Serious Crimes Case (Nazareth) 22205-06-23 State of Israel v. Dennis Mukin - part 9

The defendant explained that he did not shoot the deceased at this stage, since the deceased was unarmed (ibid., paras. 24-28):

"As soon as he's unarmed, I don't shoot a person who isn't armed, he attacked me with his fists and attacked me, right, but it's not a real danger to life that requires firing a weapon, so during this whole struggle the only thing I tried to do was somehow deal with him with my hands and keep the weapon away from him, it's the most critical thing I had in my mind that he wouldn't snatch my weapon."

239. The defendant described the continuation of the course of events (p. 533 of the protégé):

"Actually, there's this struggle on the floor that while he's also trying to pull the weapon out of my hands, then as soon as he's kind of starting to get up from me while this threat of now you're dead or something along the lines of now you're dead something like that so while he gets up and threatens me with murder and starts running towards his car then because I was physically exhausted,  The body is also tired, I also got beaten in the face and as if I already said here that this is if he runs to the car and brings some kind of knife or lump or these or whatever if he comes back to me he kills me I have to neutralize him and this is 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."

The defendant described that the deceased was running in a kind of semicircle towards his car, and therefore, when the defendant fired at him, the deceased's body was turned at an angle to him.  That is, when he pointed his body towards the defendant: "The side.  He ran in a kind of half turn, at first he ran with his back to me until he started making the turn towards his car, and there I was, until he started doing this half turn, I got up and came to my senses a little and said I had to neutralize him and I fired the three bullets" (ibid., Q. 20-23).  The defendant 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 gun.  Therefore, he aimed at the center of mass to increase the chances of injury.

240. The defendant denied that he shot the deceased during the struggle on the ground. He also emphasized that he could have shot the deceased at any stage of the incident, but did not do so because the deceased was unarmed and did not endanger his life.  The defendant emphasized that he did not allow the deceased to simply flee the scene after the struggle on the floor, because he feared for his life: "Because at that moment it's not that I'm not letting him run away and he's not in the wind either. He ran with threats that he was going to kill me, I'm sure he ran to the car to get something to kill me, as if because of the threats I was sure he would come back and bring something and kill me." (p. 534 of Prut, paras. 22-25).  He further explained in this context: "I was at this stage when I was already exhausted and again I say in the experience of the near-death of the body I was scared, I couldn't give him the chance to see if he came back to me with something, because if he came back to me with something he would have killed me so I had to neutralize him at that moment, I felt that if I didn't neutralize him now I would just die,  He comes back with something and I die." (ibid., paras. 27-31).
241. The defendant went on to say that after he fired in the direction of the deceased and the deceased fell, he noticed that there were eyewitnesses to the incident and understood that within a few minutes security and rescue forces and police forces would arrive at the scene. The defendant explained that he was nervous that he had been disqualified, since he knew that he had fired in self-defense.  He also emphasized that he did not try to evade or flee, but that he was concerned about the extension of the disqualification.  Therefore, the defendant drove home and asked his sister to return to the scene with him and say that she was driving the car.  The defendant stated that he did not know whether the deceased was dead or not and that it was urgent for him to bring his sister to the scene before the police arrived.
242. The defendant described that on his way to the car, after shooting the deceased, he saw a phone on the floor, bent down and picked it up. When he saw that it was not his phone, but the deceased's, he threw the phone into the deceased's car.  The defendant stated that he did not remember this detail and only remembered it when he was shown a video of the incident during his police interrogation.  When he got home, his sister and brother-in-law were outside on the balcony, the defendant told his sister that she had to come with him and they hurried back to the scene.  The defendant did not know how to explain how he forgot details such as stopping at the gas station and the fact that he threw his water in the garden as soon as he got home.  However, he speculated that the reason for this was the stress and fear they were experiencing following the incident.  According to him, only after a few days did he calm down and began to reconstruct the events of the incident.  He also recalled more details after watching the video of the event.
243. According to the defendant, he told Kristina very briefly about the incident, due to the time constraints. The defendant did not remember exactly what he said to Kristina, but noted that he had told her that there had been some kind of fight and that he should have shot, that he should return to the scene as soon as possible and that Kristina would say that she was driving.  The defendant was referred to what Kristina gave in her statement to the police (P/153) regarding what the defendant told her.  The defendant denied that this was how the incident took place and explained that he may have described it in this way to Kristina because this is how he remembered the words, against the background of the stress, confusion and storm of emotions in which he was subjected.
244. Regarding his meeting with Yaniv, the Chief of Security, the defendant stated that he did not remember it and did not remember the conversation between them. He also denied it, because he told Yaniv that he had shot the deceased on the ground and stressed that it did not happen.  The defendant described that when one of the policemen stopped him, the defendant showed him that the weapon in the car was above the glove compartment, the policeman took the weapon and the defendant has been under his supervision ever since.  The defendant denied that he had said "death to the Arabs" and clarified that he had said that "first of all, the Arabs are taken care of."  In this context, he explained that when he returned to the scene, still upset and frightened, his hands were immediately handcuffed and his injuries were not addressed, while the deceased received medical treatment.  The defendant emphasized that if he had not been disqualified, he would not have left the scene at all, and that it was important for him to be present at the scene, to explain what happened and to take responsibility for the incident.  The defendant explained that he did not call for help and did not call MDA because by the time the incident was over, there were already many eyewitnesses at the scene, and he assumed that they had already called the rescue forces.  The defendant was nervous about the disqualification, went to fetch his sister and returned immediately.
245. The defendant went on to say that he was then taken to the police station in Afula. There, the policemen who brought him left and he stayed with other police officers until his first interrogation.  Referring to his statements there, including that he was a terrorist and that "every dog has its day," the defendant explained that he meant that if the deceased had not gotten out of the car, this whole incident would not have happened.  The deceased would not have died and the defendant would have returned home safely.  He also explained that he felt at the event that he had been attacked by a terrorist.  The defendant explained his various statements during his interrogation by saying that he was upset, nervous and angry, and felt that his life had been saved in the incident.
246. The defendant explained that at first he was afraid to say that he fired three bullets in the direction of the deceased, and therefore, he said he fired 2-3 bullets. He also noted that only on the third bullet did he see that the deceased had fallen and was neutralized, and in the process, he noticed that the bullets had run out.  The defendant was referred to his version of the incident in his first police interrogation and denied that this was how things happened.  The defendant explained that at the beginning of the interrogation he was angry that he had been asked questions by Uzi, the head of the department, in the hallway, before the interrogation began and without being told of his rights.  The defendant felt that the police were trying to extract information from him, while acting in violation of the law.  The defendant did not remember the exact content of his conversation with Uzi, but insisted that he was also asked questions that were not related to the owl test, as the investigators claimed.
247. The defendant explained that he did not tell the police that he had shot the deceased during the struggle on the floor, even though this was consistent with his claim of self-defense, because that did not happen and he did not shoot the deceased at this stage. He further explained that in the reenactment that was conducted with him, he gave a different version than the one he gave in his first interrogation, because after seeing the scene, he began to recall additional details regarding the course of the incident.  He also noted that he tried to reconstruct and tell the police what happened in the most accurate manner.  However, even during the reconstruction, he provided an inaccurate description of the event, as he was still confused and full of emotions, and only after a few days was he able to return to himself and reconstruct the event as it was.  Thus, he explained that he did not say in the reenactment that the deceased threatened him while he was returning to his car after the incident, because he was trying to remember more about the order of events and not about the exchange between him and the deceased, and apparently he thought that he had already mentioned this detail in his interrogation.  He also explained that many questions were asked in a row during the reconstruction, while the police jumped from topic to topic, so that the defendant had difficulty answering all the questions and noting all the details.
248. The defendant emphasized that he did not shoot the deceased because he was unarmed and authorized, but that if he had identified a weapon in the deceased's hand, the defendant would have shot him immediately. The defendant stated that he did not notice that the laser sight fell from the gun during the struggle and that it was not on the gun when he was caught by the police.  Only during his interrogation, when he was shown that the sight was placed on the road next to the jeep, did the defendant realize that the sight had fallen from the gun.  The defendant emphasized that it was only during his arrest that he began to calm down from the traumatic event he experienced and to slowly recall the details of the incident and the sequence of events during it.  In light of this, in his second interrogation, the defendant told the interrogator on his own initiative that he was not accurate in his reconstruction and in his first interrogation.  The defendant clarified that he believed that he had already told the interrogators in his first interrogation that the defendant had distanced himself from him while making death threats, although in retrospect it turned out that he did not say so.  According to the defendant, the interrogators jumped from one question to another and did not always let him complete his answers.
249. According to the defendant, the answer to the question of whether he shot the deceased during the struggle on the ground was clear to him, because he knew that he had not shot him. However, he was not sure whether he was standing in front of or behind the railing when he shot him, so he hesitated when he answered the question asked in this context in his second interrogation.  The defendant stated that throughout the incident he was holding a weapon in his hand, from the moment the deceased got out of his car in his direction, while he was attacking him and while he was sitting in the car.  Hence, the defendant could have simply pointed the weapon at the deceased and shot him, but he refrained from doing so, since the deceased was unarmed.  The defendant emphasized that he was not a murderer and that he did not want to harm the deceased at all.  In this context, he said that the situation could have been the opposite, that is, if the defendant had found his death at the hands of the deceased and the deceased would have sat in the interrogation.
250. The defendant denied that the deceased tried to close the door after he sat in the car and described that the deceased was sitting in the car with half of his body facing outwards and the defendant was standing right next to him. In this context, the defendant said that if the deceased had tried to close the door and drove away, the defendant would have allowed him to do so, since he wanted the deceased to leave the place.  According to the defendant, the movement of the car door at this stage was due to the deceased's movement inside the vehicle.  The defendant explained that he did not want to act violently and slam the door on the deceased's body, but rather wanted to deter him from leaving on his own.
251. The defendant referred to points in the video documenting the incident in which the deceased tried to seize the weapon and take it from the defendant's hands. According to the defendant, he did not know that there had been gunfire during the struggle between him and the deceased, and he only discovered it during his interrogation, when he was shown the video of the incident and the investigators drew his attention to it.  The defendant explained that he said in his interrogation that the bullet fired during the struggle was in the air, because the video showed his hand raised up when the sound of gunfire was heard.  The defendant noted that he was surprised to discover that two bullets had been fired that he was not even aware of before watching the video.  He also noted that only the sound of the first shot was heard in the video.  The sound of the second shot was not heard, but it can be understood from the fact that the deceased grabbed his stomach and from the fact that the eyewitness who filmed the video said at that moment, "Here he shot him."  According to the defendant, he did not notice this at the incident and saw it for the first time in the video.  In this context, he explained: "I was seen lying on the floor behind the railing after he attacked me with blows to the head in everything, so I don't know, I didn't notice that much, I just heard about him. (Thus in the original - my note Y.S.) He threatens me and starts running and I came to my senses, I got up, I didn't notice exactly what he was doing or what he was grabbing." (p. 550 of Prut, paras. 25-28).  The defendant clarified that if he had known in real time that the deceased had been shot and hit in the abdomen, he would not have fired the three bullets at him while the deceased was returning to his car.
252. According to the defendant, between one bullet and the next, one only has to release the trigger, and if the trigger is pulled all the way, a bullet is fired, which is already in the barrel. If you keep pulling the trigger, no more bullet can be ejected.  He explained that there was already a bullet in the barrel and no further active action was required.  The defendant stated that he could not explain exactly how the two bullets were fired, but he assumed that it was caused by some pressure on the trigger.  He stated as follows (at p. 552, paras. 16-28):

"It could be, there was a struggle there, we rolled, and I'm constantly trying to keep the weapon away from him and here and there and all the time, it could be (sicing in the original - my comment Y.S.) That at some point, as if you're even after shooting, I train a lot, I'm in an elite unit I use a weapon, you don't leave your hand pressed on the trigger, there's this habit of giving a bullet and letting go, it's not the first time I've held a weapon and my hand was caught on it and that's it, I'm used to using weapons...  To give you an explanation of how it happened during the struggle I don't know how to explain, it was just created during a struggle from the pressure of the hand on the trigger and then in the second stage after we roll and struggle on the floor so there is the part that he pulls the weapon from me again he grabs the hand with the weapon and here when he tries to pull in his direction then I probably pull in my direction and then this pressure of the trigger can be created again,  It's like what I understand."

253. The defendant explained that unlike the three shots he fired in the direction of the deceased in the last stage of the incident, he did not hear or feel the two shots fired during the struggle on the floor, because the bullets were fired during a struggle and pressure, during an emotional and rapid event. When he fired in the direction of the deceased (from a distance), he fired consciously and therefore expected the sound of gunfire and deterrence and was aware of them.
254. The defendant explained that when he was shown in his third interrogation that, according to the pathological opinion, the shooting of the deceased was in the front, he believed that it was a shot fired at the deceased after the struggle on the ground, because it was the only shot he had fired as far as he was concerned. Therefore, he told the interrogator that the deceased had his body side towards him.  When the interrogator told him that it was a shooting at close range, the defendant said that a bullet had probably been fired because that seemed to him to be the most logical explanation, in light of the video of the incident and in light of the fact that in the defendant's second interrogation, the interrogator drew his attention to the sound of gunfire that was heard during the struggle on the floor.  The defendant stated that he did not understand how it was possible that the deceased was hit by a bullet in his heart and managed to run from one side of the road to the other.
255. In his cross-examination, the defendant denied that the deceased had annoyed him and that he had jumped out of the car in order to shoot in the air. The defendant stated that after the deceased got out of the car, he also got out of his car because he had to defend himself so that the deceased would not surprise him.  He also said that he did not have time to move the car to a parking position while he was in a terror incident and a terrorist was attacking him.  The defendant stated that he would operate the incident and tried to make contact, but did not physically touch the deceased.  However, he did not shoot the deceased as the deceased was unarmed.  The defendant emphasized that he felt threatened and that the deceased was the one who got out of the car first, attacked him and cursed him.  In this context, he explained that he felt threatened when the deceased ran to him aggressively and with "murder in the eyes", as he put it, and that he did not see with certainty at first that the deceased did not have a weapon.  In these circumstances, the defendant stated that he should have strived for contact and acted as he did in order not to be at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the deceased, as well as in order to deter him.
256. The defendant emphasized that as far as he was concerned, this was not an ordinary incident and that he interpreted the deceased's behavior as an exceptional event, especially against the background of the tense security period. However, the defendant admitted that today he would have behaved differently and that if he had known that it was only someone who wanted to fight on the road, he would have driven away.  According to the defendant, if he was indeed a terrorist, then if he had driven from the place into the community, the terrorist could have hit him until the entrance gate to the community opened, or even drove after him and hit him.  Therefore, he went into a defensive state and felt that he had to deter the deceased, thinking that if he was not a terrorist, he would return to his car and drive away.
257. Following his cross-examination at the hearing on June 3, 2025, the defendant confirmed that he was on good terms with his sister Kristina and that there was no dispute between them. He also confirmed that he had no previous acquaintance with the deceased.  He also confirmed that on the date preceding the incident, Daniel Amsalem's spouse was there, that his mother had a black Mitsubishi Space Star car, which he was driving at the time of the incident, and that he was disqualified from driving by virtue of a judicial decision.  He also confirmed that prior to the date of the incident, he had a license for a Glock pistol X43, with which he shot the deceased.
258. The defendant stated that he used drugs only occasionally and in social circumstances, and that the last time he used drugs was about 3-4 days before the incident. It was argued before the defendant that Dr. Kanfi's testimony shows that the concentration of theTHC A blood test found in his blood two days after the incident indicates that he is a chronic drug user.  It was also argued before him that this was also consistent with Kristina's statement to the police, in which she confirmed that the defendant smoked cannabis.  The defendant replied that Kristina was aware that he smoked sometimes, but not on a daily basis.
259. The defendant denied that he had changed his version regarding the amount of alcohol he consumed on the day of the incident and stated that he drank about 3-4 bottles of beer at home and drank another can of beer on the drive. Before the incident, Sagavim drank about a liter and a half of beer.  The defendant was presented with the fact that in his first interrogation with the police (P/2) he stated that he drank about 3-4 beers in the house, i.e., about 1 liter of beer, while in his second interrogation (P/6) he said that he drank between 4-6 bottles of beer in the house, i.e., about 1.6 liters of beer.  The defendant denied that he had come to the incident "fueled" and replied that he had drunk several bottles of beer at home throughout the day, when the incident occurred in the evening.  It was argued before the defendant that in this situation, he was not allowed to carry the weapon with him, according to the terms of the license.  In this context, the defendant explained that he carried the gun on him regularly and that he did not feel drunk enough to carry a weapon.
260. The defendant confirmed that he had come to Migdal HaEmek to meet his partner Daniel, but she refused to meet with him and he returned as he had come. However, he said that this did not affect his mental state and noted that he may have been a little disappointed, but he was not angry or upset.  The defendant denied that he arrived at the event nervous due to Daniel's refusal to meet with him and tense due to the fact that he had been disqualified, in addition to the high concentration of alcohol and cannabis in his blood, and claimed that he was focused on returning home and preparing for a new week of work.  The defendant described his mood before the incident as usual.
261. According to the defendant, what bothered him immediately after the incident was the fact that he had been disqualified, because it was clear to him that he was acting in self-defense regarding the shooting, and therefore he was not worried. Therefore, the first thing he did was call his sister to say that she was driving the car.  The defendant clarified that he did not think of stopping and checking on the deceased's condition because the deceased had attacked him and he himself had escaped death.  The defendant emphasized that it was self-defense despite the fact that he shot the defendant with his back to him and moved away in the direction of his car, since he believed that the deceased would remove a weapon from the vehicle and that he should neutralize it.  The defendant also claimed that he did not call rescue forces and the police because there were eyewitnesses in the place where they would do so.
262. The defendant was referred to the fact that his initial reaction to the serious suspicions presented to him at the beginning of his first interrogation was that he had not committed the offense of obstruction of the investigation proceedings, even though it was at that moment that he allegedly learned for the first time that the deceased had died. In this context, he replied that he understood that there had been gunfire and saw the deceased fall and imagined that he might have died as a result of the shooting, but he did not do anything that could be considered a disruption.  The defendant denied the claim that he did not care about the deceased's life and that he had shot him at point-blank range.  The defendant was referred to what he said in his first interrogation with the police (P/2) which, according to the accuser, showed the lack of importance that the defendant attributed to the life of the deceased.  The defendant denied this and said that the deceased wanted to kill him.
263. According to the defendant, he first saw the video documenting the incident during his second interrogation on 16 May 2023, even though he had known of the video a few days earlier. The defendant stated that he felt afraid of the deceased from the beginning of the incident, when the deceased got out of his car and ran aggressively towards him, while cursing.  At that moment, the defendant got out of his car and fired in the air, thinking he was a terrorist and in order to deter him.  The deceased returned and sat in his car with his body half inside the car and half outside the car, but did not drive away.  The defendant approached him to make sure he was driving and fired several more bullets in the air next to him to scare him and make him leave the scene.  After the second shot in the air, the deceased jumped on him and attacked him in the face.  The defendant and the deceased rolled on the floor and the deceased tried to snatch the gun from him.  The defendant clarified that he thought it was a terror incident only when he stopped his car near the deceased's car and began to curse him in Arabic.  He also reiterated that although he thought he was a terrorist, he did not shoot him because the deceased was unarmed.  He claimed that he approached the deceased to make sure he was not pulling out any weapons.  However, he said that although he felt threatened and suspected that it was a terror attack, he still did not feel that his life was in danger at that stage because the deceased was unarmed.
264. It was argued before the defendant that in describing the incident as he stated in his first interrogation with the police (P/2), the defendant did not mention at all that he thought it was a terror incident at the beginning of the incident. The defendant replied that he was not at all annoyed by the deceased's behavior on the road and that he did not understand why the deceased was getting out of his car aggressively and aggressively, because he had done nothing to justify it.  The defendant emphasized that he did not overtake the deceased on the road and did not cut the deceased's lane.  The defendant was referred to the fact that in his first interrogation (P/2) he claimed that he felt threatened and in mortal danger when the deceased ran towards him, contrary to his version in his testimony in court.  The defendant replied that it was still a description of the same situation because he felt threatened and feared for his life, and therefore he fired shots in the air.  Since he did not identify a weapon in the deceased's hands, he fired only in the air and did not shoot the deceased.  However, he stressed that he felt "fear of death," as he put it, in light of the deceased's behavior and felt that he was in a terror attack.  The defendant explained that he felt threatened and feared that the deceased would hurt him even if he did not identify a weapon in his hands, but when he saw that the defendant was unarmed, he did not feel that his life was in danger.  The defendant clarified that he felt that he was in real mortal danger only at the stage when the deceased ran to his car after the struggle on the floor and told the defendant while saying, "Now you are dead."  At this point, the defendant felt that he had to neutralize the deceased, so that he would not return to him and kill him.
265. It was argued before the defendant that if the deceased had a weapon in the car, he would have pulled it out at the very beginning of the incident, when the defendant was standing next to the door of the deceased's car. Therefore, the defendant's claim that he feared that the deceased would remove a weapon from his car at the end of the incident is illogical.  In response, the defendant explained (at p. 596 of Prut, s. 24 to p. 597 of Prut, s. 5):

"So I'll explain, the situation I'm standing in front of him and the situation after I'm beaten and I'm lying on the floor and my body is exhausted, it's two completely different scenarios.  There I stand in front of him and shoot in the air and tell him to get out of here, and I also see in eye contact that he doesn't reach out to places to get anything, I see what he's doing and I told him maybe some sentence and he's already started attacking me.  I told him, "Get out of here, I don't want to hurt you," and I fired in the air and then he jumped on me.  And then after that, when we're after the struggle, after we also see in the video that I'm constantly holding my hand with the weapon in this way, trying to prevent the weapon from being kidnapped, pushing it away.  As if I wasn't punching him back, the whole incident was that I was just trying to defend myself and prevent an incident of a weapon snatching...  So in the end, when I'm on the floor after all this struggle, when I fall to the ground, he threatens my life and says to me, 'Now you're dead,' he runs towards the car and I'm exhausted after I got a few bombs, and as I said, I had to neutralize him at that moment so he wouldn't come back."