Even footage of a 62-year-old defendant from Givatayim kicking an ice machine outside a bar in the city, which interfered with his parking, was not enough to convict him. This is despite the fact that Judge Yael Pradelsky ruled that she did not trust the defendant's version because, as far as can be seen, he drops the machine but was not seen shattering it.An indictment was filed against a Givatayim resident, in which it was alleged that after he noticed an ice machine, which he knew was owned by a bar owner with whom he had a long-standing business dispute, he beat and broke it.
According to the complainant, the value of the machine was 14,452 shekels. Article 3 of the Penal Code, in which the voucher was charged, states that "whoever destroys property or damages willfully and unlawfully is punishable by imprisonment for <> years, unless another punishment is prescribed."
A violent brawl broke out between two women in a pool in Holon // Use under section 27A of the Copyright Law
Since he had to leave for another destination, he left the machine outside for a technician to come to repair or pick it up. The technician called him when he arrived and informed him that the machine was "shattered and broken." The bar owner went to view the security cameras of a tire business next to him, in which he saw the defendant leave the business, approach the ice machine and smash it. When two neighbors passed, he ran back to the business. The complainant filmed everything from his mobile and uploaded it to the police website.
In his cross-examination, he said that he chose the video in which the defendant is clearly seen, even though he had two or three other videos, but did not have footage of the machine before it was taken out to the street.Attorney Inbar Keinan, who represented the defendant on behalf of the Public Defender's Office, denied the allegations against her client, who claimed in his testimony that "everything is fake."
Keinan said: "He is 62 years old and dislocated his hand that day. When he was shown the video to the police, he didn't know it was an ice machine or who it belonged to, and treated it as junk along with other cartons and junk found in his parking spot that hindered his parking. She added: "The complainant used to work for him as a contractor and received large sums from him to establish a new venture to import scooter parts to Israel. A protracted business dispute broke out between the two, and since then the complainant has harassed him and harmed his livelihood. Apart from the proceedings in question, another case is being conducted between the two, in which the defendant claims assault and injury on the part of the complainant."Judge Pradelski, who decided to acquit the defendant because of the doubt, ruled that everything that can be seen in the video is what knocked down the machine. You don't see that the machine shattered or broke.
The judge also ruled that it was not clear what condition the machine was when it was placed outside a bar in a public area and in the public domain, and therefore it is impossible to determine that it was in working order, and of course it is impossible to know whether another person destroyed or damaged the machine before the technician arrived and before A. dropped the machine.
The fact that the complainant testified that he watched other relevant videos, and chose to show a particular one, also added to the acquittal.
"It is quite possible that the other videos show more people tampering with the machine," wrote the judge, who adopted the defense's argument that there may have been other videos showing someone else causing harm.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us