A: What do I have to regret? About shooting in the air? About firing 3 bullets that didn't hit him at all? What do I have to regret?
Q: For the fact that he died. For the fact that he died.
A: It's his fault that he died, not mine."
- In summary of this part, as I determined above, the shooting that led to the death of the deceased was the shot that the defendant fired during the struggle with the deceased on the road, and not the shot he fired at the deceased's back in the latter part of the incident. This is where there is no dispute that the shooting fired by the defendant from a distance did not actually hit the deceased. On the other hand, the shooting of the deceased from a distance, as stated, is indicative of the defendant's state of mind after the struggle with the deceased. As evidence, where the deceased was shot during the struggle as a result of the discharge of a bullet, and if the defendant had not been (indifferent) to the death of the deceased, the defendant would have lingered on the spot, checked the deceased's condition, called for help for the deceased, called MDA and reported to the police. Instead, the defendant hurried to leave the scene, taking care that he had acted disqualified, despite his knowledge that at that very moment he had almost certainly led to the death of a person.
The Legal Aspect
- As stated, the defendant is charged in the indictment with committing offenses involving murder (intentionally), driving while disqualified, drunk driving (two offenses), impulsion during interrogation, and willful sabotage of a vehicle.
The Crime of Murder
- Section 300(a) The Penal Law, which deals with the offense of murder, states as follows:
"300. (a) Whoever causes the death of a person with intent or indifference shall be sentenced to life imprisonment."
- In the book by the Honorable Judges Yosef Elron and Omer Rozin Homicide Offenses: The Law and Case Law (2025), Nevo Publishing, p. 39, clarification regarding the fixed offense of murder Section 300(a) of the Penal Law, that "The factual element in it is similar to that in the other 'regular' offenses of manslaughter – a result is required, the death of a person, and a causal connection is required, that is, the death was caused by the perpetrator. The mental element in the basic crime of murder consists of two components. First, the perpetrator must be aware of his actions and the possibility of causing the result. Second, an object component towards the result of causing death, intention or indifference..."
- The accuser claimed that the defendant intentionally caused the death of the deceased and therefore petitioned to convict the defendant of the crime of intentional murder, as opposed to indifference.
As to the mental element of intent, Elron and Rozin's book, at p. 41, states that: "It is necessary to prove that the defendant intended that the result defined in the offense would be realized. In the offense of manslaughter, it must be proven that the defendant intended to cause the death of the victim. Since this is a clearly subjective element, the complexity of this element lies in the evidentiary level. If the defendant does not explicitly admit that he intended to kill the victim and there is no other conclusive evidence to prove this intention, two main tools assist the court in examining the existence of this element. The first is an evidentiary tool called the "presumption of intention." We are dealing with a factual-evidentiary presumption, according to which a reasonable person acting of his own free will intends to cause the natural consequences of his act... The additional tool that helps to examine whether an intention was fulfilled is known as the "Expectations Rule" or the "Expectations Rule." The rule of expectation is an essential substitute for intention."