rachael123
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2013
- Messages
- 235
- Reaction score
- 71
What it's over.I was only gone a half hour.:gaah:
Trial Discussion Thread #51 - 14.11.9, Day 41 ~announcement of the verdict~
- Thread starter beach
- Start date
- Status
The wording of the law. It doesn't say you should foresee the death of any old body. It says the deceased. When the judge said the deceased in her wording I've figured this is also how she interpreted this law. If there is such dissent over what this law means then perhaps it should be made clearer. But I don't think anybody should by convicted of murder for killing an intruder. And the judge clearly believes OP thought there was an intruder. That's why I believe she got it right. And that's why I think the wording is perfectly fine.
It shocks me that the judge disregarded the type of ammo that hit Reeva 4 times. There was no doubt whatsoever that even one black talon/ranger "could have conceivably injured or killed" someone in that tiny cubicle, must less 4.
I'm surprised she's even mentioned that considering that the psych reports said he wasn't paranoid!
eimajjjj
New Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2014
- Messages
- 196
- Reaction score
- 0
Well, wow. I guess it's either:
1. OP was telling the truth.
2. The judge has got it wrong.
3. The judge got it right but just didn't have enough evidence and I obviously don't know the law.
4. We've got even more turns coming.
And in the last session:
- Masipa uses him not calling security after he hears an intruder gaining access as an example of him not taking other options. However, calling someone is the last thing you'd do if someone's that close to you. Surely going out of the bedroom would be a better example.
- She seems to describe Dolus Eventualis verbatim.
- Apparently if you shoot your partner hovering over you in the middle of the night, that's excusable.
1. OP was telling the truth.
2. The judge has got it wrong.
3. The judge got it right but just didn't have enough evidence and I obviously don't know the law.
4. We've got even more turns coming.
And in the last session:
- Masipa uses him not calling security after he hears an intruder gaining access as an example of him not taking other options. However, calling someone is the last thing you'd do if someone's that close to you. Surely going out of the bedroom would be a better example.
- She seems to describe Dolus Eventualis verbatim.
- Apparently if you shoot your partner hovering over you in the middle of the night, that's excusable.
Tricia- she's said that the State failed to prove premed.murder, or murder at all. She called OP a lousy witness and implied his responses on cross were an effort to evade responsibility. She acknowledged his disability and that it made him a "fight" responder rather than one to flee, but is saying that he had other options than to be so quick with a gun, and that given his knowledge of guns and the fact that he didn't warn but shot into the closed door his conduct was reckless, not reasonable.
Interested Bystander
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2013
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 345
Nice to see you back. You will see a number of us agree with your WTF! Am I right in thinking you are a legal eagle. Apologies if I am remembering wrongly.
Lyra500
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2014
- Messages
- 1,004
- Reaction score
- 12
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.
sorrell skye
Former Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2009
- Messages
- 6,684
- Reaction score
- 7,007
"Intent can occur in three forms: dolus directus, dolus indirectus and dolus eventualis.
"Intent in the form of dolus eventualis or legal intention, which is present when the perpetrator objectively foresees the possibility of his act causing death and persists regardless of the consequences, suffices to find someone guilty of murder.
"Dolus directus, on the other hand, known as intention in its ordinary grammatical sense, is present when the accuseds aim and object is to bring about the unlawful consequence, even should the chance of its resulting be small."
The South African Court of Appeal held that mens rea in the form of dolus eventualis is an elastic concept. It can range from bordering on negligence (culpa) on the one hand to dolus directus on the other. However, the test always remains whether the accused person subjectively foresaw the possibility of the death of the deceased and associated himself therewith.
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/D/DolusEventualis.aspx
"Intent in the form of dolus eventualis or legal intention, which is present when the perpetrator objectively foresees the possibility of his act causing death and persists regardless of the consequences, suffices to find someone guilty of murder.
"Dolus directus, on the other hand, known as intention in its ordinary grammatical sense, is present when the accuseds aim and object is to bring about the unlawful consequence, even should the chance of its resulting be small."
The South African Court of Appeal held that mens rea in the form of dolus eventualis is an elastic concept. It can range from bordering on negligence (culpa) on the one hand to dolus directus on the other. However, the test always remains whether the accused person subjectively foresaw the possibility of the death of the deceased and associated himself therewith.
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/D/DolusEventualis.aspx
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.
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.
Nope, I remember it being 'many'.
The fact is that there was NO intruder and even if there was he didn't need to go towards the danger - he was the one who put himself in direct danger by approaching the bathroom... he could have even if there was a danger to him, go out through the bedroom door and out to safety with Reeva.
What if the "intruder" was a little lost kid who had snuck in through a door left opened... what if it was some innocent lost dementia elderly person who was no harm to anyone. If someone just felt like it they could shoot that person dead and just say it was an intruder in there home.
I'm probably not making much sense because I'm so angry.
She is keeping her 'however' until tomorrow lol
Only the defence can appeal can't they?
LemonMousse
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2014
- Messages
- 939
- Reaction score
- 0
I am not sure you should risk quoting stuff you don't entirely understand.
The "deceased" in this paragraph is the dead human being. It's making no allusions as to whether the killer knew the identity of the person, or was trying to kill them specifically.
Pistorius knew there was a person behind that door, he just (supposedly) didn't know who. But did he intend to kill the person behind the door....whoever it might have been?
Did Pistorius subjectively forsee that the person behind the door would die from his actions?
No one could possibly suggest he didn't. No one.
I have a big problem with this verdict: "There is no evidence that the accused did not entertain an honest belief his life was in danger".
I beg to differ: the closed toilet door. He knew that the intruder had fled and closed himself in the toilet after shouting to get out. It is imo UNREASONABLE to find he still believed his life must be in danger, let alone that he never foresaw the possibility it may not be in danger. There comes a point where claimed beliefs and actions are so unreasonable that they should be deemed unbelievable, especially when you decide the testimony to back it up was untruthful.
I beg to differ: the closed toilet door. He knew that the intruder had fled and closed himself in the toilet after shouting to get out. It is imo UNREASONABLE to find he still believed his life must be in danger, let alone that he never foresaw the possibility it may not be in danger. There comes a point where claimed beliefs and actions are so unreasonable that they should be deemed unbelievable, especially when you decide the testimony to back it up was untruthful.
I think he has known all along that he will get off with a slap on the wrist.
- Status