« A few thoughts on yesterday's attack | Main | Bupkis »

Sunday, July 06, 2008

The use of deadly force

[This post was written over a year ago and shelved because I thought it wouldn't be of interest to anyone else. Considering the discussion over Thursday's post, I've decided to dust it off and bring it up to date. This post should not be considered a substitute for knowing the laws in Israel regarding the use of guns. You can find a nice summary of the laws here.]

This post was written by a 'gun toting settler'. By this I mean that I make my home over the 'green line', and I carry a gun during pretty much every waking hour of the day.

I really only started carrying a gun because my daily commute takes me through some potentially problematic areas at odd hours of the day and night. But, once I was granted a gun license I decided that the safest place for the gun was tucked into the back of my pants and not sitting in the house. Anyone who thinks that kids can't figure out how to get into a gun safe should read some statistics on accidental shootings.

I also decided that I was every bit as likely to encounter a terrorist in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv (meaning not very likely... but a small chance, none-the-less) as in the south Hevron hills, so I decided to follow the advice of the instructor who administered the licensing test at the range. He said that anyone who has a gun license should be a responsible citizen and carry all the time.

As an aside, due to the fact that she is home alone for most of the day and that she has to drive alone (and with the kids) through potentially problematic areas, my wife also carries a gun (although you would never know it if you saw her on the street).

So yes, we are gun-toting settlers. I'm just letting you know up front so you understand the source and weigh what you read here accordingly.

Lately there has been a lot of noise among the gun-toting settler crowd about the draconian rules of engagement associated with the use of deadly force here in Israel. Oddly enough, there has also been a lot of noise from the anti-gun crowd about the alarming number of Israelis (I assume they mean people like me) who are walking around armed.

See? Nobody's happy!

But sadly there are a lot of people on both sides of the issue who aren't sufficiently informed to be able to argue the point intelligently.

The law says you can use your gun only if you, or someone nearby, is in imminent mortal danger. That means a) There is someone who has a weapon (gun, hand grenade, Molotov cocktail, knife, etc.) that can be used to take your life or the life of someone nearby; b) They have the clear intention of using that weapon immediately; and c) They have the ability to do so.

Just as those late night investment fund ads usually caution: "Past performance is no guarantee of future results", one can't legally assume anything about the way an individual or group will act based on what you think you know about them. You have to actually wait for them to act. And to justify using deadly force, that 'act' must place you or someone else in imminent mortal danger.

Mortal Danger = the person(s) you are about to shoot must have the ability to kill (not just injure), and must give an unmistakable indication that they intend to do so. Imminent = Right this very second. Not five seconds from now and not five seconds ago. Now.

If you have time to yell instructions to someone... shoot warning shots in the air... aim and fire at their legs, etc., you are going to have a hell of a time convincing the police that the danger was imminent and that you had no other choice but to fire.

There is also the overriding requirement that there be no other way of preventing the other person(s) from trying to kill you and/or whoever is being threatened except by using deadly force. Again, the full description of the laws can be found here, but for our purposes that should suffice.

Whenever I have renewed my pistol license and gone through my safety refresher course, I have been reminded by the instructor that I am not a policeman who can draw my gun and begin issuing instructions to a bad guy. That is not why I'm allowed to carry a gun. I can take out my gun and aim it at someone only when I have already arrived at the conclusion that I have no choice but to kill them. Full stop. That means all the criteria above have already been met before I pull the thing out.

Another thing that I have been told every time I've gone to renew my gun license is that if, G-d forbid, I am ever forced to shoot someone - even a 100% clean/kosher/by-the-book justified shooting. - I'd better get myself a good lawyer because I am certainly going to be detained by the police... and jail time is not out of the question.

Here's where it becomes important to separate reality from the fantasy most people get from TV and films.

Even in the wake of a real terror attack where you popped the bad guy and saved the day... the authorities aren't going to arrive on the scene, slap you on the back and congratulate you on your marksmanship. They aren't going to take in the dead terrorist and decide you were justified and send you on your way. They are going to take your gun... and likely take you into custody. Because, guess what? You are the primary suspect in a killing, and the cop on the street isn't authorized to decide if that killing was justified or not.

The way it was explained to me, a 'satisfactory' outcome will be that the authorities will have a strong suspicion that I had a choice, and will only pull my gun license for a year or two. More likely I will have to do anywhere from a few months to a few years in prison if the evidence is ambiguous. And if the evidence is in any way damning, serious jail time could be in the cards.

I hear you (some of you anyway)... this didn't seem particularly fair, right? I was told to look at it from a different standpoint. The nearly impossible burden that is placed on someone who has to decide whether or not to use deadly force is designed to do everything possible to discourage them from pulling the trigger.

Given a choice between killing someone you perceive as a threat or not killing them, a person's prejudices, life experiences and fears can come into play far too easily. What the law wants you to be thinking before you even raise your gun, much less pull the trigger, is 'would I rather be killed or be arrested, interrogated, sued and potentially sent to jail?'

Also, not every scenario takes place on Jaffa road in front of the media. what if someone attacks you on a dark road... at night... when nobody else is around? Worse... what if all of the potential witnesses are unsympathetic (i.e. Arabs or fellow attackers)? When you put it like that, a lot of people will suddenly come to the conclusion that they don't really need to shoot... that they, and the people around them, have time to take cover or drive on... that the other person might only want to scare them and not necessarily kill them.

Earlier this year the Knesset approved an amendment to the existing law which has become known as the 'Shai Dromi Bill'. Here's a quote from the news that sums up the background nicely:

"The legislation, named for the Negev farmer who in January 2007 shot at a group of people who broke into his farm to steal livestock, killing Khaled el-Atrash. Dromi was charged with manslaughter, a move that caused a public uproar. In the ensuing year, bumper-stickers appeared on cars nationwide bearing the phrase "We are all Shai Dromi," expressing a lack of faith in the police's ability to stop property crime, particularly in rural areas. "

According to the published report:

"Unlike earlier restrictions on criminal liability in cases of self-defense, under the new law a property owner does not have to face "a real danger to his own or another person's life, freedom, bodily welfare or property" to justify shooting. However, "the provision will not apply if the [property owner's] act was manifestly unreasonable under the circumstances in order to repel the intruder or enterer."

While the bill passed with a large majority (44-7), in fairness it should be pointed out that not everyone was happy with the outcome:

"MK Zehava Gal-On (Meretz) described the bill as "a death penalty for property crime". "Thieves and robbers should be punished, but we should not allow property owners to determine an immediate death sentence," said MK Ahmed Tibi (United Arab List-Ta'al), who mounted a fiery opposition to the bill from the Knesset speaker's podium."

It may surprise you to know that I agree with MKs Gal-On and Tibi. The law, as written, leaves a little too much wiggle room and lacks some important guidelines. While I seldom refer to Jewish law when it comes to the laws of the modern state of Israel... I feel this is a case where Halachah provides some guiding wisdom from which this new law could have benefited.

Under Jewish law, a clear differentiation is made between someone who breaks into a house during the day and one who does so during the night. Someone who breaks in during the day cannot be automatically assumed to have violent intentions since the likelihood is that they expected to find an empty house. But someone who breaks in at night MUST be assumed to have violent intentions since people are generally home asleep at night. In the latter case Jewish law actually describes the night-time burgler as already having the status of having blood on their hands, and requires the home owner to kill them so as not to put himself or whoever else is in the house at risk.

I'm sure wiser people can elaborate on that so I won't flog an already overly-long post.

When I sit down and think about all the things I've written here, I question my sanity for walking around with a gun. After all, who needs this? The terrible responsibility that comes with the gun license seems to far outweigh any potential benefit.

But then I think about events like those that took place last week... or the attack earlier this year in the Dimona mall, and suddenly I realize that there is a compelling reason for as many responsible Israelis as possible to be armed (as stated in my last post).

One of last week's commenters made reference to a terror attack from the mid '80s that took place on King George street. It actually happened right in front of Richie's Pizza (where I was working back then). A couple of terrorists had emerged from a store across the street with a shopping bag full of hand grenades. They calmly walked out to the middle of the street and began tossing the grenades at the crowds on the sidewalks. By some miracle none of the bystanders were killed. Even more miraculous, within seconds of the first explosion the terrorists were both laying dead in the street. They had been killed by armed bystanders. One of them was even finished off by a civilian whose pistol had jammed and (foolishly, IMHO) decided to run out and club the terrorist to death with his jammed weapon.

I don't entertain the idea that the prospect of armed Israelis serves as a deterrent since most terrorists seem to be perfectly willing to die trying to carry out their attacks. But you can't even compare the scale of the carnage between what has typically happened here in Israel, and if (G-d forbid) something similar were to be attempted in London or New York where the only people walking around with guns are the thinly stretched police.

So, for those who felt that my last post we too 'touchy feely', or that it 'nit-picked' about how to describe the killing of a terrorist instead of simply celebrating the terrorist's death... well, this one was for you.

Posted by David Bogner on July 6, 2008 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:

https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c581e53ef00e5509319f18833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The use of deadly force:

Comments

[Newbie visiting from Liz] I was certainly surprised when I heard the Supreme court's ruling but we've just spent a month in England where the new headlines are full of senseless knife attacks.

Best wishes

Posted by: Maddy | Jul 6, 2008 6:49:27 PM

Most policemen in London and the UK are not armed, at least not with guns and we are having a big problem with knife attacks at the moment. I can remember too when we had IRA terrorism, which was mainly bombings on the mainland (guns were used in the Irish provinces, but I didn't live there and it's not in my range of experiences), but even then I didn't feel particularly unsafe.

I'm not a bleeding heart liberal and I am not generally in the pro-gun lobby, but if I was walking down the street in

Israel and someone began to throw grenades about, or looked as though they were about to blow up a bus, I think I'd feel just a tad safer knowing that in the event, there was at least the possibility that someone might be able to prevent or lessen the impact (no pun intended) by shooting the perpetrator(s), whoever they may be.

I suppose it is very easy for people like me who don't have to acknowledge daily those risks to say that guns are too prevalent and too easy an option, but as you rightly point out, Trep, the consequences of doing so can be enormous. Would I be able to do it? Could I pull the trigger and end someone's life? I really don't know, but then I don't have to make that decision in a snapsecond, generally speaking.

I just feel that if I was there, and since I don't know how to use a gun, let alone be licensed to have one, I would take some comfort knowing that there may be like minded individuals around me who did and who could just possibly save my or someone else's life by doing so.

Most countries that I've been to (US and Europe mostly) have armed police, but they don't (even post 9-11 and London/Madrid) have to face the same level of unpredictability as most Israelis and, whilst not being flippant, I'm reminded of a joke about a Jewish guy who was captured by a tribe of cannibals. The Chief of the cannibals granted him a last request and he asked the Chief to kick him in the behind as hard as possible. When the Chief did this, the Israeli pulled out a gun and shot the Chief and all the cannibals. When asked why he asked to be kicked, he explained that it was to avoid the risk of being condemned by the UN for reacting to insufficent provocation!

Maybe this is how it feels to live in Isrel at times?

Maybe one day I'll get to know when I get around to making a visit? Until then I'll take some views and my cues from here!

PS Glad to hear about Yonah 2.0 and that he's much better!

Posted by: Ken | Jul 6, 2008 7:03:14 PM

Once again the unarmed are caught between the armed to do harm and the armed to prevent harm. I hear a lot of complaints about the lack of police when we need them, now imagine a world where there were enough police to stop all of these tragedies.

What would that world be like, what would it be like to have an officer on every corner, how would you feel? would you feel free? would you always feel that someone was watching over or out for you? would confidently go on about your life? or would you constantly be checking and double checking everything you do to make sure to make sure it was just right since every time you make the slightest slip there would be someone there to catch you in the smallest mistake just like there would be someone to catch the real bad guys who want to hurt someone.

It would also be a terrorists wet dream, all those uniforms would mean rigid responses that could be predicted and once predicted used against them so that a distraction a block away or ten blocks away would leave where they are open and no one to stop them when the grenades are tossed.

Terrorists want rigid security, they want rigid structure, once the uniforms are out of the way they a clear field of unarmed sheeple to slaughter.

Gun free zones are candy stores to terrorists, they just can't get enough. Places where people are armed and held accountable to a higher standard are more dangerous to them than a military base because they contain guard wolves in sheeple clothing.

So please don't think that security based on restriction will prevent terrorists or even criminals, it won't, all it will do is give them a clearer field of play with more victims. Would you as a parent rather your child cowered waiting for police to respond to an event or that someone just shot the bugger before the next grenade went your childs way. The terrorist would much rather wait for the cops or even the military, more time to play in the candy store.

Posted by: IWatch | Jul 6, 2008 11:59:20 PM

The Nazi spirit lives on in the Israel...anyone non-Jewish is to have few rights even if citizens because of their religion and they're to be cordoned off to live in ghettos...everyone who's non-white and uses violence to defend himself is a terrorist and Israeli settlers who steal land are legally gun-toting cowboys welcome to finish off anyone who may dare to trespass on what by international law is his...good luck changing world opinion to accommodate a new holocaust, this time of the Muslim Palestinians--the Israeli PR machine should be able to achieve that I think!?

Posted by: Alok | Jul 7, 2008 1:34:11 AM

Alok -

Wow, kids in a pizza parlor are THAT dangerous?

Or school buses?

Man, hospitals must be SUPER dangerous, since I remember those fake ambulances with bombs in them....

Posted by: Foxfier | Jul 7, 2008 3:34:49 AM

I like guns.

I'm small. I'm female. I'm not all that co-ordinated-- definitely not the next Karate Kid.

But, with a gun, I am on even footing with the biggest man--even against an expert shot, I have a chance.

Does this mean I'm then bound by the same sort of rules I'd expect a big, strong man to follow? Surely--even more so, because guns don't have a "punch him in the jaw" setting.

In the end, though, I like guns.

Posted by: Foxfier | Jul 7, 2008 3:37:27 AM

a) The taking of life in any circumstance is a step that there’s no way back from. If you get spooked easily, you shouldn’t pack a weapon.

b) A civilian should not be able to apply capital punishment for a crime (like cattle-rustling), which does not carry the death penalty.

c) If the army and police were not overstretched they’d be able to do a better job. I will not elaborate on this one.



Posted by: asher | Jul 7, 2008 8:09:00 AM

Israelis need to understand that they shouldn't judge themselves by Western Standards. They are not in the same situations that Western Nations are in.

They are in the same situation that people in the Old West were in where someone could at any time come up to your homestead and burn it to the ground, where there are Ingins at every pass that could shoot arrows into their stagecoach.

There not having a gun was seen as very irresponsible for in places that had a sheriff which was rare and even if the sheriff was a sober one which was rarer still, the sheriff could be miles away.

In Israel the motto should be every Citizen a Solider meaning that even those who are not members of the IDF should have a gun always at the ready and the knowledge to use it for it should be the responsibility of every Israeli regardless of age to be able to the best of their ability to be able to defend themselves, their family, and their land when the situation arises.

Posted by: Scott | Jul 7, 2008 8:28:38 AM

Is there in fact any debate here? We are ALL saying the same thing (apart from one spammer who I won't mention).

The concept of responsibility includes responsibilty for your family's and everyone else's security, and also includes the responsiblity to act wisely and with full knowledge of the consequences of your actions.

Therefore, Scott, Foxfier and I are singing the same song, though the melody may sound different.



Posted by: asher | Jul 7, 2008 9:41:08 AM

I'm as big a fan of Jewish law as the next Yid, but as a stay-at-home mom, the notion that an intruder's intentions are more benign during the day than at night rings hollow. Bad stuff goes down in the day too, and if someone decides to break into my house and finds me there, does that mean he'll apologize and promise to come back another time when I'm not home? Or not? No, the thought that someone could try to enter my house during the day when the neighbors are at work and can't hear the shouts coming from my house does little to comfort me.

While shooting someone for stealing your livestock may seem extreme, what are the options? Yell at them to clear off? I can hear the laughter. Try to get a good look at them so you can send the cops chasing after them? (What are the chances that the thieves get caught in the end?) Is letting thieves steal your stock some act of chesed that's mandated in halachah? Perhaps it's better midot just to write off the stock loss as a bad day, but I can also see that taking that route is an invitation for a repeat offense.

I'm not a gun-toting settler yet (we move to Efrat next month) but the issues you raise about gun use do give food for thought.

Posted by: Shimshonit | Jul 7, 2008 12:22:18 PM

"good luck changing world opinion to accommodate a new holocaust, this time of the Muslim Palestinians"

Oh good heavens Alek, erm, Alok. Can't you people just wait in line? The Turkish are first, if we are to believe the words of Faruk Sen. Sheesh.





Posted by: a | Jul 7, 2008 3:58:02 PM

Maddy... Ah yes, as Robbin Williams said, "England; where the police say 'Stop... or I'll say stop again!'". :-)

Ken... Looking forward to your visit. I'm not the best source of information. :-)

IWatch... Reading the news this morning the debate in the Knesset was about whether the first police to reach the bulldozer should have fired a 'confirmation' shot into the terrorist to ensure he was dead. If he had at least one of the victims would have lived. Tough call. I say yes, but I feel that the terrorist's life was forfeit when he turned over the first car.

Alok... Greetings to you there in Bangalore. It was nice of you to leave such a thoughtful comment while you are at work... using a company computer. I'll save you the trouble of a response since you will probably be canned by the time this response is posted... what with me having forwarded your comment (along with the IP # from which it was sent) to the Vice President of your company. Peace.

Foxfier... I can see how recreational shooting can be relaxing... even fun. I have actually gotten pretty good at it. However I go to the range about once a month, not for the relaxation. But because I am terrified that if (G-d forbid) I am ever required to shoot I will hesitate out of fear that I will miss the bad guy and hit a bystander.

asher... You are still operating under the misguided idea that the army and police are stretched because of the settlements. They are stretched because of our enemies' efforts to kill any and all Jews/Israelis. You need to be reminded every so often whose side you are on. And I'm just the guy to do the reminding. Don't thank me... I'm a giver.

Scott... Hey, is that really you? Long time no see, buddy! Welcome back! Anyway, to your comment... First of all, if you read your history, the 'injins' had more to fear from us white folks than any of the white folks had to fear from them. But let's use your analogy. Actually there is a Sheriff in town. He's called the IDF. However a big chunk of the townspeople seem to have developed a bad case of Stockholm Syndrome and have fallen in love with the 'injins'.

asher... A little choir practice can do us all some good. :-)

Shimshonit... I'm not saying that a person should not be able to shoot an intruder during the day. I'm just saying that it should be a harder cause to prove than killing a night-time intruder. At the end of the day, I doubt any court would convict a woman home alone who shot an armed intruder. And if he wasn't armed when he came in I'm sure you have an odd paring knife lying around that doesn't match any of your sets. :-)

a. ... He's long gone. :-)

Posted by: treppenwitz | Jul 7, 2008 4:09:58 PM

It is wonderful to read a defense of gun ownership that pays due attention to the immense responsibility of said gun ownership. I wish more people here in the US thought this way.

Posted by: Lisa | Jul 7, 2008 6:48:35 PM

treppenwitz, I don't know if I am the Scott you are thinking of but most likely I am not.

As to your statement, "the 'injins' had more to fear from us white folks than any of the white folks had to fear from them." well while ultimately that was correct, it was correct precisely because the settlers had lots and lots of guns. Indian attacks were common though (not saying they were justified or not just looking at it as it was) and white people were killed. But in the end the settlers would not put up with it and that is why we survived.

As for the Sheriff being the IDF, my point was even with a sheriff the settlers needed to be able to protect themselves because even where there was a sheriff he could be miles and miles away when the men in black hats or the 'ingins' attacked.

The sheriff expected to have a people with an ability to protect themselves as he would often deputize them. Without a well armed citizenry it would have been impossible for the sheriff to do his job.

It is all a matter of survival here. Do you want to survive or not?

Posted by: Scott | Jul 7, 2008 7:20:24 PM

Every citizen a solider, that needs to be the attitude of Israelis if they are to survive.

Israelis should make it a national movement to spend lots and lots of time at the gun range just like people in Western countries without conflict spend the night at the movies or bowling.

Posted by: Scott | Jul 7, 2008 7:25:34 PM

"...if (G-d forbid) something similar were to be attempted in London or New York where the only people walking around with guns are the thinly stretched police."

Hmmm. London I'll grant you. I think in New York there are plenty of people who are not the police carrying guns. There certainly are in my neck of the woods.

BTW, while carrying your weapon is certainly a good way to keep it safe, I assume you sleep at home sometimes. Get a gun safe if you don't have one. All the statistics on accidental shootings that I am aware of indicate it's a good idea.

Posted by: balabusta in bluejeans | Jul 8, 2008 8:39:59 AM

treppenwitz: Re: Indians:

Don't believe everything you read. Family history proves it VERY wrong. (Godfather's father died in the last Indian raid in Cali-- they caught the SOBs because they still had one guy's whiskers in his pocket for novelty value)

Posted by: Foxfier | Jul 8, 2008 9:16:56 AM

David - you worked at Richie's?!!! Wow, there's a blast from the past! That place was the ultimate Jerusalem teen hangout. The bulletin board there was legendary - it was like a manual version of FaceBook, 20 years before its time. If you wanted to find anyone in Israel, just post a message on Richie's bulletin board. (My all-time favorite post: "If you're from Machon Devorah and are reading this, boy are you in trouble!" Hameivin yavin. :) ) Funny, I have no recollection if the pizza was any good or not...

I had forgotten that the attack took place right outside Richie's. Glad you & your co-workers at the time weren't hurt.

And BTW - great post.

Posted by: psachya | Jul 8, 2008 11:41:43 AM

I was Googling for info. on women carrying guns, particularly the hiluk made, if any between between military rifles, real clei milchama, and handguns, which I would say are not. If anyone has any info on Teshuvos, esp. material on the Net, I'd be appreciative. And as to the matter of consequences of even the most righteous shooting, as the say in the gun velt, better tried by 12 than carried by 6.

L'shana tova.

Posted by: Avigdor MBalwmawr | Sep 11, 2008 6:58:04 AM