The Be'er Sheva District Court today (Tuesday) sentenced Aryeh Schiff to nine months of community service, nine months on probation and compensation to the deceased's family in the amount of NIS 10,000, after he was convicted of manslaughter of Muhammad al-Atrash who broke into his car.
At the end of the sentence, Schiff said: "Glad it was over, sad about the tragedy."
The following is the full sentence:
As part of a plea bargain between the parties, the defendant admitted that he shot to death anyone who tried to steal his vehicle, and was accordingly convicted of committing an offense of manslaughter under section 301C of the Penal Code.
The plea agreement also included an agreement that the shooting was carried out in close proximity to a residence protection restriction, with the disputes between the parties being reduced, in essence, to the weight to be given to that closure and the exceptional circumstances of the incident involving the defendant.
The deceased broke the car window using a pipe wrench
According to the indictment, on the night between 28.11.20 and 29.11.20, the defendant and his wife were in a trailer that was parked behind their vehicle, but detached from it, near their home in Arad.
The defendant, a former volunteer with the Israel Police for many years, has had a licensed handgun for about 40 years, and that night, his personal handgun was kept under a pillow in his bed.
Documentation of Arie Schiff's shooting at his car burglar in Arad
At midnight that night, three burglars arrived in their vehicle in front of the defendant's house, in order to break in and steal his vehicle.
Among the burglars was also Muhammad al-Trash (born 1984, he is the deceased), who was masked.
The deceased got out of the burglars' vehicle, which was standing on the road near the defendant's vehicle;
Broke the driver's window of the vehicle with a 20 cm pipe wrench; and broke into the vehicle to steal it. Another burglar joined the deceased and stood next to him outside the vehicle.
The bullet penetrated through the windshield and hit the burglar's forehead
A few seconds after the burglars arrived at the scene, and due to the noise they made, the defendant's wife woke the defendant from his sleep.
Defendant peered through the trailer window;
Heard the noise of the burglary in his car;
And saw the burglars' vehicle standing next to his vehicle.
Defendant took his gun;
Got out of the trailer;
Step on the sidewalk about seven feet;
And approached his vehicle, shouting "Stop" several times.
The scene where Aryeh Schiff shot dead Muhammad al-Altrash, November 2020 // Photo: Dudu Greenspan,
Defendant arrived near the front passenger door of his vehicle;
Look into the vehicle, when the vehicle ceiling light is on;
And saw the deceased sitting in the driver's seat.
Between the defendant's vehicle and the burglars' vehicle stood another burglar.
Defendant took two steps back;
At a distance of about three meters from the deceased, he swung his weapon while stepping and inserting a bullet into the swallow house, and opened the gun of Nazareth.
At the same time, the deceased closed the driver's door (the vehicle ceiling light went out), and the defendant's vehicle began to slide forward on the road without being driven.
At this point, the defendant took one step forward, raised his right hand which held his weapon, and fired one bullet at the vehicle, to the area where the deceased was sitting.
The bullet penetrated through the upper part of the windshield of the vehicle's front-right door, hitting the right side of the deceased's forehead;
Left in his head;
And caused his death.
Defendant reported to police and called for medical assistance
The other burglar who was outside the burglars' vehicle, got back into it, started driving, and the defendant got off the road from the sidewalk;
Aimed his pistol at the fleeing burglar vehicle;
And fired another bullet at him.
Defendant's vehicle slid diagonally several feet down the road, until it came up on the sidewalk opposite the defendant's home, and stopped at a wall built on it.
Arie Schiff in Court (Archive) // Photo: Dudu Greenspan,
Defendant called the police emergency center;
Reporting the incident;
Sought police and medical assistance;
And waited on the spot until the arrival of the rescue services and the police, with whom he cooperated.
The plea agreement: between nine months of community service and four years in prison
As part of the plea agreement between the parties, it was agreed, as stated, that the defendant acted in close proximity to the protection of a residence, after he got out of the trailer, saw all the burglars and believed that any of them intended to enter the trailer that was used for his wife and residence. At the same time, it was also agreed that the actions of the accused were not immediately necessary to repel the entry of any of the burglars into the trailer, and thus he does not have the protection of the residence. As part of the arguments for punishment, the parties added and agreed on a sentence range between 9 months of community service (they have a defense petition) and 4 years in prison (they have a prosecution petition).
The proximity to the exception agreed upon by the parties is a real proximity as evidenced by the exceptional circumstances of the case, and it also justifies an unusual punishment, in an attempt to get into the defendant's shoes, in the complex situation he and his wife were in late at night in a trailer on the road. To the defendant's wife to wake him from his sleep;
And all against the background of previous events in which his property was stolen from him in similar circumstances.
One must understand the real feelings of distress, fear and anxiety that the defendant felt when he saw the burglars near him and near where his wife was staying;
Feelings that for him required, and even justified, a quick response, even if they caused him to act in a way that went beyond the reasonable.
These feelings must be given real weight when sentencing, although the requirement of reasonableness, as a condition for the existence of a residence protection restriction, is a requirement of an objective standard.
Arie Schiff in discussions on his case // Photo: Dudu Greenspan,
The legislature also recognized the situation in which a defendant is found responsible for his actions, but there is a proximity to criminal liability, in order to reduce the degree of his moral guilt.
What weight should be given to this proximity to the exception, is, in fact, a quantitative question which will be examined in each case on its own merits, according to the circumstances of the offense, its severity, the degree of proximity to the exception, and the personal circumstances of the defendant.
This is also the question before us.
And what about us?
"The case before us is exceptional and also requires exceptional punishment"
At the basis of the offense for which the defendant was convicted stands the protected value of the sanctity of human life, after the defendant, in his actions, violated this sacred value and safeguarded the life of the deceased.
As a rule, such an offense should result in a significant punishment, certainly of imprisonment behind bars.
However, the case before us is exceptional and also requires exceptional punishment.
The defendant was dragged to an event that he did not initiate or plan, which was actually done by the deceased and his accomplices;
Defendant stood alone, late at night, in front of the deceased and his accomplices - all masked, sufficient in appearance to cast terror and fear;
The deceased and his accomplices were caught "on the hot" by the defendant committing a criminal offense directed against his property, and the fear that they and his wife would be harmed, so that they would be allowed to realize their intention to steal his vehicle - was reasonable;
And above all, the whole incident lasts a few seconds, when in retrospect every step or hand gesture made by the defendant can be analyzed, but "not those who are in circumstances of feeling of danger and distress, as those who examine things wisely after the act, in the relatively quiet atmosphere of the courtroom. .. "(according to 4082/08 Gurevitz v. State of Israel, dated 13.01.11).
Arie Schiff outside the court hearing his case (archive) // Photo: Dudu Greenspan,
The defense attorney's question, what other reasonable person, in the defendant's situation, would have done - remained, in fact, unanswered, not even by the prosecution.
The plaintiff's claim that the defendant, unlike as a police officer (that is, in a diagnosis of Shahar Mizrahi's case, according to 8181/09 to which the parties referred), was not required to seek contact with the burglars, is not an answer. Was he likely to be expected to call the police and in the meantime allow the deceased and his accomplices to act as they wished, even if it involved possible harm to him and his wife?
Indeed, the defendant fired in the direction of the deceased, but he did so from the window on the other side of the vehicle (unlike the same Mizrahi Shahar mentioned above, who shot the driver of the vehicle fleeing the window next to the driver and smashed the windshield) when the vehicle began to deteriorate before shooting. The charge), and the question arose, whether this was to affect the injury.
The shooting was not done to harm the deceased;
Certainly not done to cause his death.
"Even the policeman who was called to the scene feared that the burglar was armed"
Defendant also did not attempt to shoot the deceased once more, when the additional shot he fired was at the vehicle of his accomplices who began to flee the scene. Immediately after all this, the defendant called the rescue forces - both the police and MDA, and the policeman who arrived at the scene also feared that the burglar who remained in the vehicle was armed and could endanger the safety of the people who began to gather at the scene. The defendant; and in any case on the appropriate degree of punishment.
The policy of punishment for offenses such as the one in which the defendant was convicted varies from case to case, when the parties also did not find a similar case in which the act of killing was done in such close proximity to a residence protection restriction. In my opinion, and without taking lightly the difficult result of the defendant's actions, the closeness to the exception and the special and exceptional personal circumstances of the defendant, the man of values, who for years contributed to the state in almost every possible way, By way of service jobs. Indeed, this punishment is exceptional in the offenses of manslaughter in general and in the offenses of manslaughter in particular; However, the case before us is exceptional and unique, and the closeness to the exception has the potential to reduce the moral guilt of the act.
In light of all of the above, I sentence the defendant to the following punishments:
1. Actual imprisonment for 9 months which will be served by way of community service.
In accordance with the recommendation of the Commissioner of Service Works, the defendant must report on 01.12.21 at 08:00, to begin serving his sentence in the offices of the Commissioner of Service Works, Barkai Unit - Service Works - South Branch, near Beer-Sheva Prison.
2. Probation for 9 months, and the condition that the defendant does not commit the offense for which he was convicted within three years from today.
3. The defendant will pay compensation to the family of the deceased at the rate of NIS 10,000.
Payment will be made by 01.01.2022.
The prosecution will provide the court secretariat with the details of the person who will receive the compensation from the family of the deceased, within 14 days from today.