A murder, a tragedy, that shames us all

[MGB8]

JCSD,

I'm an attorney.

Intent is the #1 thing that matters in criminal law. "Mens Rea." Intent changes a killing from murder 1 to murder 2 to manslaughter to not-guilty via defense of self or others.

This comes from the British Common Law system.

Please only speak about subjects to which you have knowledge, as your credibiltiy just took a HUGE hit - you made a stupis statement that was false or at least ignorant, making it more likely to others that you do so in other subjects (ie. the mideast) as well.

Originally posted by jcsd
L@amplighter, in nearly all legal systems whether there was or was not an intent to commit a crime is usually only considered at the sentencing stage and it is pretty much inadmissable as a defence.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by MGB8
A solider ran after a minibus driving on a restricted road firing his machine gun.

Is it possible he thought it was a terrorist unit? Maybe. I don't know enough of the facts to say if this is a plausible explaination.

But he killed a 95 year old woman. In violation of Israeli rules. Possibly in violation of any semblance of national defense.

If so, I would advocate handing him over to the PA if I believed that they wouldn't torture and kill him without trial.

But he needs to be arrested and tried, not just investigated.

We MUST retain the moral high ground as much as possible, if not then we betray ourselves and our faith.

In a “restricted” area, we are told, with no other information to flesh out the account, that a 95 year old person was unfortunately killed. My feeling is that the age of the deceased is irrelevant. Would it be different if the person in question were a young man of military age? Why?

This is an unfortunate event on its face but the very fact that it was a restricted area leaves unauthorized entry open to peril. What was the vehicle doing there?

On its face, and without any official statement offered in this thread concerning the incident, why is it assumed that the person who fired on the unauthorized vehicle committed a crime?

And why in the world would any reasonable person from a democratic state with a fully constituted legal system begin their argument by suggesting the soldier in question be handed over to an enemy who in the past have captured Israelis, beaten them to death while in confinement, and thrown them into the street from upstairs windows so that the bodies could be further abused? I realize that you added a disclaimer addressing the issue, but to even mention it indicates something else in play within your mind that we are not privy to.

Israel, unlike their enemies, has a tradition of openly dealing with the misjudgments and, even crimes, of its own soldiers. I find it odd in the extreme to hear you calling for this action on the basis of what you have offered, which is mere rumor concerning what I assume is a real incident.

By the way, Israel always has had the "high ground" which, admittedly is not hard to do given the nature of the enemy.

[MGB8]

Its not rumor. There is an article in Haaretz. The guy fired on a taxi moving away. And I didn't say hand him over, because I know that we can't trust the PA. But, if we could, I would.

[L@mplighterM]

Soldier shoots dead 95-year-old woman in taxi

By Amos Harel and Arnon Regular





Young men with headbands proclaiming a Palestinian parliament during a demonstration at Rafah refugee camp yesterday.
(Photo: AP)

A soldier is expected to face disciplinary measures after he shot and killed a 95-year-old Palestinian woman in a taxi while firing warning shots to force the taxi away from a road the army had closed to Palestinian drivers.

The shooting happened on the road between Surda and Ayosh junctions north of Ramallah, an area known in army slang as Chaos Road, because of the press of Palestinians forced to cross on foot to reach their destinations - although the army has long since declared the area off limits to Palestinians.

Yesterday afternoon a group of conscripts from the armored corps arrived to disperse the throngs, as well as a group of taxis that routinely waits at the scene for passengers. The dispersion involved incidents, including one in which the soldiers claimed a taxi tried to run them down. The driver and passenger were arrested.

An hour later, one of the drivers began heading onto the road forbidden to Palestinians. A soldier who noticed, fired a warning shot in the air and when the taxi didn't stop, he fired at its tires. According to witnesses, the taxi was about 100 meters away from the soldier when he fired. According to Channel Two last night, he fired 17 bullets and kept shooting while running, a particularly inaccurate procedure.

Fatima Mohammed Hassan, 95, was killed returning home from a shopping trip when the soldier opened fire on the minibus. She died from a single bullet wound in the back, said Mohammed Wahdan, a doctor at Ramallah's hospital.

"It is a big loss for us," she said. "She was old, but this is not the way to end her life." The Palestine Monitor, a group that tracks Palestinian casualties, said the woman is the oldest Palestinian killed in the fighting. The army says the soldier will face disciplinary action.

Clear breach

The shooting yesterday was a clear violation of the already loose rules of engagement in the territories. According to the preliminary inquiry, the soldier fired at a car that was driving away from him without any indication the soldier was at risk. Moreover, the soldier fired unprofessionally, in a way that substantially increased the chances of innocent people getting shot.

Shooting at moving Palestinian vehicles at checkpoints and on the roads is not new - it's as old as the occupation. Dozens of Palestinians have been killed this way, and only rarely is it actually someone meant to be shot - meaning, terrorists on their way to or from an attack.

Since the IDF is aware of the risk, the rules concerning checkpoints have remained almost the same since the start of the intifada. Shooting is allowed only in case of danger to life, whether it's a car trying to run down a soldier, or immediately after such an incident.

There is no rule allowing "automatic" shooting at cars trying to run a checkpoint because the chances are most likely it was a misunderstanding - either the driver didn't notice the checkpoint, because of darkness at night or because he didn't understand the soldiers' instructions. In at least three cases, Israelis were killed in the same way and soldiers were court martialed.

There's another reason to prohibit shooting at cars leaving a checkpoint or distancing itself from troops. Shouting "stop" and firing a warning shot in the air if the person doesn't, then firing at the escapee, doesn't work with cars. It's likely the driver heard nothing, especially if the windows are rolled up, and the radio and air conditioning are on.

Shooting at tires - as the soldier said he did - is also forbidden, since the IDF has reached the conclusion that it's very difficult to shoot accurately and bullets have a tendency to fly upward, hitting passengers. Shooting is only considered justified if the driver tried to hit soldiers or arms were spotted in the car.

So, if those are the rules, why do the incidents happen? The answer appears to be the rising level of danger. When soldiers feel that at any moment someone could open fire at them or the car could be carrying a suicide bomber on his way to an attack, the tendency is to shoot - and the decision is made in split seconds.


http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pa...ID=0&listSrc=Y


You claim to be an attorney and you start a thread that?s misleading. You mentioned nothing about warning shots! What BS!

[MGB8]

The BOTTOM LINE is that an INNOCENT WOMAN DIED!

Have you become so desensitized to killing that the senseless death of an innocent by US doesn't bother you. I'm not saying that the warning shots et al. weren't called for, but he shot at the taxi as it was moving away from him (as opposed to say, radioing for someone to intercept it later on) and he KILLED A WOMAN.

I can understand collateral damage to civilians while trying to pinpoint strike down terrorists. I can understand stone throwers getting killed by rubber bullets or even live fire in certain circumstances. I can understand bystanders getting killed in a fire-fight.

But this is too much. You can't fire at something when it poses no threat, just to enforce your authority. And we've been doing that more and more. Driving away posed no threat to that soldier - IMO that's murder, or at a minimum manslaughter.

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
Soldier shoots dead 95-year-old woman in taxi

By Amos Harel and Arnon Regular





Young men with headbands proclaiming a Palestinian parliament during a demonstration at Rafah refugee camp yesterday.
(Photo: AP)

A soldier is expected to face disciplinary measures after he shot and killed a 95-year-old Palestinian woman in a taxi while firing warning shots to force the taxi away from a road the army had closed to Palestinian drivers.

The shooting happened on the road between Surda and Ayosh junctions north of Ramallah, an area known in army slang as Chaos Road, because of the press of Palestinians forced to cross on foot to reach their destinations - although the army has long since declared the area off limits to Palestinians.

Yesterday afternoon a group of conscripts from the armored corps arrived to disperse the throngs, as well as a group of taxis that routinely waits at the scene for passengers. The dispersion involved incidents, including one in which the soldiers claimed a taxi tried to run them down. The driver and passenger were arrested.

An hour later, one of the drivers began heading onto the road forbidden to Palestinians. A soldier who noticed, fired a warning shot in the air and when the taxi didn't stop, he fired at its tires. According to witnesses, the taxi was about 100 meters away from the soldier when he fired. According to Channel Two last night, he fired 17 bullets and kept shooting while running, a particularly inaccurate procedure.

Fatima Mohammed Hassan, 95, was killed returning home from a shopping trip when the soldier opened fire on the minibus. She died from a single bullet wound in the back, said Mohammed Wahdan, a doctor at Ramallah's hospital.

"It is a big loss for us," she said. "She was old, but this is not the way to end her life." The Palestine Monitor, a group that tracks Palestinian casualties, said the woman is the oldest Palestinian killed in the fighting. The army says the soldier will face disciplinary action.

Clear breach

The shooting yesterday was a clear violation of the already loose rules of engagement in the territories. According to the preliminary inquiry, the soldier fired at a car that was driving away from him without any indication the soldier was at risk. Moreover, the soldier fired unprofessionally, in a way that substantially increased the chances of innocent people getting shot.

Shooting at moving Palestinian vehicles at checkpoints and on the roads is not new - it's as old as the occupation. Dozens of Palestinians have been killed this way, and only rarely is it actually someone meant to be shot - meaning, terrorists on their way to or from an attack.

Since the IDF is aware of the risk, the rules concerning checkpoints have remained almost the same since the start of the intifada. Shooting is allowed only in case of danger to life, whether it's a car trying to run down a soldier, or immediately after such an incident.

There is no rule allowing "automatic" shooting at cars trying to run a checkpoint because the chances are most likely it was a misunderstanding - either the driver didn't notice the checkpoint, because of darkness at night or because he didn't understand the soldiers' instructions. In at least three cases, Israelis were killed in the same way and soldiers were court martialed.

There's another reason to prohibit shooting at cars leaving a checkpoint or distancing itself from troops. Shouting "stop" and firing a warning shot in the air if the person doesn't, then firing at the escapee, doesn't work with cars. It's likely the driver heard nothing, especially if the windows are rolled up, and the radio and air conditioning are on.

Shooting at tires - as the soldier said he did - is also forbidden, since the IDF has reached the conclusion that it's very difficult to shoot accurately and bullets have a tendency to fly upward, hitting passengers. Shooting is only considered justified if the driver tried to hit soldiers or arms were spotted in the car.

So, if those are the rules, why do the incidents happen? The answer appears to be the rising level of danger. When soldiers feel that at any moment someone could open fire at them or the car could be carrying a suicide bomber on his way to an attack, the tendency is to shoot - and the decision is made in split seconds.


http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pa...ID=0&listSrc=Y


You claim to be an attorney and you start a thread that?s misleading. You mentioned nothing about warning shots! What BS!

[Teacake]

No MGB8 what is too much is that Israel has endured 15,000 terror attacks in the past 2 years alone... how many in the past 50 years is un-countable. That my dear is too much.

[MGB8]

I don't argue that, but what has one to do with the other? Does unjustified murder on one part justify unjustified murder on the other? Should we just enter Arab towns and open fire randomly?
That's not what we do now, and not what we'll do ever. We are in a war, and we'll fight the war, and win, but we will do the utmost to respect the innocent while doing so. No wanton killing.

Originally posted by Teacake
No MGB8 what is too much is that Israel has endured 15,000 terror attacks in the past 2 years alone... how many in the past 50 years is un-countable. That my dear is too much.

[MichaelC]

At this point in the thread a much fuller picture has emerged of what transpired and has answered many of the questions that I posted above.

As I have already pointed out Israel, unlike her enemies, has always required of the military an adherance to rules of engagement that would not cause her enemies a second thought. In war, terrible things happen that are tragically inappropriate. This is certainly one of those incidents and it would appear that the military has placed the matter under investigation.

At this point, it is still premature to assume that all the facts have been brought forward, and as an attorney I think you will agree, that preliminary tales of wartime incidents may be more inflamatory than they actually were. I am not saying that that is the case here, but I certainly allow the possibility.

At any rate, it certainly seems, judging from the article, that proper procedures are being followed and that Israel is continuing to occupy the high ground which, in the heat of the moment you may have imagined she had abandoned.

[MGB8]

Of course, and I did mention in my first post that trial was necessary - to get the facts right - and that possibly it was justified. But the possibility that it wasn't is frightening, it gives credibility to all those anti-Israeli hate people and what they say, and it is a burden on our collective humanity.

We are no longer lambs to be led to the slaughter, but we should not be the wolves, either.

Originally posted by MichaelC
At this point in the thread a much fuller picture has emerged of what transpired and has answered many of the questions that I posted above.

As I have already pointed out Israel, unlike her enemies, has always required of the military an adherance to rules of engagement that would not cause her enemies a second thought. In war, terrible things happen that are tragically inappropriate. This is certainly one of those incidents and it would appear that the military has placed the matter under investigation.

At this point, it is still premature to assume that all the facts have been brought forward, and as an attorney I think you will agree, that preliminary tales of wartime incidents may be more inflamatory than they actually were. I am not saying that that is the case here, but I certainly allow the possibility.

At any rate, it certainly seems, judging from the article, that proper procedures are being followed and that Israel is continuing to occupy the high ground which, in the heat of the moment you may have imagined she had abandoned.

[L@mplighterM]

It’s difficult to aim an automatic weapon while running and that’s the main point and he should be reprimanded for improper use of a firearm. Perhaps he should peel potatoes for a few days! I’m not going to pass judgment in this particular case personally I’d let the matter pass.

There was no intent in my opinion!

Warning shots were fired after that the soldier might have become a bit overzealous.

The blame for this unfortunate accident should be placed directly at Arafat’s feet.

Suggesting that the soldier should be handed over to the PA is going to far.

Since you mentioned humanity I would say that’s something sorely lacking from the Arab side.

[Kolyahu]

Motion for Discovery, would be ill advised at this juncture, counsellor. Allowance of interrogation by officials in another nation under a different code of law, while operating under the rules of war set down by the Geneva convention. I think it's: Article 5, Sect 2. b
Interrogation of a suspected war criminal shall be adjudicated by an elected tribunal not necessarily of the defendant's own military. Bias has no sway. It is perfectly legit. to even hang the soldier for political reasons. Even his own generals could do so, let alone a panel of palestinians. One senseless death, yet we know nothing of intent, we have only hearsay 'til prelim.
I submit an example: The County of Ottawa, State of Oklahoma once convicted a truck driver that had wrecked his semi. They paid with county $ to destroy the so-called crime scene by paving it with county funds, then accepted over 14 counts of perjury as testimony toward alleged statements the driver had not made, then used 33% of the projected insurance settlement to pay the public pretender. contacted the driver's finance co. and released his truck from the impound/evidence area, without asking the driver or notifying him at all. Then delaying his trial date repeatedly, while having the confidencial informants put pressure physical, and mental on the defendant until he screamed for a plea bargain, just to get out of the dungeon
The driver spent 6yrs of an 11 yr sentnc. for a simple wreck and now he can't get any kind of decent living, employers being as they are. The man was a solid one, 14 yr. veteran of USMC, even went to Beruit with all that goin' on. Intent? What do the courts really care about intent? They can be bought, with $$$ or with public, or private pressure, or both. I can only pray for them. Shalom!

[jcsd]

Originally posted by MGB8
JCSD,

I'm an attorney.

Intent is the #1 thing that matters in criminal law. "Mens Rea." Intent changes a killing from murder 1 to murder 2 to manslaughter to not-guilty via defense of self or others.

This comes from the British Common Law system.

Please only speak about subjects to which you have knowledge, as your credibiltiy just took a HUGE hit - you made a stupis statement that was false or at least ignorant, making it more likely to others that you do so in other subjects (ie. the mideast) as well.

Didn't I say that almost exactly the same thing a few posts above vis a vis intent and man slaughter and murder (of course we don't have murder 1, etc. in England).

[MGB8]

I missed that post, but the bottom line is that Intent is of PRIMARY consideration in criminal law - in fact, having the simple intent to do something often is crime in of itself, regardless of the accomplishment of the objective.

Originally posted by jcsd
Didn't I say that almost exactly the same thing a few posts above vis a vis intent and man slaughter and murder (of course we don't have murder 1, etc. in England).

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by MGB8
Of course, and I did mention in my first post that trial was necessary - to get the facts right - and that possibly it was justified. But the possibility that it wasn't is frightening, it gives credibility to all those anti-Israeli hate people and what they say, and it is a burden on our collective humanity.

We are no longer lambs to be led to the slaughter, but we should not be the wolves, either.

As I see it, the enemies of Israel are essentially braindead and I include in that estimation the left wing idiots in my country who find it fashionable and chic to support the 'pal' cause. It should surprise no one that such morons will seize any single incident, twist it into any shape they want, and use it as another form of assault upon Israel.

Thousands upon thousands of intentionally barbaric and ruthless attacks against innocent unarmed Israelis by these bastards,who then turn around and cry, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Look what Israel has done!" ought to clearly demonstrate to anyone the cruel hypocrisy involved.

Blessings upon that unfortunate old woman. But, how many Israeli grandmothers,and their daughters,and their daughter's daughters have been slaughtered by evil and calculating thugs not in any "restricted" zone, but in their beds, and in parks, in restaurants, the list goes on?

I wouldn't lose too much sleep over this incident and I encourage you to nurture a greater faith and trust in the people of Israel and in their sons and daughters who face the enemy every day in life or death situations. They have, in my opinion, shown the world over many, many years how a great people maintain grace under pressure and they have shown on more than one occasion how a just people adjudicate such matters as we have been discussing.

[Teacake]

Originally posted by MichaelC
But, how many Israeli grandmothers,and their daughters,and their daughter's daughters have been slaughtered by evil and calculating thugs not in any "restricted" zone, but in their beds, and in parks, in restaurants, the list goes on?

I wouldn't lose too much sleep over this incident and I encourage you to nurture a greater faith and trust in the people of Israel and in their sons and daughters who face the enemy every day in life or death situations.

Remeber the passover bombing with a room ful of elderly men and women of some who where holocaust survivors. As for intent... is it possible that the driver knew full well they would be fired at and did it intentionally for yet another cry of Israeli agression. THE road was restricted. You take your chances. It is a very serious matter. Ease up on one, then the floodgate opens for more.