It was in self defence /s

Meh, Israel does often get neutrally framed headlines, but "beat to death" is imho worse sounding than "killed" as it inherently implies a kind of barbaric character that shooting someone does not. Its not like those "died from ..." where the perpetrator is left unnamed. Everything is there in this case: WHO / HOW / WHAT = ISRAELI SETTLERS / BEAT / TO DEATH

I’d argue that specificity is crucial here. “Kill” could be any number of methods, many of them relatively quick or accidental. Maybe he was shot in the head or hit by a car and killed instantly. But “beaten to death” is a pretty gruesome way to go out by most standards, and it isn’t something that just happens by accident. It makes it clear that he didn’t just have an accident; it was an intentional act, committed by people with blood literally on their hands.

The sanitized version would be the same kind of passive voice BS that cops use when issuing public statements.

In this case, kill would have been less specific, more sanitized.

I think being specific was better.

Of all the things to get outraged about.

guns will make us safer because then the bad guys can shoot the badder guys and that will make us bigly successful.

massive /s of course