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

[ApplesInMyBra]

I can't believe she thinks the calibre of the black talon bullets is irrelevant!

 

[BarnacleZA]

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.

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.....

 

[MeeBee]

<modsnip>

Clearly, it is. All I found was the first link to post. Someone else posted the exact same one for the other side of the argument. I also posted an article about why it's not so black and white and why the judge rules as she did.

 

[jay-jay]

I knew this would happen - people questioning Masipa's competence just because they didn't get the verdict they wanted/expected. Sign:facepalm:

~rsbm~

Nope, her competence has been questionned on a number of previous occasions throughout this trial by various people on here, because she asked a number of questions which proved to myself and others that she was not 'on the ball' and which had already made us doubt that she would arrive at the correct verdict. There have been many times where various people, including myself, have said they had lost faith in her because of the way she didn't seem to understand certain parts of the testimonies.

You really need to go back and read all the threads if you wish to keep commenting on this, to see that you are incorrect in what you say.

 

[G.bng]

OP is not guilty of murder, but judge has just said he is negligent. So therefore cld be culpable homicide (like manslaughter), I think. And she has adjourned, for some unknown reason. Tea, probably. But that's it for today.

I thought she seemed to become unwell, weak and tired. Anyone else see the same?

 

[Hope4More]

Where is the report post button nowadays, just out of curiosity?

 

[sleuth-d-]

Again, if the law is so open for interpretation that so many legal experts to interpret the same law in different ways, then it need to be made clearer.

agree again. and what we now have is a loophole in wording of a law [just two words in this case] casting doubt over whether the outcome is a just one.

i do not find that at all comforting. just asking politely, how do you feel about it?

 

[MeeBee]

There WASN'T an intruder, though. "What if there was?" is totally irrelevant....there was not.

The law is clear....you have to have no other option available to you in order to justify shooting someone.

Even you can surely not suggest he had no other option.

I'm talking in generalities, as I and the other poster were doing. Yes, I believe that if you genuinely believe there's an intruder in your home and you kill them or accidentally kill another, you deserve lenience. Truthfully, not just in regard to OP, to everyone. Defending your family and your home is a priority. There was a case a few years ago where a woman sought permission to shoot an intruder from a 911 dispatcher. She was given the ok and she saved herself and her baby. That's my belief. Accept it or don't, I don't care.

 

[Zim]

Its not her fault that Uncle Arnold didnt finish typing them up until this morning.

:hilarious:

 

[LemonMousse]

Phew! All may not be lost.

James Grant (SA Prof of Law, an actual expert) says the State can appeal legal errors. Arguably, there was a legal error in applying Eventualis only to Reeva when it is irrelevant who was behind the door.

Will edit with a link.

https://mobile.twitter.com/CriminalLawZA

 

[Exchange973]

~rsbm~

Nope, her competence has been questionned on a number of previous occasions throughout this trial by various people on here, because she asked a number of questions which proved to myself and others that she was not 'on the ball' and which had already made us doubt that she would arrive at the correct verdict. There have been many times where various people, including myself, have said they had lost faith in her because of the way she didn't seem to understand certain parts of the testimonies.

You really need to go back and read all the threads if you wish to keep commenting on this, to see that you are incorrect in what you say.

What makes you think I didn't read those threads at the time. They are there for everyone to see. They are not made up with post after post of people questioning her competence. Maybe one or two posts - but your counter-factual account of what happened is bizarre to say the least.

 

[Waddles]

Hope4more: might be the exclamation mark bottom left? just guessing, I've been away so long I've just this second discovered the wonderful new look!

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Rubbish. Plenty of posters questioned her competence and referred to her sympathy towards OP when he was on the stand.

You need to go back and read the threads PLEASE...

Yes, we did, also when she asked Nel to explain part of the law which she should have known. We were flabbergasted, but we kept reassuring ourselves she was with the program.

 

[MeeBee]

agree again. and what we now have is a loophole in wording of a law [just two words in this case] casting doubt over whether the outcome is a just one.

i do not find that at all comforting. just asking politely, how do you feel about it?

Well, again, in this case, given my belief that you should be allowed to kill an intruder in your home and given my belief that OP is telling the truth, then I agree with the decision. WRT the law...IDK. The legal eagles can sort that one out. If it's putting innocent people in jail for defending their home and family then I disagree with it completely.

 

[Hope4More]

might be the exclamation mark bottom left? just guessing, I've been away so long I've just this second discovered the wonderful new look!

Thank you! I view and type on an eensy weensy droid phone...easy to miss little symbols.

 

[Giles]

Thanks for reminding us, we would never have known

Hey, come on. That's unfair. You've Snipped the original post so that it's totally out of context. The poster was actually making a valid point.

 

[rachael123]

Did she say that?I missed that part.

I can't believe she thinks the calibre of the black talon bullets is irrelevant!

 

[Sherbert]

People see what they want to see. No doubt if OP had been found guilty you would have still questioned her competence. :laughing:

No, I'd have been delighted to have been proved wrong.

 

[Susza]

I love to travel to places with stunning landscapes, mainly on my own, just backpacking.
SA was one of the countries I wanted to discover and I went there.
It was the first and only trip where I felt insecure and stressed almost during the whole time.
The landscapes I was able to see and most of the people I met are unforgettable for me.
But when I was back home I felt sad, wondering wether I'll ever be able to go back there: I was so exhausted.
Now I know I could go back to this wonderful country; it'll be so easy to "defend" myself&#8230;

 

[vanatos]

wow i now understand how it feels to alot of people after OJ, Amanda knox and other televised trials.

Feel bad for Gerrie Nel, he really gave people hope the justice system can work.