In our case, I am satisfied that the mental element required in the offense of attempted murder has also been proven against the defendant.
The defendant was armed with a firearm, which can fire modern Western ammunition, without having a legal license to possess it. The defendant spoke with the complainant twice before the shooting. The first time at the entrance to the barbershop, when the defendant arrived at the scene in order to get a haircut. The videos showed that the defendant waited for the complainant for about 20 minutes in order for him to finish cutting his hair (the video is from the security camera at 22 Nardor Street), and then followed the complainant on his bicycle to the entrance to the playground, where his wife and son were waiting for him. The defendant then joined the complainant once more, and another short conversation took place between the two, as was also seen on the security camera. Afterwards, the defendant placed his bicycle near the playground and was seen on camera arriving on foot and waving his hand that was holding an object (the weapon) at the complainant. According to the complainant's wife's testimony to the police, which was found to be reliable, the shooter told her husband to keep the girl away, and while her husband was rocking their son, he shot him twice in the abdomen, from a distance of about 2 meters. Watching the video that documented the shooting, the defendant is seen chasing the complainant, a distance of several meters, in order to complete the task, but the complainant fled the scene.
From the point of view of the cognitive level, there can be no doubt that the defendant was aware of the nature of the act, its circumstances and the possibility of causing a fatal result. This is a planned event that began with the acquisition of lethal weapons, without legal authorization. The defendant did not do his act during the period out of momentary feelings of stress and distress. The defendant spoke with the complainant when he entered the barbershop and waited for him to leave for many minutes, when he spoke to him again in the playground. The defendant shot the complainant, while shouting to get his toddler son away (believing that he was a girl), and this clearly shows that the defendant was aware that the combination of these circumstances could lead to death, and at the very least he acted blindly in the face of the aforesaid (Section 20(c) to the Penal Law).