Trial Discussion Thread #11 weekend thread

[minor4th]

Well I read it. The numerous deceased were not all unarmed. Some were and they were all attacking as a group in two separate groups - the first group had bottles and the second group had a knife in addition to the fact that they outnumbered the victim/shooter. Some of them sustained wounds to their backs or sides because they turned as the victim fired his shotgun in self defense after the groups initiated their attacks. All of these gang members that were initially described as victims before I read the article were actually assailants with intent to cause defendant great bodily harm, so the law was applied correctly!

I cannot see a ANYTHING in that case that is even REMOTELY similar to what OP did, so I cannot see it helping OP or being indicative in any way to what the outcome of the OP trial will be. I wish that I hadn't spent the time and energy reading it.

:banghead:

See my comment above about why I did and did not post the comment. I did not say they were remotely similar. You missed the point of my post

Here's a link to my post if you want to read it again to see that I was not comparing the cases - I was setting forth the SA legal standard for self defense and culpable homicide - in response to a post that stated incorrectly that it is firm SA law that one is guilty of murder if one shoots with an intent to kill, even if you didn't mean to kill the person who died. That's not the law.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Trial Discussion Thread #11 weekend thread


:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[Rumpole]

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

In fact, the door was confronted by him.

I live in a land where guns are verboten and home owners get sued when burglars injure themselves while on the premises (and said burglars get paid accident compensation by the gummint):banghead:

But in my mind I am perhaps in Texas and if I think some desperado is in ma outhouse ... I shoot!

:floorlaugh:

 

[Viper]

See my comment above about why I did and did not post the comment. I did not say they were remotely similar. You missed the point of my post

Here's a link to my post if you want to read it again to see that I was not comparing the cases - I was setting forth the SA legal standard for self defense and culpable homicide - in response to a post that stated incorrectly that it is firm SA law that one is guilty of murder if one shoots with an intent to kill, even if you didn't mean to kill the person who died. That's not the law.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Trial Discussion Thread #11 weekend thread


:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

The tease on the link was that an UNARMED man was SHOT IN THE BACK and the shooter was deemed justified in the killing on appeal. That is in my view, after reading the link, extremely misleading. In regards to OP and the link, OP never identified that an attack was about to occur or could be about to occur, the door did not have a weapon and did not make any threatening statements, it just hung there in front if him.

 

[minor4th]

The tease on the link was that an UNARMED man was SHOT IN THE BACK and the shooter was deemed justified in the killing on appeal. That is in my view, after reading the link, extremely misleading. In regards to OP and the link, OP never identified that an attack was about to occur or could be about to occur, the door did not have a weapon and did not make any threatening statements, it just hung there in front if him.

Once again, I did not compare the cases or say it was factually helpful to OP. I quoted it because it set forth the legal standard:

The test for private defence is objective – would a reasonable man in the position of the accused have acted in the same way (S v Ntuli 1975 (1) SA 429 (A) at 436 E). In putative private defence it is not lawfulness that is in issue but culpability (‘skuld’). If an accused honestly believes his life or property to be in danger, but objectively viewed they are not, the defensive steps he takes cannot constitute private defence. If in those circumstances he kills someone his conduct is unlawful. His erroneous belief that his life or property was in danger may well (depending upon the precise circumstances) exclude dolus in which case liability for the person’s death based on intention will also be excluded; at worst for him he can then be convicted of culpable homicide.”

If that did not come across clearly to you, then there's a misunderstanding but please stop with the accusations that I'm being misleading.

 

[MeeBee]

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.

I agree. I'm not fully convinced of his version, either. But there's too much doubt and too much of a possibility that his story is true.

 

[Viper]

Going to go grab a bite and watch some tv. Goodnight everyone...

 

[Rumpole]

Going to go grab a bite and watch some tv. Goodnight everyone...

Nite Viper......

 

[MeeBee]

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.

I'd not expect him to go into full detail over twitter. You get 140 characters and it leaves for little room for elaboration. The tweet isn't weird just because he was able to joke about it afterwards doesn't mean he wasn't scared at the time. Haven't we all done that, had an irrational reaction to something and been able to laugh about it later? And I don't imagine the fear he felt then was the same as he felt in Feb last year since it wasn't just a sound he heard but a window opening. Only a person could be responsible for such a sound.

 

[MeeBee]

Yes that is my greatest curiosity, today at least. I don't see another forensic person coming in and effective rearranging the order if the shots, especially the one to the head that s/he must assert.

Has anyone tried to think through that?

I don't wanna toot my own horn, but I already knew that the shot to the hip was first and the shot to the head had to have been last based on the placement of the gun shots and the wounds Reeva sustained and posted as much. I am fairly certain the shot to the hip was first and the shot to the head was last. Why is it important?

 

[luvmygarden]

Quick question for anyone that believes that OP actually thought that an intruder had used a ladder to climb into an upstairs bathroom window...............why on earth would an intruder go through the trouble of dealing with not only two dogs but also a ladder into a second floor bathroom window that would possibly be inside of a bedroom at night when the house occupants could be asleep in that bedroom when there is a broken window on the ground floor that provides easier access?

There are to many red flags that have not yet been answered. OP is going to have to testify to explain (or try to) those red flags away. Otherwise he can kiss his freedom goodbye.

MOO

And the side with the bathroom windows does not have big trees to hide the intruder while he climbs the ladder on the pretty light color walls knowing security drives around the place. Oscar didn't think this thru.
The Dr would have a birds eye view of the intruder.

 

[Val1]

I forgot about this.

Cassidy Taylor-Memmory, 24, claims 27-year-old Pistorius punched a door so hard it fell on her leg following an argument with his then-girlfriend in 2009.

After a four-year-long legal battle, Pistorius's attorney has confirmed that the two parties have struck a deal over legal fees, however, according to Ms Taylor-Memmory, Pistorius has not apologised for the incident.

Ms Taylor-Memmory described Pistorious's behaviour as aggressive and unreasonable, and said that it took her by surprise.

Pistorius has also dropped the 2.2million Rand (£122,093) counter claim, in which he accused blogger Taylor-Memmory of making up the assault.

I wonder why he dropped the claim.

Seems pretty obvious that his lawyers didn't want a current case of domestic type violence on the books when he went to trial for murder, both of which had occurred in the same house. Settlement was reached in December, a scant 2-3 months before this case was supposed to go to trial in March from the charge in 2009.

 

[Val1]

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'.

I wonder if his housekeeper had access to his house to clean up, do the laundry.... and if after that incident she/he still works for him?

 

[minor4th]

Seems pretty obvious that his lawyers didn't want a current case of domestic type violence on the books when he went to trial for murder, both of which had occurred in the same house. Settlement was reached in December, a scant 2-3 months before this case was supposed to go to trial in March from the charge in 2009.

There's a little more to it. The criminal charges were dropped and the civil settlement had to do with OP's defamation suit against the person who made the accusations and tried to have him prosecuted. If you read about the events, it was a sketchy case to begin with and I got the impression that it was a young girl trying to get money out of a celebrity over an incident that she caused.

 

[minor4th]

And the side with the bathroom windows does not have big trees to hide the intruder while he climbs the ladder on the pretty light color walls knowing security drives around the place. Oscar didn't think this thru.
The Dr would have a birds eye view of the intruder.

He's not required to think it through fully in the moment he's in what he believes to be an imminently threatening situation.

 

[nastasya]

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.

OP didn't see or hear intruders coming towards him. According to his own account, he heard the woman he was sleeping beside get up to pee, then followed her into the bathroom and shot her dead while she was in a toilet stall.

Seems nuts to me that anybody would believe OP's version even possible considering his alibi to explain the witnesses is that somehow miraculously OP managed to replicate the precise sounds of a woman being attacked seconds after he actually gunned down a woman in his house.

 

[nastasya]

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.

Again, the state does NOT have to disprove OP's version. That's completely nonsensical. The state puts on evidence to prove it's charges. OP then must respond.

The state's prima facie evidence:

• Dead body
• OP shot her after following her into the bathroom.
• Multiple witnesses heard a female voice and gunshots.

OP must now provide evidence that his actions did not violate the law. His actions and the consequence of them, RS being shot dead, are not in dispute.

 

[G.bng]

From what I've learned, that is not exactly the law in SA. There is a concept of "putative self defense" that could lead to culpable homicide or even an acquittal.

If an accused uses deadly force with a genuine belief that he is facing an imminent threat of harm (even if in hindsight it is known that there was no actual threat at all) - then he is not guilty of intentional murder. At most he can be guilty of culpable homicide.

Here's an explanation from a SA case where putative private defense was asserted:



http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/2002/71.html

Strangely, the Court overturned one or two of his murder convictions - and not only found him not guilty of intentional murder but also acquitted him of culpable homicide, even though he shot and killed someone who was not posing an actual threat to him.

Very interesting if a somewhat gory case. Quite complex too but reading the Judge's reasoning has reinforced my belief that in SA, holding a "genuine belief" and feeling under "imminent threat", is more than jumping to the conclusion there is an intruder in the toilet and without seeing them, let alone knowing if they are armed, pump 4 shots through a toilet door aware there is someone on the other side.

(The appeal court's quashing of one of the murder verdicts without imposing a lesser charge was because the appeal court concluded the victim had been threatening the accused who had therefore shot him in self defence which equals acquittal the same as the 3 other victims of the first group).

 

[nastasya]

I agree. I'm not fully convinced of his version, either. But there's too much doubt and too much of a possibility that his story is true.

In what parallel universe is it "too much of a possibility" that:

1. A man can shoot a woman dead in his house, then
2. The same man would exactly replicate the sounds of that gun attack on the woman 30 seconds later, AND
3. All the witnesses heard the replicated sounds of the attack and killing, not the actual attack.

Seriously, do you really think that's a reasonable alibi?

 

[minor4th]

Very interesting if a somewhat gory case. Quite complex too but reading the Judge's reasoning has reinforced my belief that in SA, holding a "genuine belief" and feeling under "imminent threat", is more than jumping to the conclusion there is an intruder in the toilet and without seeing them, let alone knowing if they are armed, pump 4 shots through a toilet door aware there is someone on the other side.

(The appeal court's quashing of one of the murder verdicts without imposing a lesser charge was because the appeal court concluded the victim had been threatening the accused who had therefore shot him in self defence which equals acquittal the same as the 3 other victims of the first group).

Yes, there is no hard and fast rule but if a defendant holds a genuine belief of imminent harm - whether reasonable or not, if it's at least possibly true - then that bumps it from intentional murder to culpable homicide at most.

It was also a charge for attempted murder which requires a specific intent to kill a person (unlawfully) and an attempt to do so. I don't think there's such a thing as attempted culpable homicide, so it would be proper to dismiss that charge.

The other counts were reduced from murder to culpable homicide because it was "reasonably possibly true" that the defendant mistakenly believed he was still subject to imminent harm.

 

[nastasya]

I don't wanna toot my own horn, but I already knew that the shot to the hip was first and the shot to the head had to have been last based on the placement of the gun shots and the wounds Reeva sustained and posted as much. I am fairly certain the shot to the hip was first and the shot to the head was last. Why is it important?

Maybe it's important because Burger testified that she heard a woman screaming in terror, reaching a crescondo, just before she heard four gunshots that went:

Bang...... bang bang bang.

The pause after the first shot would have allowed RS's body to fall while she screamed in agony, giving OP notice it was RS behind the toilet door. He kept shooting knowing his first shot hit her. The forensic evidence matches exactly with the witness testimony.

Woman screaming in terror. Gunshots. Silence.

OP is shooter + RS was woman screaming = OPG