Marfa Lights
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2014
- Messages
- 682
- Reaction score
- 0
People are getting frustrated with you because your statement above is not a correct statement of South African law.
Not my intention to frustrate you and others. Might be worth putting me on the ignore list?
Masipa found that there was no evidence to suggest that Pistorius's mistaken belief that there was an intruder was not 'honestly entertained'. I read that as meaning that the court found the intruder version to be reasonably possible.
That is my reading of her judgment as well. However, I think the frustration stems from your apparent conclusion that his mistaken belief in an intruder automatically justifies all further actions on his part or that this mistaken belief somehow qualifies his behavior as negligence.
Re: According to my layman's understanding of PPD-- His actions, even if taken in mistaken belief of an intruder, still have to be evaluated against the laws of self-defense (regardless of whether it was putative or private defense) to qualify as justifiable.
Not necessarily in any order:
1. An attack must have commenced or present an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm;
2. The degree of response must be proportionate with respect to the nature of the attack (i.e. You can't shoot someone who slaps you.)
3. You are not allowed to kill an intruder simply for being in your house. They must present an obvious threat of bodily harm.
Re: Dolus or Intent versus Negligence--
Masipa's judgment can't be relied upon in this regard since she made the flagrant error of considering identity of the victim in her application of DE.
His actions under the circumstances tick all the boxes for DE:
Dolus eventualis exists when an accused foresees that his/her conduct poses a risk that a fatal injury could result from their unlawful actions and reconciles him/herself to the risk, and yet persists with reckless disregard.
Re: Mitigating Factors--
To the extent that his situation elicits sympathy, the defense can always present any mitigating factors at sentencing.