here's a pdf of the defence heads of argument:
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03000/supplementary_head_3000376a.pdf
eta: It's the defence response to the state's hoa
bump -
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
here's a pdf of the defence heads of argument:
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03000/supplementary_head_3000376a.pdf
eta: It's the defence response to the state's hoa
R: Now, Col Van Rensberg. Oh dear....
I read the 'example' in the heads of argument which Roux referred to of a mother shooting dead her little girl behind a door. What a load of rubbish.
The example presents as fact that the mother acted in putative self defence - she genuinely held a honest belief that there was an intruder behind the door coming out to harm, but it was in fact her innocent daughter.
Roux claims that the state would have the mother guilty of murdering her daughter?? His reason - because she intended to kill the perceived intruder, and the state would apply "error in persona". Roux says this proves the fallacy of applying "error in persona" in OP's case because common sense, legal principles and legal conviction dictate the mother is not guilty of murdering her daughter.
This is nonsense, the state would not contend she is guilty of murder. The reason it is not murder is because she intended to lawfully kill. Had she intended to unlawfully kill a perceived intruder (let's say she never felt under threat and thought he deserved to be killed) - then common sense says yes, she is guilty of murder even though it was in fact her daughter - and as the state says, error in persona applies, at the end of the say she intended to unlawfully kill a human being.
Surely Masipa could have just required it on the record that the phone records were not common cause? Just to clarify? (Before handing down her murder verdict!)
But Roux is arguing that OP intended to lawfully shoot/kill intruder in self defense, same as the mother. On Nel's argument, the mother would be guilty of murder simply because she intended to kill a person
I have never seen that argument from Nel. Can you point it out? It would mean Nel rejects the validity of putative private defence against a murder charge, which he clearly doesn't.
At the end, MLady questioned Nel as to accepting as common cause the phone records. :sigh: This shows to me she is going to side with the defense due to the timing of those calls associated with the screaming and noises ... and weight them very heavily as is outlined in the defense Head of Argument.
:sigh:
Well, at lease he'll get the gun charge. Wonder what the slap on the wrist for that can be? Anyone know?
The one thing we can be sure of is that he shot to kill whoever was behind that toilet door. He knew those bullets were deadly, and he knew they would kill. So the intent to kill was there, no matter how Roux spins it.I just don't see a light sentence for OP. At the end of the day he unloaded 4 rounds into a tiny toilet cubicle with a human being locked inside. Surely it doesn't matter if it was his girlfriend or an intruder? To say he didn't shoot to kill is ludicrous.
Hey y'all...want some southern b'fast in addition to the other great spreads already out? How about New Orleans southern from Cafe DuMonde? Chicory coffee and beignets!!! :lick:
![]()
http://civilwartalk.com/attachments/beignetsscottgulbransen-jpg.32607/
I thought she asked whether Roux's timeline was common cause, which it isn't. Just the phone data. Not gun then bat.
But Roux is arguing that OP intended to lawfully shoot/kill intruder in self defense, same as the mother. On Nel's argument, the mother would be guilty of murder simply because she intended to kill a person
She asked Nel if the information cited by Roux in the timeline is common cause - to which Nel replied yes, the phone data is common cause. He did not say there was anything about the timeline that was disputed - again completely refusing to deal with the sequence of first gunshots heard by Stipps. The only inference is that he does not or cannot dispute it. I think the judge was trying to get him to commit by clarifying his dispute with the timeline, but he agreed it was common cause.