It should be noted that the incident took place at noon on a bright summer day, and from the photographic footage of the incident in and around the playground, it is clear that the visibility conditions were optimal.
The period of time during which the complainant was exposed to the defendant was long and in fact spread over several "beats". As stated by the complainant, the defendant initially approached him at the entrance to the barbershop where he had come to get his hair cut. Even then, there was an initial connection and closeness between the two. The defendant asked to speak with the complainant, but the latter said that he had rejected him, did not pay attention to him and went in to get a haircut. Later, when the complainant finished cutting his hair and headed towards the playground, the defendant arrived again on a motorcycle and a short conversation took place between the two. The complainant stated that the defendant told him, "Come on a minute," "we need to talk," and other things (which are difficult to hear due to the quality of the recording). Later, as stated, the complainant stated that the defendant shot him from "zero range." In this context, it should be noted that the complainant's wife stated in her police interrogation that when the complainant arrived at the garden from the barbershop, the cyclist clung to him and spoke to him quietly, and she heard the complainant say to him: "What do you want?" The complainant's wife said that she asked her husband who it was, and he replied: "Leave it untied." According to her, the cyclist continued to drive and the complainant rocked their son on a swing. She then noticed that the cyclist was driving to a nearby residential building, took out a weapon from his bag, returned to the complainant, telling him to keep the girl away, and shot him two bullets in the abdomen, from a distance of about two meters. The aforementioned description is consistent with the videos from the security cameras presented to the court. From this, it appears that the complainant was exposed to the presence of the defendant, whom he had already known as mentioned, several times in a row over a period of time that lasted for many minutes. This is not a quick glance, but rather a relatively long period of observation, and mainly a dialogue took place between the two, on the basis of which the complainant presented the presumed motive for the defendant's actions. It should also be emphasized, as also seen in the footage and stated by the complainant and his wife, that there was a real physical proximity between the defendant and the complainant, and that the shooting was carried out from a very short distance of up to two meters.