Aug 13, 2007

attack in the Old City on Friday (video)

On Friday there was a shooting attack in the Old City of Jerusalem. An Arab man attacked and grabbed the gun of a security gaurd. The security guard fought back and another security gaurd shot the terrorist.

At first the family of the terrorist claimed he was not involved and it was a mistake - ghe was not grabbing the gun, rather asking for a cigarette. The security gaurd attacked him for no reason. The police decided to release the video from security cameras. They clearly show the terrorist followuing the gaurds and attacking them. It was premeditated and clearly an attack. Now the family is claiming the videos are doctored to frame their kid and he had nothing to do with it.

Here is the video:


  1. One of the problems is that this movie is a collage of bits of movie made by different security cameras along the way. There are obvious signs of editing (e.g. fade in fade out effect between shots) and as a result there may have been doctoring.
    Of course it may well be that we are seeing a full sequence of the event, but , as a professional photographer who knows the area fairly well, i have to admit it doesn't look like that. Moreover, we 're missing the last part.

    Which makes it less than valid as evidence.

  2. I disagree. If the guy was only asking for a cigarette, how does he get a hold of the security guard's gun?

  3. That's a good question.
    I'm not surprised that the video is edited; it looks like frames from several security cameras.

    Some things are clear, though:

    Khatib grabbed the guard's gun from behind;
    the guards did not chase him until he did;
    Khatib started shooting first;
    the second guard did not kill him until he became a threat to everyone.

    Maybe it was a "spur of the moment" "sudden jihad" thing on the attacker's part, and not a planned terrorist attack, but it does look pretty clear.

  4. could it have been doctored? sure it could have. anybody with good editing software and the know-how could have done so and I am sure the police have such resources. However, that is afor a court of law. If it gets to court, the family has the right to try to prove the film was doctored. This is not a court and I have no way of knowing if it was or was not doctored. The video does show pretty clearly what happened. Would it pass the test in a court of law? I have no idea.

  5. Oh please.

    If you want to talk about the Rabin video being doctored, fine.

    But it is completely clear in this video that the guy grabbed the gun. And it is clear that he is holding and shooting it.

    Case closed.

  6. By the way, anonymous's reference to "missing the last part" is the question whether or not the security guard "confirmed the kill".

    It is apparant that he did not, and that was a mistake.

    Standard practice against terrorists is always to confirm the kill, so that if they are wearing a suicide belt, or are not completely disabled, they won't kill you (or others) after you think the event is over.

    The guard made a serious mistake.

  7. JoeSettler has said...
    Standard practice against terrorists is always to confirm the kill, so that if they are wearing a suicide belt, or are not completely disabled, they won't kill you (or others) after you think the event is over.

    The guard made a serious mistake.

    August 14, 2007 1:00 AM

    No. I am afraid you are wrong. This is not a case in which the attacker is wearing a suicide belt. The standard procedure to act when someone who is attacking you with a handgun is to first make him defenseless.

    This is the way you should be shooting towards a gunned attacker: (this applies only if he has a handgun and there is different procedures depending on how the attacker is attacking you ie for an attacker with a machine gun let's say it's whole other ball game)

    First you aim at his legs (this prevents him from being a moving target)if not effective then
    you aim for the arms (especially the arm with which he hold the handgun, if that's not effective and the attacker still shoots around THEN you aim for the head.

    The security guard first went for the leg and then for the arm. So he was right.

  8. so many experts in security read my blog!!! :-)

  9. Sorry, but it is very difficult to "aim for the legs" as opposed to the body of a moving target. You always aim towards the largest part of the body. It is less difficult to miss.

    Also, if you recall, a few years ago a terrorist tried to board a bus at Bar Ilan University.

    They subdued him, but didn't kill him.

    People gathered around the guy as he lay on the floor, and he then detonated his suicide belt.

    Kaboom. They should have confirmed the kill.

  10. I'm so sick of seeing apologists defending the actions of this man.

    Firstly in the context of Old Jerusalem - You steal a gun theres a pretty good chance your going to die.

    As for video editing, well if you combine the feed of several cameras into one continuous time line then yes that is editing. Do I believe that the video misrepresents the timing of events? No.

    The Arab Street has tried everything to get this to look bad for Israel. First he was simply someone wanting to pray, then he was visiting "Al Quids', then he was first shot unfairly without cause by the second security guy.

    If you look at the footage you can actually see, he tried to shoot the first Israeli guard immediately after stealing the gun, but the safety is on, then further down the lane he tries to shoot him again at point blank range, in a display of astonishing bravery the guard rushes at him and they struggle.

    The Shooter has displayed deadly intent.

    As far as I'm concerned shooting for his legs, arms or second biggest toe is crap, you shot for the largest mass which is his body, to say anything else is just ignorant.

    So we don't see the end of the video? Who cares? 10 people are shot, this guy was trying to kill the Israeli guards.

    Is there a chance the 'kill was confirmed? After the firing of so many bullets and so many people shot - this would have been the most prudent thing to do.

    To have not have confirmed total immobility of this dangerous attacker would have been stupidity.

    End of story.

    Mr Bagel

  11. I have to agree with JoeSettler here. When I was trained in defensive handgun shooting, the first thing stressed was to ignore any movie fantasies about "disarming" your target. With a pistol it's simply not practical; you aim for center mass (chest area) rather than miss a small target like a leg (or head, for the first shot) and risk injury to a bystander (and, of course, all the dangers that come from missing your target)

  12. LOL.

    I see that we have some amateur gun users commenting. If you can aim well, you can basically nail down any sucker from any angle and and any distance. I can show you guys when I come out to Israel, but please don't get offended that a woman is better than you at aiming at targets. :)

    Gathering around a potential attacker and holding him down is NOT making him defenseless. That's plain STUPIDITY by ordinary people. It's like running into a burning house and staying there. People involved in that case were not security guards but ordinary people.

  13. Somehow I think my ample time in the army, and CT unit gives me enough experience to talk from.

    In Israel, the goal when dealing with a terrorist is to take him completely out as fast and as definitively as possible.

    A terrorist does not care who he kills.

    You can play games and (try to) shoot his legs out and he will continue to try to pull the trigger on anybody.

    Again, the proper procedure, as is trained in Israel, by our counter-terrorism experts is that you shoot for the largest part of the body. And when you have him down you confirm that he is neutralized with a shot to the head.

    I'm sure that hitting paper cutouts, while standing still from 25 feet is a piece of cake.

    Now do that after running, while your target is moving, and shooting back at you and at everybody else. :)

    I get to be the terrorist quite often in our regular training sessions, I can tell you unequivically, that until I am clearly neutralized, I spray bullets.

    Terrorists know they are 100% going to be killed. Their goal is to kill as many people before they meet their 72 virgins.

  14. Hi RebelWAC:

    If you can aim well, you can basically nail down any sucker from any angle and and any distance.

    The IDF training policy for counter-terror units (Lotar) specifically states the requirement of confirmed neutralization of any terrorist.

    As soon as a terrorist is down, protocol mandates shooting them in the head.

    There have been many cases in Israel where terrorists have either blown themselves up after being shot, wounding and killing others, or cases where they have continued killing after it appeared they were already "down" by a "humane" shooting in the arms or legs.

    I don't understand how you expect in a high stress situation of chasing after a terrorist through the crowded streets of the old city, where the terrorist was shooting at him -- for the security guard to hit the terrorist in the leg.

    I don't know what training you've done, but we routinely have to run 500 meters with all our gear on before starting to shoot at targets 25 meters away with an M16 (and we aim for the center of the body mass, not the periphery).

    Doing the same with a 9mm handgun just doesn't seem doable. Keep in mind that this wasn't a marksman in a sterile situation, but a security guard chasing a terrorist in a residential neighborhood; you want the terrorist neutralized as quickly as possible. There's no time to waste shooting at anything but the quickest and easiest area of the terrorist.


Related Posts

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...