Haaretz reports Israel’s “Knesset approves law allowing property owners to kill intruders”

[jody]

Knesset approves law allowing property owners to kill intruders

The Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee on Wednesday approved in second and third readings a broad version of the "Shai Dromi Bill," which absolves from criminal responsibility anyone who kills or injures an intruder in his home, business or farm.

According to the approved version, "a person shall not be held criminally responsible for an action that was necessary immediately to repel someone breaking into or entering a residence, place of business or fenced farm, with the intention of perpetrating a crime, or someone trying to break in."

* * * * * * * * * * * *

MK Ophir Pines-Paz (Labor) slammed Labor ministers for voting in favor of the law and said they made a lot of "foolish mistakes." Meretz whip Zahava Gal-On said at the committee meeting a fortnight ago that the bill "gives permission to kill people," and suggested sarcastically: "Just spray the intruders and be done with it. Hand out machine guns to every moshavnik." MK David Rotem (Yisrael Beitenu) told Gal-On "then don't come by my home," to which Gal-On replied "I can't believe this is real, the Knesset is crazy." "The Knesset is crazy for having people like you in it," Rotem retorted.

The bill would make exemption from criminal responsibility due to self-defense more flexible in two respects. It does not require that a person defending himself against an intruder to be in tangible danger, as is required of a person who acts to repel an assailant. Secondly, it grants protection to a person who has acted in an unreasonable manner (though not patently unreasonable).

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. So if you glance out the window and see someone jimmying the door

on your backyard shed, you can use lethal force to stop him.

[MyRV9]

3. Yup

...and the solution is extremely simple: Don't jimmy the door on someone else's backyard shed. What is so hard about that?

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. So death is an appropriate penalty for petty theft?

Are you serious?

[HALO141]

5. Is your question serious? (n/t)

.

[MyRV9]

6. Not exactly...

It's not a penalty - not a punishment.

It is a possible outcome if you put someone in fear for their life by burglarizing their residence, to include outbuildings on their property.

As I said, said outcome is EXTREMELY easy to avoid. Don't burglarize people's homes. I really don't understand why it is so difficult to do.

[iverglas]

8. and hey, a possible outcome

if you look at me funny as you're walking down the street is that you'll end up dead, too.

A possible outcome for the server at the restaurant down the street if s/he gives me a dirty fork is that s/he will end up dead, too.

A possible outcome for the next person who tailgates me is that s/he wlll end up dead.

Gosh. If only I knew how easy that was, a lot of problems could have been solved over the years.

Anybody who doesn't want to end up dead has a very easy way of avoiding it. Don't look at me funny, don't give me dirty forks and don't tailgate me.

I can quote you, right?

[MyRV9]

11. Absurd...

if you look at me funny as you're walking down the street is that you'll end up dead, too.
A possible outcome for the server at the restaurant down the street if s/he gives me a dirty fork is that s/he will end up dead, too.
A possible outcome for the next person who tailgates me is that s/he wlll end up dead.
Gosh. If only I knew how easy that was, a lot of problems could have been solved over the years.
Anybody who doesn't want to end up dead has a very easy way of avoiding it. Don't look at me funny, don't give me dirty forks and don't tailgate me.
I can quote you, right?

Of course your examples are absurd. None of them involve any threat that a reasonable person would have to kill someone to mitigate.

As for looking at you funny... I carry and based on some of your other posts I can virtually guarantee I'm better prepared than you to prevail in a gunfight.

[iverglas]

15. fucking duuuuuuuh

Of course your examples are absurd. None of them involve any threat that a reasonable person would have to kill someone to mitigate.

Now.

Put your thinking cap on.

What did you imagine my point was?



That's a thinking cap. I assure you.


As for looking at you funny... I carry and based on some of your other posts I can virtually guarantee I'm better prepared than you to prevail in a gunfight.

Whoa, I'm convinced. I don't know who was talking about gunfights, but hey, sure, whatever. I'm probably in need of somebody to help me out in gunfights. And the pickings are getting a bit slim around here. Will you marry me?

[Wickerman]

23. you need to stop proposing to people here

You're drawing in new posters in record numbers.

:rofl:

[iverglas]

26. oh no, it's moi??

Who'd 'a thunk it?

Well, to be honest, I did always kinda have a feeling ...



got me so excited I couldn't spell "oh".

[tburnsten]

7. Naw, it isn't the death penalty

it is legal protection for people who use force to stop an univited guest. If the idiot criminal who knew the law ahead of time gets killed in the process, fuck 'em. Honestly, why do people insist on molly-coddling home invaders and thieves? If the risk of stealing someone's livelihood is that they may kill you in the process without fear of legal retribution, I'm betting that the criminal element of that society will smarten the fuck up in sharp fashion and stop victimizing people. If it were a "death penalty" for petty theft then the law would have been authorization for people who have been stolen from to go hunt down the thief and kill them. This law is only legal protection for homeowners in case they catch someone in the process of committing one of a variety of unsavory acts.

[iverglas]

9. well, that's actually rather debatable

If it were a "death penalty" for petty theft then the law would have been authorization for people who have been stolen from to go hunt down the thief and kill them.

The law, like many ugly laws in the US and maybe other uncivilized parts of the world I'm not familiar with, allows people to kill other people with impunity when they have no reasonable belief that they are in immediate danger of death or serious injury at the hands of the person they assault.

Look at that again. The law allows people to kill other people with impunity. The law does not provide for punishment for people who kill other people. The law does not require that people who kill other people make the case that they believed they had no option if they were to survive and not be seriously injured.

The law allows other people to kill people. The law expressly allows other people to kill people.

The law. An instrument of the state. The state, which, in civilized countries, is bound not to deny anyone the right to life, without due process at a minimum.

Self-defence is an exception to the general rule that the state must punish people who kill other people. The state must not allow people to kill other people with impunity.

That exception is justified, in the eyes of rational and decent people, by the fact that the state also may not compel people to do nothing when someone is assaulting them. To compel people to do nothing when someone is assaulting them would be a violation of their own right to life.

But to allow the killing of someone breaking into property where no immediate danger to life is reasonably believed to be present, and without requiring that the prospective victim make the case that s/he had no option? Nah. Not justified in the eyes of any rational and decent person in the whole wide world. Not a single rational and decent person in the entire universe.

And not a single person who purports to adhere to his/her constitution ... ALL OF IT ... either.

[MyRV9]

12. Why...

Do you love criminals so much?

The law, like many ugly laws in the US and maybe other uncivilized parts of the world I'm not familiar with, allows people to kill other people with impunity when they have no reasonable belief that they are in immediate danger of death or serious injury at the hands of the person they assault.

In EVERY state in the U.S. a justifiable homicide must be, well, justified. A person who kills someone who broke into their house can expect to be arrested, taken to jail and booked, have his firearm confiscated & face a grand jury who may or may not indict him. Furthermore, even if the shooting was justified, there will be the inevitable lawsuits from the piece of shit's family - these alone will cost the shooter $50,000 in attorney's fees. All because a lazy, thieving piece of shit decided a TV was worth risking his life over.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MyRV9]

20. What about...

...anything I said is untrue?

[iverglas]

21. oh, how about

pretty much all of it ...


edited to add link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=125237&mesg_id=125237

Educate yourself.

[MyRV9]

25. None of that...

Contradicts what I said. The castle doctrine simply says that if someone is breaking into your occupied home or automobile, there is a presumption that they are there to do you harm. That is a fair thing to presume.

You still have to demonstrate that they were there unlawfully and yes, you will still be arrested, booked and face a grand jury.

[iverglas]

28. wow, that's impressive

No more than 8 minutes to read, consider and reply to the discussion I linked you to.

I surrender. I'm outgunned.

[iverglas]

46. just to clarify

You still have to demonstrate that they were there unlawfully and yes, you will still be arrested, booked and face a grand jury.

No, you won't.

And no, you won't.

[slackmaster]

2. Sounds a lot like California's version of the Castle Doctrine

Good on them.

[iverglas]

10. and lest anyone miss the undertones

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/816464.html

According to the indictment, the defendant heard his dog barking, looked around and searched for a flashlight. When he did not find anything, he returned to his room and took an unlicensed loaded gun. His suspicion further grew when he spotted scissors on the fence sheep pen, and so he hid behind a nearby shed. At that time two thieves, Khaled al-Atrash and Ayoub al-Hawashleh, were wandering around the farm area.

Dromi shot towards the two, and they started to flee. Dromi nonetheless continued to shoot, firing 6 bullets. Al-Atrash was hurt in his femoral artery, and later died of his wounds. Al-Hawashleh was shot three times in his back, and is now in intensive care.

The bogeymen always have funny names ... skin colours ... don't they?

And that piece of shit was not tried for murder.

Negev farmer Shai Dromi, 47, who shot and killed an alleged sheep thief, will not stand trial for murder. Instead, Dromi was charged Monday with manslaughter, illegal possession of weapons, and assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

(edited beause I was out of date; don't know what the outcome of the trial was)

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

14. hahahahah

Stop trying to inject race into a situation where it is not a factor. That makes YOU the racist.

Enjoying your visit?

Yes, ethnicity/religion is not a factor in Israel. And race is not an issue in the US. And ethnicity/religion in Israel and race in the US have absolutely nothing to do with who wants to be shooting whom. Naaahhhh. You're a card.

[MyRV9]

17. Now that you mention it...

race in the US have absolutely nothing to do with who wants to be shooting whom

Yes, there does seem to be a trend when you look at who is doing the shooting here.

[iverglas]

18. tell me more

Please.

[MyRV9]

19. The statistics...

...are readily available. You can research them yourself and draw your own conclusions.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/violent_crime/index.html

[Wickerman]

22. So, Southerners shoot each other more than North Easterners?

- In 2006, the Nation’s most populous region, the South, had
36.4 percent of the population.  More than 23 percent (23.2)
of the Nation’s population resided in the West, 22.1 percent
in the Midwest, and 18.3 percent in the Northeast. 

- In 2006, 42.1 percent of violent crimes occurred in the
South; 23.2 percent took place in the West; 19.6 percent were
in the Midwest, and 15.1 percent of violent crimes were in the
Northeast. 

- The most murders occurred in the South, which had 43.2
percent of the estimated number for the Nation.  The West had
nearly 23 percent (22.9) of murders, followed by the Midwest,
with 19.4 percent, and the Northeast, with 14.4 percent. 

- More than 41 percent (41.3) of the Nation’s estimated
property crime offenses occurred in the South, with 24.6
percent in the West, 21.7 percent in the Midwest, and 12.4
percent in the Northeast. 

-The highest percentages of all individual property crime
offenses with the exception of motor vehicle theft occurred in
the South.  

-The West had the highest percentage (36.8 percent) of motor
vehicle thefts in the Nation. 

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_03.html

Not sure what other conclusion you wanted readers to draw?

[MyRV9]

27. I wasn't...

...directing anyone to any particular conclusions. I was responding to iverglas' request for more information.

You can draw all sorts of conclusions from the data. I mean, for example, you are VERY unlikely to be shot by an Inuit while in south Florida. If you're afraid of Inuits, Miami is for you!

[iverglas]

30. Inuits

Inuit is a plural noun, the singular of which is Inuk.

[MyRV9]

32. I didn't...

...know that. It's not a word I use often!

[iverglas]

33. stick around, grasshopper

I will teach you many things.

[Wickerman]

35. So, it IS all about race?

I agree I probably won't shot by an Inuit any time I might visit the South. Chances are I won't be shot by a white wo/man or African American wo/man, either. I lived in the South for 16 years - never shot once!!1

[MyRV9]

36. I don't know...

...or care if race has anything to do with it. Iverglas asserted that it does.

As for me, I really don't care about the race of whoever robs or carjacks me. They're very likely getting shot whoever they are. In my town, the most likely perpetrator will be a white male between the ages of 17 and 25. Other areas will vary.

[iverglas]

38. "it"

I don't know...
...or care if race has anything to do with it. Iverglas asserted that it does.

I just get the feeling we're talking about two different "it"s here ...

Me, I'm talking about the impulse to enact legislation allowing people to kill other human beings with impunity.

When the people who expect to be doing the shooting expect that the people they'll be shooting are not really quite human beings like they are, well, it's just that much more inviting to make those laws.

[iverglas]

24. ... do indeed lead to some interesting conclusions

You can start here, and read down:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3320169&mesg_id=3320952

[MyRV9]

29. You said...

You said: "As I recall, the upshot was that whites kill a larger proportion of the black population of the US each year than blacks kill of the white population."

I wouldn't exactly call that an 'upshot'. It may or may not be a fact, but there is nothing good about it.

[iverglas]

31. er ... eh?

I wouldn't exactly call that an 'upshot'. It may or may not be a fact, but there is nothing good about it.

Perhaps a dictionary will help you here.

1. The final result; the outcome. See Synonyms at effect.
2. The central idea or point; gist.

[MyRV9]

34. It...

It has a positive connotation.

[iverglas]

39. er ... no

http://www.google.ca/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22the+upshot+is%22&btnG=Search&meta=

I'm afraid that if we aren't speaking the same language, we're not going to get anywhere at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wordplay_(The_Twilight_Zone)

[jody]

40. 15.4% of white homicides by blacks versus 6.3% of black homicides by whites

See Expanded Homicide Data Table 5

[iverglas]

42. If only you could see what's in front of your face, jody

you wouldn't make quite such a fool of yourself.

That point, and that specific data table, is amply addressed and the point you appear to be trying to make demonstrated to be the white-supremacist spin it is, in the discussion at DU to which I linked.

I doubt that NorthernSpy would be at all surprised at your response to all this.

Me, I just really really really don't know what makes you feel it is appropriate to splatter this shit into the middle of a discussion that you haven't had the simple common courtesy to fucking read first.

[iverglas]

44. just to make perfectly clear what jody's trying to hide

jody: 15.4% of white homicides by blacks versus 6.3% of black homicides by whites

Facts, from jody's cited source:

15.4% of 3,709 white homicide victims were killed by blacks

6.3% of 3,303 black homicide victims were killed by whites


571 whites were killed by blacks
208 blacks were killed by whites


The tragically high number of African-Americans killed by other African-Americans
(i.e. the fact that white-on-black homicide accounts for a relatively small percentage of total black homicide victims)
MAY NOT be used to conceal the fact that whites killed far more blacks, proportionately, than blacks killed whites.

Not by a person with a shred of, er, intellectual honesty.



typo fixed

[jody]

41. The current issue of Time magazine has a disturbing article on crime and race.

THE NEGRO CRIME RATE: A FAILURE IN INTEGRATION

In 1,551 U.S. cities, according to the FBI tally for 1956, Negroes, making up 10% of the U.S. population, accounted for about 30% of all arrests, and 60% of the arrests for crimes involving violence or threat of bodily harm—murder, non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery and aggravated assault. In one city after another, the figures—where they are not hidden or suppressed by politicians—reveal a shocking pattern. Items:

* * * * * * * * * * * *

But inequality of treatment by the police may actually tend to shrink rather than inflate the statistics of Negro crime. Says Newsman Wartman in the next breath: "When Negroes violate social morals—sex, drinking, gambling—white cops bypass this as 'typically Negro.' " Many Negro leaders protest that the police are far from diligent enough in dealing with crimes committed against Negroes—and Negroes are the victims in the great majority of Negro crimes of violence. Since Negroes, even when they are victims or innocent bystanders, are often wary of calling the police, many offenses of disorder and assault go unreported when committed by Negroes in the depths of a ghetto.

Whether the statistics of Negro crime overstate or understate the reality, they are shrouded from public attention by what a Chicago judge last week called a "conspiracy of concealment." In many cities, Negro leaders and organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People put pressure on politicians, city officials and newspapers to play down the subject. Fearing loss of Negro votes, few elected officials dare to resist the pressures.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Unlike the Caucasian immigrant of an earlier day, a Negro can scarcely ever hope, even in the North, that the white society will really accept him on his human merits. Negroes are more prone than whites to break the laws, rules and customs of society because they are excluded from full membership in it. In gross and subtle ways, from unwritten bans on employing Negroes to the faintly patronizing tone that even liberal-hearted whites take toward them, Negroes are made to feel alien and inferior. This pervasive discrimination holds down capable Negroes at the top of the social ladder, dims their voices among their own people, builds up tensions and resentments inside the Negro society, and keeps great masses of Negroes segregated in ghettos where the standards of personal morality, discipline and responsibility are lower than those in the white world outside.

[iverglas]

43. Okay, this is beyond belief

The article actually is interesting -- it's interesting that the concepts of systemic racism, and especially social exclusion, were being discussed in Time Magazine

IN 1958.

THE NEGRO CRIME RATE: A FAILURE IN INTEGRATION
Monday, Apr. 21, 1958


The fascinating thing about it is that Jody could look at the date in the upper right corner -- Friday, June 27, 2008, and then look at an article talking about "the Negro crime rate" and "integration" and "Negroes" ... not to mention that the data cited are from 1956 -- and say that the article appears in

The current issue of Time magazine

Well, it sure does explain a lot of things, is all I can say.

[Wickerman]

37. Damn, that was actually interesting

this day isn't lost after all.

[iverglas]

45. wasn't it?

A whole lot more interesting than much of anything else going on around here, anyhow.

Some of us amateur statisticians can crunch some numbers honestly !