"Interrogator, Sameh Hareb: ... (In the reconstruction - my clarification Y.S.) You tell the interrogator that you still saw the guy.
Interrogee, Dennis Daniel Mukin: Run.
Interrogator, Sameh Hareb: Going. You didn't say you were going.
Interrogee, Dennis Daniel Mukin: Uh. Yes.
Interrogator, Sameh Hareb: Toward his car, "I shot him in the direction."
Interrogated, Dennis Daniel Mukin: Essay Center. That's right.
Researcher, Sameh Hareb: "Mass Center." In your interrogation today, you said otherwise, and you said that you shot in the torso, waist and legs.
Interrogee, Dennis Daniel Mukin: True
...
Interrogator: Sameh Hareb: How do you explain the contradictions in your version?
Interrogee, Dennis Daniel Mukin: Um. I see that there I got out of concentration and skipped, when I explained to Gil I skipped the part that... That the guy was running towards the car... while threatening to kill me... And when I told him to shoot in the direction of the center of the mass... The intention was as I know and know from the army... Firing into the upper body and down to neutralize... This is the so-called mass center..."
It seems that this narrow explanation is also intended to minimize the defendant's responsibility for his actions and their consequences.
- Moreover, the defendant was unable to explain why he thought that precisely at this stage of the incident, the deceased intended to remove an assault weapon from his vehicle, even though he did not do so in the early stages of the incident, despite the opportunities he had to do so. As may be recalled, there is no dispute that when the incident began, the deceased got out of his car unarmed and did not possess any assault weapon, as the defendant also stated in his last version and in his testimony in court. Later, after the defendant fired the first shot in the air, the deceased returned to his car and sat down in the driver's seat, with the defendant standing near the car door and firing a second shot in the air. Even though he was in his car and could have taken out a weapon if he had been in the car and if the deceased had wished to do so, at this stage the deceased got out of his car and walked towards the defendant with his hands empty. This will be emphasized once again, when the defendant holds a gun and shoots in the air over the deceased's actual head. It is reasonable to assume that if the deceased had been armed with a weapon and had he intended to use it, he would not have struggled with the defendant with his bare hands and would have taken the weapon out of his vehicle earlier.
- Moreover. The defendant tried to claim that the weapon may not have been in the passenger compartment, but rather in the trunk of the deceased's car, and therefore was not accessible to him. However, there is no dispute that the deceased ran towards the driver's door of the vehicle and not towards the trunk. There was no explanation for this by the defendant (p. 610 of Prot., para. 11 ff.):
"Q: Yes? Do you think he had something in the car?