The Justice Ministry’s department responsible for investigating police officers announced on Wednesday its intention to indict an Israel Police officer in connection with the fatal shooting of Mohammed Hussein Tarabin al-Sana. The incident occurred in January during a police raid in the Tarabin Bedouin community in southern Israel. The officer, whose name has not been disclosed, may face charges of reckless homicide, pending a pre-indictment hearing.
According to the investigation, the officer, a member of the police’s major crime division, told detectives he opened fire because he believed al-Sana was approaching him armed with an object resembling a knife. However, sources close to the inquiry indicated that no such weapon was found at the scene.
Family members of al-Sana strongly disputed the police account. His 11-year-old son, Hussein, said that his father was shot immediately after opening the door to his home. “There were knocks on the door, and the moment he opened it, he fell to the floor because they shot him,” he recounted. Al-Sana’s brother, Omar, described the killing as an unjustified act, stating, “They murdered my brother in cold blood. He didn’t do anything against the state. He was a working man, coming home.” Omar also expressed broader concerns about law and order in the country following the incident.
The police operation took place after a series of incidents in the area, including the torching of several vehicles in the nearby community of Givot Bar the previous month. Authorities characterized the raid as a response to “revenge acts by criminals.”
Reports have noted that investigators from the Justice Ministry’s police oversight department did not arrive at the shooting scene until five days after the incident. Typically, early arrival is standard procedure to collect testimony, review security footage, and conduct an independent scene examination.
In response to the planned indictment, the officer’s legal team defended the shooting, emphasizing that it occurred amid an operation based on “serious intelligence information” and described as a “terror incident.” The lawyers argued that decisions made during high-risk situations should not be scrutinized under ideal conditions, warning that such examination might discourage security personnel from acting decisively in dangerous circumstances. They asserted that evidence presented at the hearing would demonstrate that the use of lethal force was warranted at the critical moment, promising to appeal to what they called the “cold, responsible and objective logic” of the investigative authorities.