Trial Discussion Thread #11 weekend thread

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

Roux insisted on the trial that too many photos of OP were taken and the officer said 9 photos only and that subject lasted a while .. That was the next day of OP's bloody photos in the media .. Does anyone have an idea abt that?
I mean did the defence want to see all the other photos or what ?

Here is another question ..Why do you think OP allegedly went downstairs to open the front door taking the time to leave dying /dead Reeva upstairs and put that detail in his affidavit? Any theory?

 

[Interested Bystander]

An incident here, some parts may have relevance...

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/man-who-shot-intruders-won-t-be-charged-1.1512339

The law was applied correctly IMO. He SAW the intruders who were armed with weapons and had reason to think he may well have been beaten up or killed. OP saw nobody and shot to kill. In SA you cannot shoot at someone unseen let alone shoot to kill - 4 shots can only be construed as intention to kill. With the pause between the first shot and the others IMO is key.

 

[Viper]

Thanks I see some relevance.



The home owner is NOT charged.

The home owner did NOT run away, though he had ample opportunity to do so.

The home owner did NOT need to wait to be sure if the perp(s) had guns and an evil look of intent to do him bodily harm. (they actually had no guns).

Oh come on! If you are going to support your position using a link it would be courteous to tell us not only the things that you like but also the things you don't!

Quite from your link:
"The gang had with them a blowtorch, hammers, pickaxes and rope, and Lilje said he thought they had come to rob, torture and kill him and his wife, Lorraine."

The cops and me are wondering what the rope and the blowtorch are going to be used for!!!!!

The police investigation concluded that be did risk GBH or death so he was right in defending himself and his wife, that is why no charges were filed. And so how exactly does that case compare to what OP did again?

 

[Rumpole]

The law was applied correctly IMO. He SAW the intruders who were armed with weapons and had reason to think he may well have been beaten up or killed. OP saw nobody and shot to kill. In SA you cannot shoot at someone unseen.

Really? So on a very dark night (and perhaps your eyesight is not good) you just have to take it as you HEAR intruders coming to attack you and your family? Even though you have a loaded gun in your hand? Seems nuts to me.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

The law was applied correctly IMO. He SAW the intruders who were armed with weapons and had reason to think he may well have been beaten up or killed. OP saw nobody and shot to kill. In SA you cannot shoot at someone unseen let alone shoot to kill - 4 shots can only be construed as intention to kill. With the pause between the first shot and the others IMO is key.

Hopefully that will be the case here then .

 

[zwiebel]

Wow. From InterestedBystander's post earlier; Oscar actually puts on his legs quicker than you can touch your finger to each photo. It was milliseconds, I swear. Really hard to capture shots because it was so fast. Much, much quicker than putting any kind of shoe on.

http://youtu.be/pIme8MrOpwU

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Sadly so do I . I just can't buy his story of accidentally shooting her but without something more concrete in evidence he may get the benefit of the doubt under the old reasonable doubt basis which I is how justice is supposed to operate . I suppose it is not right to think anyone could be locked up for life if there is a slim chance they are innocent .
In this case though it is not in dispute that he shot her so I am hoping for the culpable homicide at worst whilst accepting he could walk from all charges .

I agree, I think his story is enough to create reasonable doubt. I don't believe it, but there is not enough proof of the scenario I believe happened, and that is not enough to convict him IMO.

 

[Viper]

His tweet.

"Nothing like getting home to hear the washing machine on and thinking its an intruder to go into full combat recon mode into the pantry! waa."

He made a joke of it!!! How come he wasn't 'overcome with fear and terror' when he realised there might be an intruder in the house? His tweet makes light of the event. I find that really really odd considering the second he heard a noise in the toilet, he was completely 'overcome with fear and terror'.

Honestly feeling vulnerable and fearful do not natch up to going full commando. The later implies his adrenaline is pumping, he's armed and he is facing an intruder head on, face to face with confidence. Commando is the opposite of vulnerable and fearful. This whole thing stinks.

 

[Rumpole]

Oh come on! If you are going to support your position using a link it would be courteous to tell us not only the things that you like but also the things you don't!

Quite from your link:
"The gang had with them a blowtorch, hammers, pickaxes and rope, and Lilje said he thought they had come to rob, torture and kill him and his wife, Lorraine."

The cops and me are wondering what the rope and the blowtorch are going to be used for!!!!!

The police investigation concluded that be did risk GBH or death so he was right in defending himself and his wife, that is why no charges were filed. And so how exactly does that case compare to what OP did again?

The home owner did not necessarily know what the intruders had. As OP did not know what his (imaginary) intruder might have had. I have already mentioned that the mere presence of an intruder himself is "weapon enough"

 

[Rumpole]

The law was applied correctly IMO. He SAW the intruders who were armed with weapons and had reason to think he may well have been beaten up or killed. OP saw nobody and shot to kill. In SA you cannot shoot at someone unseen let alone shoot to kill - 4 shots can only be construed as intention to kill. With the pause between the first shot and the others IMO is key.

You mean the pause that only burger heard and did not mention in her initial statements? The pause that in all likelihood was a pause in cricket bat strikes on the door?

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Roux insisted on the trial that too many photos of OP were taken and the officer said 9 photos only and that subject lasted a while .. That was the next day of OP's bloody photos in the media .. Does anyone have an idea abt that?
I mean did the defence want to see all the other photos or what ?

Here is another question ..Why do you think OP allegedly went downstairs to open the front door taking the time to leave dying /dead Reeva upstairs and put that detail in his affidavit? Any theory?

Maybe evidence from netcare can answer that . Didn't OP say he was told to take her to hospital . Maybe he opened her car door as well to take her or maybe he was planning to remove her from the scene altogether .
I personally have never liked the fact that she was partly covered in black bin liners .

 

[Insp.Dots]

I know many believe or hope that OP just walks with a huge payment to Reeva's family, or maybe gets 5 years of something, but has anyone ever looked at the opposite? If the state does prove the premeditation enhancement OP is in trouble!

jQuery. I don't think anyone on here believes he should walk. I personally just want proper justice for Reeva and OP come to that. I just don't feel Murder has been proven yet. This could change quite easily with the next witnesses.

 

[soozieqtips]

Really? So on a very dark night (and perhaps your eyesight is not good) you just have to take it as you HEAR intruders coming to attack you and your family? Even though you have a loaded gun in your hand? Seems nuts to me.

You're trying to alter the facts to mock the law. Poor eyesight wasn't a factor here, was it?

 

[Viper]

It's not clear that the home owner who was not charged knew what they had.
In same way OP did not know what his (imaginary) intruder had by way of weapons.

And OP did hear (though not see) an intruder.(in his genuine belief)

IMO an intruder in your home, especially if you have wife and/or kids there, is "weapon enough" in themselves, even carrying nothing. Still a threat to life.

Just because the article does not mention whether or not he knew they were carrying a torture kit does not mean that he did not see them carrying all tha cr*p. Seems that there was a survivor who would have likely confirmed their intentions, and if not the police made the determination by way of their investigation.

Geez...

 

[Rumpole]

You're trying to alter the facts to mock the law. Poor eyesight wasn't a factor here, was it?

I am not altering any facts. I am posing a hypothetical.

You said being assured by seeing was essential... I raised a hypothetical where seeing would not be possible.

I'll make my point without the hypothetical.
It is not "seeing" the intruder that is essential. It is truly believing the intruder is there that is important. Sight, smell, hearing are all senses we use.(taste would be a long shot) The circumstances determine which sense is used primarily.

 

[zwiebel]

Some of you might be interested in this UK case. It has some similarities to the discussions here. It was a UK farmer who had been repeatedly burgled, got increasingly paranoid, and who came downstairs with a pump action shotgun when he heard two intruders. He shot a 16 year old in the back and left him to die overnight. He was given a life sentence.

The case split opinion in the UK, but the kid's last words of 'I'm sorry. Mum!' did it for me. I'd have probably called him all sorts of names at that point. I wouldn't have shot him dead though, as he tried to get away.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/apr/20/tonymartin.ukcrime3

 

[soozieqtips]

If I broke into someone's bathroom --- and the homeowner rushed to the door screaming "I've got a gun", I think that would be more than enough to stop me in my wake. But OP doesn't bother with that. He goes straight for the kill.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Really? So on a very dark night (and perhaps your eyesight is not good) you just have to take it as you HEAR intruders coming to attack you and your family? Even though you have a loaded gun in your hand? Seems nuts to me.

Are we talking about the same incident. The report I read clearly said he saw they were carrying "weapons":-

"The gang had with them a blowtorch, hammers, pickaxes and rope."

We are talking about SA where murder other than by guns is commonplace.

I cannot comment on the incident of someone breaking into the kitchen as it did not include any relevant info as to whether he was armed with anything dangerous.

 

[Viper]

The home owner did not necessarily know what the intruders had. As OP did not know what his (imaginary) intruder might have had. I have already mentioned that the mere presence of an intruder himself is "weapon enough"[/QUOTE]

BIB. That is your personal opinion, and it does not jive with SA Law!

 

[soozieqtips]

I am not altering any facts. I am posing a hypothetical.

You said being assured by seeing was essential... I raised a hypothetical where seeing would not be possible.

I'll make my point without the hypothetical.
It is not "seeing" the intruder that is essential. It is truly believing the intruder is there that is important. Sight, smell, hearing are all senses we use.(taste would be a long shot) The circumstances determine which sense is used primarily.

BBM - important how? So you can go ahead and shoot? If someone is blind or has limited vision, I'm sure there would be different factors to take into account, but we're not talking about bad eyesight. We're talking about people with normal sight. At least, I thought we were. Did I miss a post or something?