I agree and join my opinion with the position of the Honorable Justice Sheetrit.
As detailed in Judge Abu Assad's judgment, she does not dispute the factual basis detailed in Judge Sheetrit's judgment and adopts the analysis of the evidence determined by her. I can only agree with my colleagues on this matter, and I also accept all the factual determinations, which are based both on the assessment of the reliability of the testimonies heard before us, including the failure to give credence to the versions and explanations given by the defendant to his conduct, and on additional findings and evidence that were brought during the trial.
The dispute between my colleagues is limited to the question of whether it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that when the defendant fired the two shots that hit the deceased, he acted with intention – i.e., with the aim of causing his death or with indifference – that is, with equanimity for the possibility of causing the aforementioned result.
The details of the facts set out above indicate that this is another case in which an argument or tension over a trivial background between drivers escalates and turns into violence that takes lives. In this case, instead of passing the deceased's car, when it was standing on the side of the road and allowed the defendant to continue driving, the defendant stopped his car and got out of it holding a pistol, fired from it in the air and later at the deceased as well. In doing so, he escalated the incident without any justification and brought about the difficult and tragic result.
At the same time, in my opinion, it has not been proven at the level of proof required in criminal law that the defendant acted at the stage when these shots were fired with the intention of causing the death of the deceased. As detailed in Judge Sheetrit's ruling, the course of events can be divided into three segments in which the defendant fired his gun, even though it is a single sequence. At first, when he got out of the car, the defendant fired in the air. At this stage, and without ignoring his problematic behavior, there is no doubt that the defendant did not want the death of the deceased and did not intend to harm him. After the struggle between the two on the ground and while the deceased was trying to return to his car, the defendant fired three shots at him until he emptied his magazine and admitted that he intended to hurt him ("neutralize him"). The defendant also confirmed that he was aiming at the center of the deceased's body when he shot at him as he fled to his car.