Trial Discussion Thread #11 weekend thread

[G.bng]

IMO I don't think the State HAVE sufficient evidence to discredit OP's claim that he thought there was an intruder. At the risk of "sounding like a cracked record" I think they should have from the outset argued the case accepting that OP THOUGHT he was firing at an intruder. The State have spent 2 and a half weeks (excluding late starts, early tea breaks and early day ends) trying to prove Beyond Reasonable doubt something that they can not prove at all. They knew what evidence they had. We have seen that it largely supports OP's version of events.

Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I recall the prosecution has not at any time disputed OP's claim that he thought he was shooting at a burglar merely put forward evidence for the defence to chew on. The State's charging document makes no mention of "premeditation" rather the "unlawful" and "intentional" killing of a person, i.e. Reeva, which seems correct according to SA laws.

IMO the verdict will rely on whether OP could lawfully fire at a perceived intruder. The fact he killed Reeva by mistake seems to me irrelevant in the scheme of things. It would be like a hired hitman killing the wrong target by mistake. Would the hit-man then be found innocent of murder simply because he made a mistake in the the identity of the person he was meant to kill? I am sure not, which is why IMO the verdict will rest on whether OP could "lawfully"shoot at a perceived intruder, and whether he intended to kill the perceived intruder or even if he didn't intend to kill the perceived intruder should he have known that his actions could kill the intruder. As far as I can see the fact he shot and killed Reeva by mistake may sadly be just a sideline.

 

[Rumpole]

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.

OP could NOT assume the (imaginary) burglar would react as you think you would??
I am guessing, but... OP may, for instance, have had in mind home invaders he had heard about who rush homeowners, overpower them, and use the homeowner's own gun to murder them. The point of "self defense" is to avoid harm to yourself rather than wait to be harmed and hope you can regain the upper hand and then defend yourself.

 

[steveml]

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.

That's correct, and the people who keep throwing spanners in the works to give reason why OP might not receive a harsh sentence are quite right to do so. This is exactly what Roux is going to be doing soon, albeit much better than we can.

People needn't get uptight about differing opinions, it's a way of testing the case and checking your own reasoning. It's exactly what lawyers do to try and make sure they have a watertight case. Also, we're not even halfway through the trial yet, so a few of us may well be finding our theories were complete bunkum quite soon.


:judge:

 

[LemonMousse]

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"

In your opinion. Thankfully, SA law doesn't seem to agree with you that mere presence in a house is weapon enough.

In fact, if you read some of the links about the law in this regard that have been posted, you'll see that it makes it very clear that mere presence is not enough. This can also be inferred by the nature of the questions OP had to answer to get his gun licence.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

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.

Taking your point about hearing how come he didn't recognise the sound of a toilet flushing . The time slot for him bringing in the fans and shooting the perceived intruder was very short certainly not long enough for Reeva to have gone to the toilet wiped herself ,redressed then flushed it so that the cistern refilled and stopped making a noise
You would only expect someone to take a couple of seconds from flushing to unlocking the door and exiting the toilet . So if she was shot whilst still inside he must have shot her whilst the cistern was refilling .

 

[Interested Bystander]

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

I remember it well. He was sentenced to life but there was such an outcry his sentence was reduced to manslaughter. The full story can be read here:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

 

[Rumpole]

Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I recall the prosecution has not at any time disputed OP's claim that he thought he was shooting at a burglar merely put forward evidence for the defence to chew on. The State's charging document makes no mention of "premeditation" rather the "unlawful" and "intentional" killing of a person, i.e. Reeva, which seems correct according to SA laws.

IMO the verdict will rely on whether OP could lawfully fire at a perceived intruder. The fact he killed Reeva by mistake seems to me irrelevant in the scheme of things. It would be like a hired hitman killing the wrong target by mistake. Would the hit-man then be found innocent of murder simply because he made a mistake in the the identity of the person he was meant to kill? I am sure not, which is why IMO the verdict will rest on whether OP could "lawfully"shoot at a perceived intruder, and whether he intended to kill the perceived intruder or even if he didn't intend to kill the perceived intruder should he have known that his actions could kill the intruder. As far as I can see the fact he shot and killed Reeva by mistake may sadly be just a sideline.

The state opened with the burgers... evidence of blood curdling screams from a woman "in fear for her life" before the shots etc etc... the thrust of the State case has been that OP knew Reeva was behind the door and he shot her intentionally. Legs on legs off, lights on lights off.. all to prove the State narrative that he argued then attacked Reeva and shot her knowingly.

 

[LemonMousse]

It's also clear from reading the literature about this that a preemptive strike is specifically excluded as justification for self-defence.

I shall be astonished if he doesn't serve a heavy prison sentence for this. Whether he believed it was an intruder or not, his behaviour was utterly shocking and reprehensible. Worries me enormously that anyone could suggest "I heard a noise in my bathroom" is justification for murder. It isn't legally and it most certainly isn't morally.

 

[Really?]

Makes me wonder where her keys were too. If this was a domestic violence homicide, it's pretty easy to imagine he may have tried to prevent her from leaving. That alone could account for the jeans being outside.


My abusive ex admitted he deliberately targets younger women. (I was 20 to his 33.) Some young women, especially if they have esteem issues and/or dysfunctional families, are easier to manipulate into and more willing to endure a bad relationship.

So his interest for women so young makes me wonder. JMO

Annnnnd ,.....it could account for her car in the driveway running......it was her car, right?

 

[james83]

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.

As well as those sense's, we are also blessed with the ability to talk, i.e "Who's in there?".
I.e "Reeva i heard a noise in the bathroom i'm going to investigate, you phone security", "Reeva why are you not answering me?", "oh your not in bed".

 

[G.bng]

That's correct. If you read the posts from the beginning, you'll see I've already covered this. We're aware that it's in name only to allow a higher sentencing option, but we're continuing to use the term because it's also fairly universally understood, being that many posters on the forum are from different countries.

I am sorry but I haven't had time to read all the posts coming here late in the case, but I think it is a misnomer to use the term "premeditation" in this case as it creates so much confusion for those accustomed to the term used in murder trials in anglophile countries where "premeditated murder" has such a very different connotation to what we see here and how it is interpreted under SA law.

 

[soozieqtips]

OP could NOT assume the (imaginary) burglar would react as you think you would??
I am guessing, but... OP may, for instance, have had in mind home invaders he had heard about who rush homeowners, overpower them, and use the homeowner's own gun to murder them. The point of "self defense" is to avoid harm to yourself rather than wait to be harmed and hope you can regain the upper hand and then defend yourself.

BBM - Except in this instance, the 'intruder' was safely shut away in another room and OP had nothing to defend himself from. If you read his washing-machine intruder tweet, you'll see he was more than happy to charge up to it in 'full combat mode', and even made a joke about it. Not a single sign of fear or terror in that tweet at all. No "I was so scared and in fear of my life" - nope. He even added a 'waa' at the end for extra comic effect. The point of self defence is to defend yourself against someone about to attack you. OP can't claim self defence because there was a wooden door in between him and the imaginary intruder. No one was attacking him. And yes, the law in SA states quite clearly under what circumstances you're allowed to shoot - and this wasn't one of them.

 

[Rumpole]

I seem to have ended up in the role of OP Chief defender here

I don't have any great feeling for OP one way or the other. I am still around 50/50 on whether his version is the truth. If you accept his version (as you have to do if the State can not disprove it beyond reasonable doubt), then you can argue the criminality of his actions in regards an intruder(imagined but real in OP's mind). I tend to be on the side of the home owner when that homeowner is confronted by an intruder.

 

[Dmacky]

Yes, from seeing the dogs in documentaries they are purely pets. Not trained to guard as far as I'm aware.

That being said, my dog is my pet too ~ But she will bark LOUDLY at anyone who comes close to my house. Day or night. Any unfaniliar noise in the middle of the night will set her off too.

 

[Insp.Dots]

To me it screams immaturity, i'm 28 and the thought of dating an 18 year old has no appeal to me what so ever, the difference in maturity would drive me nut's.

Totally irrelevant to the case but I think he chooses younger girls as they are much more likely to pat his ego...I think as Minor said a while back he is very childlike in a lot of ways and quite needy. MOO

 

[Interested Bystander]

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?

Do what! I am speaking of the ballistics officer who said that was the only way the wounds could have been as they were. A bang, a pause, during which time RS would have dropped to the floor and then bang, bang, bang which caused the other injuries. Even Roux struggled with putting up any defence to that argument or perhaps he was out of his depth.

 

[steveml]

I am sorry but I haven't had time to read all the posts coming here late in the case, but I think it is a misnomer to use the term "premeditation" in this case as it creates so much confusion for those accustomed to the term used in murder trials in anglophile countries where "premeditated murder" has such a very different connotation to what we see here and how it is interpreted under SA law.

Well, we have been here since the beginning of the trial. You're free to convert the masses if you wish, but if you pull everyone up on this they're likely to get irritated. We're aware of the situation, and it works for us.

 

[steveml]

I seem to have ended up in the role of OP Chief defender here

.

Lol. A couple of days after Roux starts his defence there's bound to be a few defectors. Just watch for when he removes his glasses - it means there's something big on it's way.

 

[soozieqtips]

I seem to have ended up in the role of OP Chief defender here

I don't have any great feeling for OP one way or the other. I am still around 50/50 on whether his version is the truth. If you accept his version (as you have to do if the State can not disprove it beyond reasonable doubt), then you can argue the criminality of his actions in regards an intruder(imagined but real in OP's mind).
I tend to be on the side of the home owner when that homeowner is confronted by an intruder.

BBM - He wasn't confronted by an intruder. He was confronted by a closed wooden door.

In fact, the door was confronted by him.

 

[Interested Bystander]

That's correct, and the people who keep throwing spanners in the works to give reason why OP might not receive a harsh sentence are quite right to do so. This is exactly what Roux is going to be doing soon, albeit much better than we can.

People needn't get uptight about differing opinions, it's a way of testing the case and checking your own reasoning. It's exactly what lawyers do to try and make sure they have a watertight case. Also, we're not even halfway through the trial yet, so a few of us may well be finding our theories were complete bunkum quite soon.


:judge:

LOL. You are so right. We have "the prosecution team" and "defence team" arguing their case. Some of us may well change sides after next week's evidence.

At the start I thought it could have been an accident but as I followed the discussion (before I became a member) and after his affidavit it became clear to me that there was something very wrong with his description of the event.