Moreover, since according to their statements to the police, the defendants did not know whether the deceased died as a result of the beatings or if he was alive at the time of the arson (and in fact were indifferent to this question), it is also possible to see their going to the gas station and the acquisition of fuel and a lighter in order to set it on fire inside the vehicle, as part of the preparatory acts, since the element of preparation does not have to exist before the act of killing and can exist even at the time of the act itself and as an integral part of it.
The absence of Kantor
The third element of Kantor's absence was also intended to ensure that the decision to kill was made by way of discretion, and not against the background of a loss of control and a storm on the part of the defendant, following the victim's provocation; And according to the wording of the law, "in cold blood, without the frequent provocation of the act."
According to the case law, this element entails two cumulative tests: one is a subjective test – whether the defendant was actually influenced by the cantor until he lost his self-control and committed the lethal act without intending its consequences; In this context, various tests were set in order to examine whether the provocation reaches the level of a teaser (the intensity of the provocation, the proximity of the time between it and the act of killing, etc.). The second is an objective test – whether a reasonable person in the defendant's situation would have lost control and acted in the lethal manner as the defendant would have acted if he had been subjected to similar provocation (see, for example, Criminal Appeal 2589/15 Winokursky v. State of Israel [published in Nevo] (October 29, 2018), Criminal Appeal 1426/12 Muzaffar v. State of Israel [published in Nevo] (16 January 2014), Criminal Appeal 4519/11 Shikharzayev v. State of Israel [published in Nevo] (4 May 2015)).
In our case, the defendants did not allege any indulgence or provocation on the part of the deceased at all, and even in their new version in court they claimed that they beat the deceased by surprise, while they were going to talk about a drug deal that they were allegedly operating, all in order to fulfill their desire not to pay him for the drugs. Therefore, the element of the absence of Kantor also exists in their case.