Trial Discussion Thread #32

[TorisMom003]

Speaking of the second shot being the missed shot, the State says that is what happened. Dixon, for the defense, says that he believes the last shot was the missed one. I don't see how that is possible since the missed shot is the one where the core of the bullet ended up in the toilet. If that missed bullet happened after Reeva was leaning over the toilet (from the arm and/or head shot) then there wouldn't be a space for the core of the bullet to go into the toilet.

MOO

 

[liesbeth]

Based on the opinion we're talking about, he wouldn't be found to have fired four times. Just once. I think his future will be decided by whether the state can prove he had no subjective fear of an intruder.

jmo

Karmady, if the judge doesn't believe his story, the prosecution wins.

 

[Karmady]

OP's gun was tested, if I am not mistaken, and it takes 4 pulls of the trigger to fire 4 bullets. There was also a break in between the first shot and the second shot. That would be impossible with a gun that fired all 4 with one pull of the trigger.

It will be interesting to see how this testing (if you're not mistaken) will compare to the application of the law in another case involving the action of the same firearm. jmo

 

[liesbeth]

I don't think she would wash them with the belt still through the belt loops. Possible I guess but highly unlikely.

MOO

ETA: Now I could see the inside out jeans being a pair that had recently been washed. They are dark colored jeans so washing them inside out would help prevent them from "bleeding" onto other clothes.

You're right, of course. No one washes jeans with a belt. Doh! :facepalm: My apologies.

I'm off to feed the slavering horde some breakfast. I enjoyed our talk. Thank you, all.

 

[Suthrnqt]

That case is consistent with other SA cases dealing with putative self defense. If there's a genuine belief by the accused that he's shooting in self defense to prevent harm to himself or others, then there is no intent for murder.

But he was shooting at a closed door. How could he reasonably know who was behind the door? Wouldn't he have to see the armed intruder before shooting? Being a responsible gun owner demands knowing your target.
MOO

 

[Karmady]

Karmady, if the judge doesn't believe his story, the prosecution wins.

In the US, judges are bound by precedent. Presumably SA courts are the same (although I haven't looked it up yet). In that case, the court will be bound to find that, consistent with its decision last month, the trigger was pulled once.

Unless of course someone can show that the guns in the prior case and this case are different. So far I've got that they're 9 mm semi-automatics. jmo

 

[Val1]

Not in many cases of "brain death".
As for when coupled with concomitant blood loss, the heart will eventually succumb to hypoxemia from decreased blood flow/perfusion and lack of breathing and eventually arrest.


I'm tired, apologies for the brevity of the above...

Thanks, the reason I ask is because the whole issue of organ donation was raised and in those cases, don't they need to keep the organs viable by means of a respirator, liquids, etc. or the organs(heart, liver) will fail before they can be removed for transplant?

Just wondering what kind of time frame is usually allowed to get those kinds of support to the organs before transplant would no longer be feasible and if the DT or the PT could extrapolate those time frames to the arterial spurt in this case to argue their respective cases. Obviously cpr wasn't an option due to the open wounds bleeding out, so how else could the heart have stayed "alive" for more than a couple of minutes?

I know there have been extraordinary cases in the presence of a viable fetus surviving the mother's "death", but other than that I haven't heard whether an accident/murder victim would even be considered worthy of such a procedure if they were already declared brain dead on the site of the injury.

Sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to better understand the medical aspect of this case. Perhaps looking at how they saved Gifford(though iirc she only sustained the one gunshot to her head) might offer some insight?

 

[Trooper]

In the US, judges are bound by precedent. Presumably SA courts are the same (although I haven't looked it up yet). In that case, the court will be bound to find that, consistent with its decision last month, the trigger was pulled once.

Unless of course someone can show that the guns in the prior case and this case are different. So far I've got that they're 9 mm semi-automatics. jmo

the trigger was pulled once?? in Oscars event?

 

[Greater Than]

Based on the opinion we're talking about, he wouldn't be found to have fired four times. Just once. I think his future will be decided by whether the state can prove he had no subjective fear of an intruder.

jmo

A semi-automatic pistol fires only one shot per trigger pull. Are you confusing it with a fully automatic which continues to fire as long as the trigger is is being pulled?

 

[Karmady]

A semi-automatic pistol fires only one shot per trigger pull. Are you confusing it with a fully automatic which continues to fire as long as the trigger is is being pulled?

No. Read the decision capetowncrim and I posted.

 

[Suthrnqt]

In the US, judges are bound by precedent. Presumably SA courts are the same (although I haven't looked it up yet). In that case, the court will be bound to find that, consistent with its decision last month, the trigger was pulled once.

Unless of course someone can show that the guns in the prior case and this case are different. So far I've got that they're 9 mm semi-automatics. jmo

No, the trigger was pulled 4 times. In fact, there was a pause between the 1st shot and the next 3. Like this:
Bang......bang, bang, bang.
Also, he shot 4 times at an unknown target behind a closed door.

 

[Karmady]

No, the trigger was pulled 4 times. In fact, there was a pause between the 1st shot and the next 3. Like this:
Bang......bang, bang, bang.
Also, he shot 4 times at an unknown target behind a closed door.

read the decision.

 

[Val1]

A semi-automatic pistol fires only one shot per trigger pull. Are you confusing it with a fully automatic which continues to fire as long as the trigger is is being pulled?

OP's gun is being compared to a similar one in a different case where the judge down graded the killer's conviction because although it was determined that he had over reacted by shooting the victim 3 times thus being convicted of the harsher charge of murder, it was because his gun fired 3 shots in a row due to being unable to pause. ie.it was modified to "burst" 3 in a row. So he ended up getting the CH instead... iirc all the details.:/

 

[crasshopper]

Crasshopper how tired are you tonight? A thought crossed my mind about reactive hyperemia and hyperemia. I know it is a stretch, but I am curious! LOL!!!

...I am really pooped can barely keep the lids open.
I think no more than light commentary.

Nutshell, it wouldn't apply in this case.

As far as I recall reactive hyperemia does not occur in patients suffering from significant blood loss, unless the blood loss causes myocardial infarction or ischemia in an area of preexisting coronary artery stenosis. Reeva was a healthy 29 yo with no underlying coronary artery disease. Were she a 75 yo smoker maybe, but again this only involves a vascular territory and not the whole heart. So downstream from the area of blockage/stenosis at autopsy you find the area of infarction is ruddier from localized increased blood flow, local release of vasodilating factors like NitrousOxide help facilitate this.

A classic example of reactive hyperemia would be patient gets acute clot blocking femoral artery supplying your whole leg. (Acute emergency) The leg becomes pale and "cold". The cells of the vessels and muscle and tissues of the leg release vasodilating factors. The capillaries dilate in a futile attempt to improve flow. Clot busters/lytic agents are administered, like Drano, they dissolve the clot and blood flow is restored.

The blood fills all these dilated capillaries, including those below the skin, and Hypermia "Increased Blood" occurs, they are in effect wide open and flooded by the restored blood flow. The leg is then more red in appearance and can be warmer than normal as the dilated capillaries are holding more blood than they usually do.

As I stated in an earlier post, in Reeva, the loss of blood (volume) would have caused vasoconstriction of arteries to help maintain blood pressure & stem further blood loss EXCEPT the vessels spared to preferentially direct flow to the brain and heart.

Elsewhere in the body, the tissues normally supplied by the vasoconstricted arteries do release those same vasodilating factors widening the capillaries. HOWEVER as the blood flow was never restored to normal, you don't get reactive hyperemia.


...ok now I'm really tired

what are you thinking?

If I don't answer it's because I can only think about boyfriend Jeans vs Skinny Jeans and which ones would better hide light from a pesky LED.

Funny the things in this trial that keep you up at night.

 

[Suthrnqt]

read the decision.

I have read the decision. IIRC, the gun referred to in the decision had been modified to shoot more than once per trigger pull.
And OP still had to pull the trigger four different times.
Bang......bang, bang, bang.

ETA: Karmady would you mind providing a link. TIA

 

[TorisMom003]

[9] The defence also adduced evidence of an ex-police officer and a ballistics expert, Mr Jacobus Steyl. Steyl testified that the deceased was within very close proximity to the appellant when he shot him. He based this on the gun powder residue found on the deceased’s body. He testified further that, given the circumstances the appellant could not have had time to reflect on his actions once he started to shoot. According to Steyl, a Z88 9mm Parabellum expels bullets in rapid succession. Once the trigger is pressed, the pistol will fire after which the recoil operation automatically extracts, ejects and reloads the chamber until all rounds are fired.[1] Thus the appellant could not have paused in between the shots to deliberately and intentionally shoot the deceased.

link:
http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/2014/52.html#_ftn1

Now here's one of the main differences between the above case and OP's, in the above case the accused had a clear and present danger coming towards him with his hand in his pocket while saying words to the effect of let's kill him. OP did not have a clear and present danger coming towards him at all and no one telling him they were going to kill him.

This is one of the reasons why I believe that culpable homicide is not going to be the verdict but instead the verdict will be murder.

MOO

 

[Trooper]

In the US, judges are bound by precedent. Presumably SA courts are the same (although I haven't looked it up yet). In that case, the court will be bound to find that, consistent with its decision last month, the trigger was pulled once.

Unless of course someone can show that the guns in the prior case and this case are different. So far I've got that they're 9 mm semi-automatics. jmo

yes, we know about precedent.. the British legal system invented it, and the USA system copied it, due to its sensible applications. . and SA is based on British law with a bit of Dutch-Romano law thrown in. So precedent is not the unknown factor here. South Africa has had the law, Dutch law, with all its precedence since 1674.. a bit longer than the USA has been the USA.

 

[Jake18]

Thanks, the reason I ask is because the whole issue of organ donation was raised and in those cases, don't they need to keep the organs viable by means of a respirator, liquids, etc. or the organs(heart, liver) will fail before they can be removed for transplant?

Just wondering what kind of time frame is usually allowed to get those kinds of support to the organs before transplant would no longer be feasible and if the DT or the PT could extrapolate those time frames to the arterial spurt in this case to argue their respective cases. Obviously cpr wasn't an option due to the open wounds bleeding out, so how else could the heart have stayed "alive" for more than a couple of minutes?

I know there have been extraordinary cases in the presence of a viable fetus surviving the mother's "death", but other than that I haven't heard whether an accident/murder victim would even be considered worthy of such a procedure if they were already declared brain dead on the site of the injury.

Sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to better understand the medical aspect of this case. Perhaps looking at how they saved Gifford(though iirc she only sustained the one gunshot to her head) might offer some insight?

Just briefly because I don't have much time: Reeva was too damaged to be an organ donor. The ideal candidate (and this is not my area) is someone who is brain dead but whose other organs are in good shape - hers wouldnt have been due to rhe lack of oxygen and bleeding. And yes, the organs are protected before harvest with fluid and blood pressure support. Brain dead Accident victims are used for organ donation but they have to be adequately ventilated quickly after the injury and the organs need to be healthy.

Fetus' are a different entity as they receive oxygenated blood through the placenta and not from breathing, obviously. If a fetus is delivered of a brain dead but ventilated mother with an intact, functioning placenta they're probably going to be in better shape than from a complete placental abruption.

 

[crasshopper]

Dolus directus means direct intent - a knowing choice to commit the act. That is what Nel is trying to prove. Being reckless and irresponsible is not dolus directus. Being reckless could be dolus eventualis in some circumstances.

Yes, I think it's clear from the evidence that he intended to shoot someone - an intruder according to his account. Despite saying he "didn't want to" or "didn't plan to" or "didn't intend to" - he does acknowledge that he pointed the gun at the sound of what he thought was an intruder coming to attack him, and he pulled the trigger while pointing the gun at the perceived intruder.

But his intent to kill an intruder who he believed was about to harm him is not necessarily even culpable homicide - depends on whether the judge determines that his response to the perceived danger was reasonable or excessive.

Thank you for that exceptionally clear elucidation of two of the applicable 'statutes' (for want of a better term).

Two thumbs up.

 

[Greater Than]

OP's gun is being compared to a similar one in a different case where the judge down graded the killer's conviction because although it was determined that he had over reacted by shooting the victim 3 times thus being convicted of the harsher charge of murder, it was because his gun fired 3 shots in a row due to being unable to pause. ie.it was modified to "burst" 3 in a row. So he ended up getting the CH instead... iirc all the details.:/

Thank you, I wasn't sure what she was referencing since she did not provide a link.

This other gun in this other case is irrelevant IMO. It's a different gun, and I suppose it could have been intentionally rigged to fire as an automatic weapon. It also could have malfunctioned and fired 3 shots with one trigger pull. Who knows, but as far as I've understood the case and testimony thus far, no ballistics expert has refuted that one trigger pull expels one bullet with OP's gun. Likewise, OP didn't testify that he fired 4 shots with a single trigger pull. He consciously pulled the trigger 4 separate times. In rapid succession perhaps, but 4 separate, deliberate trigger pulls.