What's not mentioned here is that the IDF soldier accused is a Bedouin Arab.
This ruling in the UK has just as much value as a similar verdict issued from the 9th Circuit at the instigation of Craig and Cindy Corrie.
Warning! This is a high-volume ping list.
2. What was the Miller's position on Israel's right to exist prior to the shooting? I think I know the answer to that.
3. Do British reporters always try to sue members of the military when they get shot or just when they get shot by the IDF?
Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel.
..................
From the PBS version.
APTN footage shows Miller and his crew emerging from the Palestinian home in which they'd been filming and approaching an armored Israeli bulldozer. They could be seen waving a white flag and could be heard identifying themselves, in English and Arabic, as journalists. In addition, Miller and his crew were wearing clothing that identified them as members of the press. Eyewitnesses claim Miller and his crew were fired upon, without warning, as they approached the armored bulldozer while attempting to identify themselves as journalists. Moments later, Miller lay on the ground. APTN footage of the incident backs up the eyewitness accounts. James Miller died from a gunshot wound to the neck.
Israeli army spokesperson Captain Jacob Dallal told the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz: "Our forces (had) found a tunnel at the house in question when an antitank missile was fired at them. They shot back at the source of the attack. ... James Miller was apparently hit during that exchange. The Israeli military expresses sorrow at a civilian death, but it must be stressed that a cameraman who knowingly enters a combat zone, especially at night, endangers himself."
Daniel Seaman, the director of the Government Press Office in Israel, told the Associated Press, "It's a split-second judgment, whether or not to shoot. I prefer that in situations like that, they shoot, because I prefer that there will not be a dead soldier."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Thanks. I needed that
First, the UK court admits that Miller was not the intended target, merely that the soldier fired his weapon on purpose. Automatically, that is manslaughter - not murder.
Second, the court does not dispute that Miller was shot at night while he was interposing himself in a situation that he knew to be a military operation. That automatically mitigates any claim to manslaughter, because Miller intentionally placed himself in harm's way.
This verdict cannot be regarded as a legitimate verdict, but as a political stunt - something UK courts are supposed to be far above.
Important safety tip: Incoming fire has the right of way.
You want to run with the big dogs you risk being bitten.
These leftist pussies think they should be allowed to hang with hostiles and be shown deference by an assaulted force in a life threatening environment...?
hmm. How many "Asians" were on the jury?
The decision was made by a "10-member inquest jury at King's Cross Coroner's Court."
Any Brits know the ethnic makeup of King's Cross?
http://www.blacklondon.org.uk/member/kingcrossproject.htm
While it is clear he was shot, what is not clear is what direction the bullet came from. I have no doubt that a killing took place, but if a police man, who is under fire fires back and kills an innocent bystander the verdict is clearly manslaugher, not murder.
Unless of course he is a Jew.
I hope Europe dies already.