Trial Discussion Thread #50 - 14.08.8, Day 40 ~final arguments continue~

[zwiebel]

R: Lack of capacity, I've dealt with that.

 

[zwiebel]

R: ...that takes us to culpable homicide. Which, may I be bold, should have been the charge from the beginning...

 

[zwiebel]

Safe to say Roux is going for culp homicide now.....

 

[PrimeSuspect]

The_Citizen_Reporter ‏@CitiReporter 59s

Roux: state is asking wrong question. It should be did Oscar foresee possibility that Reeva was in toilet when he shot at door?


Oscar sitting still and showing no emotion as Roux says he thought Reeva was in bedroom.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

lol, I nodded off! Why didn't someone nudge me.

Do you mean like that -------> :bombshell: or like that -------> :slap: ??

 

[zwiebel]

R: Wld it be wrong to hear a noise without legs, and arm yourself?

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Barry Bateman ‏@barrybateman 19s

Roux: when considering the conduct - take the legs off, slow burn effect with anxiety, then you have the reasonable man. BB

 

[zwiebel]

R: He's standing there, looking at door, and hears a noise, that's the crux. Was he acting reasonable.....it's a value judgment.

 

[JudgeJudi]

So now we've got severe depression, major stress, anxiety, vulnerability, traumatised, disabled, the slow burn effect, no legs. Have I forgotten something?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

And it's significant Mr Roux that your client lied to the doctors at Weskoppies about the boating accident.

What did he lie? I missed that part.

 

[zwiebel]

R: If your finding is reasonable, you must acquit him.

Then says that if milady judges it not reasonable, all the anxiety factors etc, must be taken into account.

 

[soozieqtips]

R: Wld it be wrong to hear a noise without legs, and arm yourself?

Not wrong, but strange, considering he was apparently the type to 'remove' himself from conflict, so say the pysche team, even though OP himself admitted it wasn't in his character to walk away from danger, but rather to confront it.

 

[zwiebel]

R: It comes down to that split second with the firearm pointed at the door. Should he have discharged the shots? Was it reasonable?....We believe in those peculiar circumstances, he was not negligent.

 

[soozieqtips]

So now we've got severe depression, major stress, anxiety, vulnerability, traumatised, disabled, the slow burn effect, no legs. Have I forgotten something?

The many times he was a victim of crime

 

[zwiebel]

Roux wants two mins. Think he thinks he may be done but wants to check?

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Oscar Trial Channel ‏@OscarTrial199 43s

Roux: it comes down to the split second, one minute, thirty seconds in accused's life when he stood in front of door.


Karyn Maughan ‏@karynmaughan 54s

Roux argues that "in peculiar circumstances" of this case, Oscar Pistorius was NOT negligent in shooting at door @eNCAnews

 

[Giles]

I'm impressed with Roux's closing. He brought things together well.

 

[Suthrnqt]

I don't know how much longer I can keep my eyes open. I'm fading fast.

 

[sorrell skye]

IMO, a reasonable person with the same abilities/disabilities would have armed him/herself (if a weapon was available), but would not have approached the perceived danger.

Instead of approaching the perceived danger, a reasonable person would have tried to put distance and/or a barrier between him/herself and the danger.

 

[zwiebel]

So Roux asks for culpable homicide but if not, wants many, many mitigating factors taken into account?

What difference could the factors make to a sentence, anyone?