http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7631693.stm

<quotes>

Relatives of a Palestinian who was shot dead after his car ploughed into a
group of Israelis at a bus stop have denied it was a deliberate attack.

Off duty soldiers shot the 19-year-old driver, in what Israeli police have
said was an attack.

"My son was murdered, they killed him. He did not carry out a terrorist
attack" said the driver's father.

"This was a car accident. The car stopped after hitting a wall. Why did they
kill him?" Mahmoud Mughrabi said at his home in Israeli-occupied East
Jerusalem.

Commenting on the latest incident, Defence Minister Ehud Barak said Israel
must expedite the legal process leading to demolition of Palestinian
attackers' homes.

"We need to take legal action in order to drastically expedite the process,
so we can take action shortly after an attack happens and deter any future
potential terrorists," he said.

</quotes>

Always hard to say what action should be taken after an incident; is killing
this driver a legitimate act of self-defence to prevent further incident, or
is it just extrajudicial punishment, or plain murder ? How much of a threat
or risk was there that they had no option but to kill him ? Was it a killing
of necessity, or a murder of choice ?

No doubts on Barak's views though. That's good old fashioned collective
punishment with terrorism at its heart.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:F58Ck.61807$E41.56452@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7631693.stm
>
> <quotes>
>
> Relatives of a Palestinian who was shot dead after his car ploughed into a
> group of Israelis at a bus stop have denied it was a deliberate attack.
>
> Off duty soldiers shot the 19-year-old driver, in what Israeli police have
> said was an attack.
>
> "My son was murdered, they killed him. He did not carry out a terrorist
> attack" said the driver's father.
>
> "This was a car accident. The car stopped after hitting a wall. Why did 
> they
> kill him?" Mahmoud Mughrabi said at his home in Israeli-occupied East
> Jerusalem.
>
> Commenting on the latest incident, Defence Minister Ehud Barak said Israel
> must expedite the legal process leading to demolition of Palestinian
> attackers' homes.
>
> "We need to take legal action in order to drastically expedite the 
> process,
> so we can take action shortly after an attack happens and deter any future
> potential terrorists," he said.
>
> </quotes>
>
> Always hard to say what action should be taken after an incident; is 
> killing
> this driver a legitimate act of self-defence to prevent further incident, 
> or
> is it just extrajudicial punishment, or plain murder ? How much of a 
> threat
> or risk was there that they had no option but to kill him ? Was it a 
> killing
> of necessity, or a murder of choice ?
>
> No doubts on Barak's views though. That's good old fashioned collective
> punishment with terrorism at its heart.
>
>

Maybe part of the blame rests with those who went on construction vehicle 
rampages, don't you think?  They helped make Israel a place where you don't 
get to have accidents where your vehicle plows into passing crowds and 
particularly passing crowds of soldiers.

The driver's family can deny what may have been his intentions all they 
like, but they woudn't be the first parents of mass-killers (or would-be 
mass-killers) who didn't really know their children at all.  I haven't seen 
any videos of this incident, but I think it's a remarkable coincidence that, 
of all the places the driver's car could end up heading for, it heads for a 
group of soldiers.

The driver's family also said he did not have a licence and couldn't drive. 
Well, even as a child I knew where the brakes were on a car.  I knew what 
the steering wheel did.  People can freeze on the controls when something 
spooky happens while driving, but it seems like a stretch.

I don't know.... it could have been an accident, but in light of previous 
vehicle attacks on passers-by it's naturally suspicious.  If it was all a 
bizzare accident as the result of one young person's stupidity and inability 
to drive then it's very sad for him and his family because his death has 
been utterly pointless, but his actions weren't the responsibility of those 
who shot him, and he unfortunatey lived in a dangerous part of the world 
where the people there have to live their lives constantly with one eye open 
for killers who can come from anywhere and use anything from bombs to JCB's 
to do their killing, and in such parts of the world you don't get to walk 
away from certain kinds of stupidity.

TWP

TWP wrote:

> 
> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
> news:F58Ck.61807$E41.56452@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7631693.stm
>>
>> <quotes>
>>
>> Relatives of a Palestinian who was shot dead after his car ploughed into
>> a group of Israelis at a bus stop have denied it was a deliberate attack.
>>
>> Off duty soldiers shot the 19-year-old driver, in what Israeli police
>> have said was an attack.
>>
>> "My son was murdered, they killed him. He did not carry out a terrorist
>> attack" said the driver's father.
>>
>> "This was a car accident. The car stopped after hitting a wall. Why did
>> they
>> kill him?" Mahmoud Mughrabi said at his home in Israeli-occupied East
>> Jerusalem.
>>
>> Commenting on the latest incident, Defence Minister Ehud Barak said
>> Israel must expedite the legal process leading to demolition of
>> Palestinian attackers' homes.
>>
>> "We need to take legal action in order to drastically expedite the
>> process,
>> so we can take action shortly after an attack happens and deter any
>> future potential terrorists," he said.
>>
>> </quotes>
>>
>> Always hard to say what action should be taken after an incident; is
>> killing
>> this driver a legitimate act of self-defence to prevent further incident,
>> or
>> is it just extrajudicial punishment, or plain murder ? How much of a
>> threat
>> or risk was there that they had no option but to kill him ? Was it a
>> killing
>> of necessity, or a murder of choice ?
>>
>> No doubts on Barak's views though. That's good old fashioned collective
>> punishment with terrorism at its heart.
>>
>>
> 
> Maybe part of the blame rests with those who went on construction vehicle
> rampages, don't you think?  They helped make Israel a place where you
> don't get to have accidents where your vehicle plows into passing crowds
> and particularly passing crowds of soldiers.
> 
> The driver's family can deny what may have been his intentions all they
> like, but they woudn't be the first parents of mass-killers (or would-be
> mass-killers) who didn't really know their children at all.  I haven't
> seen any videos of this incident, but I think it's a remarkable
> coincidence that, of all the places the driver's car could end up heading
> for, it heads for a group of soldiers.
> 
> The driver's family also said he did not have a licence and couldn't
> drive.
> Well, even as a child I knew where the brakes were on a car.  I knew what
> the steering wheel did.  People can freeze on the controls when something
> spooky happens while driving, but it seems like a stretch.
> 
> I don't know.... it could have been an accident, but in light of previous
> vehicle attacks on passers-by it's naturally suspicious.  If it was all a
> bizzare accident as the result of one young person's stupidity and
> inability to drive then it's very sad for him and his family because his
> death has been utterly pointless, but his actions weren't the
> responsibility of those who shot him, and he unfortunatey lived in a
> dangerous part of the world where the people there have to live their
> lives constantly with one eye open for killers who can come from anywhere
> and use anything from bombs to JCB's to do their killing, and in such
> parts of the world you don't get to walk away from certain kinds of
> stupidity.
> 
> TWP

Same old excuses.
-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
> news:F58Ck.61807$E41.56452@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7631693.stm
> >
> > <quotes>
> >
> > Relatives of a Palestinian who was shot dead after his car ploughed into
a
> > group of Israelis at a bus stop have denied it was a deliberate attack.
> >
> > Off duty soldiers shot the 19-year-old driver, in what Israeli police
have
> > said was an attack.
> >
> > "My son was murdered, they killed him. He did not carry out a terrorist
> > attack" said the driver's father.
> >
> > "This was a car accident. The car stopped after hitting a wall. Why did
> > they
> > kill him?" Mahmoud Mughrabi said at his home in Israeli-occupied East
> > Jerusalem.
> >
> > Commenting on the latest incident, Defence Minister Ehud Barak said
Israel
> > must expedite the legal process leading to demolition of Palestinian
> > attackers' homes.
> >
> > "We need to take legal action in order to drastically expedite the
> > process,
> > so we can take action shortly after an attack happens and deter any
future
> > potential terrorists," he said.
> >
> > </quotes>
> >
> > Always hard to say what action should be taken after an incident; is
> > killing
> > this driver a legitimate act of self-defence to prevent further
incident,
> > or
> > is it just extrajudicial punishment, or plain murder ? How much of a
> > threat
> > or risk was there that they had no option but to kill him ? Was it a
> > killing
> > of necessity, or a murder of choice ?
> >
> > No doubts on Barak's views though. That's good old fashioned collective
> > punishment with terrorism at its heart.
> >
> >
>
> Maybe part of the blame rests with those who went on construction vehicle
> rampages, don't you think?

No.

And while you talk in plurals; how many have there been ?


> They helped make Israel a place where you don't
> get to have accidents where your vehicle plows into passing crowds and
> particularly passing crowds of soldiers.
>
> The driver's family can deny what may have been his intentions all they
> like,  but they woudn't be the first parents of mass-killers (or would-be
> mass-killers) who didn't really know their children at all.  I haven't
seen
> any videos of this incident, but I think it's a remarkable coincidence
that,
> of all the places the driver's car could end up heading for, it heads for
a
> group of soldiers.

Stanger coincidences have happened. These were off duty soldiers. Were they
in uniform ?


> The driver's family also said he did not have a licence and couldn't
drive.
> Well, even as a child I knew where the brakes were on a car.  I knew what
> the steering wheel did.

So it follows you'd be capable of driving the vehicle without crashing it.
Oh come on now.


> People can freeze on the controls when something
> spooky happens while driving, but it seems like a stretch.

Guy with no licence, can't drive, tries that, fucks up big time. Sure that's
totally unimaginable and unpredictable. Requires a long stretch of the
imagination.


> I don't know.... it could have been an accident, but in light of previous
> vehicle attacks on passers-by it's naturally suspicious.

No denyng that. The real issue is the events which follow that. Even if it
were deliberate that doesn't give anyone the right to carry out
extra-judicial punishment. Or perhaps you think it does ?


> If it was all a
> bizzare accident as the result of one young person's stupidity and
inability
> to drive then it's very sad for him and his family because his death has
> been utterly pointless, but his actions weren't the responsibility of
those
> who shot him,

No, but the action of killing him is the responsibility of those who did
that.

Same situation as the Met face in court now and at least Blair has accepted
and admitted that his force has to take the responsibility for pulling the
trigger regardless of how that circumstance arose.


> and he unfortunatey lived in a dangerous part of the world
> where the people there have to live their lives constantly with one eye
open
> for killers who can come from anywhere and use anything from bombs to
JCB's
> to do their killing, and

> in such parts of the world you don't get to walk
> away from certain kinds of stupidity.

Stupidity can legitimately be punished by death - I'm surprised you support
such a thing. It seems you're saying that the IDF or other enforcement
agencies would have legitimate cause to kill anyone involved in a car crash
on the premise they may be a suicide bomber or the like. No case to answer.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:vf9Ck.61856$E41.59037@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>> news:F58Ck.61807$E41.56452@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7631693.stm
>> >
>> > <quotes>
>> >
>> > Relatives of a Palestinian who was shot dead after his car ploughed 
>> > into
> a
>> > group of Israelis at a bus stop have denied it was a deliberate attack.
>> >
>> > Off duty soldiers shot the 19-year-old driver, in what Israeli police
> have
>> > said was an attack.
>> >
>> > "My son was murdered, they killed him. He did not carry out a terrorist
>> > attack" said the driver's father.
>> >
>> > "This was a car accident. The car stopped after hitting a wall. Why did
>> > they
>> > kill him?" Mahmoud Mughrabi said at his home in Israeli-occupied East
>> > Jerusalem.
>> >
>> > Commenting on the latest incident, Defence Minister Ehud Barak said
> Israel
>> > must expedite the legal process leading to demolition of Palestinian
>> > attackers' homes.
>> >
>> > "We need to take legal action in order to drastically expedite the
>> > process,
>> > so we can take action shortly after an attack happens and deter any
> future
>> > potential terrorists," he said.
>> >
>> > </quotes>
>> >
>> > Always hard to say what action should be taken after an incident; is
>> > killing
>> > this driver a legitimate act of self-defence to prevent further
> incident,
>> > or
>> > is it just extrajudicial punishment, or plain murder ? How much of a
>> > threat
>> > or risk was there that they had no option but to kill him ? Was it a
>> > killing
>> > of necessity, or a murder of choice ?
>> >
>> > No doubts on Barak's views though. That's good old fashioned collective
>> > punishment with terrorism at its heart.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Maybe part of the blame rests with those who went on construction vehicle
>> rampages, don't you think?
>
> No.

Really?  Why not?

> And while you talk in plurals; how many have there been ?

How many does it take to make a population nervous?

>> They helped make Israel a place where you don't
>> get to have accidents where your vehicle plows into passing crowds and
>> particularly passing crowds of soldiers.
>>
>> The driver's family can deny what may have been his intentions all they
>> like,  but they woudn't be the first parents of mass-killers (or would-be
>> mass-killers) who didn't really know their children at all.  I haven't
> seen
>> any videos of this incident, but I think it's a remarkable coincidence
> that,
>> of all the places the driver's car could end up heading for, it heads for
> a
>> group of soldiers.
>
> Stanger coincidences have happened. These were off duty soldiers. Were 
> they
> in uniform ?

Does it matter?  If so, why?  Here is  part that you left out:
"Israeli police have said they were "100% sure" Qassem Mughrabi intended to 
carry out a deliberate attack, with one spokesmen saying a failed romance 
may have been the trigger.

Israeli police spokesman Shmuel Ben-Ruby said investigators had found Mr 
Mughrabi, who had no prior police record, "wanted to marry his cousin but 
when she refused he apparently decided to carry out the attack"."

>> The driver's family also said he did not have a licence and couldn't
> drive.
>> Well, even as a child I knew where the brakes were on a car.  I knew what
>> the steering wheel did.
>
> So it follows you'd be capable of driving the vehicle without crashing it.
> Oh come on now.

At the least, he was guilty of vehicular homicide, especially since he was 
driving without a license, and most especially since he didn't know how to 
drive.

>> People can freeze on the controls when something
>> spooky happens while driving, but it seems like a stretch.
>
> Guy with no licence, can't drive, tries that, fucks up big time. Sure 
> that's
> totally unimaginable and unpredictable. Requires a long stretch of the
> imagination.

Most people I know who have no license and can't drive let others do the 
driving for them.  That's so they don't fuck up big time.

>> I don't know.... it could have been an accident, but in light of previous
>> vehicle attacks on passers-by it's naturally suspicious.
>
> No denyng that. The real issue is the events which follow that. Even if it
> were deliberate that doesn't give anyone the right to carry out
> extra-judicial punishment. Or perhaps you think it does ?

It gives them the right to protect themselves from further assault, yes.  Do 
you have any evidence that they didn't think the boy would try something 
else?  How did they know he didn't have a bomb?

>> If it was all a
>> bizzare accident as the result of one young person's stupidity and
> inability
>> to drive then it's very sad for him and his family because his death has
>> been utterly pointless, but his actions weren't the responsibility of
> those
>> who shot him,
>
> No, but the action of killing him is the responsibility of those who did
> that.
>
> Same situation as the Met face in court now and at least Blair has 
> accepted
> and admitted that his force has to take the responsibility for pulling the
> trigger regardless of how that circumstance arose.

No doubt, you would have let him walk away.

>> and he unfortunatey lived in a dangerous part of the world
>> where the people there have to live their lives constantly with one eye
> open
>> for killers who can come from anywhere and use anything from bombs to
> JCB's
>> to do their killing, and
>
>> in such parts of the world you don't get to walk
>> away from certain kinds of stupidity.
>
> Stupidity can legitimately be punished by death - I'm surprised you 
> support
> such a thing. It seems you're saying that the IDF or other enforcement
> agencies would have legitimate cause to kill anyone involved in a car 
> crash
> on the premise they may be a suicide bomber or the like. No case to 
> answer.

I think he is saying that in that part of the world, the reality is that 
stupidity will get you killed.

George

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:vf9Ck.61856$E41.59037@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>> news:F58Ck.61807$E41.56452@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7631693.stm
>> >
>> > <quotes>
>> >
>> > Relatives of a Palestinian who was shot dead after his car ploughed 
>> > into
> a
>> > group of Israelis at a bus stop have denied it was a deliberate attack.
>> >
>> > Off duty soldiers shot the 19-year-old driver, in what Israeli police
> have
>> > said was an attack.
>> >
>> > "My son was murdered, they killed him. He did not carry out a terrorist
>> > attack" said the driver's father.
>> >
>> > "This was a car accident. The car stopped after hitting a wall. Why did
>> > they
>> > kill him?" Mahmoud Mughrabi said at his home in Israeli-occupied East
>> > Jerusalem.
>> >
>> > Commenting on the latest incident, Defence Minister Ehud Barak said
> Israel
>> > must expedite the legal process leading to demolition of Palestinian
>> > attackers' homes.
>> >
>> > "We need to take legal action in order to drastically expedite the
>> > process,
>> > so we can take action shortly after an attack happens and deter any
> future
>> > potential terrorists," he said.
>> >
>> > </quotes>
>> >
>> > Always hard to say what action should be taken after an incident; is
>> > killing
>> > this driver a legitimate act of self-defence to prevent further
> incident,
>> > or
>> > is it just extrajudicial punishment, or plain murder ? How much of a
>> > threat
>> > or risk was there that they had no option but to kill him ? Was it a
>> > killing
>> > of necessity, or a murder of choice ?
>> >
>> > No doubts on Barak's views though. That's good old fashioned collective
>> > punishment with terrorism at its heart.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Maybe part of the blame rests with those who went on construction vehicle
>> rampages, don't you think?
>
> No.
>
> And while you talk in plurals; how many have there been ?

At least two fairly recently using construction vehicles.  I'm sure enough 
to serve as an example.


>
>
>> They helped make Israel a place where you don't
>> get to have accidents where your vehicle plows into passing crowds and
>> particularly passing crowds of soldiers.
>>
>> The driver's family can deny what may have been his intentions all they
>> like,  but they woudn't be the first parents of mass-killers (or would-be
>> mass-killers) who didn't really know their children at all.  I haven't
> seen
>> any videos of this incident, but I think it's a remarkable coincidence
> that,
>> of all the places the driver's car could end up heading for, it heads for
> a
>> group of soldiers.
>
> Stanger coincidences have happened. These were off duty soldiers. Were 
> they
> in uniform ?

The original BBC report says that they were wearing uniforms.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7630534.stm


>
>
>> The driver's family also said he did not have a licence and couldn't
> drive.
>> Well, even as a child I knew where the brakes were on a car.  I knew what
>> the steering wheel did.
>
> So it follows you'd be capable of driving the vehicle without crashing it.
> Oh come on now.

I had a full driving licence before I was as old as this guy.  I wasn't 
talking about driving the car anyway, I was talking about being able to stop 
it or steer it away from a crowd of people.  If he was able to drive up to 
that point, it seems strange that he should lose control so badly just as he 
was coming up to a crowd of people.  He didn't just run into a couple of 
people at a bus stop.



>
>
>> People can freeze on the controls when something
>> spooky happens while driving, but it seems like a stretch.
>
> Guy with no licence, can't drive, tries that, fucks up big time. Sure 
> that's
> totally unimaginable and unpredictable. Requires a long stretch of the
> imagination.

It requires a stretch of the imagination to think that he couldn't put the 
brakes on or steer somewhere not occupied by a crowd of people.  Perhaps he 
did and the brakes were shagged?  Has the car been examined?

>
>
>> I don't know.... it could have been an accident, but in light of previous
>> vehicle attacks on passers-by it's naturally suspicious.
>
> No denyng that. The real issue is the events which follow that. Even if it
> were deliberate that doesn't give anyone the right to carry out
> extra-judicial punishment. Or perhaps you think it does ?

Yes, I would say.  He could have been driving a car bomb, or jumped out with 
a machine gun.  It's self-defence (which includes defending someone else), 
especially in a place like Israel, where people are getting attacked all the 
time, recently with vehicles.  Past experience has shown that people 
attacking with vehicles keep attacking, even after they've been shot, and 
it's a lot easier to take out the driver than the vehicle in order to stop 
the attack.  I think there's a risk here of sitting in judgement on a way of 
life that we don't really understand.  Israel is a lot more Wild West-y than 
we're used to.  This isn't like a condemning a planned military action, this 
is a sudden apparent attack in a place where people die all the time by 
bombs, bullets and any other means that works.  The first reaction will be 
to defend against loss of life - in particular your own.  In the end it's 
either been an attack, or the driver was unlucky enough to crash his car in 
a way that looked like an attack.  I blame Israel when it is wilfully cruel 
to people, but I'm not blaming them for making split-second decisions aimed 
at staying alive.


>
>
>> If it was all a
>> bizzare accident as the result of one young person's stupidity and
> inability
>> to drive then it's very sad for him and his family because his death has
>> been utterly pointless, but his actions weren't the responsibility of
> those
>> who shot him,
>
> No, but the action of killing him is the responsibility of those who did
> that.
>
> Same situation as the Met face in court now and at least Blair has 
> accepted
> and admitted that his force has to take the responsibility for pulling the
> trigger regardless of how that circumstance arose.
>
>

Not really the same as far as I can tell.  The Met could have challenged 
their man.  They had full police resources available and time to plan a 
course of action.  The people in Israel just knew that someone had suddenly 
driven a car into them and might be about to drive into others or even 
explode as others had done before.




>> and he unfortunatey lived in a dangerous part of the world
>> where the people there have to live their lives constantly with one eye
> open
>> for killers who can come from anywhere and use anything from bombs to
> JCB's
>> to do their killing, and
>
>> in such parts of the world you don't get to walk
>> away from certain kinds of stupidity.
>
> Stupidity can legitimately be punished by death - I'm surprised you 
> support
> such a thing. It seems you're saying that the IDF or other enforcement
> agencies would have legitimate cause to kill anyone involved in a car 
> crash
> on the premise they may be a suicide bomber or the like. No case to 
> answer.
>
>

You're chosing to look at this in a particular way that puts on the blame on 
one side.  You're judging aggressively not with fairness.  We aren't talking 
about someone being dragged off and hanged by an angry mob for making an 
innocent mistake here, were talking about someone making a judgement that an 
attack was in progress and acting on the spot to halt the attack immediately 
to save lives.

The regular Israeli population is under constant threat of attack.  Whether 
or not you believe they deserve to be is a matter of personal point of view, 
but it's a fact that they are.  Some of those attacks take the form of 
people using vehicles.  We are also only a few days on from the Mariott 
Hotel bomb which also might have some impressionable person a push to act. 
Seeing someone suddenly drive into a group of soldiers, on or off duty, 
would probably be convincing enough for me.  I don't know if I'd shoot right 
there and then - perhaps I would if I lived where they live.  My hesitancy 
may be rewarded by someone being pulled out of a car who's steering wheel 
had just fallen off, or it may be rewarded with a 300 kg car bomb going off 
and taking me and several dozen others off for a long stay in the afterlife. 
Mercy isn't always going to be rewarded.  In Israel when someone has just 
skittled a crowd of soldiers with a BMW it's probably a very dangerous 
virtue.


TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
> news:vf9Ck.61856$E41.59037@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >
> > "TWP"  wrote ...
> >
> >> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
> >> news:F58Ck.61807$E41.56452@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7631693.stm
> >> >
> >> > <quotes>
> >> >
> >> > Relatives of a Palestinian who was shot dead after his car ploughed
> >> > into
> > a
> >> > group of Israelis at a bus stop have denied it was a deliberate
attack.
> >> >
> >> > Off duty soldiers shot the 19-year-old driver, in what Israeli police
> > have
> >> > said was an attack.
> >> >
> >> > "My son was murdered, they killed him. He did not carry out a
terrorist
> >> > attack" said the driver's father.
> >> >
> >> > "This was a car accident. The car stopped after hitting a wall. Why
did
> >> > they
> >> > kill him?" Mahmoud Mughrabi said at his home in Israeli-occupied East
> >> > Jerusalem.
> >> >
> >> > Commenting on the latest incident, Defence Minister Ehud Barak said
> > Israel
> >> > must expedite the legal process leading to demolition of Palestinian
> >> > attackers' homes.
> >> >
> >> > "We need to take legal action in order to drastically expedite the
> >> > process,
> >> > so we can take action shortly after an attack happens and deter any
> > future
> >> > potential terrorists," he said.
> >> >
> >> > </quotes>
> >> >
> >> > Always hard to say what action should be taken after an incident; is
> >> > killing
> >> > this driver a legitimate act of self-defence to prevent further
> > incident,
> >> > or
> >> > is it just extrajudicial punishment, or plain murder ? How much of a
> >> > threat
> >> > or risk was there that they had no option but to kill him ? Was it a
> >> > killing
> >> > of necessity, or a murder of choice ?
> >> >
> >> > No doubts on Barak's views though. That's good old fashioned
collective
> >> > punishment with terrorism at its heart.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Maybe part of the blame rests with those who went on construction
vehicle
> >> rampages, don't you think?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > And while you talk in plurals; how many have there been ?
>
> At least two fairly recently using construction vehicles.  I'm sure enough
> to serve as an example.

Two. I guess two rapes by white men prove all white men a rapists. Two
murders by white men prove all white men are murdering rapists. The two
convictions of white men for terrorists prove all white men are murderous,
rapist terrorists.


> >> They helped make Israel a place where you don't
> >> get to have accidents where your vehicle plows into passing crowds and
> >> particularly passing crowds of soldiers.
> >>
> >> The driver's family can deny what may have been his intentions all they
> >> like,  but they woudn't be the first parents of mass-killers (or
would-be
> >> mass-killers) who didn't really know their children at all.  I haven't
> > seen
> >> any videos of this incident, but I think it's a remarkable coincidence
> > that,
> >> of all the places the driver's car could end up heading for, it heads
for
> > a
> >> group of soldiers.
> >
> > Stanger coincidences have happened. These were off duty soldiers. Were
> > they
> > in uniform ?
>
> The original BBC report says that they were wearing uniforms.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7630534.stm

I missed that line, so thanks.


> >> The driver's family also said he did not have a licence and couldn't
> > drive.
> >> Well, even as a child I knew where the brakes were on a car.  I knew
what
> >> the steering wheel did.
> >
> > So it follows you'd be capable of driving the vehicle without crashing
it.
> > Oh come on now.
>
> I had a full driving licence before I was as old as this guy.  I wasn't
> talking about driving the car anyway, I was talking about being able to
stop
> it or steer it away from a crowd of people.  If he was able to drive up to
> that point, it seems strange that he should lose control so badly just as
he
> was coming up to a crowd of people.  He didn't just run into a couple of
> people at a bus stop.

Do you ever remember that 'gripping fear' and difficulty to concentrate the
first time you were in a car and the police were suddenly up your backside ?

However, it's all mere speculation as to why he crashed the car or whether
it was a deliberate act. That's not really the issue.


> >> People can freeze on the controls when something
> >> spooky happens while driving, but it seems like a stretch.
> >
> > Guy with no licence, can't drive, tries that, fucks up big time. Sure
> > that's
> > totally unimaginable and unpredictable. Requires a long stretch of the
> > imagination.
>
> It requires a stretch of the imagination to think that he couldn't put the
> brakes on or steer somewhere not occupied by a crowd of people.  Perhaps
he
> did and the brakes were shagged?  Has the car been examined?

Or maybe, not holding a licence and not being a qualified car driver, he
stamped down on the accelerator by mistake ? Haven't you seen those 'Caught
on CCTV' programmes of allegedly fully competent and qualified drivers doing
spectacularly stupid things ... in fact, spectacularly stupid things exactly
like that.

But again, that's all beside the point.


> >> I don't know.... it could have been an accident, but in light of
previous
> >> vehicle attacks on passers-by it's naturally suspicious.
> >
> > No denyng that. The real issue is the events which follow that. Even if
it
> > were deliberate that doesn't give anyone the right to carry out
> > extra-judicial punishment. Or perhaps you think it does ?
>
> Yes, I would say.

I never had you down as supporting extra-judicial killing. That's deliberate
murder in my book. A refusal to accept the doctrine of 'innocent until
proven guilty'.

The rest is just excuse making to justify murder.


> He could have been driving a car bomb, or jumped out with
> a machine gun.  It's self-defence (which includes defending someone else),
> especially in a place like Israel, where people are getting attacked all
the
> time, recently with vehicles.  Past experience has shown that people
> attacking with vehicles keep attacking, even after they've been shot, and
> it's a lot easier to take out the driver than the vehicle in order to stop
> the attack.  I think there's a risk here of sitting in judgement on a way
of
> life that we don't really understand.  Israel is a lot more Wild West-y
than
> we're used to.  This isn't like a condemning a planned military action,
this
> is a sudden apparent attack in a place where people die all the time by
> bombs, bullets and any other means that works.  The first reaction will be
> to defend against loss of life - in particular your own.  In the end it's
> either been an attack, or the driver was unlucky enough to crash his car
in
> a way that looked like an attack.  I blame Israel when it is wilfully
cruel
> to people, but I'm not blaming them for making split-second decisions
aimed
> at staying alive.
>
>
> >
> >
> >> If it was all a
> >> bizzare accident as the result of one young person's stupidity and
> > inability
> >> to drive then it's very sad for him and his family because his death
has
> >> been utterly pointless, but his actions weren't the responsibility of
> > those
> >> who shot him,
> >
> > No, but the action of killing him is the responsibility of those who did
> > that.
> >
> > Same situation as the Met face in court now and at least Blair has
> > accepted
> > and admitted that his force has to take the responsibility for pulling
the
> > trigger regardless of how that circumstance arose.
> >
> >
>
> Not really the same as far as I can tell.  The Met could have challenged
> their man.  They had full police resources available and time to plan a
> course of action.  The people in Israel just knew that someone had
suddenly
> driven a car into them and might be about to drive into others or even
> explode as others had done before.
>
>
>
>
> >> and he unfortunatey lived in a dangerous part of the world
> >> where the people there have to live their lives constantly with one eye
> > open
> >> for killers who can come from anywhere and use anything from bombs to
> > JCB's
> >> to do their killing, and
> >
> >> in such parts of the world you don't get to walk
> >> away from certain kinds of stupidity.
> >
> > Stupidity can legitimately be punished by death - I'm surprised you
> > support
> > such a thing. It seems you're saying that the IDF or other enforcement
> > agencies would have legitimate cause to kill anyone involved in a car
> > crash
> > on the premise they may be a suicide bomber or the like. No case to
> > answer.
> >
> >
>
> You're chosing to look at this in a particular way that puts on the blame
on
> one side.  You're judging aggressively not with fairness.  We aren't
talking
> about someone being dragged off and hanged by an angry mob for making an
> innocent mistake here, were talking about someone making a judgement that
an
> attack was in progress and acting on the spot to halt the attack
immediately
> to save lives.
>
> The regular Israeli population is under constant threat of attack.
Whether
> or not you believe they deserve to be is a matter of personal point of
view,
> but it's a fact that they are.  Some of those attacks take the form of
> people using vehicles.  We are also only a few days on from the Mariott
> Hotel bomb which also might have some impressionable person a push to act.
> Seeing someone suddenly drive into a group of soldiers, on or off duty,
> would probably be convincing enough for me.  I don't know if I'd shoot
right
> there and then - perhaps I would if I lived where they live.  My hesitancy
> may be rewarded by someone being pulled out of a car who's steering wheel
> had just fallen off, or it may be rewarded with a 300 kg car bomb going
off
> and taking me and several dozen others off for a long stay in the
afterlife.
> Mercy isn't always going to be rewarded.  In Israel when someone has just
> skittled a crowd of soldiers with a BMW it's probably a very dangerous
> virtue.
>
>
> TWP
>
>
>

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:eYbCk.61953$E41.61545@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
>> > No denyng that. The real issue is the events which follow that. Even if
> it
>> > were deliberate that doesn't give anyone the right to carry out
>> > extra-judicial punishment. Or perhaps you think it does ?
>>
>> Yes, I would say.
>
> I never had you down as supporting extra-judicial killing. That's 
> deliberate
> murder in my book. A refusal to accept the doctrine of 'innocent until
> proven guilty'.
>
> The rest is just excuse making to justify murder.
>
>

Come on, HH!   I'm not supporting extra-judicial killing - would you be a 
murderer if you were a police guy and shot who you believed to be an armed 
bank robber?  Who would I be to say to you were a murderer because he had 
his money and wasn't going to hurt anyone?  What if he was out of his mind 
on dope or had a mental illness that gave him voices telling him to kill 
everyone?

In a major terrorist hotspot of the world like Israel you have to expect 
people to react to defend themselves if a car suddenly runs at them.  The 
car could have exploded any second if it had been a suicide attack.    In 
Northern Ireland there used to be outcries when young kids crashed through 
army checkpoint barriers and got shot as a result, but how were the soldiers 
supposed to asess motive?  What did they actually expect would happen?

The killing of the driver in Israel might turn out to have been unnecessary, 
but only in the same way that someone who comes out onto the street with a 
replica gun in a manner that makes it look like it's real and ends up 
getting shot by police is unnecessary.  If you create a situation where it's 
reasonable for someone to believe that they or people close by are in an 
imminent deadly situation you have to expect them to react.  A civilian 
might run for cover.  An armed soldiers would probably pull out a gun 
because it's their place in society to deal with such situations.



>> He could have been driving a car bomb, or jumped out with
>> a machine gun.

I thought you'd reply to this point....  I just hear crickets chirping!
Oh well....

You asked about the vehicle attacks.  Here are the ones I remember...  there 
are probably others.  The point is that the car incident had a context which 
won't have been lost on the people who saw a car coming at them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTmq1KDHHLY Bulldozer attack (I think this 
one was early July 2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NTt-8Gu2Ns  Aftermath of bulldozer attack 
(poster has added music to it - I wish YouTubers would stop doing that, 
particularly to news stories)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=713Yw8AEUzQ  22 July 2008 JCB "copycat"



TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
> news:eYbCk.61953$E41.61545@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >
> >> > No denyng that. The real issue is the events which follow that. Even
if
> > it
> >> > were deliberate that doesn't give anyone the right to carry out
> >> > extra-judicial punishment. Or perhaps you think it does ?
> >>
> >> Yes, I would say.
> >
> > I never had you down as supporting extra-judicial killing. That's
> > deliberate
> > murder in my book. A refusal to accept the doctrine of 'innocent until
> > proven guilty'.
> >
> > The rest is just excuse making to justify murder.
> >
> >
>
> Come on, HH!   I'm not supporting extra-judicial killing

Okay, but you did say "Yes" when I asked if that was what you supported (
above ).


> - would you be a
> murderer if you were a police guy and shot who you believed to be an armed
> bank robber?  Who would I be to say to you were a murderer because he had
> his money and wasn't going to hurt anyone?  What if he was out of his mind
> on dope or had a mental illness that gave him voices telling him to kill
> everyone?

Don't forget that  I ( perhaps the first on this group to ) said that it was
extremely unlikely that those who killed de Menezes were guilty of murder
and I didn't believe ( on the evidence then ) that they should be found
guilty because such issues are important when it comes to deciding if there
is or is not guilt.

That's why it's up to the courts and a jury of peers to decide whether it
was right or wrong on all the evidence. A police officer in those
circumstances may be found gulty of murder, of manslaughter or not guilty of
any offence. Beyond that, as we have now have, there are duties of care
which go beyond the people specifically involved.

One can theorise all one wants about what scenerio may or could have existed
but the verdict comes down to how valid those theories and scenarios are in
the actual circumstances which existed.

Hence why I chose the subject line "Tough call", and it is, and I have not
passed judgement on those soldiers. However there are issues arising from
this incidents which are questionable. Will the matter even be tested in
court or will it simply be accepted that this killing was justified ? We'll
have to wait and see.

The question, as with de Menezes, is did they have good cause to do what
they did, was it reasonable force, and was it no more than the force
necessary. It's the last two which are most questionable in this incident.


> In a major terrorist hotspot of the world like Israel you have to expect
> people to react to defend themselves if a car suddenly runs at them.

True, which is why there are issues in this incident - he was killed AFTER
the alleged attack had happened. Was he still a danger ? That's the
question; was it reasonable force, and was it no more than the force
necessary.


> The
> car could have exploded any second if it had been a suicide attack.    In
> Northern Ireland there used to be outcries when young kids crashed through
> army checkpoint barriers and got shot as a result, but how were the
soldiers
> supposed to asess motive?  What did they actually expect would happen?
>
> The killing of the driver in Israel might turn out to have been
unnecessary,
> but only in the same way that someone who comes out onto the street with a
> replica gun in a manner that makes it look like it's real and ends up
> getting shot by police is unnecessary.  If you create a situation where
it's
> reasonable for someone to believe that they or people close by are in an
> imminent deadly situation you have to expect them to react.  A civilian
> might run for cover.  An armed soldiers would probably pull out a gun
> because it's their place in society to deal with such situations.
>
>
>
> >> He could have been driving a car bomb, or jumped out with
> >> a machine gun.
>
> I thought you'd reply to this point....  I just hear crickets chirping!
> Oh well....

It came under what I considered "excuse making" and it didn't seem
worthwhile endlessly repeating that I thought you were wrong. I accept your
argument and rationale for what you believe but cannot agree with it.

What it comes down to is perhaps the very concept of pre-emption and the
legitimacy in that. I personally see very little legitimacy in pre-emption
by default and would want to see compelling evidence that any pre-emptive
action were justified and required before accepting it.

While you may have proved "good cause", the matter of was it reasonable
force, and was it no more than the force necessary has not been addressed,
only in terms of "if", "could have", "what do people expect", and so on.


> You asked about the vehicle attacks.  Here are the ones I remember...
there
> are probably others.  The point is that the car incident had a context
which
> won't have been lost on the people who saw a car coming at them.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTmq1KDHHLY Bulldozer attack (I think this
> one was early July 2008)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NTt-8Gu2Ns  Aftermath of bulldozer attack
> (poster has added music to it - I wish YouTubers would stop doing that,
> particularly to news stories)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=713Yw8AEUzQ  22 July 2008 JCB "copycat"

And this is why US forces kill so many innocent people at road blocks
because they have convinced themselves that everything is a terrorist
attack, that they believe everyone is a terrorist is why they kill so many
innocent people everywhere.

They lost the war before it even properly started. The psychological battle
was won by their oponents. They have been reduced to shells of their former
selves, full of fear, loathing and hatred. They've lost the very essence
which they went out to fight to defend. They are reduced to having nothing
beyond contempt and pavlovic response to all and everyone, guilty or
innocent it doesn't matter. They excuse their actions as "that's the way it
has to be". They've become the personification of what evil is.

That's why they are not losing the war but lost it a long time ago. Same
goes for Israel.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:kztCk.62239$E41.1311@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>> news:eYbCk.61953$E41.61545@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> >
>> >> > No denyng that. The real issue is the events which follow that. Even
> if
>> > it
>> >> > were deliberate that doesn't give anyone the right to carry out
>> >> > extra-judicial punishment. Or perhaps you think it does ?
>> >>
>> >> Yes, I would say.
>> >
>> > I never had you down as supporting extra-judicial killing. That's
>> > deliberate
>> > murder in my book. A refusal to accept the doctrine of 'innocent until
>> > proven guilty'.
>> >
>> > The rest is just excuse making to justify murder.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Come on, HH!   I'm not supporting extra-judicial killing
>
> Okay, but you did say "Yes" when I asked if that was what you supported (
> above ).
>

OK - clarification of sorts....  Killing in self-defence is by it's nature 
extra-judicial.  In certain circumstances it's just not reasonale to expect 
people to hang around waiting for the police to arrive to make an arrest. 
Sometimes the threat is so immediate and so severe that immediate action is 
required to prevent harm to the innocent - which is supposedly a major 
principle and objective of any legal system anyway.

I consider planned killing by the state of suspected terrorists riding 
around in the desert to their camps extra-judicial killing in the sense that 
you're suggesting, but I think I'd be wise to condemn THAT on a case-by-case 
basis!

I think extra-judicial killing is justified if a reasonable person would 
conclude from what they saw that a terrorist attack was under way (subject 
to the context of previous attacks of course...  I would be less sympathetic 
if someone pulled a gun on a car mounting the pavement in central Barnsley).

And I think you're being unfair with me on the "exploding car" scenario - it 
isn't an empty excuse to justify murder, suicide attacks have been a feature 
of life in Israel for years.  It's an entirely possible scenario that 
someone might attempt to maximise casualties by running their car bomb at a 
crowd of people before pressing a detonator button (although if the 
detonator is based on a dead man's switch you're probably screwed if the 
driver is dead or alive.  It's probably a bit hard to drive holding a dead 
man's switch though.  Definately risky!)

TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
> news:kztCk.62239$E41.1311@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >
> > "TWP"  wrote ...
> >
> >> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
> >> news:eYbCk.61953$E41.61545@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >> >
> >> >> > No denyng that. The real issue is the events which follow that.
Even
> > if
> >> > it
> >> >> > were deliberate that doesn't give anyone the right to carry out
> >> >> > extra-judicial punishment. Or perhaps you think it does ?
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, I would say.
> >> >
> >> > I never had you down as supporting extra-judicial killing. That's
> >> > deliberate
> >> > murder in my book. A refusal to accept the doctrine of 'innocent
until
> >> > proven guilty'.
> >> >
> >> > The rest is just excuse making to justify murder.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Come on, HH!   I'm not supporting extra-judicial killing
> >
> > Okay, but you did say "Yes" when I asked if that was what you supported
(
> > above ).
> >
>
> OK - clarification of sorts....  Killing in self-defence is by it's nature
> extra-judicial.

I'll say yes.

Legally I'm not so sure, but I do't know. We have the power or right or
whatever to act in self defense so one could say it's an existing judicially
decided right to act in self defence so cannot be extra-judicial, but on the
other hand, we'll still be dragged into court and have to prove it as a
defence that it was self-defence.

But I'll still say yes, particularly as this also gets to the heart of this
matter - was this killing self-defence or was it an unnecessary killing ?


> In certain circumstances it's just not reasonale to expect
> people to hang around waiting for the police to arrive to make an arrest.
> Sometimes the threat is so immediate and so severe that immediate action
is
> required to prevent harm to the innocent - which is supposedly a major
> principle and objective of any legal system anyway.

Agreed. The proof of self-defence or of murder is the reality of the threat
beng so severe and imminent.


> I consider planned killing by the state of suspected terrorists riding
> around in the desert to their camps extra-judicial killing in the sense
that
> you're suggesting, but I think I'd be wise to condemn THAT on a
case-by-case
> basis!

Agreed also.


> I think extra-judicial killing is justified if a reasonable person would
> conclude from what they saw that a terrorist attack was under way (subject
> to the context of previous attacks of course...

I disagree. They have the right to act but to what extent that action should
be depends not on the fact that it is or maybe a terrorist attack, but to
the extent of what is necessary force and no more.

This, "oh shit ! kill everyone to save us all" is the exact mindset which
has the IDF and US forces killing innocent people willy-nilly.


>  I would be less sympathetic
> if someone pulled a gun on a car mounting the pavement in central
Barnsley).

What if the person pulling the gun was an Israeli who argued that it was
obvious to conclude a terrorist attack was under way, indeed their brother
was killed in Israel the very same way last week.

Whose rights are we standing up for ? The right of an innocent Barnsley man
not be gunned down by a paranoid, or the right of the paranoid to act in
self-defence ? After all, what the killer believed was sincerely believed.
Should people lose rights simply because of circumstances they have no
control over ? Does an innocent killed in Israel not have the same rights as
an innocent killed in Barnsley ? Maybe neither have any rights at all in the
cirumstances ?


> And I think you're being unfair with me on the "exploding car" scenario -
it
> isn't an empty excuse to justify murder, suicide attacks have been a
feature
> of life in Israel for years.  It's an entirely possible scenario that
> someone might attempt to maximise casualties by running their car bomb at
a
> crowd of people before pressing a detonator button

Again we're back to the validity of that scenario. This may give the just
cause, but not the measure of reasonableness in terms of only having used
the necessary force and no more than the force necessary.

If you've had a week of people winding their car windows down and shooting
at you as you pass by it is quite obvious what your expectations will be the
next time you walk by a car and a window winds down. What you do next is
what needs judging.


> (although if the
> detonator is based on a dead man's switch you're probably screwed if the
> driver is dead or alive.

Which works against the killing having been a necessity.


>  It's probably a bit hard to drive holding a dead
> man's switch though.  Definately risky!)

Sit on it. Wait for the bastards to pull your dead body from the car. It's
win-win.

You need to practice this empathy game :-)

TWP wrote:

> Killing in self-defence is by it's nature
> extra-judicial.

Under English and Scots law, no killing is extra-judicial. All actions,
including those of the government, are subject to legal scrutiny, and their
validity is subject to judicial oversight.

The days of legal exemption even for the monarch or the state are long past,
since Magna Carta: including actions taken in time of war or national
emergency.

So whether a killing may be justified in law by the necessity of
self-defence is always subject to legal review.

-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

"Robin T Cox"  wrote in message 
news:z8HDk.63736$E41.57437@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> TWP wrote:
>
>> Killing in self-defence is by it's nature
>> extra-judicial.
>
> Under English and Scots law, no killing is extra-judicial. All actions,
> including those of the government, are subject to legal scrutiny, and 
> their
> validity is subject to judicial oversight.
>
> The days of legal exemption even for the monarch or the state are long 
> past,
> since Magna Carta: including actions taken in time of war or national
> emergency.
>
> So whether a killing may be justified in law by the necessity of
> self-defence is always subject to legal review.
>
> -- 
> Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

Well, yes, but I meant that you'd be killing someone on the assumption that 
they were dangerous and probably about to kill, without bothering with 
arrests and investigations.

Obviously you'd have to answer for making the decision to act.  I don't know 
what I'd think in the Israeli case, but I'd definately start off the trial 
tilted on the side of understanding because I've seen them sweeping bodies 
off the streets quite a few times now.  I can't see any Israeli court 
calling this case murder.

TWP

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:_rBDk.63715$E41.47890@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>> news:kztCk.62239$E41.1311@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> >
>> > "TWP"  wrote ...
>> >
>> >> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>> >> news:eYbCk.61953$E41.61545@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> >> >
>> >> >> > No denyng that. The real issue is the events which follow that.
> Even
>> > if
>> >> > it
>> >> >> > were deliberate that doesn't give anyone the right to carry out
>> >> >> > extra-judicial punishment. Or perhaps you think it does ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes, I would say.
>> >> >
>> >> > I never had you down as supporting extra-judicial killing. That's
>> >> > deliberate
>> >> > murder in my book. A refusal to accept the doctrine of 'innocent
> until
>> >> > proven guilty'.
>> >> >
>> >> > The rest is just excuse making to justify murder.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Come on, HH!   I'm not supporting extra-judicial killing
>> >
>> > Okay, but you did say "Yes" when I asked if that was what you supported
> (
>> > above ).
>> >
>>
>> OK - clarification of sorts....  Killing in self-defence is by it's 
>> nature
>> extra-judicial.
>
> I'll say yes.
>
> Legally I'm not so sure, but I do't know. We have the power or right or
> whatever to act in self defense so one could say it's an existing 
> judicially
> decided right to act in self defence so cannot be extra-judicial, but on 
> the
> other hand, we'll still be dragged into court and have to prove it as a
> defence that it was self-defence.
>
> But I'll still say yes, particularly as this also gets to the heart of 
> this
> matter - was this killing self-defence or was it an unnecessary killing ?
>
>
>> In certain circumstances it's just not reasonale to expect
>> people to hang around waiting for the police to arrive to make an arrest.
>> Sometimes the threat is so immediate and so severe that immediate action
> is
>> required to prevent harm to the innocent - which is supposedly a major
>> principle and objective of any legal system anyway.
>
> Agreed. The proof of self-defence or of murder is the reality of the 
> threat
> beng so severe and imminent.
>
>
>> I consider planned killing by the state of suspected terrorists riding
>> around in the desert to their camps extra-judicial killing in the sense
> that
>> you're suggesting, but I think I'd be wise to condemn THAT on a
> case-by-case
>> basis!
>
> Agreed also.
>
>
>> I think extra-judicial killing is justified if a reasonable person would
>> conclude from what they saw that a terrorist attack was under way 
>> (subject
>> to the context of previous attacks of course...
>
> I disagree. They have the right to act but to what extent that action 
> should
> be depends not on the fact that it is or maybe a terrorist attack, but to
> the extent of what is necessary force and no more.
>
> This, "oh shit ! kill everyone to save us all" is the exact mindset which
> has the IDF and US forces killing innocent people willy-nilly.
>
>
>>  I would be less sympathetic
>> if someone pulled a gun on a car mounting the pavement in central
> Barnsley).
>
> What if the person pulling the gun was an Israeli who argued that it was
> obvious to conclude a terrorist attack was under way, indeed their brother
> was killed in Israel the very same way last week.
>
> Whose rights are we standing up for ? The right of an innocent Barnsley 
> man
> not be gunned down by a paranoid, or the right of the paranoid to act in
> self-defence ? After all, what the killer believed was sincerely believed.
> Should people lose rights simply because of circumstances they have no
> control over ? Does an innocent killed in Israel not have the same rights 
> as
> an innocent killed in Barnsley ? Maybe neither have any rights at all in 
> the
> cirumstances ?
>
>
>> And I think you're being unfair with me on the "exploding car" scenario -
> it
>> isn't an empty excuse to justify murder, suicide attacks have been a
> feature
>> of life in Israel for years.  It's an entirely possible scenario that
>> someone might attempt to maximise casualties by running their car bomb at
> a
>> crowd of people before pressing a detonator button
>
> Again we're back to the validity of that scenario. This may give the just
> cause, but not the measure of reasonableness in terms of only having used
> the necessary force and no more than the force necessary.
>
> If you've had a week of people winding their car windows down and shooting
> at you as you pass by it is quite obvious what your expectations will be 
> the
> next time you walk by a car and a window winds down. What you do next is
> what needs judging.
>
>
>> (although if the
>> detonator is based on a dead man's switch you're probably screwed if the
>> driver is dead or alive.
>
> Which works against the killing having been a necessity.
>
>
>>  It's probably a bit hard to drive holding a dead
>> man's switch though.  Definately risky!)
>
> Sit on it. Wait for the bastards to pull your dead body from the car. It's
> win-win.

Nah, no good.  Gives the army an opportunity to find and defuse the bomb 
you're carrying, then all the other martyrs will laugh at you  It has to be 
blown during the attack if it's a really big bomb.


>
> You need to practice this empathy game :-)

It looks like fun! :-)

TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

[snip]

> >>  It's probably a bit hard to drive holding a dead
> >> man's switch though.  Definately risky!)
> >
> > Sit on it. Wait for the bastards to pull your dead body from the car.
It's
> > win-win.
>
> Nah, no good.  Gives the army an opportunity to find and defuse the bomb
> you're carrying, then all the other martyrs will laugh at you  It has to
be
> blown during the attack if it's a really big bomb.

Or you just change the definition of martyr to not having to die in an
explosive dispersal of body parts but dying in the name of the cause, or
even just being willing to die for it even if they don't.

Of course there's the risk that critics will take your concept of martydom,
your intents, your "Jihad", even when not a cause to be one which has a
determined destiny of death to anyone, to imply that the purpose and goal of
Jihad is precisely that, even when it isn't, as a tool to discredit the
notion of Jihad and martyrdom. To paint it as an evil rather than following
a course which strives towards the best.


> > You need to practice this empathy game :-)
>
> It looks like fun! :-)

It definitely is, and certainly worthwhile. You end up with a whole
different perspective of how things look from various angles and any idea of
things being black and white just drifts away. I reckon there's a lot of
people ( and I'm not pointing at you, but there are others in this group )
who won't engage in the empathy game simply because of the fear that what it
reveals is that they may not be right in the views they currently hold. They
simply dismiss the idea that there is any other viewpoint which may be valid
or has any merit.

The downside of being good at the game is that it leads to a revelation that
there's nothing simple about anything, no easy pointing the finger of blame
and no easy fixes for problems. Life gets a whole lot more complicated and
old right-wrong, good-evil demarcations prove to be invalid, it's impossible
I reckon not to shift to a position which rejects moral relativism which
then reveals a world full of hypocrisy.  And that's quite frightening
because one has to look at one's own position and resolve that. Not
surprisingly some people are not prepared to have to face up to doing that
so reject 'empathy' out of hand.