Therefore, it was not a single shot that hit the deceased, but rather two shots that were fired, as the video shows, with a slight time difference between the two. Both were aimed at the deceased's upper body and one hit a vital organ in the body of the deceased that was injured as a result of the shooting, and in practice, only a very short time passed before the deceased breathed his life.
- In the Supreme Court's rulings, it was held, more than once, that "Damage to a sensitive area of the victim's body may be an indication of the existence of an intention to kill, even when it involves only one injury" (Criminal Appeal 2202/08 Judgment v. State of Israel, paragraph 41 [published in Nevo] (March 7, 2012); See also: Criminal Appeal 228/01 Kalev v. State of Israel, IsrSC 57(5) 365, 377-378 (2003)).
- In the case before us, as stated, it is appropriate to give great weight, but not exclusively, to the location of the fatal shooting, in the heart of the deceased. Similarly, great weight should be given to the number of shots, not one but two, that hit the deceased's upper body (as noted, only one of them caused the death of the deceased). Weight must also be given to the killing tool used. In addition, between the auxiliary tests; Weight must be given to the defendant's conduct after the shooting was carried out in the second part of the incident. In this context, I will mention that After the deceased fled to his car after the 'struggle' with the defendant on the ground, the defendant stood on his feet, pointed the gun and fired several shots at the deceased's back, who was moving away from him, until the ammunition in the magazine of his pistol ran out and the defendant collapsed on the road as a result of the direct blow to his heart caused by the bullet fired at him earlier (in the second phase of the incident).
- The sequence of events, in the third and last part, of the incident, was described by the defendant on page 533 of the transcript, and my colleague discussed it in the framework of her opinion. Because of its importance, some of it will also be brought by the following:
"... It's as if I've already said here that this is if he runs to the car and brings some kind of knife or lump or that, or whatever it is, if he comes back to me, he kills me, I have to neutralize him, and that's the first and only step I felt I had to take him and I had to shoot him so that he wouldn't come back and kill me... So I get up, go into shooting mode and shoot three bullets at him, I realize that with the third bullet he is already falling and that's it, I was on the verge of death, I said this is it, I am neutralizing him or I am dead and I couldn't deal with him physically and I am all bruised and tired, I said well, I managed to neutralize the threat."
- His decision, at that stage, to "neutralize" the deceased, was reiterated by the defendant more than once or twice during his testimony before us, as described by my colleague, and even to that, during his interrogation by the police. My colleague also discussed this in detail in her opinion. The defendant also explained that he fired at the center of the deceased's body because he was exhausted, and in this situation, it is difficult to hit the leg from a distance with a pistol. Therefore, he aimed at the center of mass to increase the chances of injury. The excuse he gave for his act as aforesaid, which was rooted in his fear that the deceased would bring 'something' from his car by which he would kill him, was rejected, and rightly so, by my colleague. It is true that those shots did not harm the deceased, but in my opinion, the very fact that the defendant walked towards the deceased after the fatal shooting was carried out with the gun in his hand, ready for action, and the shot that was fired at the deceased's back, and did not hit him, indicates the sequence of actions of the defendant, which led to the decision to kill the deceased.
- To be precise: the defendant saw the deceased trying to leave the scene and did not rush to his car, but rained the last bullets on him with his weapon until the ammunition in the magazine ran out. It is true that this shooting did not harm the deceased, but, in my opinion, it also teaches us about his state of mind and also about the determination of the defendant who decided to kill the deceased. In any case, the defendant did not give a logical explanation as to why he did not leave the scene and instead continued to shoot, had it not been for the anger and desire to kill the deceased.
- I do not see how it is possible to reconcile such a large number of shots in the circumstances except with a clear expression of a desire to kill. The fact that only two bullets struck the deceased and only one of them brought about the end of the day of his death, does not, in my opinion, indicate that the defendant did not want the death of the deceased. The shooter of such a large number of shots apparently reveals his opinion that he wanted to hit and that he assumed that one of his shots might be fatal, and therefore he continued his plot. This is especially true in light of the fact that the deceased, after being shot in the heart, managed with his last strength to walk back towards his car, and only then, after the last batch of gunfire that did not hit him, did he collapse and fell to the ground.
- I have not lost sight of the defendant's argument, during his interrogation by the police, that even when he was referring to the defendant's body mass, in the third part of the incident, he "only" intended to hurt him, however, taking into account the defendant's changing versions, which, as determined in my colleague's opinion, are not necessarily pure truth, I do not accept this argument either. In this context, I will note that I was impressed by the defendant's lack of credibility. This is a person who, from the terrible moment he shot the deceased, began a series of lies designed to distance himself from the guilt. The manner in which he drove in the early stages after the incident, when he picked up his sister Kristina and instructed her to lie about the identity of the driver in the car, and his conduct during the hearing of the proceeding, was a direct continuation of the conduct described above.
- According to the case law, in addition, weight must be given to the words that the defendant said before and to the things that were said or done after the incident, such as the defendant's statements in relation to the act (Criminal Appeal 6823/01 Senior v. State of Israel [Published in Nevo](25 March 2004)). These, too, were discussed by my colleague, in great detail, in the framework of her opinion (paragraph 347, ibid.). As stated therein, not only did the defendant not express sorrow or remorse over the death of the deceased, but it emerges from his various statements that he does not regret his actions at all and even justifies them. This, despite their tragic outcome. In this context, I refer to, inter alia, the words of the defendant in his first interrogation, P/2B, p. 2, paras. 19-22:
"... If he hadn't gotten out of the car and tried to kill me, he wouldn't have died... Every dog comes in its day, terrorist," and for the continuation of his words there (P/2B, p. 13, paras. 35-36):