Trial Discussion Thread #13 - 14.03.25, Day 15

[Trooper]

mainly, .. of course, but not entirely because it was once a British colony. then a part of the British Commonwealth, then it zoomed off and broke ties, and labored under world sanctions, then it rejoined the British Commonwealth as an Independent Republic..


about 97% of SA law is British. the odds and ends are Dutch / Roman law.. .

and Vipes!!.. the 'innocent bystander ' law.. which of course, covers the private (lay ) witnesses.. like Madame VanDer Mewre, Mrs Burger and Dr and Mrs Stipps..



one of my fave laws of all.

 

[Trooper]

The interpretation of laws isn't I'm afraid.

oh it is.. it most certainly is..


thankfully, SA does follow British law, because if it followed French or Swedish or German law, then many more would be befuddled.

 

[steveml]

mainly, .. of course, but not entirely because it was once a British colony. then a part of the British Commonwealth, then it zoomed off and broke ties, and labored under world sanctions, then it rejoined the British Commonwealth as an Independent Republic..


about 97% of SA law is British. the odds and ends are Dutch / Roman law.. .

I agree, however I've not heard one lawyer yet give a concise explanation with regard to this case. I'd be interested to hear/see one.

 

[Trooper]

I agree, however I've not heard one lawyer yet give a concise explanation with regard to this case. I'd be interested to hear/see one.

you've been listening to the wrong type of lawyer, then.


that can only be the explanation.

 

[steveml]

oh it is.. it most certainly is..


thankfully, SA does follow British law, because if it followed French or Swedish or German law, then many more would be befuddled.

How can it follow British Law if it doesn't even include the law of premeditated murder. It's not even recognized?

 

[Viper]

Thanks. That's a description of transferred intent under English law, however nobody seems to be entirely sure if this is interpreted the same in SA.

It'd be good if someone could get hold of a SA lawyer's take on it.

The interpretation of laws isn't I'm afraid.

The interpretation of the law will be done by the three judges!

During the bail hearing Mr. Nel stated (and I paraphrase), 'to kill is to kill, irrespective of who the victim is. If he (the accused) intended to kill, it is murder. He shot four times. That is murder."

 

[nastasya]

I'm really addressing those that are saying he's not disabled. Of course, he is. And, yes, he fought, like most people with a disability, to be seen as anything other than disabled and to be viewed as normal.

<modsnip>

All any of us have are abilities. I will guarantee, 100%, that OP's ability to move around on his stumps is better than the average person with lower legs. I will also guarantee, 100%, that OP on his stumps holding a 9 mm is less vulnerable than 99.9% of the population.

 

[steveml]

The interpretation of the law will be done by the three judges!

During the bail hearing Mr. Nel stated (and I paraphrase), 'to kill is to kill, irrespective of who the victim is. If he (the accused) intended to kill, it is murder. He shot four times. That is murder."

The murder charge is the easy one. It's the murder with intent that could do with clarification.

 

[steveml]

you've been listening to the wrong type of lawyer, then.


that can only be the explanation.

Perhaps you can explain the specific actions that OP would need to do to increase the charge from murder then?

 

[Trooper]

British law and South African law does indeed follow and in fact invented the term, premeditated murder.. this consequence comes in at the sentencing..


for the purposes of this trial. forget all you think you know about degrees of murder.. that's the main area that befuddles.

think. MURDER.. .. the meaning of the word.. to deprive of life intentionally.

it means no more, and no less. its what it is..

but running a short course on legal terms is not what I'm here for.. I expect folks to already know it.

 

[steveml]

<modsnip>

All any of us have are abilities. I will guarantee, 100%, that OP's ability to move around on his stumps is better than the average person with lower legs. I will also guarantee, 100%, that OP on his stumps holding a 9 mm is less vulnerable than 99.9% of the population.

In fairness I don't think that's what was being inferred. Not the way I read it anyhow.

 

[JuneBug67]

Doesn't matter how safe he perceived himself to be. He has a responsibility to abide by the rules concerning owning a firearm. He didn't.

A complete innocent was violently and needlessly killed. I don't think anybody's argument is that Oscar made any by-the-book choices that night. Most of my points are simply in support of the idea that it really, really could have happened the way Oscar described. It's not ludicrous or outlandish or completely lacking sense. Just a few impulsive, frightened moments in the dark, and it really could have happened that way. The armchair snark and eye rolling at the possibility that makes up a lot of the content here is not very useful thinking IMO.

 

[Trooper]

Perhaps you can explain the specific actions that OP would need to do to increase the charge from murder then?

there is nothing he could do. even increasing his number of victims wouldn't increase the severity of the charge.

murder.. is..M..U.R.D.E.R. anything else in British and SA law, and AU and NZ and Canadian law, is superfluous...


Jamacian law, Bahamian law, Kenyan law, Malaysian law, and on and on.. 72 nations at last count. this is how it is.

step 1 . ----> forget the concept of murder in degrees.

step 2. ----> think one thing. Murder. that's it.

 

[steveml]

British law and South African law does indeed follow and in fact invented the term, premeditated murder.. this consequence comes in at the sentencing..


for the purposes of this trial. forget all you think you know about degrees of murder.. that's the main area that befuddles.

think. MURDER.. .. the meaning of the word.. to deprive of life intentionally.

it means no more, and no less. its what it is..

but running a short course on legal terms is not what I'm here for.. I expect folks to already know it.

Some do. Presuming OP has done what you believe he has done, and not what he claims, please explain the specific actions that OP would need to do to distinguish murder from the higher charge?

You can simply say you don't know. It won't matter to me.

 

[Viper]

The murder charge is the easy one. It's the murder with intent that could do with clarification.

What? You cannot get murder UNLESS there is intent!

 

[Trooper]

A complete innocent was violently and needlessly killed. I don't think anybody's argument is that Oscar made any by-the-book choices that night. Most of my points are simply in support of the idea that it really, really could have happened the way Oscar described. It's not ludicrous or outlandish or completely lacking sense. Just a few impulsive, frightened moments in the dark, and it really could have happened that way. The armchair snark and eye rolling at the possibility that makes up a lot of the content here is not very useful thinking IMO.

and I appreciate your view. .

and in a way, you could scrape in there with the claim about the few impulsive moments. In some cultures. that could cover the first shot.

but Oscar moves out of that category with his 2nd, 3rd and 4th shot.. unequivocally, and categorically..

and to add to Oscars dilemma.. the STate of South Africa is claiming he knew who he was firing at. that takes it out of the accidental impulsive, and puts it into him choosing a target and firing that weapon at that target .

 

[nastasya]

Thanks for a sensible post, I thought I was on twitter/facebook for a while.

I agree, self-defence is going to be an extremely tough call. It's really a decision based on whether the intention was to kill Reeva. There is no doubt in my mind that OP's intention was to kill.

It doesn't matter if the intention was specifically to kill Reeva.

If a bank robber fires a gun at a security guard, and an innocent bystander is killed, it's still first degree murder. Killing somebody in the commission of another felony is still first degree murder. In fact, in the bank robber scenario, if the security guard fired at the robbers and killed an innocent bystander, the robbers would still be charged with murder.

 

[steveml]

What? You cannot get murder UNLESS there is intent!

Have a look at the possible sentencing options for this case. There is not simply a murder charge. This is why the state didn't elect for a plain and simple murder charge.

:deadhorse:

 

[steveml]

It doesn't matter if the intention was specifically to kill Reeva.

If a bank robber fires a gun at a security guard, and an innocent bystander is killed, it's still first degree murder. Killing somebody in the commission of another felony is still first degree murder. In fact, in the bank robber scenario, if the security guard fired at the robbers and killed an innocent bystander, the robbers would still be charged with murder.

In this particular case, if OP received a sentence for murder, he will have received the lesser charge than the state wants, as they have not just charged him with murder.

 

[Trooper]

Some do. Presuming OP has done what you believe he has done, and not what he claims, please explain the specific actions that OP would need to do to distinguish murder from the higher charge?

You can simply say you don't know. It won't matter to me.

I can only urge you to consider step ( 1) of my short course in understanding the meaning of the word , to murder.


Murder.. implies intent. that's what it means, .. killing implies a grey area. you can kill someone with criminal negligence, and still get the same standard sentence..

anyways. its not complicated. making it complicated is easy but destabilizing..


merely. forget what you think you know as degrees of murder, . . and concentrate on the simple meaning of the word, murder, in the English language.. on which brit law and SA law is based .

then its simple.