Theory Thread - What happened at Pistorius' house on the night of Feb. 13, 2013?

[pandax81]

respectfully split for clarity

I am no lawyer.....but I don't think you can be correct, Panda.

Self-defence, putative or not, relies on an acknowledgement of intent. "Yes, I killed that person. But I genuinely believed that person was about to kill me, and I felt I had no choice".

You cannot claim self-defence but deny intent. That would make no sense.

I never said you can act in self defence or putative self defence without intent. I agree it is impossible. I wonder where you got the idea I had said that from?

Since culpable homicide removes intent from the equation and replaces it with negligence, then a court cannot agree that you genuinely acted in self-defence but find you guilty of culpable homicide. Who negligently kills someone who is about to kill them?

Firstly, I never said you can act in self defence and be found guilty of culpable homicide. Your 2nd sentence and Q therefore does not apply, I agree it is impossible to negligently kill someone when you acted in self defence. I wonder where you got the idea I had said that from?

I did however say you can act in putative self defence and be found guilty of culpable homicide. Culpable homicide does not "remove intent from the equation" here. It only excludes intention to kill unlawfully, i.e. murder. It still means you intended to act lawfully, and intended to act in private defence, and even intended to kill lawfully i.e. you acted in putative private defence. So we come full circle and I see that your premise was flawed, so your conclusion about what I must have said about intention was flawed.

For OP to be found guilty of culpable homicide then the judge has to believe that he really did not intend to harm or kill anyone but that, in spite of the particular circumstances, he ought to have know he might and he ought to have known that would be an unlawful act.

Just to re-iterate the point. No, the judge does not have to believe that he did not intend to harm or kill anyone. He has to believe that he did not intend to unlawfully kill anyone. There is a crucial difference.

I am also not sure your understanding of Directus vs Eventualis is quite right, either. Murder does not drop down a notch just because you intended to harm or maim rather than kill.

I never said they were different notches, I just defined the terms. Where you place the notches will depend on the totality of factors in each circumstance.

Did you intend that person serious harm & they died? Directus.

Not murder directus, which I clearly was discussing. That would be dolus directus for the suitable charge of harm.

Did you not intend that specific person harm, but knew that your actions could well result in someone's death and still went ahead? Eventualis.

Harm is not the definition of murder, I'm not sure why you think it is. It is unlawful killing. You can want to harm and not commit murder directus - this in fact probably accounts for most cases of murder eventualis.

 

[LemonMousse]

respectfully split for clarity


I never said you can act in self defence or putative self defence without intent. I agree it is impossible. I wonder where you got the idea I had said that from?



Firstly, I never said you can act in self defence and be found guilty of culpable homicide. Your 2nd sentence and Q therefore does not apply, I agree it is impossible to negligently kill someone when you acted in self defence. I wonder where you got the idea I had said that from?

I did however say you can act in putative self defence and be found guilty of culpable homicide. Culpable homicide does not "remove intent from the equation" here. It only excludes intention to kill unlawfully, i.e. murder. It still means you intended to act lawfully, and intended to act in private defence, and even intended to kill lawfully i.e. you acted in putative private defence. So we come full circle and I see that your premise was flawed, so your conclusion about what I must have said about intention was flawed.


Just to re-iterate the point. No, the judge does not have to believe that he did not intend to harm or kill anyone. He has to believe that he did not intend to unlawfully kill anyone. There is a crucial difference.


I never said they were different notches, I just defined the terms. Where you place the notches will depend on the totality of factors in each circumstance.


Not murder directus, which I clearly was discussing. That would be dolus directus for the suitable charge of harm.


Harm is not the definition of murder, I'm not sure why you think it is. It is unlawful killing. You can want to harm and not commit murder directus - this in fact probably accounts for most cases of murder eventualis.

You suggested that AJ tweet James Grant "Can you act in putative self-defence and still be guilty of culpable homicide". The answer to that would be no. That's where I got that idea from.

You also very clearly said: "Until you accept that an accused can be found to have acted in putative self-defence and STILL be guilty of culpable homicide....."

Now you are saying you don't know here I got the idea that you think that? From you!

Yes, I understand the un/lawfully distinction. I still think you are not quite correct in suggesting that if the accused did not specifically mean to kill, but did intend to harm then it drops to Eventualis. "Milady, but I just intended to blow his legs off....not kill him" wouldn't really work as a defence.

I agree that all circumstances would be taken into account, but I still disagree with the definitions you initially gave.

 

[44ALLAN]

Fascinating discussion everyone thank you :clap:

 

[Mr Fossil]

Correction to my earlier theory about the hotspot being created after dinner. Reeva initiates an earlier GPRS connection at about 19:01 which lasts for almost the duration of dinner, so I must rethink that one!

 

[pandax81]

You suggested that AJ tweet James Grant "Can you act in putative self-defence and still be guilty of culpable homicide". The answer to that would be no. That's where I got that idea from.

You also very clearly said: "Until you accept that an accused can be found to have acted in putative self-defence and STILL be guilty of culpable homicide....."

Now you are saying you don't know here I got the idea that you think that? From you!

Yes, I understand the un/lawfully distinction. I still think you are not quite correct in suggesting that if the accused did not specifically mean to kill, but did intend to harm then it drops to Eventualis. "Milady, but I just intended to blow his legs off....not kill him" wouldn't really work as a defence.

I agree that all circumstances would be taken into account, but I still disagree with the definitions you initially gave.

Hi LemonMousse

You are welcome to disagree with me all you like.

However, I do not welcome the fact you do not read my posts properly at all, and then misrepresent what I say. I think all posters deserve some common courtesy and respect. You are still persisting in this, and it feels antagonising.

 

[Jake18]

Tofu is a pretty common substitute for chicken and would totally fit the profile, though honestly if I had a snack that late at night I'd probably opt for a greek salad rather than a stirfry,if I couldn't have chocolate... :thinking:

Is tofu bean curd or something? If so then it would likely look cheese-like when digested, I agree. I don't believe a word OP says about that night, I don't think they ate together at all.

Am now logging out and doing the work I sat down to do originally!

 

[LemonMousse]

Hi LemonMousse

You are welcome to disagree with me all you like.

However, I do not welcome the fact you do not read my posts properly at all, and then misrepresent what I say. I think all posters deserve some common courtesy and respect. You are still persisting in this, and it feels antagonising.

I quoted you directly, and I was very careful to.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Reeva sent 2 SMS text messages to someone at about 16:36 and 16:42 on 13 Feb 2013. They are shown on the chart presented by Moller when he goes through Reeva's calls and GPRS connections but they aren't mentioned. The recipient is identified as a separate line but I can't read the name. Any ideas anyone?

 

[Suthrnqt]

Hey Fossil :seeya:

Anybody with the initials CN??? That's what I see, but I could be wrong. I usually am.

 

[Mr Fossil]

That's what I see too. The blob to the left of the name indicates that the name was in Reeva's contacts under that name.

 

[AJ_DS]

Correction to my earlier theory about the hotspot being created after dinner. Reeva initiates an earlier GPRS connection at about 19:01 which lasts for almost the duration of dinner, so I must rethink that one!

Reeva sent 2 SMS text messages to someone at about 16:36 and 16:42 on 13 Feb 2013. They are shown on the chart presented by Moller when he goes through Reeva's calls and GPRS connections but they aren't mentioned. The recipient is identified as a separate line but I can't read the name. Any ideas anyone?

View attachment 57158

That's what I see too. The blob to the left of the name indicates that the name was in Reeva's contacts under that name.

Really interesting…

Please give the duration of the 19:01 GPRS

Note on the reading the chart (you may be aware of this already)… the time scale at the top of the chart is not linear… without Moller haven given the time of a communication it is impossible to determine the exact time from the time scale because it varies greatly… if the a particular communication's tick mark is placed immediately after 4PM, it does not mean that the communicate took place around 4:05PM for example.

… the best we can do is is say that the communication occurred between time X and time Y

 

[JudgeJudi]

Today is Reeva's birthday. It should have been a day of happiness for the Steenkamp family and their friends. I can only hope that the passage of time will eventually bring them some inner peace and that they can start to remember and reflect on all the joyful times they shared together.

Rest in peace, Reeva.

 

[jay-jay]

Today is Reeva's birthday. It should have been a day of happiness for the Steenkamp family and their friends. I can only hope that the passage of time will eventually bring them some inner peace and that they can start to remember and reflect on all the joyful times they shared together.

Rest in peace, Reeva.

I sincerely hope that OP has not tweeted any sentimental, insincere, PR campaign rubbish to mark her birthday (or did he do that on the 8th August instead? :facepalm: )

 

[jay-jay]

I've just checked .. and he hasn't .. good. Nothing on his website either .. good. Perhaps he is realising that people can see through all that kind of BS (.. like they could his 'Valentine's Day' message on his website which, sadly, is still up on there)

 

[Mr Fossil]

Really interesting…

Please give the duration of the 19:01 GPRS

Note on the reading the chart (you may be aware of this already)… the time scale at the top of the chart is not linear… without Moller haven given the time of a communication it is impossible to determine the exact time from the time scale because it varies greatly… if the a particular communication's tick mark is placed immediately after 4PM, it does not mean that the communicate took place around 4:05PM for example.

… the best we can do is is say that the communication occurred between time X and time Y

The 19:01 GPRS lasts about 47 minutes, so until 19:48. It's very hard to read the figures but I'm seeing 2,834 seconds. There are a few other long connections. I need to tally them with other known activity before drawing any conclusions.

Yes, I've figured the chart, thanks. There are also lighter lines at the top sometimes which split the intervals up, which helps, but most times from the chart are an intelligent guess.

 

[AJ_DS]

It's always difficult on the internet to put a differing view across strongly without risking appearing rude or confrontational. I'm sure you know this is not the case or intention however!

Hi Pandax… I enjoy debating with you… I do not want to appear rude or confrontational either… let us take it step by step with short points we can agree/disagree with… I believe we are very close to same POV.


1. PD or PPD does not mean the victim died… the result of acting in PD or PPD can be many things : nothing, injury, death

2. PD and PPD is not a verdict… if a PD or PPD case is fully successful, the accused is acquitted.

3. A judge may find that the accused acted lawfully within the bounds of PD AND still find him guilty of culpable homicide : the accused shot his attacker but one bullet missed its intended target and killed an innocent bystander.

3. The only difference between the definition of PD and PPD :

- PD : the accused subjectively and correctly perceived a threat which objectively did exist… the accused acted with force upon that perceived threat with the belief he was lawfully defending himself… the intent was lawful and the actions were also lawful.

- PPD : the accused subjectively but mistakenly perceived a threat which objectively did NOT exist… the accused acted with force upon that perceived threat with the belief he was lawfully defending himself… the intent was lawful but the actions were unlawful.

4. PD is relatively easy because the threat was objectively real… therefore the intent to defend has to be lawful

5. PPD is far more complicated because the threat was objectively absent… therefore the intent could be lawful (defend) or the intent could be unlawful (murder)… the way to determine the nature of the intent is to evaluate the testimony of the accused (if available) and the evidence

6. There is a fundamental difference between a definition of PD or PPD and the way the law is applied to come to a legal finding of PD or PPD… The fact the accused perceived a threat (real or not) and acted with force upon that threat IS NOT the ONLY requirement for a finding of PD or PPD… there are strict guidelines that circumscribe PD and PPD with regards to the ATTACK and the DEFENCE.

For example, do you agree the imminence of danger is a fundamental part of both PD and PPD ?

e.g.

You have a very bad relationship with your neighbor named Bob… many arguments and confrontations in the past year with Bob… Bob is a short-tempered man… Bob is a violent man who as been arrested on many occasions for assault and other violence related charges… you know Bob owns many guns…

Today, you and Bob are at it again in front of your house… Bob is furious with you… Bob threatens you by saying he is going to get a gun and kill you… Bob leaves and goes towards his house with a rapid determined stride.

You honestly believe Bob will carry out his threat… you honestly fear for your life as most people who know Bob would… you pull out your gun, shoot Bob in the back and kill him.

Do you agree that a PD or PPD case would fail in those circumstances because there was no imminent danger ?

Do you agree that a PD or PPD case would also fail in those circumstances because you could have retreated into your house, called the police, etc… because shooting Bob was not the only alternative available to you to avoid the danger ?

Do you agree that the Judge may find you honestly believed you were in danger and therefore your intent was lawful BUT your actions were ultimately unlawful ?

 

[AJ_DS]

The 19:01 GPRS lasts about 47 minutes, so until 19:48. It's very hard to read the figures but I'm seeing 4,714 seconds. There are a few other long connections. I need to tally them with other known activity before drawing any conclusions.

Yes, I've figured the chart, thanks. There are also lighter lines at the top sometimes which split the intervals up, which helps, but most times from the chart are an intelligent guess.

Thanks… keep us up to date with your findings !

 

[Mr Fossil]

Thanks… keep us up to date with your findings !

Ignore the 4,714 secs (it's 2,834 secs or 47:14)

 

[Sherbert]

What a tough day it must be for her parents.

 

[OneBlessedMommy]

I am new and trying to catch up on the case, are we awaiting a verdict? Happy birthday, Reeva. Gone but not forgotten.

Love Kills