Hey james :seeya: I have missed your humor.
Hi Mate, sorry for delay missed your post earlier, hope you are good, and hope we get the right ending this time.
Hey james :seeya: I have missed your humor.
And if DE is ruled, do you think OP would immediately (within 48 hours) return to prison or would he remain at AP's home until and if a further appeal (Constitutional Court) gets underway? How long would that be likely to take? Years?
Earlier on during a round up of today's events Sky News reporter Alex Crawford said "The state wants him convicted of murder which would almost certainly mean he goes straight back to prison for a much longer jail term".
Why, then, did a very experienced prosecution not ask for DD? Even I, an old lady(!!), thought I could pick up that that the SC judges would have considered DD!
BIB - remember how reluctant she was to punish him 'twice'? Imagine her having to hand down a much stiffer sentence because she messed up the first time. I wonder if she watched the proceedings this morning and cringed!I assume that if the State win this one, Pistorius will immediately appeal and re-apply for bail on similar grounds to what he was granted before. From what I have read, I also assume that since she will be the one to pass sentence the bail hearing will involve Masipa making the decision. Perhaps though the State would have stronger grounds for opposing it on the basis that he could do a flier to Mozambique given the alternative long prison sentence he would be facing. But I am putting my cart before the horses and all. It would be a strange situation though wouldn't it for Pistorius to have to front up before her again, with him facing at least 15 years and her knowing that her prior verdict has been overturned. Neither would be happy I don't reckon, though him much more so than her of course.
PS Have done a lot of assuming above but I am sure someone will let me know if I am partially or completely wrong.
Yes, and this is what Judge Greenland said in that prog I linked to recently. ( radio sittingbourne, kent , DJ interview link, a few pages back, radio chatter?)
JGrrenland remarked that as he sat on the Carte Blanche he wondered to himself "Am I going crackers? This DD, whoever t is. The court has confused itself over Dolus Eventualis. ( Due to error in objecto, so i completely agree with you sleuth-d.)
Even though Nel is going for DE, could the SC judges make a decision of DD? Absolutely appreciate all wonderful comments and insight posted here ... thank you all!
BIB - remember how reluctant she was to punish him 'twice'? Imagine her having to hand down a much stiffer sentence because she messed up the first time. I wonder if she watched the proceedings this morning and cringed!
Yes, and this is what Judge Greenland said in that prog I linked to recently. ( radio sittingbourne, kent , DJ interview link, a few pages back, radio chatter?)
JGrrenland remarked that as he sat on the Carte Blanche he wondered to himself "Am I going crackers? This DD, whoever t is. The court has confused itself over Dolus Eventualis. ( Due to error in objecto, so i completely agree with you sleuth-d.)
FYI
from Australia
http://www.news.com.au/sport/sports...torius-of-murder/story-fno61i58-1227594298373
Prosecutors ask South Africa’s Supreme Court to convict Oscar Pistorius of murder
NOVEMBER 4, 2015
"...Prosecutors say the North Gauteng High Court erred in convicting Pistorius of the lesser charge, and that the double-amputee Olympian should have known that someone could be killed when he fired four times into a locked toilet cubicle in his home..."
"... in a bad sign for Pistorius ... some of the Supreme Court judges suggested he could have known he would kill someone, whether his girlfriend or a possible intruder, by firing his pistol..."
The judges had already studied the tens of thousands of pages of court transcript from Pistorius’ trial.
The panel of five judges, three men and two women, can reach a decision through a simple majority.
After Tuesday’s session, the judges retired to consider their judgment.
... there is no time frame ... although the court has said it would aim to release a decision by the end of this month.
Well part of it is just pragmatic.
DE is a lower hurdle to get over.
And also in this case of mistaken identity- it is hard for the prosecution to prove OP directly intended to kill the person behind the door.
Of course he might have - but its a lower standard to prove only that he must have realised the possibility.
I still find the point to be rather a different one, as per OP's original statement of defence.
In self defence cases, the question is not one of intention but of justification.
DE is a red herring. Of course he either meant to kill the person, or must have realised they would die.
The question is rather, did he kill in self defence?
I assume that if the State win this one, Pistorius will immediately appeal and re-apply for bail on similar grounds to what he was granted before. From what I have read, I also assume that since she will be the one to pass sentence the bail hearing will involve Masipa making the decision. Perhaps though the State would have stronger grounds for opposing it on the basis that he could do a flier to Mozambique given the alternative long prison sentence he would be facing. But I am putting my cart before the horses and all. It would be a strange situation though wouldn't it for Pistorius to have to front up before her again, with him facing at least 15 years and her knowing that her prior verdict has been overturned. Neither would be happy I don't reckon, though him much more so than her of course.
PS Have done a lot of assuming above but I am sure someone will let me know if I am partially or completely wrong.
....i think he did know the risk but fired anyway due to his anger......it's a fine line.....
He fired in a blind rage disregarding any outcome. His argument that he fired unbeknownst to himself fits with blind rage. But this would be going to DD and not what the State is arguing.
Assuming the verdict is overturned and DE is handed out, for sentencing, it would go back to the High Court, yes, but is it necessary that it goes back to the same judge?
After the kind of shocker Masipa has handed out in this case, if and when her mistake is officially recognised by SCA, should she be allowed to continue as a High Court judge at all? Incompetent people sitting in important positions of the justice system is a far bigger danger to the society than ordinary criminals.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
All that speculation about OP's anxiety, OP's vulnerability on stumps etc pales in recognition that any experienced gun handler, holding a gun loaded with Black Talon bullets in his hands would most likely feel less afraid, more sure and powerful. IMHO. He had the arsenal to do damage, so he had the 'power' in that situation. Hypothetically, even if the alleged intruder came rushing out, he had the power in that situation. The person hiding in the toilet cubicle had no power in that situation. Hope the five judges see it this way. My opinion only.