Trial Discussion Thread #11 weekend thread

[steveml]

From what I've read in the press, OP's fate lies entirely in the judge's hands, but if the assessors can overrule her, that's not true. It's almost like a mini jury, or a mini judgery... which I think is good, because the more assistance the judge gets in processing and digesting all of the available evidence, the more likely there is to be a fair and unbiased outcome, in my opinion.

I'd be a bit surprised if, in practice, the Judge's opinion did not have more weight than the assessors. It would be galling for a Judge to preside over a (lengthy) trial and find him(her)self out-voted by the two assessors. Perhaps even the basic verdict of Guilty or Innocent. IF the system was: "decision by a panel of 3 Judges", it would be described as so and not described as Presiding Judge with assessors to assist.

I'm quite happy that the assessors have more input than I initially thought. The general hierarchical systems within law do lead us to believe that the judge will probably just have to give a certain stare towards an assessor if they feel they're being undermined though.

 

[Viper]

I think you are replying to somebody else's post?

I never mentioned OP's awareness of gun laws?

"Posed no threat" is what we all know in hindsight, but the whole point of OP's defense is that he did in fact perceive a serious threat. And the state have NOT proved that he is lying and did not think that?

He says he perceived a threat, however great he makes that perception out to be, what he is not claiming is that he saw a real threat and that is the key.

We have laws against killing for a reason, to prevent people from killing people. SA laws regarding self defense are not the same as US laws. In SA you are not permitted to use deadly force against a person that is not demonstrating an immediate threat to you or others, that is the law. If an armed theif is stealing your car on your property you cannot shoot at him, you have a responsibility to stay in your home and allow the theif to live. The value to human life is easy to understand from the SA law's intentions, the value of your car that he is stealing or anything else cannot be valued higher than a human's life, including the thief's life.

So OP violated the law. He did not visualize anyone that was immediately intend in causing him great harm or death. Instead he fired four shots, not just one by accident or whatever, fired four shots through a door intending to murder whomever was behind that door. That is against the law. Although he killed Reeva and not an intruder doesnt change the fact that he intended to kill, he fired four shots attempting to kill, and he killed a person - that is murder.

 

[soozieqtips]

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.

 

[Feynman]

Crazy desperate bit*hes.

Not necessarily desperate. Sometimes very attractive. Desperate, no. Whackjob, yes

 

[steveml]

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

Sorry to hear that

Hope things in life are much better for you now.

 

[steveml]

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.

What is it with OP and doors?

:trainwreck:

 

[soozieqtips]

What is it with OP and doors?

:trainwreck:

No idea, but one may be closing on him soon!

 

[james83]

Anybody know of SA cases where there really WAS an intruder shot and killed by a home owner?
I guess in many such cases charges are never laid and so they are not on record?

I have a feeling that given the circumstances of this case, except an actual (dead) intruder, charges would never have been laid. IF the Judge views this case from the perspective of there being an intruder in OP's mind, will she convict him at all?

Not a chance he will walk free, that would be far to dangerous a precedent to set.
The judge has a duty to make it abundantly clear that owning a firearm does not give you a licence to kill without repercussions, you simply do not shoot first and ask question's later.
If he walk's, how long before someone takes the opportunity to blast there partner through a door in the middle of the night and point's straight to this case?.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

I think you are replying to somebody else's post?

I never mentioned OP's awareness of gun laws?

"Posed no threat" is what we all know in hindsight, but the whole point of OP's defense is that he did in fact perceive a serious threat. And the state have NOT proved that he is lying and did not think that?

Maybe they will have more some solid evidence still to present which proves OP's version of events is false . As I said earlier today there are many unanswered questions about his version of the shooting which could still yet be answered before the prosecution rests .
I personally don't believe anybody could seriously mistake a flushing toilet for a dangerous intruder .

 

[Viper]

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.

Oscar was drunk so he had a temporary psychological issue. Give him a break! /sarc. lease:

 

[Rumpole]

He says he perceived a threat, however great he makes that perception out to be, what he is not claiming is that he saw a real threat and that is the key.

We have laws against killing for a reason, to prevent people from killing people. SA laws regarding self defense are not the same as US laws. In SA you are not permitted to use deadly force against a person that is not demonstrating an immediate threat to you or others, that is the law. If an armed theif is stealing your car on your property you cannot shoot at him, you have a responsibility to stay in your home and allow the theif to live. The value to human life is easy to understand from the SA law's intentions, the value of your car that he is stealing or anything else cannot be valued higher than a human's life, including the thief's life.

So OP violated the law. He did not visualize anyone that was immediately intend in causing him great harm or death. Instead he fired four shots, not just one by accident or whatever, fired four shots through a door intending to murder whomever was behind that door. That is against the law. Although he killed Reeva and not an intruder doesnt change the fact that he intended to kill, he fired four shots attempting to kill, and he killed a person - that is murder.

You argue a good case for the prosecution, but that is not what Nel is arguing. I think he SHOULD have argued along those lines from the outset. He would not have needed the (dubious) burger evidence at all (which took up a large chunk of week 1).
Unless what you say (or similar) is put to the Judge how can she consider it?
If that is the prosecution case then they have to present it and give the defense an opportunity to respond.

 

[Insp.Dots]

Just a shame that the witnesses to all the previous incidents didn't consider reporting them to the Police. Call me negative but not one went against him until this incident and even then one or two remained very close to him. Look at which of these also sold stories to newspapers and you have the reason I have not been totally convinced they have been totally honest in their testamonys. I want the state to give us some solid evidence that will give me NO DOUBT that OP is a Premeditated Murderer then I will applaud when he is sentenced to life. MOO

 

[steveml]

Anybody know of SA cases where there really WAS an intruder shot and killed by a home owner?
I guess in many such cases charges are never laid and so they are not on record?

I have a feeling that given the circumstances of this case, except an actual (dead) intruder, charges would never have been laid. IF the Judge views this case from the perspective of there being an intruder in OP's mind, will she convict him at all?

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

 

[G.bng]

We seem to have quite a few reasons as to why OP could be guilty or innocent of premeditated murder. Nel is going to be expected to summarise and re-create a picture as best he can of the events leading up to, during and after the premeditated murder. I've not got a clear story yet - has anybody else?

The term "premeditated" is continually being bandied as if part of the State's murder charge against OP when from my reading of the charging doc "premeditation" doesn't figure anywhere. It may be the term "intentional" is being interpreted by the media in the context of "intentionality" as in an anglophile system. The State's charging document against OP reads:

Count 1: MURDER - READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 51(1) OF ACT 105 OF 1997

In that upon or about 14 February 2013 and at or near 286 Bushwillow Street, Silverwoods Country Estate, Silver Lakes in the District of Pretoria the accused did unlawfully and intentionally kill a person, to wit, REEVA STEENKAMP, a 29 year old female.

IMO, and I of course could be wrong, from my limited research of SA criminal law the key words as to interpreting their murder laws are "unlawfully" and "intentionally".

1. Unlawfully:
   In the first place the judge will have to decide if OP shot "unlawfully", i.e. was OP's rdeadly force justifiable in all of the circumstances, e.g. OP's disability, his not seeing an intruder, his not actually suffering a real deadly threat, and his not ensuring that other persons in the house were accounted for and safe before discharging 4 bullets blind into a closed door... etc. etc. etc.?
   
   
2. Intentionally:
   The judge will have to decide if when OP opened fire 4 times at the door did he "intend" to scare, incapacitate, or kill the "burglar/intruder" he claims to have thought was behind the door. And then even if OP isn't found have shot intending to kill the "burglar/intruder", the Judge will have to decide whether or not OP should have reasonably known that shooting blind through a door into such a tiny space would likely kill a person on the other side.

From my understanding of SA law if the judge finds OP shot lawfully at a burglar or intruder through a closed door she can then only find him guilty of culpable homicide and end of story, however if she finds OP shot unlawfully she will then have to decide whether OP intended to kill the person behind the door or whether he should have known that shooting blind through the door would likely kill the person on the other side. In which case if the Judge's conclusion is that OP intended to kill or should have known that it could kill, she will have to find him guilty as charged, if she doesn't find either as fact then she would have to revert to culpable homicide. JMO

 

[soozieqtips]

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

So true. One of my exes from yesteryear chose women primarily from damaged backgrounds and about 15 years younger than him (he was 33, they were 18 or 19). He was quite able to mould them into his perfect women, ie, one with no opinions of their own and very eager to please. He and I separated (not amicably) because try as he might (and he did try very hard) he couldn't quite mould me, but the relationship was exhausting and fraught with tension a lot of the time. It's possible that OP may like younger women because they look up to him and make him feel a bigger and more secure person. Sad, really.

 

[Viper]

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.

Because he murdered his girlfriend and was kind of busy with that new legal matter; also because his suit was a frivolous one filed to further harass yet another young woman. Such a jerk!

 

[Insp.Dots]

Good point about the guard dogs. For them to have any merit in the case you would expect them to bark in both scenarios. It seems that the only thing we can determine is that they were far too docile to be considered guard dogs.

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

 

[steveml]

Just a shame that the witnesses to all the previous incidents didn't consider reporting them to the Police. Call me negative but not one went against him until this incident and even then one or two remained very close to him. Look at which of these also sold stories to newspapers and you have the reason I have not been totally convinced they have been totally honest in their testamonys. I want the state to give us some solid evidence that will give me NO DOUBT that OP is a Premeditated Murderer then I will applaud when he is sentenced to life. MOO

This is very true. I mentioned earlier how the firearm charges were brought by the state to help them in this murder case, not at the time by the restaurant owner and OP's friends. If they had, there's a good chance the gun license would have been revoked. Hindsight I know, but it's still such a shame.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Anybody know of SA cases where there really WAS an intruder shot and killed by a home owner?
I guess in many such cases charges are never laid and so they are not on record?

I have a feeling that given the circumstances of this case, except an actual (dead) intruder, charges would never have been laid. IF the Judge views this case from the perspective of there being an intruder in OP's mind, will she convict him at all?

It would be very scary if he wasn't at least convicted with culpable homicide .
We can't just go round shooting people through closed doors when we could have taken other evasive action rather than go and seek out and confront someone who posed no threat perceived or otherwise .

 

[Rumpole]

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

Thanks I see some relevance.

When he saw men working open a window in a spare room he took his gun from the safe and waited for them.

He shot Sandile Mbotho, 25, in the head and chest. Another 25-year-old man tried to run but was shot in the collarbone, arm and knee. The third man got away.

The surviving intruder faces a robbery charge.

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).