Search results

Didn't they charge him with murder on day 1, premeditated schedule 6 as well. You don't think thats throwing the book at him already?

10 years would be 8 years in prison because of the 4/5 rule surely, and the 10 years would already take account of the year served. Unless Masipa went with the 2/3 rule. If wanted him to serve 4 years she'd have to sentence him to 6 years.

I think his view throughout is that in the situation where someone thinks they are in danger, as OP was in his mind, the court doesn't take the armchair position and says 'he should have known so did know' but should put themselves in the position of the person to ask 'did he know'? The SCA may...

It was only the idea that he had no intention to shoot at all that was regarded as untruthful - nothing else.

That no side brought the Netcare or Frank to court totally proves him guilty, sure. I think that's what you're trying to say...

Putative - you know what that means? It's totally irrelevant that there was no actual threat, so why keep repeating that he was mistaken? Common sense conviction... totally lacking in sense rather.

Of course it makes a difference. If the state had shown he knew it was Reeva, it could only have been a deliberate murder whereas shooting in panic at a presumed intruder is usual regarded as CH. In what other cases has shooting at an intruder in the home been treated as murder? I've not...

The state made no allegation about the contents of the call. Why then would either you or the defense bring it up? My guess is that he was incoherent and that's why neither side thought it was useful. The state were afraid it would show how upset he seemed, while the defense were afraid it...

Ah, so now it doesn't matter what you put on the gun licence exam as long as there are other witnesses to confirm your version of events and as long as you are only shooting once without thinking. That makes everything clear(!) So basically, the argument that he must have known he was acting...

None of this proves he knew he was acting illegally. Once the court and SCA accepted OP's version, the case is very similar to many others where people have thought they were defending themselves in their homes. In the D'Oliveira case, the circumstances were utterly different - I'm not...

In relation to Netcare, the operator could have been called to testify that OP didn't actually explain what had happened or ask for help, couldn't he or she? It was for the state to prove their case, so they should have led evidence in this matter if there was anything to disprove OP's version...

So are you now saying that it's got nothing to do with his answer in the gun test? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the gun test in SA says it's ok to shoot 1 shot at someone you can't properly see. If shooting without properly knowing your target means that you have knowingly acted...

Why does this argument only apply in OP's case and apparently in no other similar case of people shooting through doors or roofs in similar curcumstances? That's surely the point here - OP has been treated differently from the people in those cases who, all being legal gun owners, must also...

Of course not, it's culpable homicide which is still a serious offence.

Yes, when pressed by Nel. This is catch 22. If he hadn't explained what he did in great detail, while being repeatedly asked why he did this and didn't do that by Nel, he might have had his version rejected because he couldn't explain his actions. But when he justifies his actions, then he...

But you can Marfa. That's what PPD is. It's a defense whereby you have a genuine fear which in fact turns out to be unfounded. This is the bit you're missing in the above - what he thought, not what was actually happening. You are taking the armchair critic approach which is not the correct...

Masipa didn't say that OP was lying about everything. In fact, she accepted his version except that she said he had intent to shoot. It is irrelevant that the door didn't open - it's that he thought it was that matters and that the court didn't reject his version. OP said he didn't know what...

I think he was pretty clear actually. He fired when he thought the door was about to open, in fright and without time to think. The problem I think is the word intent. OP is clear that he didn't think before shooting and that's why he says he didn't have intention to shoot. This is an...

Op made it clear that he shot believing someone was coming out of the toilet, not just because he thought someone was there. There's a huge difference between grabbing a gun planning to kill an intruder up front, and taking the gun for self defence and then reacting strongly when thinking an...

Surely the court were supposed to look at things subjectively from OP's perspective and in the moment. I can't see how the SCA made any effort to do that at all. It makes no sense to argue that someone who correctly answers a question in a test would have time to think in a potentially...