The Disciplinary Court noted in its judgment that:
"In this act, the defendant used blatant violence that constitutes real bullying against the complainant, in circumstances in which there was no necessity or justification for the use of force of any kind."
The verdict also stated:
"It should be noted that in the case before us, no claim of provocation was made. The defendant admitted to the facts of the indictment, according to which during an argument with the complainant, he got out of the car and slammed the complainant in the face. In these circumstances, there is no justification for the extreme violent act taken by the defendant."
- The defendant submitted an affidavit of his. The state submitted three affidavits on its behalf by the police officers who were at the scene, including Sgt. David Shako, the defendant's partner in the patrol car; Sgt. Moshe Mashiach and Sgt. Meir Turgeman, patrol officers who were at the scene in another traffic car.
I will immediately say that the testimony of the defendant and the policemen on behalf of the defendant did not make a reliable and convincing impression on me; They were incoherent and included unreasonable exaggerations and exaggerations.
- The defendant described his version of the circumstances of the incident in paragraphs 15-25:
"15. I asked the plaintiff why he was driving without a seat belt and he replied that he wanted to go down to buy cigarettes.
- I went to the patrol car in order to record the plaintiff a traffic ticket for driving without a seat belt. I got into the car and closed the door of the car with the window of the car on the side where I was sitting was open.
- The plaintiff arrived at the police car and waited outside the car while I wrote the report. I asked the plaintiff not to stand next to me while the traffic ticket was registered, but not only did the plaintiff not move away from the patrol car, but he began to chew gum loudly deliberately, near my ears when the window of the patrol car was open.
- Although I asked the plaintiff several times not to stand next to me, he did not move away and continued to talk to me in a threatening manner, saying: "Who are you? Why who are you? So what if you're a policeman?" while chewing gum and blowing up balloons from the gum in such a way that my whole face was filled with the saliva in his mouth. I didn't chew gum.
- I wanted to get out of the car so that the plaintiff would get away from the car, but when I tried to get out of the car, the plaintiff grabbed the door and prevented me from getting out of the car, while shouting: 'Who are you?' The plaintiff did this 4 times - when I open the door and he closes it back.
- After four failed attempts to get out of the patrol car, I managed to get out of the car. At some point, the plaintiff approached me in a threatening manner and said to me: Who are you? I'm not afraid of you,' he said, with a threatening look, as he thuggically waved his hands at his friends who were there. I will note that the plaintiff's mouth smelled of alcohol and he behaved like a drunk.
- I told the plaintiff that he was under arrest, but the plaintiff continued to approach me in a threatening manner, and out of self-defense and in a reflex to the plaintiff getting closer and closer to me in a threatening manner, I had to move my head to the side, and as a result, you collided and he hit his nose. I will note that I did not grab him and hit him, but moved my head to move away from him when his head was extended towards me, and as a result of the movement and as part of self-defense, we collided and the plaintiff was hit in the nose.
- It is important to note that the place where the plaintiff and I were standing was an unlit place, and I did not know whether the plaintiff had a knife or other dangerous object on his body, in addition to being a very sensitive place and the presence of the many difficult events that took place there.
- The plaintiff began to go berserk and tried to attack me and tried to punch me and grabbed me. The policemen who were in the vicinity came to my aid and handcuffed the plaintiff.
- The policeman who was with me in the patrol car, David Shako, and I took him with us to the police station in Ma'ale Adamim, where he apologized to me all the way and asked us not to arrest him. Before we put the plaintiff in the patrol car, the plaintiff's and the plaintiff's friends apologized to me and begged me not to arrest the plaintiff and that we would end the matter and make a "sulha", but I insisted that he come to the police station.
- When we arrived at the police station, the prosecutor apologized to me after the interrogation. He told me: 'I made a mistake. I want to apologize.'"
With all due respect, the defendant's statements in paragraph 18 of his affidavit, according to which his face was filled with saliva that splattered from the defendant's chewing gum, are exaggerated, unreasonable and difficult to accept. The same is true of his statements in paragraphs 19 and 20 of his affidavit, according to which the plaintiff prevented him from leaving the police car, are unreasonable and unconvincing. The defendant even went further and stated in his testimony that the plaintiff actually locked him inside the patrol car (see: p. 51 of the transcript of the hearing, paras. 17-26). These words are inconsistent with his statement in paragraph 21 of the affidavit, according to which after he got out of the police car, the plaintiff continued to approach him. From these words, it appears that the plaintiff was at a certain distance from the police car when the defendant got out of it, otherwise he would not have been able to get any closer to the defendant, as he said.