Either way, "red herring" is the operative word!
Neither being shot nor being imprisoned for a decade - both of which happen - is in any way, shape or form an appropriate or proportional response to stone throwing. Especially not seeing as Palestinians do, in fact, have such a thing as a right to resist the occupation [including by the means of armed struggle, by the way, which stone throwing at worst just about scratches the surface of].
I really wish we could get away from this "innocence" rhetoric! Not because I fail to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty* - but because the question is unequally applied and always used as yet another club to verbally bludgeon Palestinians with!
If, in mainstream discourse, we talked about Israelis the way we do about Palestinians, an overwhelming majority of Israeli adults would not qualify as "innocents". To start with, we could remove that status from any active duty soldiers - even those currently on leave - as well as any reservist. Up for debate next: former soldiers. And, remember, Israel has near-universal conscription!
Never mind the frankly insane number of civilians running around with assualt rifles. You can remove all of them, too!
And, by the way: I am most certainly not arguing we ought to be speaking about Israelis the way we do about Palestinians - the opposite in fact! We should be affording Palestinians the same benefit of "civilian unless actively involved in hostilities at the moment - and then some [see: dead soldiers being seen as "tragic" for example]" that Israelis typically get! As, for that matter, international humanitarian law demands!
Long story short: whether or not someone throws stones - on the territory of their home, where soldiers and settlers of an illegal occupation have no business being to start with, is just the wrong question to ask!
We need to start treating Palestinians as we do Israelis. Seriously!