Beersheba bank tragedy390(1).
(photo credit: Rotem Regev)
With rampant finger-pointing over how and why Itamar Alon – who shot and killed
four people in a Beersheba bank on Monday – had a weapon despite an earlier
police request to confiscate his weapon, the courts sent out a copy of the
transcript of the hearing over confiscating his weapon.
transcript from August 8, 2011 reveals that Alon’s “winning argument” for
keeping his weapon appeared to be that his life was in danger and he needed the
weapon for self-defense.
In an incident in 2002, Alon ran to the site of
a terror attack at an IDF base in Beersheba and shot and killed one of the
Alon told the court that the terrorist’s family was planning
to kill him and that he had even tried to cover up his identity, but that once
his identity as the “hero” who killed the terrorist was made public, he was in
permanent danger without a weapon.
He told the court that “I did things
for the public, for the State of Israel” and that if the family of the terrorist
“know that I do not have a weapon, the consequences would be fatal” and the
expected “harm would be definite.”
Alon claimed that the family had
killed other members of the security forces in the past.
On the day of
the hearing, the police did not even show up on time, and the court postponed
the hearing until later in the day. Eventually the police appeared and said that
it objected to Alon having a weapon because he was under investigation for
causing property damage to his neighbors – who are his parents – and interfering
with police work.
The police representative added that the investigator
who interrogated Alon following an incident involving his parents believed that
he posed a danger to them. The representative argued there was no basis for
returning the confiscated weapon to Alon until the case was fully
Alon contradicted the police account, stating that he had
neither been asked any questions nor spoken to the investigator.
police representative responded defensively to try to explain why an
investigation for property damage suggested that Alon posed any
He eventually admitting that Alon had not been interrogated
regarding the issue of posing a danger to his parents, and simply said that the
police demand to confiscate the weapon was “within the authority of a police
The court left the door open to the police to question Alon
further, but essentially decided that without having questioned him about
anything violent, the police had overstepped its bounds.