121
IDF soldiers shoot masked settler allegedly hurling stones at Palestinians
(www.timesofisrael.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
121 points (95.5% liked)
World News
32291 readers
733 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Without opening a discussion about the conflict itself or justifying anything in the article, I will say that as someone who's been on the receiving end of an adult throwing 5-10 pounds rocks at full strength at them, I truly think you're underestimating the deadly damage it can cause.
This isn't a toddler throwing pebbles, such a rock hitting a human will break bones on contact and can absolutely kill of it hits someone's head
Yeah, you have to view it like stoning. One good rock to an unprotected head is all it takes to turn the lights off.
I mean true enough but don't they wear protective gear?
Civilians walking around or driving in cars? No they don't.
Even for the army with gear on, it will generally save their lives when hit in the right spot, but the stones will still cause injuries wherever they hit.
acab
Oh I know rocks CAN be deadly. But so can lots of things. From the info in the article they were throwing rocks at cars, not IDF forces who are undoubtedly armoured to the teeth for greater stopping power than rocks.
Just seems strange to shoot someone for not obeying when they aren't directly threatening you, but the article is a bit light on actual details. Being the source that it is, I don't think they would hesitate to highlight the IDF were defending themselves if they actually were.
Using a deadly weapon in a manner that can cause death is much worse than possessing a deadly weapon. You think people in cars haven't died from stone throwers before?
I don't understand this logic. IDF literally shooting someone is somehow less of a "use of a deadly weapon in a manner that can cause death" than throwing a stone at a car?
I get that they deemed the person dangerous, but shooting someone for throwing a stone is a slippery slope to all sorts of things, eg. Kettled protesters who start throwing stones at riot police. Should the police just mow them all down because rocks can be deadly?
Why do you keep using arguments where stones are being thrown at police/army? These stones were being thrown at unarmed, unprotected humans.
Stop being disingenuous. The rocks were thrown at cars. They weren't interrupting a public stoning.
Do you know how many people died from rocks thrown at cars? I'm not talking hypotheticals, I'm talking real deaths and injuries.
Do you? I'd wager it's considerably lower than deaths from shootings involving figures of authority.
I mean, you can keep moving the goalpost all you want, doesn't make you any less wrong.
Me move the goalposts? What are you talking about? I've been maintaining the whole time that it's potentially over the top to shoot someone with a gun when they are throwing rocks at cars, while admitting we don't have all the facts om how it went down.
You on the other hand, keep coming back to me about different rock related dangers and vaguely alluding that shooting someone throwing rocks is fine whatever the scenario because rocks can be *hand wavy* amounts of dangerous.
You asked me if I knew the stats on rock throwing deaths. I don't, but I assumed you would enlighten me seeing as you brought it up. Instead you accuse me of moving the goalposts when I'm still taking about the case in point.