Israeli soldier shoots handcuffed and blindfolded Palestinian

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Dari
Oh, and I'd like to be in the courtroom when you tell the judge that you only shot a blindfolded and handcuffed with a rubber bullet, not a real one. It'll be a good laugh when they haul your ass to prison to meet your new boyfriends.

You are really brain dead aren't you. Just hooked up to a respirator on life support with minimal brain function. You have serious impairment with reading comprehension. One more time shall we?

You:

There seems to be some type of concerted effort to call the title misleading, claiming information is missing, as if being shot with certain kinds of bullets makes this incident more legal.

Me:

As to using a rubber bullet vs a real bullet, I wouldn't say it is "more legal" to use the rubber bullet, but I would say that it is "less illegal" and that's just a fact. If I go and shoot someone with a rubber bullet or if I shoot someone with a real bullet, you are saying under US law those two acts are punishable by the same criminal charge and ultimately the same sentence? Here's a hint: they're not.

So you argue that it isn't "more legal" to shoot someone with a rubber bullet than a real bullet. I point out that it actually IS "more legal" in that you will be charged with attempted murder if you shoot someone with a real bullet, but probably some variant of assault if you use a rubber bullet. So a possible life sentence versus a couple years at most (if that.)

NOWHERE do I argue that it's acceptable, permissible, or legal to shoot someone with a rubber bullet. I was merely refuting your incorrect point, in that it is in fact, "more legal" than using a real one.

If you still don't get it I can use smaller words.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Dari
Oh, and I'd like to be in the courtroom when you tell the judge that you only shot a blindfolded and handcuffed with a rubber bullet, not a real one. It'll be a good laugh when they haul your ass to prison to meet your new boyfriends.

You are really brain dead aren't you. Just hooked up to a respirator on life support with minimal brain function. You have serious impairment with reading comprehension. One more time shall we?

You:

There seems to be some type of concerted effort to call the title misleading, claiming information is missing, as if being shot with certain kinds of bullets makes this incident more legal.

Me:

As to using a rubber bullet vs a real bullet, I wouldn't say it is "more legal" to use the rubber bullet, but I would say that it is "less illegal" and that's just a fact. If I go and shoot someone with a rubber bullet or if I shoot someone with a real bullet, you are saying under US law those two acts are punishable by the same criminal charge and ultimately the same sentence? Here's a hint: they're not.

So you argue that it isn't "more legal" to shoot someone with a rubber bullet than a real bullet. I point out that it actually IS "more legal" in that you will be charged with attempted murder if you shoot someone with a real bullet, but probably some variant of assault if you use a rubber bullet. So a possible life sentence versus a couple years at most (if that.)

NOWHERE do I argue that it's acceptable, permissible, or legal to shoot someone with a rubber bullet. I was merely refuting your incorrect point, in that it is in fact, "more legal" than using a real one.

If you still don't get it I can use smaller words.

If you can point to a law or statute to support your argument, I'm all ears. You better give me something specific or else I'll have a batch of insults headed your way.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
In other news:

An Israel Railways employee was beaten Thursday by a group of Arab youths.

Ronen, a rail inspector for the national carrier, reported that a group of young Arabs confronted him at his guard post at a railway crossing near Atlit, demanded his weapon, and savagely beat him when they discovered he was unarmed.

Ronen can barely speak, as the attackers fractured bones in his face and body. Ronen's parents, speaking to police on behalf of their son, conveyed Ronen's account of the attack, as well as their horror at the result: "I arrived at the post and saw that it was full of blood," Ronen's father said. "I was certain my son had been murdered."

The attack is believed to be "nationalistically" motivated, which would define it as an act of terrorism.

Text

As far as this soldier goes, if he is indeed guilty and this is not another Pallywood production, he should be locked up and and have the key thrown away. He and those like him are an embarrassment to Israel and to the IDF.
Just keep this in mind. Israel is investigating this incident. I'm sure some people here think that the investigation is a joke and the IDF in reality supports this type of counter-productive behavior, and that's your prerogative. You believe what you will. On the other hand, they are not celebrating him as a national hero.

EDIT: The soldier was arrested. Text

Good to hear. A country that fairly applies the rule of law will always have a moral advantage over one that does not.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Dari
Oh, and I'd like to be in the courtroom when you tell the judge that you only shot a blindfolded and handcuffed with a rubber bullet, not a real one. It'll be a good laugh when they haul your ass to prison to meet your new boyfriends.

You:

There seems to be some type of concerted effort to call the title misleading, claiming information is missing, as if being shot with certain kinds of bullets makes this incident more legal.

Me:

As to using a rubber bullet vs a real bullet, I wouldn't say it is "more legal" to use the rubber bullet, but I would say that it is "less illegal" and that's just a fact. If I go and shoot someone with a rubber bullet or if I shoot someone with a real bullet, you are saying under US law those two acts are punishable by the same criminal charge and ultimately the same sentence? Here's a hint: they're not.

So you argue that it isn't "more legal" to shoot someone with a rubber bullet than a real bullet. I point out that it actually IS "more legal" in that you will be charged with attempted murder if you shoot someone with a real bullet, but probably some variant of assault if you use a rubber bullet. So a possible life sentence versus a couple years at most (if that.)

NOWHERE do I argue that it's acceptable, permissible, or legal to shoot someone with a rubber bullet. I was merely refuting your incorrect point, in that it is in fact, "more legal" than using a real one.

If you can point to a law or statute to support your argument, I'm all ears. You better give me something specific or else I'll have a batch of insults headed your way.

So we are clear you are asking for proof that shooting someone with a gun that is loaded with a a rubber bullet is a less punishable offense under the law than shooting someone with a real bullet, right?

Assuming you aren't schooled in statutory interpretation and in the interest of brevity I'll edit out extraneous statutory language.

NY Law

§10.10 Definitions
9. "Physical injury" means impairment of physical condition or substantial pain.

10. "Serious physical injury" means physical injury which creates a
substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and
protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted
loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.

12. "Deadly weapon" means any loaded weapon from which a shot,
readily capable of producing death or other serious physical injury, may
be discharged,

§ 120.05 Assault in the second degree.
A person is guilty of assault in the second degree when:
2. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes
such injury to such person or to a third person by means of a deadly
weapon
Assault in the second degree is a class D felony

§ 120.10 Assault in the first degree.
A person is guilty of assault in the first degree when:
1. With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he
causes such injury to such person or to a third person by means of a
deadly weapon
Assault in the first degree is a class B felony

§ 70.02 Sentence of imprisonment for a violent felony offense.
3. Term of sentence. The term of a determinate sentence for a violent
felony offense must be fixed by the court as follows:
(a) For a class B felony, the term must be at least five years and
must not exceed twenty-five years
(c) For a class D felony, the term must be at least two years and must
not exceed seven years

Now let's put it all together.

Shooting someone with a gun (deadly weapon) loaded with a rubber bullet, your intent is to cause them "physical injury" (substantial pain), and the likely result is "physical injury." This results in a charge of "assault in the 2nd degree", a class D felony. Sentence is no less than 2 and no more than 7 years.

Shooting someone with a gun (deadly weapon) loaded with a real bullet, your intent is to cause them "serious physical injury" (substantial risk of death, protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health) and the likely result is at least "serious physical injury" or possibly "death". This results in a charge of "assault in the 1st degree", a class B felony. Sentence is no less than 5 and no more than 25 years.

Of course, shooting someone with a real bullet carries a not unlikely chance of actually killing them, in which case assault goes out the window and manslaughter or murder chargers are brought. Further, shooting someone with a real bullet meaning "only" to injure them is likely so "reckless" under the law that it could qualify murder if the person shot dies. Of course it is possible to kill someone with a rubber bullet if you hit them in just the right spot (say, the temple) but the chances of this happening by accident are negligible.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Flagrant violation of the human rights that Israel says is denied to its own people.

One soldier acting out of line, a dude gets shot in the toe with a rubber bullet, sustained no serious injuries, and the military is investigating the incident and saying it is a "direct contradiction of the army's values"...

You're an idiot in other words.

Israel says that the video is misleading.

They said no such thing in that article. Is there some other story where they are saying that, or is this just more typical Israel bashing? (That's a rhetorical question, we already know it is)

These violations occur frequently. It's only when it's filmed do we see it in the news. And your second quote of me came from the video.

According to who?

I get it. Shoot the messenger. The messenger isn't reliable. Well, I'm not going to play your little game so as to distract us from the topic at hand. Here, the message is not debatable even though you probably see nothing wrong with Israeli soldiers shooting blindfolded and handcuffed Palestinians.

Messengers with an agenda aren't reliable, Dari.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Oh for the love of fucking god give me something credible, there has not been ONE instance of ONE attack made by the IDF where they have not taken full responsibility for it.

Don't give me that sheit, these soldiers will be tried and convicted for their crimes, i mean, it's not like they are Hezbollah or Palistinians and this sort of conduct is acceptable because it is NOT.

They will spend their time in prison for this.

For this, yes, it made headlines. Much of the time the solders don't, and investigations are never conducted even conducted, or only result in a slap on the wrist. As the report I linked yesterday demonstrates.

It`s obvious you know nothing about the IDF!!

What makes you say that? Did you read any of the 71 page report on the IDF's absue of detainies I linked to above? Here is a quote from the begining of the report from an IDF Brigadier General to get you started:

?How common is the phenomenon of beating shackled Palestinians prisoners??
?Unfortunately I want to admit something that we are not fully aware of.
These cases are not all that exceptional in their quantity. It is simply that
some of them remain shrouded in silence. Some are also committed in
more sophisticated and more criminal ways? These cases, in which
Palestinian detainees are beaten by soldiers and police officers, happen
occasionally, to my great regret. Many of them are not the subject of any
complaint and are cloaked in various kinds of conspiracies of silence.
Sometimes we only learn of them years after the event, and usually only
through anonymous statements from Breaking the Silence and others,
through the media, or by other means.?
Brig. Gen. Yossi Bachar, former commander of the Paratroopers Brigade,
testifying at the trial of one of his soldiers being prosecuted for abusing a
shackled Palestinian detainee, 11 April 2006.

And here is a website run by IDF veterens which has helped me gain further understanding of the conflict. From their "about" page:

Breaking the Silence is an organization of veteran Israeli soldiers that collects testimonies of soldiers who served in the Occupied Territories during the Second Intifadah. Soldiers who serve in the Territories are witness to, and participate in military actions which change them immensely. Cases of abuse towards Palestinians, looting, and destruction of property have been the norm for years, but are still excused as military necessities, or explained as extreme and unique cases. Our testimonies portray a different and grim picture of questionable orders in many areas regardind Palestinian civilians. These demonstrate the depth of corruption which is spreading in the Israeli military. While this reality which is known to Israeli soldiers and commanders exists in Israel's back yard, Israeli society continues to turn a blind eye, and to deny that which happens in its name. Discharged soldiers who return to civilian life discover the gap between the reality which they encountered in the Territories , and the silence which they encounter at home. In order to become a civilian again, soldiers are forced to ignore their past experiences. Breaking the Silence voices the experiences of those soldiers, in order to force Israeli society to address the reality which it created.

Until today, Breaking the Silence interviewed hundreds of soldiers who served in the territories, and continues interviewing soldiers daily. These interviews are published on this website, in testimonial booklets, through different media outlets, and also through lectures and tours to Hebron. The testimonies are published with minimal editing and with complete confidentiality, in order to protect the soldiers and to encourage them to speak.

We demand accountability regarding Israel's military actions in the Occupied territories perpetrated by us and in our name.

Originally posted by: Corbett
Thumbs down for misleading thread title. OP conveniently forgot to put "with rubber bullet" at end of title.

Shot is shot. However, "rubber bullet" a missleading prhase for steel bullets with thin rubber coats.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: jonks

So we are clear you are asking for proof that shooting someone with a gun that is loaded with a a rubber bullet is a less punishable offense under the law than shooting someone with a real bullet, right?

Assuming you aren't schooled in statutory interpretation and in the interest of brevity I'll edit out extraneous statutory language.

NY Law

§10.10 Definitions
9. "Physical injury" means impairment of physical condition or substantial pain.

10. "Serious physical injury" means physical injury which creates a
substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and
protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted
loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.

12. "Deadly weapon" means any loaded weapon from which a shot,
readily capable of producing death or other serious physical injury, may
be discharged,

§ 120.05 Assault in the second degree.
A person is guilty of assault in the second degree when:
2. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes
such injury to such person or to a third person by means of a deadly
weapon
Assault in the second degree is a class D felony

§ 120.10 Assault in the first degree.
A person is guilty of assault in the first degree when:
1. With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he
causes such injury to such person or to a third person by means of a
deadly weapon
Assault in the first degree is a class B felony

§ 70.02 Sentence of imprisonment for a violent felony offense.
3. Term of sentence. The term of a determinate sentence for a violent
felony offense must be fixed by the court as follows:
(a) For a class B felony, the term must be at least five years and
must not exceed twenty-five years
(c) For a class D felony, the term must be at least two years and must
not exceed seven years

Now let's put it all together.

Shooting someone with a gun (deadly weapon) loaded with a rubber bullet, your intent is to cause them "physical injury" (substantial pain), and the likely result is "physical injury." This results in a charge of "assault in the 2nd degree", a class D felony. Sentence is no less than 2 and no more than 7 years.

Shooting someone with a gun (deadly weapon) loaded with a real bullet, your intent is to cause them "serious physical injury" (substantial risk of death, protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health) and the likely result is at least "serious physical injury" or possibly "death". This results in a charge of "assault in the 1st degree", a class B felony. Sentence is no less than 5 and no more than 25 years.

Of course, shooting someone with a real bullet carries a not unlikely chance of actually killing them, in which case assault goes out the window and manslaughter or murder chargers are brought. Further, shooting someone with a real bullet meaning "only" to injure them is likely so "reckless" under the law that it could qualify murder if the person shot dies. Of course it is possible to kill someone with a rubber bullet if you hit them in just the right spot (say, the temple) but the chances of this happening by accident are negligible.

lol. Nice try, numbnuts. Killing someone with a rubber bullet will most likely carry the same charge as with a real bullet considering the events. It is all depends on whether or not this was done in an official capacity. In that case, the shooter can make any claims (ex: my life was in danger) and get away with the same lesser charge.

Of course, all the legalese is thrown out the door when you shoot a handcuffed and blindfolded person.

Finally, any competent lawyer can do a real analysis of a rubber bullet and show that it's just a real bullet encased in rubber and run with that. The "intent" (with the difference being "physical injury" and "serious physical injury") part in the clauses you posted can easily be attacked. I mean, come on, when you shoot somebody with a gun, either you're trying to immobilize them or kill them. I'm not sure if anybody ever shot someone because they wanted to injure them or seriously injure them. The point being is that opposing lawyers can argue similar points, whether the bullets are real or rubber. If you're trying to cause pain, then you're just a sick fuck.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Messengers with an agenda aren't reliable, Dari.

Who doesn't have an agenda?

 

[RichardE]

Shoulda been a real bullet, waste of time arresting them for the most part.

 

[Stoneburner]

Israelis and their american based cheerleaders sound absolutely bloodthirsty. Then you point out that they sound like savages and they start foaming at the mouth.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: jonks

So we are clear you are asking for proof that shooting someone with a gun that is loaded with a a rubber bullet is a less punishable offense under the law than shooting someone with a real bullet, right?

Assuming you aren't schooled in statutory interpretation and in the interest of brevity I'll edit out extraneous statutory language.

NY Law

§10.10 Definitions
9. "Physical injury" means impairment of physical condition or substantial pain.

10. "Serious physical injury" means physical injury which creates a
substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and
protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted
loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.

12. "Deadly weapon" means any loaded weapon from which a shot,
readily capable of producing death or other serious physical injury, may
be discharged,

§ 120.05 Assault in the second degree.
A person is guilty of assault in the second degree when:
2. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes
such injury to such person or to a third person by means of a deadly
weapon
Assault in the second degree is a class D felony

§ 120.10 Assault in the first degree.
A person is guilty of assault in the first degree when:
1. With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he
causes such injury to such person or to a third person by means of a
deadly weapon
Assault in the first degree is a class B felony

§ 70.02 Sentence of imprisonment for a violent felony offense.
3. Term of sentence. The term of a determinate sentence for a violent
felony offense must be fixed by the court as follows:
(a) For a class B felony, the term must be at least five years and
must not exceed twenty-five years
(c) For a class D felony, the term must be at least two years and must
not exceed seven years

Now let's put it all together.

Shooting someone with a gun (deadly weapon) loaded with a rubber bullet, your intent is to cause them "physical injury" (substantial pain), and the likely result is "physical injury." This results in a charge of "assault in the 2nd degree", a class D felony. Sentence is no less than 2 and no more than 7 years.

Shooting someone with a gun (deadly weapon) loaded with a real bullet, your intent is to cause them "serious physical injury" (substantial risk of death, protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health) and the likely result is at least "serious physical injury" or possibly "death". This results in a charge of "assault in the 1st degree", a class B felony. Sentence is no less than 5 and no more than 25 years.

Of course, shooting someone with a real bullet carries a not unlikely chance of actually killing them, in which case assault goes out the window and manslaughter or murder chargers are brought. Further, shooting someone with a real bullet meaning "only" to injure them is likely so "reckless" under the law that it could qualify murder if the person shot dies. Of course it is possible to kill someone with a rubber bullet if you hit them in just the right spot (say, the temple) but the chances of this happening by accident are negligible.

lol. Nice try, numbnuts. Killing someone with a rubber bullet will most likely carry the same charge as with a real bullet considering the events. It is all depends on whether or not this was done in an official capacity. In that case, the shooter can make any claims (ex: my life was in danger) and get away with the same lesser charge.

Of course, all the legalese is thrown out the door when you shoot a handcuffed and blindfolded person.

Finally, any competent lawyer can do a real analysis of a rubber bullet and show that it's just a real bullet encased in rubber and run with that. The "intent" (with the difference being "physical injury" and "serious physical injury") part in the clauses you posted can easily be attacked. I mean, come on, when you shoot somebody with a gun, either you're trying to immobilize them or kill them. I'm not sure if anybody ever shot someone because they wanted to injure them or seriously injure them. The point being is that opposing lawyers can argue similar points, whether the bullets are real or rubber. If you're trying to cause pain, then you're just a sick fuck.

Facepalm. Again you are making counter-arguments to points no one made. Look above and see if I said anything about the charges filed if you killed someone with either a rubber bullet or a real bullet. Notice there is none? We're talking about shooting someone with a rubber bullet and injuring them vs shooting them with a real bullet and injuring them, and what are the consequences to each action. I proved the law places a greater punishment on using a real bullet due to the difference in harm that results in being shot by each.

You are an idiot, not because you don't know the law, which is excusable, but because when you had the law explained to you, you didn't possess the brainpower to understand it at all, as evidenced by your complete off the mark analysis of statutory intent. I'm not wasting any more time explaining the law to you. You asked for statutes, I provided them. I even spelled it out like I would for a 5th grader. You said you'd be "all ears" but have proven instead you are "all moron."

As there is little in life more frustrating than arguing with someone lacking basic comprehension skills, you're the next lucky person on my list of people not worth responding to. I'll put you right on top of Butterbean. Given his proclivities, he should really enjoy having you on top of him.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Israelis and their american based cheerleaders sound absolutely bloodthirsty. Then you point out that they sound like savages and they start foaming at the mouth.

Not bloodthirsty, just tired of having to deal with a people who have no qualms about killing you, and not being allowed to fight back because everyone thinks there is some social solution to making Palestinians normal people who give back to the world in some shape or form.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: jonks
Facepalm. Again you are making counter-arguments to points no one made. Look above and see if I said anything about the charges filed if you killed someone with either a rubber bullet or a real bullet. Notice there is none? We're talking about shooting someone with a rubber bullet and injuring them vs shooting them with a real bullet and injuring them, and what are the consequences to each action. I proved the law places a greater punishment on using a real bullet due to the difference in harm that results in being shot by each.

You are an idiot, not because you don't know the law, which is excusable, but because when you had the law explained to you, you didn't possess the brainpower to understand it at all, as evidenced by your complete off the mark analysis of statutory intent. I'm not wasting any more time explaining the law to you. You asked for statutes, I provided them. I even spelled it out like I would for a 5th grader. You said you'd be "all ears" but have proven instead you are "all moron."

As there is little in life more frustrating than arguing with someone lacking basic comprehension skills, you're the next lucky person on the list of people not to bother responding to. I'll put you right on top of Butterbean. Given his proclivities, he should really enjoy having you on top of him.

I don't need your dumb ass explaining the law to me. That's like the defense asking the prosecution what this statute means. You are a fucking idiot if you think you have a final interpretation on the law. You should understand that from my post (which was to argue it to you). The law you posted said NOTHING about what kind of bullets used, asshole. You proceeded to make your own assessment, for which I reminded you that it can be interpreted any other way by lawyers and, finally, by the judge (or jury).

Sorry asshat, you lose. You were trying to find something technical where interpretation (and intention) is key. If you have a law degree, I suggest you give up on the practice.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Corbett
The title of the thread and content of the commentary has been reviiewed and is allowed to stand

Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy
[/b]

Color me shocked! Being shot and being shot by a rubber bullet are two VERY different things. One draws an unhealthy ammount of blood, the other leaves a bruise.






There are several legitimate venues for complaining about a mod action -- mod pm's, PFI (w/o making it a mod call-out), or contacting Derek.

Doing so in a thread is simply not allowed, and you know this. Time out of 2 days.

Perknose
Senior AT Mod

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Color me shocked! Being shot and being shot by a rubber bullet are two VERY different things. One draws an unhealthy ammount of blood, the other leaves a bruise.

i.e. the difference between 2nd degree assault and 1st degree assault. Maybe you phrased it simply enough for some people to figure out.

It's like creating a thread titled "I won the lottery!" when you got 2 numbers for $5. Did you win, well technically yes, but misleading as hell.

Originally posted by: Dari
The law you posted said NOTHING about what kind of bullets used, asshole.

Quoted for idiocy. Yeah, they author laws based on every new ammunition that comes out. :roll: No, there's no law written about rubber bullets. No law on plastic bullets either. What about bullets made of copper? The law is based on the DAMAGE TO THE VICTIM. A rubber bullet would result in "physical injury" and a standard bullet results in "serious physical injury" as defined by the statute. The difference between those levels of damage is the difference between 2nd and 1st degree assault.

Here's how stupid your position is. Your argument boils down to saying that if you and me went out into the street each armed with a gun, and each of us randomly shoots some pedestrian walking along, but you fire a rubber bullet and I fire a real bullet, your position is that each of us is facing identical charges from police for our actions. Sure your rubber bullet hurt the guy like hell and left a monster bruise, but my real bullet put a hole in the guy and splattered blood all over the wall behind him. The same legal penalty?? Common sense should tell you that you are wrong, but you seem to be lacking any. I've shown you above citing the relevant statutes how you are wrong, but you are strangely incapable of comprehending it.

The fact that you can't understand simple statutory interpretation is not my failing, genius. And you telling me that I'm unskilled in the law based on your puerile ability to read English is like you telling an architect that because you took a mechanical drawing class that in your layman opinion the plans he proposed won't support the building's own weight so he must be wrong.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Israelis and their american based cheerleaders sound absolutely bloodthirsty. Then you point out that they sound like savages and they start foaming at the mouth.

Not bloodthirsty, just tired of having to deal with a people who have no qualms about killing you, and not being allowed to fight back because everyone thinks there is some social solution to making Palestinians normal people who give back to the world in some shape or form.

Ah yes, not bloodthirsty, thanks for clearing that up, but just a brain dead moral leper.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Corbett
The title of the thread and content of the commentary has been reviiewed and is allowed to stand

Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy
[/b]

Color me shocked! Being shot and being shot by a rubber bullet are two VERY different things. One draws an unhealthy ammount of blood, the other leaves a bruise.

Perhaps you missed the link I provided earlier on Israel's "rubber" bullets. I recomend checking it. Here is another:

In response to the Palestinian uprising that started in the late 1980s, the Israeli military developed its own rubber bullets designed to disperse crowds, to injure but not kill. These small rubber-coated metal pellets are supposed to be shot from a distance of about 130 feet and aimed at people's legs. But they can be lethal if shot at the head at closer range, and dozens of Palestinians have died from such injuries. Israeli political scientist Yaron Ezrahi titled his book examining moral conflicts in his country Rubber Bullets.

Obviously the solder wasn't trying to kill the man by shooting him in the foot, but shooting such a bullet at such close range is quite likely to cause serious bodily harm.

 

[jonks]

Having now read a variety of sources on rubber bullets, it seems that while they are obviously less lethal than standard bullets, they should not be classified as "safe" for use of controlling unarmed, non-violent crowds. They appear to be often used in a manner contradictory to the way they are supposed to be employed, either through lack of training, or malfeasance. They appear too dangerous to use haphazardly as a crowd control method. I would argue that they should either only be used by soldiers/police specially trained in their use, who in turn would be held to account for misuse, or they should not be used at all.

This concession offers no real alteration to my initial response, which was that this was an illegal and immoral act, and that the soldier should be dealt with accordingly. Additionally, the difference between being shot with such a rubber bullet is still a world away from being shot with a real bullet.

Recognize the country's response to this incident however. The soldier is not considered a "hero" for this "brave" stunt. He is condemned by everyone. Here's an article from the Jerusalem Post...doesn't sound like they are ducking the issue or calling out those responsible. Contrast this with the groups Israel is fighting where this tactic would be praised as justified under any circumstance.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/S...2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

"If these images accurately portray what happened, Israelis can only be disheartened by the brutality of the perpetrators, and by the lack of discipline such cruelty and stupidity exposes. If guilty, those involved should be punished appropriately."

"Plainly, the incident should have been immediately reported up the chain of command. The IDF should itself have investigated and exposed any wrongdoing. On the face of it, the army took action only after B'Tselem released its video to the media."

"We can empathize with soldiers and reservists who are put in the field under a beating sun, forced to endure in staged protests an onslaught of rocks, stones and taunts by Palestinian rioters and their cadre of radical sympathizers from within Israel and abroad. With all that, what is demanded of our forces - even in the face of blatant provocation - is professionalism, discipline and restraint.

THE IDF, which operates in an unprecedented media bubble, is held to a higher standard than just about any other army in the world. When its fails to meet that ethical expectation - as it seems to have done on the occasion under scrutiny - the entire country suffers the consequences.

It's not just that Israel's fortunes are especially dependent on the support we receive from Europe and America and so our good image matters. We must also not allow the Palestinians' glorification of violence to brutalize us."

Admitting fault. Condeming the act. Recognizing such acts reflect poorly on Israel, and harm the cause of peace. As a purely practical matter, this is bad strategy for Israelis who would prefer not to have rockets rain down upon their homes. They know this. Which is why all the foreign vitriol aimed at them claiming this is the policy of the IDF makes no sense.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Israelis and their american based cheerleaders sound absolutely bloodthirsty. Then you point out that they sound like savages and they start foaming at the mouth.

Not bloodthirsty, just tired of having to deal with a people who have no qualms about killing you, and not being allowed to fight back because everyone thinks there is some social solution to making Palestinians normal people who give back to the world in some shape or form.

I don't know. The way some jews I know have so blithely stated all arabs need to be killed, mecca should be nuked, etc., makes me wonder how much better these advanced semites are. It's especially odd considering that jews have often been the aggressors, were actively looking for arabs to kill immediately during and after the partition, and they were engaged in heavy terrorism against the british.

I just don't like this neo-moral relativism which holds, "20 percent of jews want to kill 100 percent of Arabs whereas 35 percent of arabs want to kill 100 percent of jews, therefore us jews are on the moral highground."

No, you silly cocksuckers, you're just less of an asshole.

i've studied the Arab-Israeli conflict from a neutral perspective and the truth is, the fault lies about 60 percent arabs, 40 percent jews. To the jewish peoples and their defenders who dont admit the 40 percent, there is no point discussing the matter with you.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: jonks
Having now read a variety of sources on rubber bullets, it seems that while they are obviously less lethal than standard bullets, they should not be classified as "safe" for use of controlling unarmed, non-violent crowds. They appear to be often used in a manner contradictory to the way they are supposed to be employed, either through lack of training, or malfeasance. They appear too dangerous to use haphazardly as a crowd control method. I would argue that they should either only be used by soldiers/police specially trained in their use, who in turn would be held to account for misuse, or they should not be used at all.

This concession offers no real alteration to my initial response, which was that this was an illegal and immoral act, and that the soldier should be dealt with accordingly. Additionally, the difference between being shot with such a rubber bullet is still a world away from being shot with a real bullet.

Recognize the country's response to this incident however. The soldier is not considered a "hero" for this "brave" stunt. He is condemned by everyone. Here's an article from the Jerusalem Post...doesn't sound like they are ducking the issue or calling out those responsible. Contrast this with the groups Israel is fighting where this tactic would be praised as justified under any circumstance.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/S...2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

"If these images accurately portray what happened, Israelis can only be disheartened by the brutality of the perpetrators, and by the lack of discipline such cruelty and stupidity exposes. If guilty, those involved should be punished appropriately."

"Plainly, the incident should have been immediately reported up the chain of command. The IDF should itself have investigated and exposed any wrongdoing. On the face of it, the army took action only after B'Tselem released its video to the media."

"We can empathize with soldiers and reservists who are put in the field under a beating sun, forced to endure in staged protests an onslaught of rocks, stones and taunts by Palestinian rioters and their cadre of radical sympathizers from within Israel and abroad. With all that, what is demanded of our forces - even in the face of blatant provocation - is professionalism, discipline and restraint.

THE IDF, which operates in an unprecedented media bubble, is held to a higher standard than just about any other army in the world. When its fails to meet that ethical expectation - as it seems to have done on the occasion under scrutiny - the entire country suffers the consequences.

It's not just that Israel's fortunes are especially dependent on the support we receive from Europe and America and so our good image matters. We must also not allow the Palestinians' glorification of violence to brutalize us."

Admitting fault. Condeming the act. Recognizing such acts reflect poorly on Israel, and harm the cause of peace. As a purely practical matter, this is bad strategy for Israelis who would prefer not to have rockets rain down upon their homes. They know this. Which is why all the foreign vitriol aimed at them claiming this is the policy of the IDF makes no sense.

Fool. You finally came around to what I was telling you all along. And let me rub that grain of salt I saved for your post above Moonbeam's into your fresh wound (from the climbdown): The difference between "physical injury" and "serious physical injury" is OPEN TO FUCKING INTEPRETATION. Furthermore, I'm willing to go out on a limb here 🙂roll🙂 and say that not only can a rubber bullet cause "serious physical injury" but a doctor may not even be able to tell the difference, let alone an asshat lawyer like you.

Keep yapping about the legal difference and I'm going to hope some tries them both out on you so we can determine how serious the injury was.

 

[cumhail]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Perhaps you missed the link I provided earlier on Israel's "rubber" bullets. I recomend checking it. Here is another:

In response to the Palestinian uprising that started in the late 1980s, the Israeli military developed its own rubber bullets designed to disperse crowds, to injure but not kill. These small rubber-coated metal pellets are supposed to be shot from a distance of about 130 feet and aimed at people's legs. But they can be lethal if shot at the head at closer range, and dozens of Palestinians have died from such injuries. Israeli political scientist Yaron Ezrahi titled his book examining moral conflicts in his country Rubber Bullets.

Obviously the solder wasn't trying to kill the man by shooting him in the foot, but shooting such a bullet at such close range is quite likely to cause serious bodily harm.

More about the rubber bullets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_bullet
Including a picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...lrubberbullets.jpg.JPG

Obviously not as lethal as standard bullets... But I get the sense that some people are either envisioning or trying to present them as something more along the lines of this:
http://www.hasbro.com/nerf/def...roduct&product_id=9679
http://www.hasbro.com/nerf/def...oduct&product_id=18938

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Dari
Fool. You finally came around to what I was telling you all along.

Sigh. This is really my last response to you because I'm tired of ridiculing you for being so thick. Please tell me you're in your upper-teens or low 20's or thereabouts and I might feel somewhat better about your chances of someday growing out of your ignorance.

First off, I didn't "come around" to what you were saying. Your repeated position was that rubber bullets are equally as dangerous as real bullets and if a person fired one at a crowd they would be as legally and morally culpable as if they had fired a real bullet. Did you miss where I stated "they are obviously less lethal than standard bullets" and "the difference between being shot with such a rubber bullet is still a world away from being shot with a real bullet." My position is they are too dangerous to use haphazardly as a means of crowd control, NOT that they are equally as dangerous as real bullets. Why are you incapable of making distinctions in degrees?

This is a distinction you still are somehow unable to wrap your small mind around. How about this. What if the Israeli soldier shot a real bullet at the Palestinian and blew off his toe? In your argument that's the same level of culpability as what actually resulted, which was a bruised big toe. So, permanent disfigurement vs a temporary bruise in your mind are equivalent. This defies common sense, let alone legal or moral sense.

The difference between "physical injury" and "serious physical injury" is OPEN TO FUCKING INTEPRETATION. Furthermore, I'm willing to go out on a limb here 🙂roll🙂 and say that not only can a rubber bullet cause "serious physical injury" but a doctor may not even be able to tell the difference, let alone an asshat lawyer like you.

I'm trying to be lenient here because you clearly have no apparent understanding of how this works, but your layman assertions regarding statutory interpretations are wafer thin.

"Physical injury" and "serious physical injury" are defined by state statute. Yes, they are open to some interpretation based on their definitions, but those interpretations must be reasonable. You don't get to argue an absurd rationale and then state "well, that's my interpretation." One more time, verbatim from the statutes:

9. "Physical injury" means impairment of physical condition or substantial pain.

10. "Serious physical injury" means physical injury which creates a
substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and
protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted
loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.

So, in this case, getting shot in the toe with a rubber bullet caused the prisoner substantial pain, which is the statutory definition of "physical injury." How much interpretation is required here? Look at "serious physical injury." Did he suffer protracted disfigurement? A substantial risk of death? Protracted impairment of health or impairment of the function of a bodily organ? Given the two possible levels of injury, which seems to be the closer one here? Try going before a judge with both of those statutes in front of him, point to a bruised toe and try to argue that the injury falls into the latter category because that's "your interpretation." Good luck with that.

Keep yapping about the legal difference and I'm going to hope some tries them both out on you so we can determine how serious the injury was.

No need for someone to try them out on me, it was just tried out on the prisoner. He was shot from one meter away with a rubber bullet. It bruised his toe. Want to compare what would have happened if they shot him with a real bullet?

Rubber bullets are too dangerous for firing at unarmed crowds, despite the overwhelming majority of those hit not dying from being shot, and of course they should never be fired at a bound prisoner. I expect you won't be able to follow most of this argument anyway, but at least the record will reflect your confusion for all time for anyone else bothering to read it.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Dari
Fool. You finally came around to what I was telling you all along.

Sigh. This is really my last response to you because I'm tired of ridiculing you for being so thick. Please tell me you're in your upper-teens or low 20's or thereabouts and I might feel somewhat better about your chances of someday growing out of your ignorance.

First off, I didn't "come around" to what you were saying. Your repeated position was that rubber bullets are equally as dangerous as real bullets and if a person fired one at a crowd they would be as legally and morally culpable as if they had fired a real bullet. Did you miss where I stated "they are obviously less lethal than standard bullets" and "the difference between being shot with such a rubber bullet is still a world away from being shot with a real bullet." My position is they are too dangerous to use haphazardly as a means of crowd control, NOT that they are equally as dangerous as real bullets. Why are you incapable of making distinctions in degrees?

This is a distinction you still are somehow unable to wrap your small mind around. How about this. What if the Israeli soldier shot a real bullet at the Palestinian and blew off his toe? In your argument that's the same level of culpability as what actually resulted, which was a bruised big toe. So, permanent disfigurement vs a temporary bruise in your mind are equivalent. This defies common sense, let alone legal or moral sense.

The difference between "physical injury" and "serious physical injury" is OPEN TO FUCKING INTEPRETATION. Furthermore, I'm willing to go out on a limb here 🙂roll🙂 and say that not only can a rubber bullet cause "serious physical injury" but a doctor may not even be able to tell the difference, let alone an asshat lawyer like you.

I'm trying to be lenient here because you clearly have no apparent understanding of how this works, but your layman assertions regarding statutory interpretations are wafer thin.

"Physical injury" and "serious physical injury" are defined by state statute. Yes, they are open to some interpretation based on their definitions, but those interpretations must be reasonable. You don't get to argue an absurd rationale and then state "well, that's my interpretation." One more time, verbatim from the statutes:

9. "Physical injury" means impairment of physical condition or substantial pain.

10. "Serious physical injury" means physical injury which creates a
substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and
protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted
loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.

So, in this case, getting shot in the toe with a rubber bullet caused the prisoner substantial pain, which is the statutory definition of "physical injury." How much interpretation is required here? Look at "serious physical injury." Did he suffer protracted disfigurement? A substantial risk of death? Protracted impairment of health or impairment of the function of a bodily organ? Given the two possible levels of injury, which seems to be the closer one here? Try going before a judge with both of those statutes in front of him, point to a bruised toe and try to argue that the injury falls into the latter category because that's "your interpretation." Good luck with that.

Keep yapping about the legal difference and I'm going to hope some tries them both out on you so we can determine how serious the injury was.

No need for someone to try them out on me, it was just tried out on the prisoner. He was shot from one meter away with a rubber bullet. It bruised his toe. Want to compare what would have happened if they shot him with a real bullet?

Rubber bullets are too dangerous for firing at unarmed crowds, despite the overwhelming majority of those hit not dying from being shot, and of course they should never be fired at a bound prisoner. I expect you won't be able to follow most of this argument anyway, but at least the record will reflect your confusion for all time for anyone else bothering to read it.

Reps for major pnwage..:thumbsup:

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Dari
Fool. You finally came around to what I was telling you all along.

Sigh. This is really my last response to you because I'm tired of ridiculing you for being so thick. Please tell me you're in your upper-teens or low 20's or thereabouts and I might feel somewhat better about your chances of someday growing out of your ignorance.

First off, I didn't "come around" to what you were saying. Your repeated position was that rubber bullets are equally as dangerous as real bullets and if a person fired one at a crowd they would be as legally and morally culpable as if they had fired a real bullet. Did you miss where I stated "they are obviously less lethal than standard bullets" and "the difference between being shot with such a rubber bullet is still a world away from being shot with a real bullet." My position is they are too dangerous to use haphazardly as a means of crowd control, NOT that they are equally as dangerous as real bullets. Why are you incapable of making distinctions in degrees?

This is a distinction you still are somehow unable to wrap your small mind around. How about this. What if the Israeli soldier shot a real bullet at the Palestinian and blew off his toe? In your argument that's the same level of culpability as what actually resulted, which was a bruised big toe. So, permanent disfigurement vs a temporary bruise in your mind are equivalent. This defies common sense, let alone legal or moral sense.

The difference between "physical injury" and "serious physical injury" is OPEN TO FUCKING INTEPRETATION. Furthermore, I'm willing to go out on a limb here 🙂roll🙂 and say that not only can a rubber bullet cause "serious physical injury" but a doctor may not even be able to tell the difference, let alone an asshat lawyer like you.

I'm trying to be lenient here because you clearly have no apparent understanding of how this works, but your layman assertions regarding statutory interpretations are wafer thin.

"Physical injury" and "serious physical injury" are defined by state statute. Yes, they are open to some interpretation based on their definitions, but those interpretations must be reasonable. You don't get to argue an absurd rationale and then state "well, that's my interpretation." One more time, verbatim from the statutes:

9. "Physical injury" means impairment of physical condition or substantial pain.

10. "Serious physical injury" means physical injury which creates a
substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and
protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted
loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.

So, in this case, getting shot in the toe with a rubber bullet caused the prisoner substantial pain, which is the statutory definition of "physical injury." How much interpretation is required here? Look at "serious physical injury." Did he suffer protracted disfigurement? A substantial risk of death? Protracted impairment of health or impairment of the function of a bodily organ? Given the two possible levels of injury, which seems to be the closer one here? Try going before a judge with both of those statutes in front of him, point to a bruised toe and try to argue that the injury falls into the latter category because that's "your interpretation." Good luck with that.

Keep yapping about the legal difference and I'm going to hope some tries them both out on you so we can determine how serious the injury was.

No need for someone to try them out on me, it was just tried out on the prisoner. He was shot from one meter away with a rubber bullet. It bruised his toe. Want to compare what would have happened if they shot him with a real bullet?

Rubber bullets are too dangerous for firing at unarmed crowds, despite the overwhelming majority of those hit not dying from being shot, and of course they should never be fired at a bound prisoner. I expect you won't be able to follow most of this argument anyway, but at least the record will reflect your confusion for all time for anyone else bothering to read it.

You are one dumb fuck. There you are, sitting in your chair, casually telling me what would've happened had the soldier fired a real bullet. The truth is you don't know. Sure, it may be worse, but how worse you cannot tell me or anyone else. Hence, you cannot prove the relative difference between a real bullet and a rubber bullet used in THAT incident. Based on your wild hypothesis, you're telling me that that would automatically constitute "serious physical injury".

You say that the soldier shot a meter away. Now, I'm no expert in physics but I'm willing to bet that a bullet, naked or rubber, won't reach it's maximum velocity at one meter, so your point regarding distance is highly debatable.

So, all we have to go on is an event. You can try to interpret what would've happen had there been a naked bullet but your guess is as good as anyones. So we can just look at the outcome and determine the type of punishment that needs to be carried out. If the prisoner's toe had been blown off then, according to the statutes, it would've constituted a "serious physical injury". That would've made your point about legal differences extremely moot. This goes back to my point, which was to say that, naked or rubber, either type of bullet CAN cause the same type of injury, including "serious physical imjury.". The only saving grace for someone operating in an official capacity, as I originally mentioned, was that it may NOT HAVE BEEN HIS INTENTION to maim since he was using a rubber bullet--that would've lead to a reduced sentence. Theoretically, he could say the same thing even if he used a live bullet. Hence, your original point about there being a legal difference is moot. So save your high-minded pseudo intelligence for the mirror.