“Premeditation” doesn’t mean “plotting” or “carefully prepared beforehand”.
If it is clear that Azaria knowingly and deliberately took a course of action that would result in the death of another human being when there was no direct threat to him or others, and that’s premeditation.
Manslaughter is for accidents, negligent discharges, tragic reflexes, mistaken identities, wrong reads on a situation & split-second decisions and the like. Per Alessan’s telling of the events, the IDF soldier knew exactly what he was doing, to whom and why and there was no immediate danger from the victim, either to Azaria or to the rest of the grunts present. That’s not manslaughter, that’s an execution.
[QUOTE=Alessan]
The whole case is a pretty big deal here. Most of Azaria’s supporters’ attitude is “fuck that terrorist - he deserved to die”, and while I don’t disagree, there’s such a thing as rules of engagement and codes of conduct. Soldiers don’t get to decide who lives or dies - that’s not their job.
[/QUOTE]
Totally agree with this. If your soldiers are taking it on themselves to dole out street corner justice then your military is just a mob. The IDF is definitely NOT a mob, and this conviction is one of the things that keeps it from becoming one. If the soldier were a US soldier who executed a wounded combatant I would expect him or her to be equally convicted.
“Premeditation” has different meanings in different legal systems. In some legal systems, it is a synonym for “intentional”, an intentional killing. But in other legal systems, it has the meaning of “planning in advance”, an intentional killing that was planned in advance.
I don’t know how the Israeli criminal law approaches this issue.
I was in a convenience store once, where a pair of policemen had also stopped for coffee. Their squad car was parked across two parking spaces.
I chastized them (gingerly) for this, saying, “If I’d done that, you’d have given me a ticket.” They somewhat sheepishly agreed that they shouldn’t have parked that way.
From trivialities to manslaughter, we can’t let those in power get away with abusing that power.
Did they move the car?
Here’s Israeli Penal Law on premeditation.
But does the Israeli military justice code incorporate that same definition? Since there is a separate IDF military justice system and Azaria was tried before a military court.
How long had the guy been in the IDF?
Did terrorists kill any of his family or friends?
According to this page from the Israeli Military Advocate General, it looks like the Israeli Military Justice Law only creates offences specific to the military, and the general criminal law continues to apply to members of the military.
http://www.law.idf.il/647-2350-en/Patzar.aspx
An allegation that a member of the IDF has committed an offence under the general criminal law can be tried either through the military courts or through the civilian courts, at the discretion of the military prosecutor.
So unless I’ve misread that page, the general Israeli law of homicide would apply to the soldier in that case, including the definition of “premeditation” found by Captain Amazing - thanks for that!
And now that I’ve been able to look at the definition of “murder” under Israeli criminal law, it looks like Israel is one of the jurisdictions where premeditation is an essential element of murder.
See s 300(a)(2). (There are other three other specific definitions of murder, but (2) seems to be the general definition.
My guess is that in this case it would turn on that phrase “prepared himself to kill him.”
What does “prepared himself” mean? In this case, did Azaria just lose it while standing over the guy on the ground, or did he prepare himself to kill while walking over to him, or standing over him? And since he was a medic, he had a reasonable basis to walk over and look at him - did he need to provide medical care?
The prosecutor would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did “prepare himself” to kill in the short time of the episode.
Northern Piper:
I don’t know, it seems to me that the more relevant clause is “without any provocation immediately before the act.” Seems to me that seeing the terrorist knife people would be such a provocation, even though at the time the soldier shot him, he was incapacitated.
I don’t know that that would be provocation, as the guy was incapacitated. The trauma and emotion he might have felt might have had bearing on his ability “to think and to understand the result of his actions”, though.
WTF does BLM have to do with this?
Just that happens in the world has to be seen through the filter of the US perspective.
:rolleyes:
Three minutes passed between the stabbing, and the execution. There was no immediate provocation.
[QUOTE=cmkeller]
Seems to me that seeing the terrorist knife people would be such a provocation
[/QUOTE]
Nope. Azaria didn’t see squat. He was called in as reinforcements after the fact, and per Alessan’s account only shot the guy after ten minutes on the scene. Trauma, schmauma.
Unless he suffers from PTSD.
According to an interview with the prosecutors I read in the weekend paper here, they had carefully studied 50-odd similar cases before reaching the conclusion that based on their precedents, manslaughter would be the most appropriate charge to seek under the circumstances.
Does manslaughter carry the same associations in Israel as it does in the US? (I can’t recall if you live or ever lived in the US, Alessan, only that I seem to recall that you lived in Israel a few years ago.)
ETA: I think the conviction here was appropriate. Whether or not the Israeli public approves of extrajudicial executions of incapacitated combatants should be irrelevant. I applaud the Israeli judiciary - in this case a military court - for standing firm in the face of public opinion.