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

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

How about emphaty for Reeva ?
I believe everyone will get as much justice whenever she /he needs as they expect for others..

 

[Sherbert]

<modsnip>

And, also, if you have reservations about a judge, you naturally hope you are wrong - so, it doesn't follow that you repeatedly post those reservations ad nauseum, particularly if there might, indeed, be another explanation for apparent bias - strategy, for example.

The truth is that we didn't have much to go by, but the little we did have was more than a little discouraging.

 

[Mr Fossil]

If I am understanding this correctly, Masipa says OP is not guilty of Dolus Eventualis because he did not foresee that it was the deceased, e.g. Reeva (and not 'any person'), in the toilet. This is her view of the law. She will find him guilty of Culpable Homicide using the same criteria as Dolus Eventualis but applied to 'any person' and she has scope in sentencing to give as stiff a penalty as Dolus Eventualis.

However, OP wasn't charged with the murder of Reeva. He was charged with the murder of "a person, to wit, Reeva".

 

[Interested Bystander]

Not my opinion. James Grant a Professor of Law in SA, and he should know, I think.

And I am pretty sure in this country (UK) the same facility exists....if it's clear that the judge did not correctly apply the letter of the law, or showed signs of misunderstanding it, then that can be appealed. They just can't appeal because they don't agree with the verdict....it has to be an arguable and specific point of law.

Apologies, I agree James Grant should know. I have been listening to a discussion about an appeal and I thought it was inferred only the points of law could be appealed but it would make no difference to what might happen to OP's sentence.

 

[G.bng]

Well, whoop just said OP could even get just a suspended sentence for culpable homicide, though max penalty is 15 years.

I am sure I read somewhere way back that if it is suspended or reduced for whatever reason, and maybe even if not suspended or not reduced, the sentence for CH has to be agreed by the victim's family as happened with the plea bargain with one of the killers of Anni Dewani. Her father had to agree the reduction. I presume a lawyer tells you what is reasonable to sign up to.

 

[LemonMousse]

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.

And all that is agreeing with what I said.

If someone was pointing a gun at you, you would be allowed to shoot. Of course you would. That would count as, at least, an imminent attack.

No one was pointing a gun at OP. There was no intruder. He could have escaped and there were other options.

It's not all about whether he thought there was an intruder....it's what he did about it and whether that was justifiable.

 

[Viper]

Someone please post a link to the Oscar Radio that has legal commentators, I cannot seem to find it. TIA

 

[MeeBee]

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.

Because the post I was responding to was discussing both the legality of killing an intruder and OP. So I addressed both points and tied them together. Obviously, Reeva was not an intruder. But if OP believed it was then I understand his actions.

And no, I don't think it's ok to shoot children, execute, blah blah

What I am saying is if you make a genuine mistake and it is found to be a genuine mistake then you should not be punished to the full extent of the law. If a child sneaks into your home and you believe that it was an intruder then it is absolutely understandable. It would be sad if that happened but how could you know it was a child? It's unfair and punishes everyone for their base human instincts to protect theirs and their loved ones.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Once you literally get away with murder, what's to stop you from doing it again?

 

[Jamtart]

Someone please post a link to the Oscar Radio that has legal commentators, I cannot seem to find it. TIA

http://whoopwhoop.tv/pistoriusradio.htm

 

[LemonMousse]

If I am understanding this correctly, Masipa says OP is not guilty of Dolus Eventualis because he did not foresee that it was the deceased, e.g. Reeva (and not 'any person'), in the toilet. This is her view of the law. She will find him guilty of Culpable Homicide using the same criteria as Dolus Eventualis but applied to 'any person' and she has scope in sentencing to give as stiff a penalty as Dolus Eventualis.

Yes, that's exactly it.

She seems to have made a mistake - certainly according to Grant & Dadic, and they say the State can appeal. Thankfully. And I bet they will.

 

[zoran]

"All the accused had to do was use his cell phone to call security", she said, which may have taken less time than the firing of the shots."

Is it me or is this logic flawed?

 

[jay-jay]

And, also, if you have reservations about a judge, you naturally hope you are wrong - so, it doesn't follow that you repeatedly post those reservations ad nauseum, particularly if there might, indeed, be another explanation for apparent bias - strategy, for example.

The truth is that we didn't have much to go by, but the little we did have was more than a little discouraging.

Exactly, Sherbert.

 

[G.bng]

gonna go off, dissapointed with Masipa, i predict (with the current total disagreement of Masipa by virtually all legal commentators and practitioners) this is gonna go appeal.

So this trial is going to be dragged on even more.

Don't know if i have the energy for another few months of this.

Any links to the "legal analysts" since I can't find any so against it, at least not Martin whatever on Sky who is saying how corretly she has followed SA law. I do see they are all sort of backing down on their predictions and scare mongering saying they had always said it was more likely CH... they are all bottom feeders imo, the really good ones just do an odd interview like Booth and he predicted CH.

 

[vanatos]

And no, I don't think it's ok to shoot children, execute, blah blah

Thanks for confirming your clear contradiction of your own position.

 

[turaj]

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.

And that is the key here..."whole thing is so corrupt"...I followed the case somewhat (more than many) and always had this awful feeling that because of who that Pistorius family was with "Uncle Arnold" at the helm there would never be justice for Reeva. Well my fears came true today...frankly no point in even following up tomorrow. If I were the Steenkamps I would not even want to live in a country where this is so obviously happening. The eyes of the world were on this trial and this judge did just the same thing as always happens...let money talk. This pathetic creature OP will be in the news again and not for his running...he is a very sick man.

 

[MeeBee]

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.

The circumstances were a little different there. In this case, which I followed, I was conflicted about the outcome. I am not sure if his conviction was deserved. I have to out myself in the shoes of someone alone at night with someone banging on their door and yelling. Surely, the better thing to do would be to call the police since she was not in his home. But he didn't.

But for every case like this there are many many more where the person is acquitted because their belief and fear found to be genuine and justified. There was the case of the man who was not charged with killing his own son lurking around a neighbor's home. It's not always right, but it's understandable. That man obviously would not have killed his son on purpose.

 

[MeeBee]

Thanks for confirming your clear contradiction of your own position.

It's not a contradiction. You're just misinterpreting what I'm saying.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I feel sick....someone pass me Oscars bucket!

I'm stunned......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[djameson]

You should be allowed to kill an intruder in your home even when they have locked themselves into a toilet to hide from you?

Oh dear.

Thank god I don't live in a country that has a gun culture. No common sense, no reasoning, no decency....just kill.

Yikes.

my response has nothing to do with the case ... but let me say .. depends on different factors .. firstly, are you living alone ? .. if so, then you can rule out a guest being in there ..

if they're not responding to commands then it becomes a hairy situation .. no one has any business being in your house in the middle of the night .. if they're in your house in the middle of the night, you have good reason to believe they're up to no good .. what if they shoot you through the door ? .. the chances of it being a wandering kid or person with dementia as opposed to an intruder are very very low .. the onus here is not on the resident to protect the life of a criminal .. that is a crazy line of thinking .. the onus is on the criminal not to break into someone's house ..

if you don't want to get shot, don't break into someone's house .. simple .. firearms have saved many people from intruders in cases where they would have most likely been raped and murdered