Greater Than
Retired Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 3,948
- Reaction score
- 75
The state's burden is to prove all the elements of the offense (murder) beyond a reasonable doubt and to disprove the defense (putative self defense). It is my understanding of SA law that the state does not necessarily have to prove their version. So even if there is doubt regarding certain elements of the state's version, if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that OP committed the offense, he should be found guilty.
For OP to be able to claim putative self defense, my understanding of SA's law is that the threat of death or great bodily harm must feel so real that any other reasonable person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could only be avoided by using the same deadly force OP used. The threat must also be imminent, meaning there could be no other course of action (like escaping) to avoid the situation. SA's constitution guarantees the right to life. A person can legally take the life of another to save their own, but there must be no other alternative available. Killing should be the last and only resort.
My opinion regarding the defense and the charges:
Not Putative Self Defense
1. No evidence to support rational fear that an intruder would enter his highly secure gated community and/or his highly secure home. Any and all unsecured parts of his home were due to OP's neglect to secure them and indicate that he wasn't fearful of leaving them unsecured.
2. He approached the danger. He had the option to escape via his bedroom door, but he admitted under cross that he wanted to confront the intruder(s). "That's my personality. That's how I am."
3. He made no attempt to ensure it wasn't his guest in the toilet. A reasonable person would first assume it was the houseguest, not an intruder.
4. He demanded that the intruder get out of his house, but did not allow the intruder to do so. He just started firing.
5. He passed the firearm competency test -- he knew it was illegal to fire at an unseen target.
Premeditated
Premeditation does not rely on a certain length of time. OP had sufficient time to reflect and think about what he was about to do before doing it. This was not a quick reaction... He bent down to get his 9mm pistol loaded with black talon bullets from under the bed, removed the holster, released the safety mechanism, slowly walked down the passage, entered the bathroom, and aimed at the door. Every step was under his control.
Murder
1. Ear witness testimony from credible witnesses that there was arguing between a man and a woman.
2. He shot to kill. He fired four rounds of black talon bullets into a small toilet cubicle. He made a conscious and deliberate decision to pull the trigger four separate times.
3. The shots were fired with accuracy and precision.
4. Expert testimony that the victim screamed after at least the first shot. The scream indicated that there was no longer a threat and/or it was mistaken identity of the person behind the door, but he kept firing.
5. He called a friend first, not netcare.
In the interest of justice, OP must be found guilty of premeditated murder.
For OP to be able to claim putative self defense, my understanding of SA's law is that the threat of death or great bodily harm must feel so real that any other reasonable person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could only be avoided by using the same deadly force OP used. The threat must also be imminent, meaning there could be no other course of action (like escaping) to avoid the situation. SA's constitution guarantees the right to life. A person can legally take the life of another to save their own, but there must be no other alternative available. Killing should be the last and only resort.
My opinion regarding the defense and the charges:
Not Putative Self Defense
1. No evidence to support rational fear that an intruder would enter his highly secure gated community and/or his highly secure home. Any and all unsecured parts of his home were due to OP's neglect to secure them and indicate that he wasn't fearful of leaving them unsecured.
2. He approached the danger. He had the option to escape via his bedroom door, but he admitted under cross that he wanted to confront the intruder(s). "That's my personality. That's how I am."
3. He made no attempt to ensure it wasn't his guest in the toilet. A reasonable person would first assume it was the houseguest, not an intruder.
4. He demanded that the intruder get out of his house, but did not allow the intruder to do so. He just started firing.
5. He passed the firearm competency test -- he knew it was illegal to fire at an unseen target.
Premeditated
Premeditation does not rely on a certain length of time. OP had sufficient time to reflect and think about what he was about to do before doing it. This was not a quick reaction... He bent down to get his 9mm pistol loaded with black talon bullets from under the bed, removed the holster, released the safety mechanism, slowly walked down the passage, entered the bathroom, and aimed at the door. Every step was under his control.
Murder
1. Ear witness testimony from credible witnesses that there was arguing between a man and a woman.
2. He shot to kill. He fired four rounds of black talon bullets into a small toilet cubicle. He made a conscious and deliberate decision to pull the trigger four separate times.
3. The shots were fired with accuracy and precision.
4. Expert testimony that the victim screamed after at least the first shot. The scream indicated that there was no longer a threat and/or it was mistaken identity of the person behind the door, but he kept firing.
5. He called a friend first, not netcare.
In the interest of justice, OP must be found guilty of premeditated murder.