Israeli soldier gets 18 months' jail for killing wounded Palestinian attacker

[manarak]

17 hours ago, cncltd1973 said:

technically an extrajudicial execution.

soldiers and judges have different responsibilities.

the soldier's task was finished when the attacker was incapacitated.

and we are all robots, right ?

 

zzzzzt

"initiating defense protocols"

zzzzzzt

"shooting permission granted"

zzzzzzt

"attacker incapacitated"

zzzzzzzt

"ally injured"

zzzzzzzzt

"suppressing anger"

zzzzzzzzt

"anger suppression successful"

zzzzzzzt

"remaining humanity: 0"

zzzzzzt

"task complete"

zzzzzzzzt

"changing task to saving life of attacker"

zzzzzzzzt

"medical protocols initiated"

zzzzzzzt

Edited February 23, 2017 by manarak

[Morch]

8 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

But the law doesn't, so who really cares that you would have written some bizarre murder acceptability clause into the law?

The law actually does take the circumstances of a crime under consideration. That's true for almost any legal system. Of course, it does not necessarily amount to nonsense such as a made-up "acceptability clause". That's one reason prescribed punishment by law sometimes refers to range rather than sets definite values, leaving judges room for interpretation.

[Shawn0000]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Whether you're missing something or playing obtuse is an open question. Generally speaking, countries are not ruled by "international law" (which is a convenient label for a whole lot of things), but by their own rules. Additionally, armed forces usually have specific sets of regulations relevant to their duties. Accordingly, the public debate mentioned had more to do with statement made by IDF officers and high command (generally calling for upholding the law) vs. views aired by right wing politicians, and yes, the mob - which called for leniency. This further evolved as threats were made against the judges, as well as against politicians and reporters who were not supportive of the soldier.

 

This particular case was of someone breaking Article 12 of the Second Geneva Convention, which is very much an international law, I was not being obtuse, you were just apparently ignorant of international law, of which there are many, the mob were calling for the judges to ignore the law, quite the debate.

[Shawn0000]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

The law actually does take the circumstances of a crime under consideration. That's true for almost any legal system. Of course, it does not necessarily amount to nonsense such as a made-up "acceptability clause". That's one reason prescribed punishment by law sometimes refers to range rather than sets definite values, leaving judges room for interpretation.

 

The circumstance was a war, the international laws on conflict apple, the law is perfectly clear, wounded soldiers who are no longer fighting back cannot be killed, we have followed this law since before the First World War, no judge has room for interpretation of that law, it is not in the slightest ambiguous.

[Morch]

19 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

This particular case was of someone breaking Article 12 of the Second Geneva Convention, which is very much an international law, I was not being obtuse, you were just apparently ignorant of international law, of which there are many, the mob were calling for the judges to ignore the law, quite the debate.

 

The soldier was not judged or sentenced according to international law, but with reference to Israeli law and IDF regulations. The mob made no mention of the Geneva Convention or international law.

 

 

[Shawn0000]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The soldier was not judged or sentenced according to international law, but with reference to Israeli law and IDF regulations. The mob made no mention of the Geneva Convention or international law.

 

 

 

If the mob got their way then the judge would be ignoring the international law, is this really too difficult for you to understand or can you just not face admitting that you were ignorant of these laws?

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

The circumstance was a war, the international laws on conflict apple, the law is perfectly clear, wounded soldiers who are no longer fighting back cannot be killed, we have followed this law since before the First World War, no judge has room for interpretation of that law, it is not in the slightest ambiguous.

 

I somehow doubt your legal expertise. I do understand that certain posters find it hard to accept that in most legal systems and most countries, international law does not automatically supersede local laws. Accordingly, the court judges and sentenced the soldier with reference to Israeli law and IDF regulations.

 

The Palestinians killed was not a "soldier", and whether or not the situation and circumstances are defined as "war" may be the subject of a learned legal debate - see my opening remark.

 

I have no idea who is your imaginary "we" who followed this "law" since "before the First World War". That you boldly declare judges have no room for interpretation does not make it so - judges may find a defendant guilty or innocent, and may apply different severity when meting sentence.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

If the mob got their way then the judge would be ignoring the international law, is this really too difficult for you to understand or can you just not face admitting that you were ignorant of these laws?

 

No, rather it is you not getting it. If the mob had it's way (and to a degree, that's the case) - the judges would first and foremost be ignoring local laws. The presumed precedence of international law is a figment of your imagination.

 

[Shawn0000]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I somehow doubt your legal expertise. I do understand that certain posters find it hard to accept that in most legal systems and most countries, international law does not automatically supersede local laws. Accordingly, the court judges and sentenced the soldier with reference to Israeli law and IDF regulations.

 

The Palestinians killed was not a "soldier", and whether or not the situation and circumstances are defined as "war" may be the subject of a learned legal debate - see my opening remark.

 

I have no idea who is your imaginary "we" who followed this "law" since "before the First World War". That you boldly declare judges have no room for interpretation does not make it so - judges may find a defendant guilty or innocent, and may apply different severity when meting sentence.

 

What you fail to grasp is that if they did not uphold this law, if they decided to use some new local law that did not punish people for this blatant murder, then the Geneva convention would still be broken, this law was broken whether they choose to use their own laws as punishment or not, a country who is a party to the conventions cannot supersede those laws and is always legally bound by them.

 

You think that civilians might not be covered by the Geneva Conventions? Try Article 2 of the IV Convention, that one cleared it up perfectly, it specifies conflicts not of an international character and gives the exact same rules, no murdering the wounded being the relevant one.  You are really clutching at straws here, any particular reason?

 

The "imaginary we" was America, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland and British Dominions, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Nicaragua, Norway, Netherlands, Persia, Poland, Portugal. Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia, Siam, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Uruguay, Venezuela, perhaps you are also from one of them, or perhaps you are from Russia or Japan.  Now it is 196 countries with Israel being one of them, I know it came as a surprise to you even that there was such a thing as international law, but to carry on this charade is really ridiculous, Israel is bound by the Geneva Conventions, they did not choose to let it go that far, despite the baying hounds "debating" it.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

What you fail to grasp is that if they did not uphold this law, if they decided to use some new local law that did not punish people for this blatant murder, then the Geneva convention would still be broken, this law was broken whether they choose to use their own laws as punishment or not, a country who is a party to the conventions cannot supersede those laws and is always legally bound by them.

 

You think that civilians might not be covered by the Geneva Conventions? Try Article 2 of the IV Convention, that one cleared it up perfectly, it specifies conflicts not of an international character and gives the exact same rules, no murdering the wounded being the relevant one.  You are really clutching at straws here, any particular reason?

 

The "imaginary we" was America, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland and British Dominions, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Nicaragua, Norway, Netherlands, Persia, Poland, Portugal. Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia, Siam, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Uruguay, Venezuela, perhaps you are also from one of them, or perhaps you are from Russia or Japan.  Now it is 196 countries with Israel being one of them, I know it came as a surprise to you even that there was such a thing as international law, but to carry on this charade is really ridiculous, Israel is bound by the Geneva Conventions, they did not choose to let it go that far, despite the baying hounds "debating" it.

 

Nope, what I'm saying is that you're pushing a take on things which might bear relevance in your mind, but wasn't really present all that much in the context of the public debate mentioned in the OP and which you referred to. Hence, to answer your original question once more - yes, you are missing something. All your other nonsense is reads like an inability to accept that your point of view did not, in fact, play much part in this.

 

The same is obvious when it comes to being corrected on the issue of the killed Palestinian not being a soldier. I didn't say anything about whether he was covered or not covered, just that he wasn't a soldier as you claimed. Guess your rephrased version will do as an acknowledgement.

 

You are not the representative of any "we". And once again, may want to be more accurate in your posts - the original one claiming the imaginary "we" following this since "before the First World War", which would be difficult seeing as some of the countries listed weren't around at the time (at least not in their current form).

 

For all your high talk, this case was brought to trial, judged and sentenced according to Israeli law and IDF regulations. That you insist otherwise is bizarre, but inconsequential. Just the usual argumentative nonsense often found in your posts.

[Shawn0000]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Nope, what I'm saying is that you're pushing a take on things which might bear relevance in your mind, but wasn't really present all that much in the context of the public debate mentioned in the OP and which you referred to. Hence, to answer your original question once more - yes, you are missing something. All your other nonsense is reads like an inability to accept that your point of view did not, in fact, play much part in this.

 

The same is obvious when it comes to being corrected on the issue of the killed Palestinian not being a soldier. I didn't say anything about whether he was covered or not covered, just that he wasn't a soldier as you claimed. Guess your rephrased version will do as an acknowledgement.

 

You are not the representative of any "we". And once again, may want to be more accurate in your posts - the original one claiming the imaginary "we" following this since "before the First World War", which would be difficult seeing as some of the countries listed weren't around at the time (at least not in their current form).

 

For all your high talk, this case was brought to trial, judged and sentenced according to Israeli law and IDF regulations. That you insist otherwise is bizarre, but inconsequential. Just the usual argumentative nonsense often found in your posts.

 

Actually you are still missing the point, if he was not charged then he could still be under the Geneva Convention, thus they were actually debating whether to ignore that international law,  whether they were aware of that or not, and seeing as Israeli law regarding treatment of the wounded is lifted straight from that convention you should be able to see that your point is pedantic.

 

Which of those countries were not around at the time?  Some of them are not around now, but which ones then?  Anyway, this is just another pedantic side track, the country in question was part of British Dominions at the time and so they at least have been under this law since that period.

 

Again, the law that was used was lifted straight from the law I quote, that you insist on relying on your pure speculation on law is the only bizarre thing here, and you might care to note that it it you who has been arguing my post not the other way around, so you are more the fool for trying to call me argumentative, just sad.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Shawn0000

[cncltd1973]

2 hours ago, manarak said:

and we are all robots, right ?

 

zzzzzt

"initiating defense protocols"

zzzzzzt

"shooting permission granted"

zzzzzzt

"attacker incapacitated"

zzzzzzzt

"ally injured"

zzzzzzzzt

"suppressing anger"

zzzzzzzzt

"anger suppression successful"

zzzzzzzt

"remaining humanity: 0"

zzzzzzt

"task complete"

zzzzzzzzt

"changing task to saving life of attacker"

zzzzzzzzt

"medical protocols initiated"

zzzzzzzt

 

[AGLV0121]

On 2/22/2017 at 10:24 AM, chilli42 said:

18 months for murder?

 

You omitted the fact that the man who was killed had stabbed someone. 

>>>  Abdel Fattah al-Sharif stabbed an Israeli

 

I don't condone, but maybe this facts changes the narrative, and the terms used. He was "neutralized" mean unable to be dangerous, yes.

 

[mogandave]

I do not hold with the killing, but had the victim managed to kill twenty Jewish children he would be considered a hero by his country.

If a Jew killed twenty Palestinian children he would be condemned by his country

The soldier looks like a buffoon in the photo, which I assume is what the press intended.


Live, love, laugh

[chilli42]

On 2/23/2017 at 0:15 AM, manarak said:

I think who the victim was and what the victim did just before does matter - can't treat this as straight murder.

Soldiers are always faced with this dilemma.  Seeing friends killed by enemies and having those same enemies surrender.  Would you really advocate executing prisoners taken during a firefight?

[Jingthing]

20 minutes ago, mogandave said:

I do not hold with the killing, but had the victim managed to kill twenty Jewish children he would be considered a hero by his country.

If a Jew killed twenty Palestinian children he would be condemned by his country

The soldier looks like a buffoon in the photo, which I assume is what the press intended.


Live, love, laugh

There have been a lot of photos in the press of the convicted IDF soldier. The photos are rather consistent. I doubt it was intentional press bias ... he looks like what he looks like. 

 

Jews might have a reputation for high intelligence but that stereotype doesn't always fit. 'Nuff said.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Jingthing

[manarak]

23 minutes ago, chilli42 said:

Soldiers are always faced with this dilemma.  Seeing friends killed by enemies and having those same enemies surrender.  Would you really advocate executing prisoners taken during a firefight?

no - my point was just to say that it can't be considered the same as straight murder.

there are  a number of mitigating circumstances that must be taken into account.

 

for example, it was said the victim had stabbed someone just before, and I don't know how badly the person he stabbed was wounded, I don't know if the soldier personally knew the stabbed person or if he or she was a good friend, I don't know if the victim further provocated the soldier, I don't know if the soldier had already lost family members or good friends in terrorist attacks, or how angry he was in general at terrorists, etc.

 

what we know however, is that the victim was a terrorist guilty at least of attempted murder, and was not mother Theresa.

That doesn't make the killing okay, but still much less wrong than killing an innocent person.

 

And then... what's justice?

What purpose does it serve?

Is justice something where the sentence serves to appease the victims' families, a.k.a. as revenge?

Or is justice a system that combines prevention of recidivism and prevention by deterrent?

I think in the case of the soldier the latter is the better way.

Maybe I'd have given the soldier a couple more years, but anything more would be very harsh.

[mogandave]

There have been a lot of photos in the press of the convicted IDF soldier. The photos are rather consistent. I doubt it was intentional press bias ... he looks like what he looks like. 
 
Jews might have a reputation for high intelligence but that stereotype doesn't always fit. 'Nuff said.

I would not judge one's intelligence by their looks.

A press photographer takes hundreds of photo and chooses the one the best conveys what they are trying to say.

[Jingthing]

You might not but people do. We're kind of wired that way to come to quick impressions. What I'm saying is I've seen many pictures of this guy and he pretty much always looks kind of goofy. From various media sources. There is no conspiracy about his image. 

[mogandave]

You might not but people do. We're kind of wired that way to come to quick impressions. What I'm saying is I've seen many pictures of this guy and he pretty much always looks kind of goofy. From various media sources. There is no conspiracy about his image. 

A quick impression is different from a conclusion. My quick impression was that he looks like a buffoon, but I am old enough to know first impressions are often wrong.

I never claimed nor meant to infer that I believed there was a conspiracy about his image, not sure why you would think that.

[AGLV0121]

8 hours ago, manarak said:

there are  a number of mitigating circumstances that must be taken into account.

 

In an ideal judicial system, and far from international opinion and domestic pressures, yes

 

Edited February 24, 2017 by AGLV0121

[Shawn0000]

20 minutes ago, oby said:

He stabbed at me and my partner.  He tried to kill me with a knife.

He was not murdered.  He was killed.

Why tie up needed medical help so he can go on to blow up a bus, a hospital blah blah kill jews, infidels, spend 11 minutes to behead someone, sawing back and forth.

 He is dead, he tried to kill and lost, get over it,,

Maybe, next time will be you or one of your family on the wrong side of the suicide bomber

Cheers and have a dandy day, avoid the Boston marathons, fort hood, Yada ya 

 

You are not coming across as having a higher level of morals as those you oppose, if we are to lower ourselves to the level of the terrorists then we become them, we must obey the international conventions on the treatment of the wounded, we cannot ignore them just because the wounded is of the same religion as someone who did something atrocious in the past or because we think they would not do the same for us, we must stay above them in every way, although we also have to stay above the likes of you attempting to get us to "get over" our morals.

[Shawn0000]

14 minutes ago, oby said:

"the wounded" tried to kill and got killed,

   end of story,

   apostate, infidel, you must convert or die,

Ummmmmm, ?how u say have nice day in arabic?

Oh yeah, that's right,

How many infidels did you kill today

 

Did he try to kill before or after he was wounded?  That is the difference between normal conduct and breaking the Geneva convention.

 

All that apostate, infidel killing nonsense that is in the Quran comes directly from the Torah, it's just slightly ironic that fools get fixated on those verses while supporting murderous Israelis.

 

You should be banned from here and any forum if you are so childlike to make these highly offensive jokes.

[Morch]

13 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Actually you are still missing the point, if he was not charged then he could still be under the Geneva Convention, thus they were actually debating whether to ignore that international law,  whether they were aware of that or not, and seeing as Israeli law regarding treatment of the wounded is lifted straight from that convention you should be able to see that your point is pedantic.

 

Which of those countries were not around at the time?  Some of them are not around now, but which ones then?  Anyway, this is just another pedantic side track, the country in question was part of British Dominions at the time and so they at least have been under this law since that period.

 

Again, the law that was used was lifted straight from the law I quote, that you insist on relying on your pure speculation on law is the only bizarre thing here, and you might care to note that it it you who has been arguing my post not the other way around, so you are more the fool for trying to call me argumentative, just sad.

 

You have no point, so it can't be missed. What you present is a take on things which comes out as uninformed (with regard to what actually was debated), condescending (insisting on your version being ultimately correct regardless), and biased (foisting your own notions and interpretation on the OP). That you choose to re-frame the actual debate so that it will fit with your world-view is not going to change the facts - the soldier was charged, and the public debate revolved around issues pertaining to Israel's character as a state.

 

The all too familiar claims of "pedantry" on these topics, often surface whenever wide brush, over-reaching agenda-driven statements are negated by pesky details and facts otherwise known as reality. So far, you have manged to make incorrect claims regarding the nature of the public debate referred to in the OP,  the freedom given to judges in interpreting and applying laws, the status of the killed Palestinian and a few historical assertions to boot. No wonder you deflect when these are pointed out...

 

"the country in question was part of British Dominions at the time and so they at least have been under this law since that period."

 

The British did not control the area prior to WW1, which was the time reference alluded to in your earlier post. Further, the area in question was under British Mandate, and not a part of the British Dominions. And no, it was not a "country" at the time. Similar issues can be found with regard to some of the countries listed earlier.

 

I am not speculating, just recounting what actually took place. The one attempting to interpret things along a politically aligned narrative is you.  

[Morch]

13 hours ago, AGLV0121 said:

 

You omitted the fact that the man who was killed had stabbed someone. 

>>>  Abdel Fattah al-Sharif stabbed an Israeli

 

I don't condone, but maybe this facts changes the narrative, and the terms used. He was "neutralized" mean unable to be dangerous, yes.

 

 

12 hours ago, manarak said:

no - my point was just to say that it can't be considered the same as straight murder.

there are  a number of mitigating circumstances that must be taken into account.

 

for example, it was said the victim had stabbed someone just before, and I don't know how badly the person he stabbed was wounded, I don't know if the soldier personally knew the stabbed person or if he or she was a good friend, I don't know if the victim further provocated the soldier, I don't know if the soldier had already lost family members or good friends in terrorist attacks, or how angry he was in general at terrorists, etc.

 

what we know however, is that the victim was a terrorist guilty at least of attempted murder, and was not mother Theresa.

That doesn't make the killing okay, but still much less wrong than killing an innocent person.

 

And then... what's justice?

What purpose does it serve?

Is justice something where the sentence serves to appease the victims' families, a.k.a. as revenge?

Or is justice a system that combines prevention of recidivism and prevention by deterrent?

I think in the case of the soldier the latter is the better way.

Maybe I'd have given the soldier a couple more years, but anything more would be very harsh.

 

3 hours ago, AGLV0121 said:

 

In an ideal judicial system, and far from international opinion and domestic pressures, yes

 

 

1 hour ago, oby said:

He stabbed at me and my partner.  He tried to kill me with a knife.

He was not murdered.  He was killed.

Why tie up needed medical help so he can go on to blow up a bus, a hospital blah blah kill jews, infidels, spend 11 minutes to behead someone, sawing back and forth.

 He is dead, he tried to kill and lost, get over it,,

Maybe, next time will be you or one of your family on the wrong side of the suicide bomber

Cheers and have a dandy day, avoid the Boston marathons, fort hood, Yada ya 

 

All these arguments were present in various stages of the trial. Beginning with the prosecution's case which was tailored to counter some of the obvious legal issues, and raised by the soldier's defense team in their turn. For the most part, these were dismissed by the court with regard to the circumstances of the incident and the defendant's guilt. But their relevance can be asserted with regard to the sentenced pronounced.

 

[Morch]

6 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

A quick impression is different from a conclusion. My quick impression was that he looks like a buffoon, but I am old enough to know first impressions are often wrong.

I never claimed nor meant to infer that I believed there was a conspiracy about his image, not sure why you would think that.
 

 

 

If you've read the transcripts or listened to his testimonies, you'd have no doubts. Not the sharpest pencil. That was even, at one time, part of the defense team arguments.

[Morch]

27 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Did he try to kill before or after he was wounded?  That is the difference between normal conduct and breaking the Geneva convention.

 

All that apostate, infidel killing nonsense that is in the Quran comes directly from the Torah, it's just slightly ironic that fools get fixated on those verses while supporting murderous Israelis.

 

You should be banned from here and any forum if you are so childlike to make these highly offensive jokes.

 

The two Palestinians attacked and stabbed an IDF soldier, moderately injuring him. They were both shot by soldiers on duty, and severly wounded. One died of his wounds, and the other was shot by Azaria a bit later. So if this was a question, yes - they both attacked prior to being shot. Not that it actually matters with regard to the OP, as the second one wasn't a threat at the time.

 

While it doesn't fit your narrative, apostate and infidel killing are nowadays mostly practiced by other religions. I'm sure even this can and will be twisted, but hey...you already did. Palestinians are not generally killed based on religious edicts, nor does it apply to apostates. Try harder.

[Shawn0000]

 

Quote

Ummmmmm, ?how u say have nice day in arabic?

Oh yeah, that's right,

How many infidels did you kill today

 

 

You're telling me this was not supposed to be a joke but was intended to be serious?  And you are using the 'tard suffix to describe someone other than yourself?

 

I am not the one condoning killing, I am the one appalled at you condoning this murder and it would take a 'tard to miss that.

 

I couldn't give a damn if the NSA have my IP, you think they would have a problem with someone supporting an Israeli court verdict?  Just a little more likely that they keep an eye on the likes of you who support hate speech, deny laws and seek to encourage others to defy laws, you're a potential danger to the system, I am just agreeing with the system. LOL

 

 

 

[ubonjoe]

A off topic post and the expected replies to it have been removed.

[Toronto]

I saw the video. Maybe you guys did too. But, it really looked like a murder to me.