According to the claim, the deceased's manner of driving upset the defendant and he tried to overtake him, but was unsuccessful. When the deceased saw this, he slowed down and swerved to the side of the road. The defendant also slowed down at the same time as the deceased's car and opened the window of the Mitsubishi. The deceased asked the defendant where he was in a hurry. In response, the defendant braked the Mitsubishi vehicle in which he was driving and jumped out of it, while the vehicle was still moving and without lifting the handbrake. The Mitsubishi, which was still in D gear, continued to drive independently up the road for a few more meters, until it came to a stop on the side of the road. In the meantime, and while the defendant was leaping out of the vehicle toward the deceased, the defendant pulled out the pistol he was carrying and fired several shots in the air.
At the same time, the deceased also got out of his car and stood next to him. The defendant reached the deceased and the two began to fight. A few seconds later, the deceased got into the Toyota and sat down in the driver's seat while arguing with the defendant who was standing next to him. The deceased tried to close the door of his car, but the defendant did not move and a fistfight broke out between the two. In the meantime, the defendant fired his pistol several times.
- As for this part of the event, the parties were divided on a number of issues. First, the defendant denied the claim that the deceased's manner of driving upset him. Second, the defendant claimed that, contrary to what was alleged in the indictment, the deceased was the one who got out of his car first and charged at the defendant. Third, the defendant denied the claim that the deceased tried to close the door of his car, but the defendant prevented him from doing so. Fourth, the defendant claimed that he acted as he did where he believed that the deceased was a terrorist who intended to carry out a terror attack.
- As stated, the defendant described that the deceased "played" with him on the road, drove at a slow speed, accelerated and braked and did not allow the defendant to overtake him. In this context, the Ituran company's report (P/108) was submitted, from which it is possible to learn about the manner in which the deceased was driving in the moments leading up to the incident. In this context, the representative of Ituran Lau Lenchevsky testified. The Ituran report shows that the deceased's car slowed down significantly during these moments, from 80 km/h to 25 km/h and 30 km/h, and even braked suddenly to 8 km/h and 4 km/h. This supports the defendant's claim that the deceased "played" with him on the road. However, I am of the opinion that the aforesaid actually strengthens the conclusion that it was the manner in which the deceased was driving that stood in the background of the confrontation between the defendant and the deceased, as the accuser claims.
- Although the defendant described, as stated, that the deceased drove on the road in an unacceptable manner and did not even allow the defendant to overtake him, the defendant denied that the deceased's manner of driving upset him.
Thus, in his testimony in court, the defendant described that after leaving the gas station, he drove behind a white Jeep Land Cruiser that was traveling at a slow speed of about 20-30 kilometers per hour. The defendant tried to bypass him, but the deceased blocked him, "played all kinds of games for him", accelerated and braked. However, the defendant claimed that the deceased's manner of driving was not suspicious to him at that stage, and the defendant believed that it was a friend from the community who recognized him and was trying to draw his attention and say hello to him. The deceased's car swerved to the curb and stopped, the defendant stopped parallel to him and opened the window of the car, at which point the deceased began shouting and cursing at him in Arabic (p. 528 of Prout, paras. 7-22).