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.
ONE OF SAS TOP CRIME PROFILERS RESIGNS AFTER 14 YEARS
"Brigadier Labuschagne, who led the Investigative Psychology Section, resigned from the police this week. Labuschagne has worked on over 300 serial murder and rape cases and was recently involved in the Oscar Pistorius investigation."
"One of the polices top psychologists and profilers Gerard Labuschagne, says while there are brilliant detectives working cases, the overall quality of investigations has been slipping."
http://ewn.co.za/2016/02/02/Gerard-Labuschagne-believes-in-his-former-unit-to-solve-cases
You will remember he was often seen sitting behind Gerrie Nel:
View attachment 88397
It was immediately apparent when listening to the reading of her judgement that it was illogical and that she had applied the test of DE incorrectly.
To a QC, it must have been even more apparent that it was appealable.
Roux had an insurmountable challenge to convince the SCA that the judgement was correct. He tried to convince the judges that Masipa had already dealt with dolus in relation to the intruder before she examined DE only in relation to Reeva, on some spurious ground that he may have still considered whether it was Reeva in the cubicle before firing the shots. The problem with this argument was that she had already also by that stage of the judgement found that he thought she was in the bedroom, so logically there was no need to ask that question again, and she may as well have not even bothered to consider DE at all if Roux's interpretation was correct.
The final nail in Roux's coffin came when Leach pointed out that if Roux was right in thinking that she needed at that stage only to check to see if DE applied only in relation to Reeva, she then added in a second paragraph about him not having been able to foresee killing Reeva, "or anyone else for that matter".
This unravelled Roux's argument completely, and when pressed to say how this made sense he couldn't and he thanked Justice Leach for letting him off the hook.
That is how Roux knew he had lost.
BIB I don't know why Roux failed to follow through with this.
If her reasoning is that in this case DE does not depend on but cannot apply unless he thinks it is Reeva then of course who he foresees might be killed is important. In this case since he could not actually see who it was then he could not foresee who he might kill whether it be Reeva, an intruder or whomever.
If it's easier to understand read it as "He cannot be guilty of DE because DE can only apply if he thinks it's Reeva and he did not know if it was Reeva or anyone else for that matter"
That makes sense.
BIB I don't know why Roux failed to follow through with this.
If her reasoning is that in this case DE does not depend on but cannot apply unless he thinks it is Reeva then of course who he foresees might be killed is important. In this case since he could not actually see who it was then he could not foresee who he might kill whether it be Reeva, an intruder or whomever.
If it's easier to understand read it as "He cannot be guilty of DE because DE can only apply if he thinks it's Reeva and he did not know if it was Reeva or anyone else for that matter"
That makes sense.
BIB I don't know why Roux failed to follow through with this.
If her reasoning is that in this case DE does not depend on but cannot apply unless he thinks it is Reeva then of course who he foresees might be killed is important. In this case since he could not actually see who it was then he could not foresee who he might kill whether it be Reeva, an intruder or whomever.
If it's easier to understand read it as "He cannot be guilty of DE because DE can only apply if he thinks it's Reeva and he did not know if it was Reeva or anyone else for that matter"
That makes sense.
DD applies if he knows it's Reeva.
DE applies to whoever the human being behind the door is. He thought he was shooting at an intruder. Wth error in objecto, the identity of the person is irrelevant.
Since this was largely the basis of the State's appeal to the SCA, I know you are well aware of this distinction by now. Your continual attempt to bait and wind people up has become tiresome.
Actually it makes no sense at all, hence the appeal to the SCA to straighten out Masipa's faulty "reasoning."
As to your accepted (?) definition of DE, one has to wonder how in the world, after all this time and in-depth discussion, you could still present such delusional claptrap.
DD applies if he knows it's Reeva.
DE applies to whoever the human being behind the door is. He thought he was shooting at an intruder. Wth error in objecto, the identity of the person is irrelevant.
Since this was largely the basis of the State's appeal to the SCA, I know you are well aware of this distinction by now. Your continual attempt to bait and wind people up has become tiresome.
Of course it could be DD or DE if he thinks or knows it is Reeva.
The outcome of a DE enquiry cannot depend on identity but cannot be applied if he believes his actions are lawful.
Just because you don't see the distinction is no reason to accuse me of baiting.
Is it possible (or legally acceptable) for someone to believe their actions are lawful even when it has been entered into evidence that they have the KNOWLEDGE and training to understand such actions are indeed unlawful?
Does the law ask whether they held the belief that their actions were lawful or does the law ask whether or not they had the KNOWLEDGE of the lawful/unlawful nature of their actions?
Is the court obliged to accept the accused's claim that they "thought" or "believed" they were acting lawfully when it has been proven and entered into evidence (i.e. Sean Ren's testimony re: Oscar's firearms licensing exam) that they clearly knew and understood the law regarding the use of lethal force under those circumstances?
Then anyone can shoot their spouse/partner/child/neighbour/postman dead through a closed door and claim that they "thought" they were acting lawful.
"the accused was required to establish at least a factual foundation for his alleged genuine belief of an imminent attack upon him. This the accused did not do."
And many have tried!
From ¶54 of the SCA Judgment:
Is it possible (or legally acceptable) for someone to believe their actions are lawful even when it has been entered into evidence that they have the KNOWLEDGE and training to understand such actions are indeed unlawful?
Does the law ask whether they held the belief that their actions were lawful or does the law ask whether or not they had the KNOWLEDGE of the lawful/unlawful nature of their actions?
Is the court obliged to accept the accused's claim that they "thought" or "believed" they were acting lawfully when it has been proven and entered into evidence (i.e. Sean Ren's testimony re: Oscar's firearms licensing exam) that they clearly knew and understood the law regarding the use of lethal force under those circumstances?
Is it possible (or legally acceptable) for someone to believe their actions are lawful even when it has been entered into evidence that they have the KNOWLEDGE and training to understand such actions are indeed unlawful?
But OP never claimed that he thought or believed he was acting lawfully. On the contrary. He repeatedly said he fired the four shots "before I knew it" and "before I had time to think."
If he didn't have time to think before shooting, then how could he possibly think he was shooting lawfully? According to him, there was no time to think!
He also said he did not intentionally shoot, that he did not aim, that he did not want to shoot the intruder coming out of the toilet, and that he did not purposefully fire into the door.
If he never intended to shoot, much less intentionally shoot at the perceived attacker to defend himself, then how could he possibly believe he was shooting lawfully? According to him, he never intentionally shot his weapon at all. It's impossible to simultaneously believe you're shooting lawfully, yet not even intend to shoot in the first place.
Roux argued that he fired the shots due to his "increased startle response," that the firing of the shots was the result of "a fright," and that it was an "involuntary reflexive response."
If the shots were fired as a reflex due to a startle and fright, then how could he possibly believe he was firing the shots lawfully? No thought process takes place prior to or during a reflexive action, it just automatically happens. So it would be impossible for him to believe the action was lawful when according to him, the action itself was not even voluntary.
OP unloaded four rounds through a closed door upon hearing a noise. He never even suggested, much less claimed, that at the time he was firing the shots that he honestly and genuinely believed he was entitled to shoot and kill whoever made that noise.
But OP never claimed that he thought or believed he was acting lawfully. On the contrary. He repeatedly said he fired the four shots "before I knew it" and "before I had time to think."
If he didn't have time to think before shooting, then how could he possibly think he was shooting lawfully? According to him, there was no time to think!
He also said he did not intentionally shoot, that he did not aim, that he did not want to shoot the intruder coming out of the toilet, and that he did not purposefully fire into the door.
If he never intended to shoot, much less intentionally shoot at the perceived attacker to defend himself, then how could he possibly believe he was shooting lawfully? According to him, he never intentionally shot his weapon at all. It's impossible to simultaneously believe you're shooting lawfully, yet not even intend to shoot in the first place.
Roux argued that he fired the shots due to his "increased startle response," that the firing of the shots was the result of "a fright," and that it was an "involuntary reflexive response."
If the shots were fired as a reflex due to a startle and fright, then how could he possibly believe he was firing the shots lawfully? No thought process takes place prior to or during a reflexive action, it just automatically happens. So it would be impossible for him to believe the action was lawful when according to him, the action itself was not even voluntary.
OP unloaded four rounds through a closed door upon hearing a noise. He never even suggested, much less claimed, that at the time he was firing the shots that he honestly and genuinely believed he was entitled to shoot and kill whoever made that noise.
But OP never claimed that he thought or believed he was acting lawfully. On the contrary. He repeatedly said he fired the four shots "before I knew it" and "before I had time to think."
If he didn't have time to think before shooting, then how could he possibly think he was shooting lawfully? According to him, there was no time to think!
He also said he did not intentionally shoot, that he did not aim, that he did not want to shoot the intruder coming out of the toilet, and that he did not purposefully fire into the door.
If he never intended to shoot, much less intentionally shoot at the perceived attacker to defend himself, then how could he possibly believe he was shooting lawfully? According to him, he never intentionally shot his weapon at all. It's impossible to simultaneously believe you're shooting lawfully, yet not even intend to shoot in the first place.
Roux argued that he fired the shots due to his "increased startle response," that the firing of the shots was the result of "a fright," and that it was an "involuntary reflexive response."
If the shots were fired as a reflex due to a startle and fright, then how could he possibly believe he was firing the shots lawfully? No thought process takes place prior to or during a reflexive action, it just automatically happens. So it would be impossible for him to believe the action was lawful when according to him, the action itself was not even voluntary.
OP unloaded four rounds through a closed door upon hearing a noise. He never even suggested, much less claimed, that at the time he was firing the shots that he honestly and genuinely believed he was entitled to shoot and kill whoever made that noise.
And many have tried!
From ¶54 of the SCA Judgment: