and the words of the Honorable Judge Procaccia inthe High Court of Justice 7141/05 Witcon v. Commissioner of Police [published in Nevo] (February 27, 2006).
"The absolute prohibition on the use of force and violence by police officers, deviating from a boundary that is reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose of maintaining order and public safety, does not need to be emphasized. It constitutes a cornerstone of the constitutional system relating to the activities of law enforcement agencies in the country. It is required by the basic concepts of public morality that are practiced in Israeli society; It is a central link in the system of components that build the infrastructure of the democratic regime in Israel. The police are supposed to protect public order and security, and to ensure the safety of the individual and the public. It is not intended to bring down its beasts on the environment, and it is forbidden to use its power for the purpose for which it was entrusted to it. A deviation from these basic concepts, or even the existence of a fear of such a deviation, requires an in-depth examination of the implications that this entails, both for the individual suspected or accused, and for the police as a central arm of the government, all of which relate to the norms and modus operandi that should characterize the government bodies in Israel."
- As stated, in our case it was determined that the defendant attacked the plaintiff in a bullying manner and without any justification, and therefore he was even negligent in the performance of his duties, as described above.
Moreover, the defendant was not satisfied with his first sin, which is expressed in the severe attack on the plaintiff, but continued with a series of serious and unfortunate mistakes, when after he attacked the plaintiff severely without justification, instead of coming to his senses and regaining his mind and returning to the right path, he continued his misconduct and arrested the plaintiff without justification, and thus there was another defect in his conduct, which in itself establishes a tort of negligence against him.