/ Getting away with murder.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Hugh J - on 04 Jan 2017
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-38512699

Here's one for some members of this parish to get their teeth into. Not only has this soldier got away with what cannot be seen as anything else but murder (check the video out), but now Netanyahu is calling for him to be pardoned.

A digraceful act from a professional soldier and someone, who being a medic, is supposed to save lives.

Be warned, the video is not pleasant viewing.
3
nathan79 - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

I was pleasantly surprised he was found guilty. A shameful incident and an opportunity for the IDF to paint themselves in a good light. As for netanyahu's calls, the less said about that the better.
1
Hugh J - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to nathan79:

> I was pleasantly surprised he was found guilty.

Indeed, but he has committed murder, not manslaughter.
3
JayPee630 - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

Hmmm, I know what you're getting at, but no he hasn't. Murder is a legal judgement, and since he hasn't been convicted of it, he hasn't (in pedant legality mode) committed it.

I wonder if there was a deal done where he was prosecuted for manslaughter knowing that he was very unlikely to get convicted of murder? Or that he was promised a lesser sentence or something. Also country's definitions of murder and manslaughter often differ quite a lot.
2
Michael Hood - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J: He has not got away with murder since he's been tried and convicted of an offence for this incident. He may (in your view) not have been sufficiently severely charged or punished, but getting away with it would be no charge/trial/conviction etc.

From the video, he's obviously stepped over the line in terms of acceptable military conduct. You may not like where the line is positioned, or what happens to someone who steps over the line, but at least in Israel there is a line and a judicial process that actually happens when the line is crossed.

There are many other countries (especially in the middle east) where there is no line and you'll never see anything done against military/police who go too far. Maybe in UK too - why was this guy shot dead near Huddersfield? Nothing's been said to suggest that he was an immediate threat to the unmarked police who killed him.

With respect to Netanyahu's call for a pardon - I would feel very uncomfortable with that - surely the soldier should undergo some punishment (the amount is again a matter of opinion about the severity) - firstly because he has done something wrong which has not been defensible in a court of law, secondly as a deterrent & reminder to the IDF that there is a line they mustn't cross, and thirdly to show the world that the judicial process in Israel has primacy over everything else (politics, policy, military action, etc.)

6
Michael Hood - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to JayPee630: It's quite likely that the Israeli definitions are similar to UK's since a lot of Israeli law is based on UK law - a consequence of the British mandate before 1948.

MarkJH - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

> It's quite likely that the Israeli definitions are similar to UK's since a lot of Israeli law is based on UK law - a consequence of the British mandate before 1948.

According to wikipedia, the definition under Israeli law is roughly equivalent to voluntary manslaughter in the UK. I imagine that would probably have been the charge brought here given that the victim had just stabbed a friend of the accused.
The New NickB - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

It looked like murder to me, I nearly started a thread on the same subject last night. Obviously the difference between murder and manslaughter is a legal and technical one and I'm no expert in Israeli law.

He seemed pretty confident that he wasn't going to be convicted at all, which given the track record of Israeli courts on soldiers killing unarmed civilians (the guy he killed was armed with a knife but completely incapacitated), seems a reasonable assumption.

1
JayPee630 - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to The New NickB:

> It looked like murder to me.

I hope you're never on a jury if I'm in the dock! ;-)

4
MG - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:
> why was this guy shot dead near Huddersfield? Nothing's been said to suggest that he was an immediate threat to the unmarked police who killed him.

There hasn't been a announcement in three days about the details, therefore it was murder!?Honestly!!
Post edited at 09:42
1
krikoman - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to JayPee630:

> I hope you're never on a jury if I'm in the dock! ;-)

Is an execution better language?
2
The New NickB - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to JayPee630:

> I hope you're never on a jury if I'm in the dock! ;-)

What does taking my statement out of context actually achieve. Hopefully you don't go around shooting people in the head.
2
JayPee630 - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to The New NickB:

I was just making a comment on the fact you said 'well it looked like murder' which is what usually comes just before someone saying it was. Which without all the facts in a case is a dangerous road to go down.

And yes, execution is better if you ask me. I think quite clearly it was a disgusting terrible thing to do and par of the course for the IDF.
3
krikoman - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:
Sadly this happens all too often,

7. The Petah Tikva killers

In November, 38-year-old Sudanese asylum-seeker Babikir Adham-Uvdo was beaten to death by two Israeli youths outside of the city hall in Petah Tikva, a town near Tel Aviv. Security camera footage of the incident revealed that the youths beat Adham-Uvdo for more than an hour. He was brought to hospital but never recovered, and was disconnected from life-support systems days later.

Although the killing bore similarities to other attacks on Africans, an article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz stated that “people close” to a suspect in the killing believed it was not a racist incident. Relying on those sources, Haaretz suggested that Adham-Uvdo may have been killed because he “made insulting comments to girls.”

Adham-Uvdo was seen walking and then stopping in front of three 16-year-old girls. The girls shouted at him to leave, and within seconds of first encountering them, Adham-Uvdo raised his hands and walked away.

The 16-year-old boy then attacked Adham-Uvdo from behind; another youth soon joined in, kicking Adham-Uvdo as he lay on the ground.

The video footage also shows that paramedics arrived on the scene midway through the beating. In the video, they are seen tending to Adham-Uvdo but, after a short while, leave him to fend for himself, seemingly satisfied that he no longer requires their aid. Within seconds of their departure, the two young men return and continue the beating.

Two persons have been charged in relation to the incident: one is Dennis Barshivatz, a Petah Tikva local, now aged 20; the other is a 16-year-old, whose name has not been published. An Israeli prosecutor has decided to charge the two with manslaughter, rather than murder.

Some observers noted the parallels between the deaths of Adham-Uvdo and Emmett Till. Till was an African-American teenager who was murdered in Mississippi, beaten until he was unrecognizable, ostensibly for flirting with a white woman.



from here https://electronicintifada.net/content/netanyahu-openly-boasts-israels-war-africans/19051
Post edited at 09:52
3
The New NickB - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to JayPee630:

> I was just making a comment on the fact you said 'well it looked like murder' which is what usually comes just before someone saying it was. Which without all the facts in a case is a dangerous road to go down.

You miss the line on the difference between murder and manslaughter being a legal and technical judgement, somewhat dependant on the jurisdiction.


1
Mike Highbury - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:
> A digraceful act from a professional soldier and someone, who being a medic, is supposed to save lives.

This isn't the first time that the Israeli military authorities have charged someone for these or similar offences, only for the conviction to be followed by howls of protest from populist politicians, their half-witted electorate and the broadcast media.

We get the same bollocks about such courts martial in Britain; this forum is not immune, unfortunately.
1
jonnie3430 - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

I'm going to get flamed for this, but am going to post it anyway as I think it's worth consideration.

The dead man got up that morning and decided that he wanted to kill someone, or many, not even knowing who they were.

The soldier didn't. The soldier, doing a stressful job in unusually stressful circumstances overreacted and got it wrong. I don't think it was premeditated, hence not murder. I don't think training could simulate the extreme emotions he went through on that day, so it wasn't clear that he wasn't fit for the job he was doing.

So murder or manslaughter? If manslaughter, what sentence? Is he likely to ever be in that situation again?
1
krikoman - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to jonnie3430:
The thing is, the original shooting was sometime before, so it wasn't heat of the moment type thing, everything had "calmed" down a bit from the original attack.

There's also the fact that these knife attacks most often end up with the attacker dead, there are a number of ways non-lethal force can be used to achieve incapacitation of the attacker, it's just easier to kill them, and when no one really cares, then why not?

In contrast the Firearms unit of the Police here, were called out something like 1,300 times last year, seven people lost their lives!

The IDF are supposed to be one of the most highly trained armies in the world and yet they can't disarm men, women and teenage girls with knives!

While I'm not suggesting the attackers aren't a fault here, the number who end up dead is disproportionate, and after all the IDF are supposedly trained professionals, trained to deal with such things, while the attackers are just terrorists.

They originally arrested to bloke that took the video,but not the soldier, which I think gives you some idea of their priorities.
Post edited at 10:54
7
Rampikino - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to jonnie3430:

I don't think it's worth a flaming. I guess the assumptions are quite fixed from your perspective.

The dead man might not have got up that morning with such an intention - we will never know. What is clear is that he took the ultimate risk in attacking armed IDF members and probably knew that he was likely to end up dead.

Your defence for the solider is the classic "in the heat of the moment" scenario, which is fair enough. For me it is a bit of a stretch though. He did this in the fading heat of the moment, and had time to think about it. It wasn't a snap decision - he had time to think it through (especially if his own comments are to be believed) and decided that the man deserved to die out of revenge.

Premeditation does not need to have a lengthy lead-up. Premeditation can be a matter of moments - it is a conscious decision, knowing full well what the outcome is likely to be. It is rationally made. The IDF solider had time to think about it, act as Judge, Jury and Executioner, raised his rifle and executed the immobile man.

The key question that I guess the court has already answered is that the situation at the time was of such a heightened emotional intensity that murder would be difficult to prove.

Oh, and is being an IDF in that culture, that arena and that atmosphere an "unusually stressful" one? Not sure if it is.
5
JuanTinco on 08 Jan 2017
In reply to krikoman:

On my cheerily named "dealing with non-firearm related threats" training at the start of my Military career I remember the Caporal giving one person a felt tip as a knife, and we had to try and disarm them without getting any pen on you, forget the TV rubbish there was a lot of pen on a lot of people by the end of it.

Not saying what happened next was right, but I can see why the attacker was shot initially.

Juan
poppydog on 08 Jan 2017
In reply to krikoman:

" . . . just terrorists . . " - really? "Just"?

The 'just terrorist' made a choice about making the attack and put the soldier in that position. And before I get flamed, I'm not saying it was the right thing to do, but we're people on a social-media forum making comments from our armchairs making a judgement about a place and situation we're not involved in. The soldier probably believed the attacker was wearing a vest, and if so, what then? It's way too easy to make judgements about the actions of people in life-threatening situations, and people too often seem to jump on those responding to situations rather than those that create the threat in the first place. Of course, rules of engagement and reasonable force must be applied, but let's just consider that the attacker put others and himself in the line of fire.
2
poppydog on 08 Jan 2017
In reply to jonnie3430:

Well put.
Indy - on 08 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

A Jew and a Palestinian in Israel..... there's only ever going to be one winner there.
2
Rob Parsons on 08 Jan 2017
In reply to poppydog:

> .... The soldier probably believed the attacker was wearing a vest, and if so, what then?

That claim in fact formed the basis of his defence - but it wasn't accepted by the court:

E.g. from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-38501886 :

"Delivering the verdict on Wednesday, the panel of three military judges rejected Sgt Azaria's defence that he shot Sharif because he continued to pose a threat.

"He had told the court that he believed there might be a suicide belt under the Palestinian's jacket.

"The judges, who took two-and-a-half hours to deliver their verdict, noted that Sgt Azaria's commanders had testified that he did not mention the same concerns when they questioned him immediately after the shooting incident.

"The judges also said there was no dispute regarding the veracity of the statements made by another soldier, who testified to military investigators that Sgt Azaria had told him during the incident: "They stabbed my friend and tried to kill him - he deserves to die."

"Sgt Azaria told the court that he did not recall having any such conversation, but the head of the judging panel, Col Maya Heller, described him as an "unreliable witness". "

krikoman - on 08 Jan 2017
In reply to poppydog:
> " . . . just terrorists . . " - really? "Just"?

> The 'just terrorist' made a choice about making the attack and put the soldier in that position. And before I get flamed, I'm not saying it was the right thing to do, but we're people on a social-media forum making comments from our armchairs making a judgement about a place and situation we're not involved in. The soldier probably believed the attacker was wearing a vest, and if so, what then? It's way too easy to make judgements about the actions of people in life-threatening situations, and people too often seem to jump on those responding to situations rather than those that create the threat in the first place. Of course, rules of engagement and reasonable force must be applied, but let's just consider that the attacker put others and himself in the line of fire.

All of that maybe acceptable if this was an isolated case, but sadly it isn't and there are other videos and photos of people being killed when they are not even close to the soldiers and sometimes when they are behind a security fence. There is plenty of evidence for knives being dropped at scenes after Palestinian teens have been killed.

If our police are capable of of doing it, why can't their army.

If you really want to know why, instead of making excuses, is suggest you Google "Breaking the Silence".

I'm not making excuses for violence on either side, but it seems to me the only people who have any consequences for violence are the Palestinians.


And let's not forget this is happening too.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.763331
Post edited at 17:47
2
poppydog on 08 Jan 2017
In reply to krikoman:

I'm not coming at this from a political perspective; simply, that I've never faced someone wielding a knife (at least not in a situation like this) and wasn't involved in this, so feel it not appropriate to make a judgement.
krikoman - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to poppydog:
> I'm not coming at this from a political perspective; simply, that I've never faced someone wielding a knife (at least not in a situation like this) and wasn't involved in this, so feel it not appropriate to make a judgement.

But you did make a judgement and you made assumptions too, "The soldier probably believed the attacker was wearing a vest,"

There is absolutely no evidence for that assumption, there have been next to no reports of the terrorist using "vests" in the recent spate of killings.
Post edited at 08:57
2
jondo - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> But you did make a judgement and you made assumptions too, "The soldier probably believed the attacker was wearing a vest,"

> There is absolutely no evidence for that assumption, there have been next to no reports of the terrorist using "vests" in the recent spate of killings.

the soldier was lying to the court. he killed him out of revenge for stabbing his friends.
he was found guilty of manslaughter for that.
the IDF has a clear (probably downloadable) code of conduct and he violated that code.

meanwhile a Palestinian with Israeli ID from east Jerusalem murdered (whether you approve of killing female soldiers or any soldiers or not).
yes, MURDERED, as in the act of driving a truck into a crowd of people.
but you would call it a 'traffic accident' or 'protest over X or Y' ?

1
wintertree - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

> Be warned, the video is not pleasant viewing.

Tell me about it. It's upsetting to be reminded that any random person you see in the street could turn out to be an evil knife wielding murderer intent on stabbing as many people as they can.
1
ads.ukclimbing.com
krikoman - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to jondo:

> the soldier was lying to the court. he killed him out of revenge for stabbing his friends.

> he was found guilty of manslaughter for that.

> the IDF has a clear (probably downloadable) code of conduct and he violated that code.

And now the Prime minister of Israel is calling for a pardon!! Mean while two kids 11 and 12 years old have been jailed for two years for throwing stones at soldiers in armour vehicles.

> meanwhile a Palestinian with Israeli ID from east Jerusalem murdered (whether you approve of killing female soldiers or any soldiers or not).

I don't understand this sentence, but if you're asking me if he should have been killed, then who knows? If he was killed while trying to stop him then fair enough, if he was laying on the floor unconscious then probably not.

> yes, MURDERED, as in the act of driving a truck into a crowd of people.

If you can't see the difference between these two scenarios, then it's because you don't want to.

> but you would call it a 'traffic accident' or 'protest over X or Y' ?

No not a traffic accident, I don't know what X or Y is, you might need to be a bit more coherent. Again if you mean would I protest over innocent people being killed, then yes of course.

you're doing the same as usual with your "what about" arguments.

Like I said if this was a one off case it might be different, but you know it isn't.

2
krikoman - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to wintertree:

> Tell me about it. It's upsetting to be reminded that any random person you see in the street could turn out to be an evil knife wielding murderer intent on stabbing as many people as they can.

But the execution of an immobilised human being, by a supposedly professional soldier, is OK is it?
3
wintertree - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> But the execution of an immobilised human being, by a supposedly professional soldier, is OK is it?

I have to say, emotionally, it didn't bother me one iota. If I had a gun and someone stabbed my friends to death in front of me, I might have done the same. Base instincts. I expect this was what the terrorist wanted - bring those out in anticipation of the effect it has on society. That, far more than killing a few soldiers, is the long view.

I can see how for society and how for the soldier concerned there are long term negative effects to their actions, and I believe prosecuting the soldier was the correct course of action.

It worries me deeply that terrorists using tactics with no regard for their own life are increasingly targeting my homeland and that it can only be a matter of time before one of them is summarily executed here, and they win another battle?

But someone who is willing to knowingly throw their life away to murder others? I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.
jondo - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to krikoman:



> No not a traffic accident, I don't know what X or Y is, you might need to be a bit more coherent. Again if you mean would I protest over innocent people being killed, then yes of course.

X or Y = your usual justifications for terrorism.
of course soldiers , even if doing their national service are not 'innocent' to you and are fair game.

> you're doing the same as usual with your "what about" arguments.

i think you're talking about yourself.

> Like I said if this was a one off case it might be different, but you know it isn't.

'a one off case' ha ! you top yourself...
1
poppydog on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> But you did make a judgement and you made assumptions too, "The soldier probably believed the attacker was wearing a vest,"

> There is absolutely no evidence for that assumption, there have been next to no reports of the terrorist using "vests" in the recent spate of killings.

You're assuming I'm making an assumption: it was reported that is what the soldier said. I didn't make a judgement about the incident.
poppydog on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to wintertree:


> I have to say, emotionally, it didn't bother me one iota. If I had a gun and someone stabbed my friends to death in front of me, I might have done the same. Base instincts.

Agree, perhaps that's why people are outraged: they don't then have to face that.




poppydog on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> But the execution of an immobilised human being, by a supposedly professional soldier, is OK is it?

wintertree did not say that, you've manufactured it.
krikoman - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to poppydog:
> wintertree did not say that, you've manufactured it.

No your right he / she just ignored them, which is where the problem lies, we ignore them because it doesn't suit us and Israel carries on killing.


http://www.hangthebankers.com/israeli-jailed-6-months-for-burning-baby-and-father-to-death/
Post edited at 17:30
4
krikoman - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to wintertree:

> I have to say, emotionally, it didn't bother me one iota. If I had a gun and someone stabbed my friends to death in front of me, I might have done the same. Base instincts. I expect this was what the terrorist wanted - bring those out in anticipation of the effect it has on society. That, far more than killing a few soldiers, is the long view.

But again you're making stuff up, the attacked stabbed and wounded, he didn't kill anyone. But I don't suppose that fits with you reasoning

> I can see how for society and how for the soldier concerned there are long term negative effects to their actions, and I believe prosecuting the soldier was the correct course of action.

Yeah, we that's something at least.

> It worries me deeply that terrorists using tactics with no regard for their own life are increasingly targeting my homeland and that it can only be a matter of time before one of them is summarily executed here, and they win another battle?

Doesn't it worry you what the IDF are doing to the Palestinians?

> But someone who is willing to knowingly throw their life away to murder others? I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.

There may be a reason why they think this way, perhaps, just perhaps, when you treated like shit and you constantly ground down, perhaps you give up on hope and realise some people don't want you to live a normal peaceful life. Perhaps when there's such open disparity between the consequences of throwing a stone and murdering someone it might just push you over the edge.

I don't know, what I do know it was within the soldier power not to kill the bloke, he chose to end his life, it was neither warranted or professional.

3
jondo - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to krikoman:

here, your friends handiwork :

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/09/israeli-soldiers-killed-in-truck-attack-to-be-buried-a...

take a look at the faces, they are humans as well . (despite you think they are less because they were conscripts)
go on , blame the dead israelis, you usually do...
2
krikoman - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to jondo:
> here, your friends handiwork :


> take a look at the faces, they are humans as well . (despite you think they are less because they were conscripts)

> go on , blame the dead israelis, you usually do...

You really are a prime cvnt, how are these my friends?

Name one place where I've ever encouraged violence.

And as far as conscripts are concerned, that only makes the Israeli Government worse for making them do national service, it's only a means to indoctrinated people into their way of thinking and degrading Palestinians into less than human beings. Continuing the cycle of violence.

But you're welcome to carry on trying to defend every action the Israeli government makes and the killing of innocent children. I didn't hear you condemning Meir Ettinger or this

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/israeli-settlers-wedding-palestinian/


But then I wouldn't expect you too.
Post edited at 18:53
2
poppydog on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to krikoman:

"Name one place where I've ever encouraged violence."

Here? ". . .might just push you over the edge." Or are you just ignoring it?
1
jondo - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> You really are a prime cvnt, how are these my friends?

swearing out of desperation are we ?

> Name one place where I've ever encouraged violence.

you constantly present Israelis as a bunch of racist thugs that only want to murder people, if thats not encouraging violence I don't know what is.

> And as far as conscripts are concerned, that only makes the Israeli Government worse for making them do national service, it's only a means to indoctrinated people into their way of thinking and degrading Palestinians into less than human beings. Continuing the cycle of violence.

there you go, at it again. National service is 'indoctrination' is it ? and that means IDF soldiers 'degrade Palestinians' ? is that true of all soldiers in the world or only Israelis ?


> But you're welcome to carry on trying to defend every action the Israeli government makes and the killing of innocent children. I didn't hear you condemning Meir Ettinger or this


> But then I wouldn't expect you too.

again with your BDS websites ??!
you think I support a bunch of racists ? are you a complete liar ?
why would I go around condemning every idiot ?
do you post condemnations against every EDL supporter's tweet?
krikoman - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to poppydog:

> "Name one place where I've ever encouraged violence."

> Here? ". . .might just push you over the edge." Or are you just ignoring it?

I think you'll find that's not an encouragement, it's not even justification, it might be an explanation of how constantly subjugating someone might turn them into what you keep telling them they are. Collective punishment for atrocities only works one way in Israel, Gaza is still without power for more than 12 hours per day, because Israel bombed their power station and is withholding parts for it's repair. But that's OK because, well because what?

But once again you are welcome to delude yourself that it's always someone else's fault, that the 18 month old baby girl was asking for it, and that her murderer should be celebrated and forgiven.
2
krikoman - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to jondo:

> swearing out of desperation are we ?

swearing out of honesty.
3
jondo - on 10 Jan 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> swearing out of honesty.

Now now, wouldn't want to ruin your day of celebration. Handed out sweets yet?
1
poppydog on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to krikoman:

you are welcome to delude yourself that it's always someone else's fault, .

Me? Not you then?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.