Well ... Roux diminishes his credibility by saying only that. Negligence is the least of it. There is no reasonable possibility that the gun went off by itself at Tasha's. So reasonable doubt is out the window with respect to this incident. OP pulled the trigger. Period. Therefore OP is baldfacedly lying about this incident. Nel did not cause OP to lie this way. OP masterminded this on his own. OP thereby demonstrated callous disrespect for the court and its proceedings: I can get up here on the stand and say white is black, the sun sets in the east, and Glocks with their three-step safety mechanisms go off by themselves. I can get up here and say anything I want. Who is this judge and these small people compared with me? Does anyone think Masipa will ignore this massive snubbing of the court? OP's fraudulent posture here is a stench that no doubt spreads to the other charges. If he engages in this easy bewildering lying on this slam-dunk charge against him, what is anyone with a functioning brain supposed to think about his credibility on the other charges?
Trial Discussion Thread #50 - 14.08.8, Day 40 ~final arguments continue~
- Thread starter beach
- Start date
New Posts
-
TX TX - Elizabeth Barraza, 29, murdered setting up garage sale, Harris Co, Jan 2019 #7
- Latest: I am not Sherlock H.
-
- Status
katydid23
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 67,773
- Reaction score
- 237,913
It kind of blew my mind that Roux stood up there saying that his client was taking full responsibility for the Tasha's incident. He said to the judge that OP was fully admitting his GUILT. And I am scratching my head, because when OP was questioned on the stand, under oath, HE DENIED any responsibility and accused the others of lying and setting him up, and said he accidentally shot but wasn't his fault because his friend handed it over wrong. :waitasec:
Hatfield
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2012
- Messages
- 17,014
- Reaction score
- 59,126
I would like to also thank you AJ_DS for ALL your posts. ALL OF THEM. You have brought some great and valuable discussion to this thread and I personally enjoyed reading ALL your posts.
We have some great and intelligent posters here at Websleuths and especially on this OP threat. So I would also like to thank everyone else as well that brought such good discussion and observations to this thread. I mostly just lurked and read here and everyones posts helped me to stay up with the case. So thanks to everyone.
Good to remember that H. Botha would have been a hostile witness for the DT.
So what should be the penalty if a person acts in a manner that is not reasonable according to your definition?
It doesn't matter if it was his girlfriend or an intruder? You should have told Nel about this before the trial started.
PrimeSuspect
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2014
- Messages
- 10,594
- Reaction score
- 19,723
But Roux said OP was severely depressed and traumatized, so basically, J Masipa should give him a free pass.
AJ_DS
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
JudgeJudi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 10,620
- Reaction score
- 31,356
<Respectfully snipped>
Firstly, thank you Giles for these terrific links.
Illegal possession of ammunition
The Firearms Control Act doesn’t specify in whose safe it has to be stored. If OP obtained written permission from his father, the owner of the firearm who obviously had the ammunition, authorizing OP to store his ammunition in his safe, that doesn’t suffice. This authorization has to be endorsed by a designated firearms officer (from the local police station in his area) to the effect that “Yes, Mr Pistorius senior is entitled to store his ammunition in OP’s safe”. If OP had permission (a certificate) from the local policeman who is assigned to firearms in that area, he would have produced it. Without that certificate, he’s in contravention of the Firearms Act and is guilty. If you are in possession, you are guilty.
The mens rea necessary for possession of the ammunition: Is it intention? You’ve got to know that your storing of the ammunition is unlawful or is it merely negligence. Where the mens rea is negligence only, that’s called strict liability where the law is holding you strictly liable. If you’re found in possession, you’re guilty.
Even on the best case scenario for the defence you are saying the intention, has to be intention, you could easily argue that OP being a trained person who has passed the firearm competency test, must have known the law and must have known that his possession was in violation of the law. He had no permit for that so he would fail on that ground as well.
https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/lrt-states-closing/s-JkbjO
Firstly, thank you Giles for these terrific links.
Illegal possession of ammunition
The Firearms Control Act doesn’t specify in whose safe it has to be stored. If OP obtained written permission from his father, the owner of the firearm who obviously had the ammunition, authorizing OP to store his ammunition in his safe, that doesn’t suffice. This authorization has to be endorsed by a designated firearms officer (from the local police station in his area) to the effect that “Yes, Mr Pistorius senior is entitled to store his ammunition in OP’s safe”. If OP had permission (a certificate) from the local policeman who is assigned to firearms in that area, he would have produced it. Without that certificate, he’s in contravention of the Firearms Act and is guilty. If you are in possession, you are guilty.
The mens rea necessary for possession of the ammunition: Is it intention? You’ve got to know that your storing of the ammunition is unlawful or is it merely negligence. Where the mens rea is negligence only, that’s called strict liability where the law is holding you strictly liable. If you’re found in possession, you’re guilty.
Even on the best case scenario for the defence you are saying the intention, has to be intention, you could easily argue that OP being a trained person who has passed the firearm competency test, must have known the law and must have known that his possession was in violation of the law. He had no permit for that so he would fail on that ground as well.
https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/lrt-states-closing/s-JkbjO
Lux et Veritas
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2014
- Messages
- 1,131
- Reaction score
- 4,213
Arnold Pistorius @arnoldpistorius
As LIGHT destroy DARKNESS TRUTH will destroy the EVIL.
Exactly WHO, Uncle Arnold, is “the EVIL” in this murder trial?!!
I’m starting to think the entire Pistorius family are sanctimonious, self-righteous narcissists.
As LIGHT destroy DARKNESS TRUTH will destroy the EVIL.
Exactly WHO, Uncle Arnold, is “the EVIL” in this murder trial?!!
I’m starting to think the entire Pistorius family are sanctimonious, self-righteous narcissists.
AJ_DS
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
LOL… can you imagine if after killing someone, after completely fabricating a version of events, tailoring it repeatedly, after lying under oath for many days, all it took is for the accused to state that he is depressed and traumatized to erase all that ?
The ONLY reason and the ONLY person to blame for OP's depression and trauma is himself.
Depressed enough to go on a safari trip with 'friends' and pose for pictures smiling...
Depressed enough to go out in clubs, get drunk and flirt with attractive woman...
etc…
Poor OP… why can't anyone understand that he is the real victim in all of this ?
Please… that sad pathetic excuse of man is neither depressed nor traumatized.
PrimeSuspect
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2014
- Messages
- 10,594
- Reaction score
- 19,723
So the Steenkamps and the state team are all evil because they wanted answers which meant OP had to stand trial? Arnold throws around the 'evil' word like nothing, as Roux following the same thinking, comparing OP to an abused woman!
I haven't thought of OP as evil, so for the uncle to call others standing for justice as evil says a lot about him!
:stormingmad:
PrimeSuspect
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2014
- Messages
- 10,594
- Reaction score
- 19,723
Thank you for this liesbeth. :tyou:
Lux et Veritas
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2014
- Messages
- 1,131
- Reaction score
- 4,213
"As LIGHT destroy DARKNESS, TRUTH will destroy the EVIL." - @Arnold Pistorius
Pass me the freakin Green Bucket.
The Pistorius Arrogance never ends.
Poor persecuted Oscar must be innocent - God apparently has a direct, private pipeline to The Pistorius Family.
Just for you, Uncle Arnie:
No man is so blind as he who willfully refuses to see the EVIL and DARKNESS he welcomes at his own doorstep.
Pass me the freakin Green Bucket.
The Pistorius Arrogance never ends.
Poor persecuted Oscar must be innocent - God apparently has a direct, private pipeline to The Pistorius Family.
Just for you, Uncle Arnie:
No man is so blind as he who willfully refuses to see the EVIL and DARKNESS he welcomes at his own doorstep.
PrimeSuspect
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2014
- Messages
- 10,594
- Reaction score
- 19,723
JudgeJudi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 10,620
- Reaction score
- 31,356
“It is impossible to take account of subjective factors such as disability. That decision has been confirmed – the last time in 1985. I don’t see it ever being changed …” That went on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal and was upheld. What the court must do is take all of the evidence together and weigh that, the whole picture, all of the strands together up against the ultimate standard whether the State has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt”. [What Roux has been doing is taking every individual piece of evidence and holding it up to the standard. If it doesn’t meet the standard, he says it should be discarded, and this is not correct]
Tasha’s Incident
Roux should have kicked off with this admission of guilt. He never raised a defence “the gun went off but it was in my hand”. He should not have waited until closing argument. There has now been a concession of negligence but it’s highly, highly significant because the defence against the Tasha’s incident was one of involuntariness. “I didn’t pull the trigger”. That’s exactly what his defence is in respect to the killing of Reeva. So we have to ask the question – he’s now pursued a defence for 40 days that he acted involuntarily in respect of the discharge of one firearm and now we have exactly that defence in respect of the shooting of Reeva. How about your involuntariness in respect to the shooting of Reeva? How much can we believe this?” The State wanted Masipa to be left with the fact that he’s very reckless with guns. The extra charges were used strategically to support the main charge.
https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/lrt-defence-closing/s-RkoDP
Tasha’s Incident
Roux should have kicked off with this admission of guilt. He never raised a defence “the gun went off but it was in my hand”. He should not have waited until closing argument. There has now been a concession of negligence but it’s highly, highly significant because the defence against the Tasha’s incident was one of involuntariness. “I didn’t pull the trigger”. That’s exactly what his defence is in respect to the killing of Reeva. So we have to ask the question – he’s now pursued a defence for 40 days that he acted involuntarily in respect of the discharge of one firearm and now we have exactly that defence in respect of the shooting of Reeva. How about your involuntariness in respect to the shooting of Reeva? How much can we believe this?” The State wanted Masipa to be left with the fact that he’s very reckless with guns. The extra charges were used strategically to support the main charge.
https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/lrt-defence-closing/s-RkoDP
This post says it all. :goodpost:
katydid23
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 67,773
- Reaction score
- 237,913
If the person acts unreasonably, and those unreasonable actions lead directly to an innocents victim's death, then the penalty should include prison time, imo. :jail:
Unreasonable actions, such as NOT looking for Reeva, confirming her whereabouts, before arming himself and shooting 4x through a closed door.
Lux et Veritas
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2014
- Messages
- 1,131
- Reaction score
- 4,213
I was not able to watch the Defense's closing argument. (I'm hoping to watch it this weekend.)
Compared to Nel's closing, did Judge Masipa ask more or less questions of Roux?
What was her general tone and demeanor, compared with hers toward Nel?
Thank you very much.
Compared to Nel's closing, did Judge Masipa ask more or less questions of Roux?
What was her general tone and demeanor, compared with hers toward Nel?
Thank you very much.
JudgeJudi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 10,620
- Reaction score
- 31,356
If he's found guilty of the main charge and if he appeals, which I'm positive he will, in all probability his bail will continue even if he's found guilty of all the lesser charges. I think it's so wrong that a convicted murderer anywhere in the world should be allowed out on bail. It's just not right. There's also the possibility that Roux will lodge his appeal at the time the verdict is handed down. I think he has 2 weeks in which to do so. If all this happens, it won't be special treatment because it's happened before in SA. And if you don't like that, and I certainly don't, you'll like it even less when you find out that all his sentences will probably run concurrently, not consecutively.
- Status