force (or “purity of arms,” as it’s called in Hebrew).

At the core of military ethics in a democracy — whether it’s the United States, United Kingdom, Canada or Israel — you find two principles manifest in all doctrines, procedures, ROEs and commands. First, the right and duty of self-defense. A person and a state have the right to defend themselves when they are in jeopardy caused by unlawful activities of criminals or enemies. Plus, a democratic state has a duty to effectively defend its citizens when they are in such jeopardy. Second, every act of the state, including acts taken on its behalf by police or military, ought to show respect for human dignity. This means that compelling justification is needed for any significant interference in a person’s situation.

Killing a person is a last resort in self-defense and it ought to be confined to circumstances of necessity. It is ethically, morally and legally wrong to kill a person if it is not a necessary step of self-defense.

Read more: http://forward.com/opinion/337841/i-wrote-the-idf-code-of-ethics-heres-my-take-on-the-hebron-shooting/#ixzz45sy6kZZ4

Maybe he should look into some of the other executions of children.

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:28 am

If it's accepted that the soldier did think that the man might be wearing a suicide vest, what would be the correct procedure? What do they do generally? Do they clear the area of all bystanders, paramedics, and soldiers? How do they check if someone's wearing a suicide vest?

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:29 am

Raggamuffin wrote:It appears that the soldier who did the shooting was called over by another soldier, and they exchanged a few words. Of course I don't know what they said, but it's possible that the soldier shot the guy as a result of what he'd been told. The guy who called him over took something off him and held it - I think it was a helmet - and he was clearly aware of what was about to happen.

Is it possible that they thought the guy on the ground was dead, but then they saw him move, so decided he was still a threat?

According to reports from the soldiers (if I get time I'll copy them), HE said to the other soldier, 'He attacked one of us, he deserves to die'. Not surprising really when the Chief Rabbi is saying all Palestinians should be killed.

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:29 am

Oh so now sassy is equating this adult to being a child????

Interesting and again defending terrorism scum.

Someone who is 7 can still stab you to death and with children are blame the scum parents and those on the internet inciting them to commit violence
You know those idiots who post up falsified claims on Israel to further incite violence
They have blood on their hands for these children dying.
This was no kid

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:30 am

Raggamuffin wrote:If it's accepted that the soldier did think that the man might be wearing a suicide vest, what would be the correct procedure? What do they do generally? Do they clear the area of all bystanders, paramedics, and soldiers? How do they check if someone's wearing a suicide vest?

He think anything of the sort, people had been stepping of the man and he had previously been searched, it's the first thing they do.

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:31 am

sassy wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:If it's accepted that the soldier did think that the man might be wearing a suicide vest, what would be the correct procedure? What do they do generally? Do they clear the area of all bystanders, paramedics, and soldiers? How do they check if someone's wearing a suicide vest?

He think anything of the sort, people had been stepping of the man and he had previously been searched, it's the first thing they do.

fabrication

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:32 am

Just remember the famous video of the girl injured, what did the soldiers do there Rags.
Cordon the area off, incase she had a suicide vest

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:34 am

I mean the worst thing about all of this is that some terrorist scum has died and its forgotten he tried to murder.
He went with one intent to murder and yet because Israel is a decent democracy it prosecutes its soldiers, even though some would have us believe they do not.
In my book, the scum is dead, those who take up the sword, die by the sword

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:35 am

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:36 am

They also forgot to mention that although they killed two Palestinians, they only produced one knife.

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:36 am

Pallywood

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:36 am

sassy wrote:They also forgot to mention that although they killed two Palestinians, they only produced one knife.

Where is that evidence?

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:42 am

sassy wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:It appears that the soldier who did the shooting was called over by another soldier, and they exchanged a few words. Of course I don't know what they said, but it's possible that the soldier shot the guy as a result of what he'd been told. The guy who called him over took something off him and held it - I think it was a helmet - and he was clearly aware of what was about to happen.

Is it possible that they thought the guy on the ground was dead, but then they saw him move, so decided he was still a threat?

According to reports from the soldiers (if I get time I'll copy them), HE said to the other soldier, 'He attacked one of us, he deserves to die'. Not surprising really when the Chief Rabbi is saying all Palestinians should be killed.

Yes, but that is hearsay. I can only go on what I can see in the video. If the other other soldiers heard that, they didn't make any attempt to step in and stop the shooting. The two guys who were near the injured man appear to be talking on the phone at the time, and the others didn't seem to react to anything that was said. There's a bystander who might have heard what was said, but he also seemed fairly indifferent.

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:44 am

Sassy, that warning didn't work for me by the way because I scrolled backwards up the thread. In any case, that's a different incident and it's not a video whereby one can see what happened.

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:44 am

didge wrote:Just remember the famous video of the girl injured, what did the soldiers do there Rags.
Cordon the area off, incase she had a suicide vest

Well they certainly didn't do that in this case.

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:47 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:Just remember the famous video of the girl injured, what did the soldiers do there Rags.
Cordon the area off, incase she had a suicide vest

Well they certainly didn't do that in this case.

Did they allow anyone near him?

No

Its a pity neither of us understand the language, because I remember reading an article on this a while back where it translates what they say which would fit them believing he might have been wearing one.

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:52 am

sassy wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:If it's accepted that the soldier did think that the man might be wearing a suicide vest, what would be the correct procedure? What do they do generally? Do they clear the area of all bystanders, paramedics, and soldiers? How do they check if someone's wearing a suicide vest?

He think anything of the sort, people had been stepping of the man and he had previously been searched, it's the first thing they do.

I didn't see anyone step over the man per se, but there were soldiers standing pretty close to him, and other people walking very close to him. An ambulance also drew up very close to the man. He moved at around the time that ambulance arrived, so the soldiers knew he wasn't dead at that point.

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:52 am

Not allowed near him? They were walking around him and parked beside him:

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:53 am

didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well they certainly didn't do that in this case.

Did they allow anyone near him?

No

Its a pity neither of us understand the language, because I remember reading an article on this a while back where it translates what they say which would fit them believing he might have been wearing one.

I think they did allow people near him. How far away does one need to be to escape injury or death from a suicide vest? Two feet?

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:54 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:

Did they allow anyone near him?

No

Its a pity neither of us understand the language, because I remember reading an article on this a while back where it translates what they say which would fit them believing he might have been wearing one.

I think they did allow people near him. How far away does one need to be to escape injury or death from a suicide vest? Two feet?

Leave you to it Rags, have things to do.

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:57 am

sassy wrote:Not allowed near him? They were walking around him and parked beside him:

Which shows nobody searched him as you claimed, which was a falsehood

But nobody was next to him

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:58 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:

Did they allow anyone near him?

No

Its a pity neither of us understand the language, because I remember reading an article on this a while back where it translates what they say which would fit them believing he might have been wearing one.

I think they did allow people near him. How far away does one need to be to escape injury or death from a suicide vest? Two feet?

They may have fought he was dead, or did you not think of that, then why a sign of movement have made the person react

Either way Israel is prosecuting him and no doubt he will get sentenced, but like I say he should be given a medal, for ridding the world of another worthless piece of scum

by Major Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:01 am

Ya supposed to kill your enemies.

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:08 am

My last post disappeared. Israeli military charges soldier who shot and killed wounded Palestinian attacker with manslaughter 2190311264

There are no videos of him being searched as far as I can see, but this one starts a little earlier, and it shows the ambulances arriving. Just after the second ambulance arrived, it shows the man moving quite a lot, so why was the area not cleared then?

I'm ignoring the commentary by the way, it's just that the video shows a little more than the other one.

WARNING - some people might find this video distressing.

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:13 am

Yeah I love how they decide if someone is hurt or not
Anyway, I do not see the body moving.
So again, could it be they presumed he was dead?

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:14 am

didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I think they did allow people near him. How far away does one need to be to escape injury or death from a suicide vest? Two feet?

They may have fought he was dead, or did you not think of that, then why a sign of movement have made the person react

Either way Israel is prosecuting him and no doubt he will get sentenced, but like I say he should be given a medal, for ridding the world of another worthless piece of scum

Yes, I did think of that - I mentioned it earlier. However, I have posted another video which shows the man moving quite a lot.

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:15 am

didge wrote:Yeah I love how they decide if someone is hurt or not
Anyway, I do not see the body moving.
So again, could it be they presumed he was dead?

You don't see his legs move at 1:35?

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:18 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:

They may have fought he was dead, or did you not think of that, then why a sign of movement have made the person react

Either way Israel is prosecuting him and no doubt he will get sentenced, but like I say he should be given a medal, for ridding the world of another worthless piece of scum

Yes, I did think of that - I mentioned it earlier. However, I have posted another video which shows the man moving quite a lot.

Again I have nopt seen that and again was any aware he was moving when he was, that is also important.
If the first who sees that he is, is the soldier who shot him, then would add weight to his story
More likely he shot him in anger, which judging by what they go through with daily attacks is enough to put them on edge.
He will be prosecuted, but the reality is and why its manslaughter is because of what they have to go through risk wise daily

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:19 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:Yeah I love how they decide if someone is hurt or not
Anyway, I do not see the body moving.
So again, could it be they presumed he was dead?

You don't see his legs move at 1:35?

But did anyone see his legs move.
Its all well and good when the camera is pointed at him, but its also important if the soldiers see this movement, up until then he has not even moved has he>?>

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:28 am

didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You don't see his legs move at 1:35?

But did anyone see his legs move.
Its all well and good when the camera is pointed at him, but its also important if the soldiers see this movement, up until then he has not even moved has he>?>

There was a soldier standing right next to him and a guy standing very near on the pavement, so it would have been hard for them to miss that. In addition to that, the guy on the pavement pointed at the guy on the ground and spoke to a soldier. What do you think he was saying?

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:30 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:

But did anyone see his legs move.
Its all well and good when the camera is pointed at him, but its also important if the soldiers see this movement, up until then he has not even moved has he>?>

There was a soldier standing right next to him and a guy standing very near on the pavement, so it would have been hard for them to miss that. In addition to that, the guy on the pavement pointed at the guy on the ground and spoke to a soldier. What do you think he was saying?

Come on Rags that is subjective and again its not the one that shot him
There is no way to tell that he is even point at him, again subjective
Remember you have to try and take this from the view point of the soldier.
If which as seen the terrorist is not moving, then its at least possible when he saw the movement he reacted.

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:34 am

didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

There was a soldier standing right next to him and a guy standing very near on the pavement, so it would have been hard for them to miss that. In addition to that, the guy on the pavement pointed at the guy on the ground and spoke to a soldier. What do you think he was saying?

Come on Rags that is subjective and again its not the one that shot him
There is no way to tell that he is even point at him, again subjective
Remember you have to try and take this from the view point of the soldier.
If which as seen the terrorist is not moving, then its at least possible when he saw the movement he reacted.

The point is that it would have been difficult for either of those two people to miss the man moving. I think the man on the pavement told another soldier that he was alive, so why did that soldier not clear the area if there was a danger he might be wearing a suicide vest?

I know that I don't actually know what was said, but it's common sense isn't it?

As for the man who did the shooting, he saw nothing IMO - he reacted to whatever he was told by the soldier who called him over.

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:37 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:

Come on Rags that is subjective and again its not the one that shot him
There is no way to tell that he is even point at him, again subjective
Remember you have to try and take this from the view point of the soldier.
If which as seen the terrorist is not moving, then its at least possible when he saw the movement he reacted.

The point is that it would have been difficult for either of those two people to miss the man moving. I think the man on the pavement told another soldier that he was alive, so why did that soldier not clear the area if there was a danger he might be wearing a suicide vest?

I know that I don't actually know what was said, but it's common sense isn't it?

As for the man who did the shooting, he saw nothing IMO - he reacted to whatever he was told by the soldier who called him over.

But again they are not the one that shot him are they
Remember this has to be viewed from the position of the one who did shoot him
It may have nothing to do with what the other soldier said to him, that again is subjective and may well having nothing to do with it
You are second guessing

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:52 am

didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

The point is that it would have been difficult for either of those two people to miss the man moving. I think the man on the pavement told another soldier that he was alive, so why did that soldier not clear the area if there was a danger he might be wearing a suicide vest?

I know that I don't actually know what was said, but it's common sense isn't it?

As for the man who did the shooting, he saw nothing IMO - he reacted to whatever he was told by the soldier who called him over.

But again they are not the one that shot him are they
Remember this has to be viewed from the position of the one who did shoot him
It may have nothing to do with what the other soldier said to him, that again is subjective and may well having nothing to do with it
You are second guessing

So you think it's a coincidence that one soldier called another one over, took his helmet to hold so he could use his gun, and that whatever was said was nothing to do with the man on the ground? I see.

You also think that if one soldier was aware the man had moved earlier, he wouldn't have told any of the others?

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:56 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:

But again they are not the one that shot him are they
Remember this has to be viewed from the position of the one who did shoot him
It may have nothing to do with what the other soldier said to him, that again is subjective and may well having nothing to do with it
You are second guessing

So you think it's a coincidence that one soldier called another one over, took his helmet to hold so he could use his gun, and that whatever was said was nothing to do with the man on the ground? I see.

You also think that if one soldier was aware the man had moved earlier, he wouldn't have told any of the others?

Again first sentence is again second guessing
You are claiming to know what was said and inferring they are connected and yet nobody else has been arrested over this.
I am stated from a a defense point of view, if he has not seen the man move and thought he was dead and then reacted to movement, there is nothing to deny this. Going off as you are assumptions to wanting to make this fit would not stand up in court.
He will of course be asked what was said, but it may well have no bearing whatsoever

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:07 pm

didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So you think it's a coincidence that one soldier called another one over, took his helmet to hold so he could use his gun, and that whatever was said was nothing to do with the man on the ground? I see.

You also think that if one soldier was aware the man had moved earlier, he wouldn't have told any of the others?

Again first sentence is again second guessing
You are claiming to know what was said and inferring they are connected and yet nobody else has been arrested over this.
I am stated from a a defense point of view, if he has not seen the man move and thought he was dead and then reacted to movement, there is nothing to deny this. Going off as you are assumptions to wanting to make this fit would not stand up in court.
He will of course be asked what was said, but it may well have no bearing whatsoever

Look again. The soldier who shot the injured man comes over and briefly speaks to another soldier. He doesn't appear to be looking at the injured man, but he immediately hands his helmet to the other soldier and shoots the injured man.

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:08 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:

Again first sentence is again second guessing
You are claiming to know what was said and inferring they are connected and yet nobody else has been arrested over this.
I am stated from a a defense point of view, if he has not seen the man move and thought he was dead and then reacted to movement, there is nothing to deny this. Going off as you are assumptions to wanting to make this fit would not stand up in court.
He will of course be asked what was said, but it may well have no bearing whatsoever

Look again. The soldier who shot the injured man comes over and briefly speaks to another soldier. He doesn't appear to be looking at the injured man, but he immediately hands his helmet to the other soldier and shoots the injured man.

That is subjective with you being swayed to that view.
Its second guessing.
Unless each has said their views or what happened, which will happen in court, that is needed before jumping to any such conclusions

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:11 pm

didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Look again. The soldier who shot the injured man comes over and briefly speaks to another soldier. He doesn't appear to be looking at the injured man, but he immediately hands his helmet to the other soldier and shoots the injured man.

That is subjective with you being swayed to that view.
Its second guessing.
Unless each has said their views or what happened, which will happen in court, that is needed before jumping to any such conclusions

I'm not swayed to any view. I've always been unbiased about these incidents. If I see a video, I say what I see. I have no bias towards or against the soldier.

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:15 pm

IDF: Hebron soldier said stabber deserved to die, then shot him

Army releases details of investigation into Thursday shooting of disarmed and wounded Palestinian assailant

Facing a firestorm of criticism from far-right politicians, the IDF released new details over the weekend about the investigation into the shooting death of a Palestinian stabber in Hebron on Thursday.

The Palestinian was one of two men who attacked troops near the Tel Rumeida neighborhood in Hebron, wounding one soldier. The two assailants were shot; one was killed on the spot, the other shot to death later.

Among the army’s findings, the soldier allegedly said the surviving Palestinian stabber should be killed before he shot him, and told his commanders afterward that the assailant had deserved to die.

The case sparked controversy after a video surfaced online showing the soldier shooting the apparently disarmed, wounded and supine Palestinian stabber in the head.

According to a murder indictment filed Friday by military prosecutors in the Jaffa Military Court, the wounded assailant was not a threat to troops when he was killed.

Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday criticized the soldier’s actions as immoral and in contravention of the army’s rules of engagement and ethical code.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-hebron-soldier-said-stabber-deserved-to-die-then-shot-him/

by Guest Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:16 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:

That is subjective with you being swayed to that view.
Its second guessing.
Unless each has said their views or what happened, which will happen in court, that is needed before jumping to any such conclusions

I'm not swayed to any view. I've always been unbiased about these incidents. If I see a video, I say what I see. I have no bias towards or against the soldier.

You are swayed by your on views on the matter, that is not knocking as we see what we want to see.
Again he will be convicted of that I have no doubt.
I just think in there situation facing unprecedented attacks incited off the next and by Palestinian leaders its bound to many of them on edge.

by Sponsored content