Court Acquits Border Police Officer Over Sponge Round Injury in Jerusalem
A Jerusalem court acquitted a Border Police officer who struck a woman in the head with a sponge round during riots, criticizing investigators and warning of a chilling effect on security forces.
A Border Police officer who fired a sponge round during riots in the A-Tur neighborhood of Jerusalem, injuring a woman in the head, has been acquitted by the Rishon LeZion Magistrates' Court.
Judge Menachem Mizrahi ruled that it was not proven the officer acted with criminal negligence, heavily criticized the evidentiary foundation of the case, pointed to numerous investigative flaws, and warned that such indictments could create a chilling effect among security forces.
According to the indictment filed by the Police Internal Investigations Department (PIID), the incident took place on Al-Mansura Street in A-Tur. The defendant, serving as a career Border Police officer at the time, arrived with additional forces following a report of an attack on a driver and remained until a tow truck arrived. Around 6:00 PM, he noticed rioters, positioned himself near a concrete wall, and fired a sponge round toward them.
The indictment alleged that the shooting was carried out in violation of standard operating procedures for sponge rounds. PIID claimed the officer measured the firing distance himself and fired about ten minutes later without conducting an additional check to ensure no bystanders were in the line of fire. The round struck a bystander in the head, causing a deep cut that required stitches, along with headaches and severe dizziness. The prosecution argued that the officer acted negligently with a firearm and caused injury.
The officer did not dispute that he fired the round and that the woman was injured, but rejected the conclusion that his conduct was criminal. He described riots that included burning trash cans and the throwing of stones and bottles at police forces and civilians. According to his testimony, prior to using the weapon, approval for sponge fire was received, and he personally measured the distance between himself and the burning bin near the rioters. After a few minutes, he spotted an individual hurling stones at the force, verified that the person was within range, and fired a single sponge round. He maintained that the complainant entered the line of fire during the discharge and was accidentally struck.
Court Findings and Dismissal of Allegations
A central issue in the trial was whether the officer properly checked the firing distance and whether he should have relied on a female officer who served as number two in his team. The court accepted the defendant's testimony that he was never told he was forbidden from measuring the distance himself, and that he saw a clear line of fire prior to shooting. It was further determined that no evidence was presented indicating the injured woman stood closer than ten meters from him.
His version was reinforced by the testimony of the second officer, who stated that she also checked the distances and stood behind the defendant during the shooting. Judge Mizrahi ruled that her testimony directly contradicted the indictment's claim that no additional check was performed, and that this testimony alone warranted an acquittal.
PIID further argued that the officer operated in violation of procedures by deploying the weapon without a spotter's assistance and because roughly ten minutes had elapsed since the range estimation. The court rejected these arguments as well, noting that procedures do not stipulate that firing is prohibited ten minutes after measurement, especially when the target remains in the same location.
Criticism of the Investigation and Evidence
The court sharply criticized the prosecution's handling of the case and the evidentiary standards applied. Judge Mizrahi noted that no professional expert witness was brought to testify on the validity, meaning, or application of the operational guidelines, while a PIID investigator admitted during testimony that he was not responsible for writing procedures.
Furthermore, the court highlighted severe investigative flaws, including a failure to collect evidence from additional witnesses present at the scene, an omission to test the weapon for potential malfunctions or deviations, and inadequate reenactment procedures.
The court also rejected a video clip submitted by the prosecution, ruling it inadmissible as evidence. The judge pointed out that the origin of the footage, the identity of the business owner, the chain of custody from the lawyer representing the plaintiff in a civil suit, and the camera angles remained entirely unverified.
Judicial Warning and Conclusion
Judge Mizrahi emphasized that law enforcement actions must not be judged retrospectively under sterile, air-conditioned conditions disconnected from operational realities.
«The defendant's only 'sin' was that he stood on guard for the security of the State of Israel.»
While acknowledging the unfortunate outcome and the injury to an innocent civilian, the court concluded that the officer did not deviate from reasonable rules or act with criminal negligence. Judge Mizrahi formally acquitted the defendant of all charges and reiterated his warning regarding the broader implications for security personnel.
«Indictments of this type are liable to create a chilling effect among security forces entrusted with the peace of the nation who find themselves engaged in operational activity.»
