Trial Discussion Thread #51 - 14.11.9, Day 41 ~announcement of the verdict~

[MeeBee]

thanks for answering.
bib. absolutely, if defending reasonably they are innocent.
and for balance, imo... if any law is commuting the sentence of a killer then i disagree with it completely.

I agree. But I agree completely with the judge'd interpretation of their findings. If she cannot be sure what really happened then how can she convict him of murder?

 

[sorrell skye]

"How could the accused have reasonably foreseen the shot he fired would have killed the deceased? Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this, that he would have killed the person behind the door, let alone the deceased," says Judge Masipa.

Completely incorrect test for dolus eventualis. Dolus eventualis is not direct intent and whether he knew whether it was the deceased or not is irrelevant! Only two tests apply here...

1. Was there a person (any person) behind the door?
2. Could you foresee the possibility of the death of that person? (When firing four shots into a small area, and the probability, let alone the possibility of killing someone with that specific ammunition is great)... Come on!

So, that finding is clearly an error in law...

And that, dear people, gives you the clear view of the "quality" of the South African judicial system...

It seems that Masipa rejected dolus eventualis because she didn't believe mens rea was proven by the State.

After the testimony of Sean Rens (firearms expert who assessed OP for his firearms licenses), I don't understand how Masipa can conclude that OP didn't know that shooting through a closed door is unlawful.

 

[vanatos]

We're not talking about Reeva we're talking about intruders and how you should be allowed to deal with them. Yes, if there is an intruder in your home you should be able to shoot to defend. If you genuinely made a mistake then you deserve leniency. Pretty clear.

But you are talking about Reeva because in your statement you tied it to Pistorius and you believing him.

So you believe we can kill intruders in our house, ok, if its a child thief, is it ok?
If no, you got some mental gymnastics to perform.

If yes, does this also to extend hungry child thieves living in poverty? pretty sure most of them would be executed according to you.

 

[mirage1]

Can somebody confirm whether 'transfer of malice' applied in this case? someone is telling me that if he thought it was an intruder then he can't get convicted of murdering reeva.

 

[AJ_DS]

Something is definitely wrong with Masipa…

She stated that the server phone logs were common cause evidence… but she ignored the times of Dr Stipp's phone call to security and Mike's phone call to security… instead she decided to rely on Johnson's 3:16 phone call and 58 seconds duration which are not from a server phone log.

This made the second set of shots occur moments after 3:17 instead of moments before 3:15:51

Also she decided that Help Help Help was shouted only once and by OP… therefore she aligned all the HHH testimony to a single point in time… there is however evidence that Reeva was also heard screaming HHH

She criticized Burger, Johnson, Stipp and Dr Stipp for being far from OP's house… but she fully relied on Carice's testimony which lives much further away than any other witness and was also facing the wrong way i.e. the front of OP's house instead of the back… Burger, Johnson, Stipp and Dr Stipp all faced the back of OP's house and had a clear line of sight to the bathroom window.

Also… what's the point… there are so many other problems in Masipa's verdict that it would just take too long…

This is a travesty of Justice… I'm not even questioning the interpretation of the Law… but it's more than obvious that Masipa is severely manipulating the facts of the case.

Good thing that the Trial was televised… because those who have followed it all attentively can know for sure what's what.

Hope Nel appeals.

 

[LemonMousse]

I don't though. But I believe if you make a genuine mistake you should not be punished to the full extent of the law. That's outrageous to me. And I know it's outrageous to most people given the amount of support usually shown to people who make this mistake. It's only for OP that they think you should be locked away regardless of the circumstances, because them either way he's guilty of murder, which is pretty ridiculous.

But what was his mistake, exactly?

Let's accept he genuinely thought there was an intruder in the toilet. What does the law say he should do?
Does it say...."Head right in there and shoot them before they can shoot you?"

No. It says...you MUST avoid confrontation if you can. You MUST escape if you can. You MUST take all reasonable avoidant actions if you can.

ONLY if you are left with no other choice, and the attack on you is happening or extremely imminent then are you allowed to shoot.

This does not fit with Pistorius. No way.

 

[rachael123]

Wow,This should be on at night so I could drink.

Yeah she said it towards the end after lunch!

 

[Trooper]

What is the subjective criteria for judging exactly what is an intruder in , say.. Texas, for example? is the tiniest sound of a window opening some 2 rooms away enough to blam thru with a gunfull of black talons ? or do even Texans, for example , have to have some sort of solid and unarguable grounds for assuming one is aiming at an ' burglar' or 'intruder'... what is the standard justification?

 

[Interested Bystander]

I am actually a forensic engineer and was in the SA Police for about 10 years (left them in 1999). But have been involved in the investigation of many culpable homicides, murders, industrial incidents, etc...

I also started to study law, but stopped when my company (which I started when I left the police) took up all my time. But I did complete "Criminal Law" and "Criminal Procedure Law" as subjects. So I know a little bit.....

Many thanks. Sorry I was wrong but you always seemed to be so on the ball at the time when you joined in on the discussions.

 

[Hatfield]

Wasnt there at least 1 or more witnesses that implied hearing screaming from a female voice. If so, then I suppose that was just ignored completely. Or if it was not ignored, then it must have been assumed that the intruder was a female.

If so, I wonder what the statistics are for female intruders robbing houses by themselves.

 

[jay-jay]

Intruders kill? Always?

No, they do not.

And I am a little appalled that you feel shoot first, question later is morally acceptable.

I don't. And no civilised nation does either...that's why the self-defence laws exist.

BIB .. even in the firearms competency tests that OP took, he had to prove that he knew that this was not acceptable in law.

 

[MeeBee]

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/is-shooting-an-intruder-justified-1.213501#.VBGg4dq9KSM

"Is your action justified in South African law?

Our law says that you are permitted to defend yourself, or another person, against an unlawful attack that has already begun or is imminent.

The attack may be against your life or body, or even against property, either your own or that of somebody else such as a family member or even a complete stranger.

Since this defence allows for more than merely protecting yourself, it is called private defence, rather than self-defence.

The law also allows you to shoot in private defence.

Where, for example, a person breaks into your home and points a firearm at you, you would be entitled to shoot, if there is no other less harmful way to ward off the attack.

If you don't know whether he is armed or not, whether you are allowed to shoot depends on the circumstances.

Whether you would be entitled to shoot to kill is a matter of much debate among lawyers.

Even where there is a real attack against you or a member of your family or a stranger, the right to shoot to wound or kill is not an absolute right.

Even where only your property is being threatened, in very limited circumstances you may be justified in shooting to kill and there are older cases in our law that support such a right.

However, since the advent of the Constitution and its emphasis on the right to life, the right to shoot to kill in order to defend property alone has become more problematic.

Although there need be no absolute proportionality between the harm threatened and the defence measures you take, where there is a clear disproportionality, your action would in all likelihood be unlawful.

Even unlawful conduct may go unpunished if it is established that the accused was unaware that he was acting unlawfully."

BBM: so it's really not as cut and dry as some would say it seems.

 

[Harmony 2]

Friendly reminder: Tensions build with differing opinions. Please continue to keep this discussion civil and avoid personalizing, sarcasm or snark. Direct comments at the content of posts and not about the person who posted. If you feel you are getting aggravated at posters' opinions then scroll and roll, use the ignore feature or take a little break.

 

[Hope4More]

.. also known as the 'censorship' button, for some ;-)

It is best known as the button Tricia would like members to use if they see objectionable posts.

 

[G.bng]

The Judge sounded as if she was about to find him guilty of CH. Whilst the punishment is up to her, a custodial sentence is still a possibility (however remote.)

Unless of course the whole thing is so corrupt that he already knows there will be no custodial sentence.

I would have thought this is when he is most likely to flee if he ever thought of doing so. Unless she does another turn CH seems the verdict and she was now coming on really strong about his behaviour and 15 years is a long time.

 

[Jamtart]

There are very clear and strict laws regarding using a gun in self defence in SA and OP had passed a test with flying colours to show that he understood the rules. He did not adhere to these rules and an innocent person died as a consequence. His behaviour was reckless and negligent even if he did believe that there was an intruder in the bathroom, and in my opinion it would be appalling if he were to escape punishment and set a dangerous precedent. I have an awful feeling however, that he will be given no more than a suspended sentence, with JM saying that he has already suffered enough.

 

[LemonMousse]

Dadic confirms State can appeal (under section 3110?) if they feel there was an error in the law.

I feel certain this will happen, and I feel certain that Masipa has indeed made a mistake.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

A friend just posted on FB:

Blimey, the way this is going Reeva's family will be ordered to buy Pistorius a new door

 

[DILLIGAF]

Look - no point arguing about this. The threads are there to see. You only need to read them to see that people on this forum were not complaining about Masipa's competence en masse like they are now. I am prepared to enter into sensible debate - but it is clear from your posts that you have your view and I have mine, no point arguing about it further.

Better to spend time talking about how evil OP is because of what some mystic said/how his eyes looked in a particular photo :laughing:

Bit in bold. In your original post you said "No-one questioned this judge during the trial People rightly disagreed and now you're moving the goal posts.

Go back and check, you said NO ONE!!

 

[K.T]

I don't though. But I believe if you make a genuine mistake you should not be punished to the full extent of the law. That's outrageous to me. And I know it's outrageous to most people given the amount of support usually shown to people who make this mistake. It's only for OP that they think you should be locked away regardless of the circumstances, because them either way he's guilty of murder, which is pretty ridiculous.

Two words 'Renisha McBride': http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ide-sentenced-to-at-least-17-years-in-prison/

People who shoot at an 'intruder', or a defenceless young woman behind a locked door, however justified an accused may feel to shoot recklessly, just should not do so...because in the US a 17 years sentence may apply.