Posted on 01/10/2017 12:07:29 PM PST by Eleutheria5
Amidst accusations of soldier inaction at the recent terror attack in Jerusalem, inspection of the terrorist's body found that it contained bullets from both automatic rifles used by soldiers and civilian hand guns...
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
Hmmm. As the BDPOS* folks would say, “Couldn’t they have tasered him or just wounded him?”
*Brain Dead Pieces Of Scat
He’s dead Jim.
Works for me.
Security forces have to weigh when to or not to shoot. I’m not going to fault them for making the call on scene, if they did or did not end it.
Sounds like they did though. Good.
Killed by a civilian who fired directly threw the windshield - this while the soldier stood idle in fear that they would be prosecuted as was another soldier for shooting an injured scum. If a few fired, good.
Or maybe they could have shot the gun out of his hand. :rolleyes:
I don’t know the particulars of this reasoned shooting.
There are times though when one person can have a great shot, and the other person have a very poor line of fire.
If the soldier did freeze, I’m sure his team will address it.
If he was reluctant to harm/kill other people in the line of fire, I commend him for his decision. If not, he was in the right place at the wrong time, and I wish someone else had been there.
That’s crazy. They should have shot out the tires on the truck. How simple does it have to be?
You misunderstand - Israeli soldiers are virtually terrorized by the court conviction of an Israeli soldier for shooting a terrorist. They feel they can only act if others (civilians) in a civilian setting take the lead.
“All three judges of an Israeli military court Wednesday, Jan. 4, unanimously found Sgt. Elor Azaria guilty of manslaughter for the fatal shooting of an injured terrorist in Hebron in March 2016, after an attack on soldiers.”
This is the latest installment of the Israeli national suicide pact led by the late Simon Perez.
Thanks for the clarification PIF.
I appreciate it.
You don’t put your own troops in jeopardy for doing their job.
“You don’t put your own troops in jeopardy for doing their job.”
Sort of like 0bama’s ROEs - soldiers can only shoot after they been shot at ... Take the hit of the bullet/RPG, treat the survivors, if any, then shoot back after clearing it with HQ legal. You do see the difference?
When I mentioned jeopardy, it was intended to reflect legal jeopardy.
I do see a difference between what took place on the ROEs you cited, but that wasn’t a comparison I was trying to feed into.
Many were probably were not combat types and they carry their rifles with the magazine out. I was on a small air base in Vietnam and didn’t get any training on an M-16. I hadn’t fired one since basic three years earlier.
OK. Just that if a US soldier does not follow that current ROE, he is in legal jeopardy ... outcomes: courts-martial, dishonerable discharge, possible time in Levenworth, loss of benefits, etc.
That is true.
Thanks for the mention.
It was not my intent to defend a clearly flawed Obama ROE.
That’s how they’re supposed to carry it when not on active duty right at that moment.
I’d wager that President Trump’s ROE will be different!
They will change sometime on the afternoon of 20 Jan!
I only hope that Bibi’s cabinet follows his example, then.
Roger that!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.