Hit & Run a set-up?

[vaskidmark]

http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2010/10/4-reasons-why-silwan-photographs-reek-of-a-set-up.html

Sunday, October 10 2010
4 Reasons Why Silwan Photographs Reek of a Set-Up
For a more professional assessment of the photos of Silwan stone-throwers being run over by an Israeli car, I talked to veteran photographer and imagery advisor David Katz. He offers four reasons why the incident reeks of a set up.

The video is here http://muqata.blogspot.com/2010/10/live-by-sword.html

It does look as if the kid did everything to ensure getting hit by the car, as opposed to trying to avoid it.

And just why was he trying so hard to keep from being put into the ambulance (?).  The bloggers offer some speculation of a fear of being turned into a martyr.  Anybody have a better/more enticing conspiracy theory?

stay safe.

[HankB]

I don't see anything wrong with members of a crowd of stone-throwing thugs getting run over by the car they're attacking, especially when they run in front of it to block its escape.

[French G.]

A thrown stone is a lethal weapon, at least that's what we got out of the bible. Act accordingly.

[MicroBalrog]

So the reporters just happened to be there with cameras?

Riiiiight.

That said, David Be'eri is nobody's innocent little lamb.

[MechAg94]

Maybe it is just me, but I didn't think the car was going fast enough to flip that kid in the air. 

[taurusowner]

Stone throwers should be shot.  Only getting hit by a car is mercy.

[MicroBalrog]

Stone throwers should be shot.  Only getting hit by a car is mercy.

Amusingly that's precisely what the driver told the police.

"I didn't want to shoot them with my pistol."

[De Selby]

Amusingly that's precisely what the driver told the police.

"I didn't want to shoot them with my pistol."

How dare they throw stones over stolen land

[MechAg94]

How dare they throw stones over stolen land

That kid owned land?  How do you know? 

[De Selby]

That kid owned land?  How do you know? 

The guy in the car is on someone else's land - that's what a "settlement" is, an illegal (sometimes under Israeli law as well) building on land the title to which resides with Palestinians.

[taurusowner]

So, just so we're all on the same page, you (De Selby) are in favor of civilians instigating lethal force in the pursuit of a political agenda?

[De Selby]

So, just so we're all on the same page, you (De Selby) are in favor of civilians instigating lethal force in the pursuit of a political agenda?

Land ownership is not a political agenda, but no, I'm not in favour of it.  I do not believe squatters enjoy the right to use lethal force in self-defense, however.

Imagine a homeowner throwing rocks at a thief and getting run over in return here...what do you think would happen to the thief?

[taurusowner]

When dealing with nation-states, land ownership, and alleged ownership, is indeed a political agenda.  To more correctly apply you home-ownership analogy, it is akin to people who know the homeowner throwing rocks at people who know the thief.  The car driver did not steal any land.  The rock throwers did not have any land stolen from them.  This is not violence by a group against another group is wrong.  You show me the actual provable land owner and the actual person who did the stealing, and maybe you'll have a case.  But you are advocating violence by associated third parties against other third parties, for a political agenda.

If someone throws rocks at me because my second cousin stole from his nephew, I am going to respond with bullets.

[De Selby]

Wait a second here, how is land ownership a "political agenda" when dealing with nation states?

If a mexican dude takes your car and drives it to Mexico, is that no longer just straight theft?

The car was driven by a settler, who knows full well what he's doing: settling on someone else's land and claiming it as his own for religious and ethnic reasons.  That is theft by any definition of the word.  And incidentally, settlement was effected with much more extreme violence than rock throwing.

And no, I am no advocating violence - I just said the opposite.

[taurusowner]

Did the car driver steal the exact parcel of land from the specific individuals who were throwing rocks?  If the answer to that is no, than the rock throwers are wrongly using lethal force and should be shot.

If the Mexican dude's uncle steals my cousin's car, I do not get to go after the Mexican dude with lethal force.  If I do, I am committing a crime, and should be shot in the process.

[De Selby]

Did the car driver steal the exact parcel of land from the specific individuals who were throwing rocks?

Probably not - but they almost certainly know the person whose land he stole (those are small communities.)

[taurusowner]

Probably not - but they almost certainly know the person whose land he stole (those are small communities.)

And since when is knowing the person who committed a crime a legal basis for threatening someones life?

Violence through proxies against proxies is unacceptable.  How do you not get this?

[De Selby]

And since when is knowing the person who committed a crime a legal basis for threatening someones life?

Again, we already agreed in my first post to you that it isn't.  You're looking for an answer that's already been given.

The point is that being threatened with rocks doesn't authorise thieves to use lethal force to defend their theft.  If it weren't for the theft, they wouldn't be in that position in the first place.  So responding with lethal force puts them on the same level of culpability as the rock-throwers, at minimum.

[taurusowner]

defend their theft

It isn't their theft

And the people who allegedly were robbed, aren't the rock throwers.

AGAIN:  "you know someone who stole from someone I know" is not acceptable in a civilized society.

So responding with lethal force puts them on the same level of culpability as the rock-throwers, at minimum.

No it doesn't.  The only person who is allowed to have any issue with the car driver, is the specific individual the car driver might have personally stolen land from.  Anyone else who gets involved because it was their second cousin's sister or what not, is wrong.

Associated third parties have NO right to do anything whatsoever.

[De Selby]

It isn't their theft

And the people who allegedly were robbed, aren't the rock throwers.

AGAIN:  "you know someone who stole from someone I know" is not acceptable in a civilized society.

Wait a second, so who stole that land???  The settlements were built and vacated, then refilled by people who had no idea that land belonged to someone else, or what?

That driver is a settler.  He lives on stolen land, and he knows that.  For whatever reason, he thinks that's okay.  It shouldn't be surprising to him that, being a known thief, the actual landowner's community might treat him badly.  Just like someone who steals your car wouldn't be all that shocked to find out your uncle threw rocks at him to stop the theft, for example.

Ragnar, I see in your edits that you are stuck on a point that we already agreed on - there is no basis for using lethal force to defend someone else's property.  I'm not sure why you keep repeating that, because we already agreed on that a long time ago.

The issue here is whether a thief has a right to defend himself from attacks on his theft, however wrongful those attacks are.  

[taurusowner]

You really can't let go of the idea that there is no such thing as group crime can you?  ONCE AGAIN: the only people who are allowed to have issues are the specific individuals who were stolen from, and only against the specific people who stole from them personally.

It doesn't frakking matter how indignant you are against a group for what you think they did.  In a world of laws, responsibility rests solely on the specific perpetrator, not "people who knew".

[taurusowner]

Ragnar, I see in your edits that you are stuck on a point that we already agreed on - there is no basis for using lethal force to defend someone else's property.  I'm not sure why you keep repeating that, because we already agreed on that a long time ago.

The issue here is whether a thief has a right to defend himself from attacks on his theft, however wrongful those attacks are.  

If he's defending against attacks on his theft than maybe not.  But that is still up to the courts, not individuals.  If the Mexican dude steals my car, I call the police.  If I go after him personally, I deserve whatever I get, no matter how wrong his initial act may have been.

But that's besides the point.  The car driver was not responding to attacks because of his theft.  The rock throwers have no standing.  They have no right to have any issue with the car driver.  There is nothing that went on between the car driver and them.  So, YES, he does have the right to defend himself with lethal force.

If I rob an old lady, can she shoot me in the process?  Yep.  If I get away and spend the money at Best Buy on a TV 2 weeks later, and the old lady's son-in-law sees me at Best Buy, can he shoot me?  Of course not.  And if he does, I can shoot back.  Vengeance is for the courts.


"You may have committed a crime against someone once, so you're fair game for anyone who wants to get you" is not a legal principle.  It's savagery.

[HeroHog]

Guys, it's SO simple! Take the reasons for the attack away, THEY DON'T MATTER! To attack someone allows them to defend themselves in kind. PERIOD.

[HankB]

I suppose if a Cuban immigrant built a home on the edge of the Everglades, it would be OK for a Seminole youth to throw rocks at his car because he was on stolen land . . .

[MicroBalrog]

That driver is a settler.  He lives on stolen land, and he knows that. 

No.

Even though I admit freely many settlers do steal land, not all, nor even the majority of, settlements are built on Palestinian private properties.

Some of them are, and they need to be abolished.