Trial Discussion Thread #53 - 14.12.9, Day 42 ~ final verdict~

[ShadyLady]

Bitter. Ironic.

Masipa sends toddler terror Oscar for a time out under the stern supervision of Uncle Arnie, yet believes that same toddler terror’s tearful excuse for throwing a lethal tantrum.

Said toddler had NO excuse to lie....after all....

 

[Paul Connelly]

People who are genuinely capable of and interested in empathy don't pick and choose who gets it. If you have empathy, you can have it equally for everybody in the case.

You'd like to think so wouldn't you? However, never underestimate how our background and experiences can condition our thinking and prejudice our rationale. It's like love, we find it easy to show affection for some and so hard for others. Empathy, like love, comes from caritas, to care, to love, they are intertwined and we are never equitable in our giving of them.

 

[Paul Connelly]

No, do I need to?

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

But in South Africa, based on the article you posted:

"Why is all of this relevant? Because if Pistorius intended to kill anyone who was behind that door, and also believed completely in his mind that whoever was behind that door was a threat to his life, then he has a successful defence to murder of putative self-defence. This is an intention-based defence – he did not intend to kill unlawfully. And such an intention (which he did not have) is an essential element of any murder conviction."

If he believed there was an intruder and that his life was in serious danger, it would be self defense if the judge thinks that his belief was genuine and reasonable. In that case he would have gone free. But milady seems to think that even though his belief was genuine a reasonable person wouldn't have immediatly thought there was danger warrenting a shooting; which is why he was found guilty of a lesser charge.

I understand her conclusion on this case; her arguments supporting her decision is what I find weak.

Yes, I agree that her arguments were very baffling.

 

[soozieqtips]

No, do I need to?

Hi there. I wouldn't have thought so, since you aren't making claims to be a professional in a legal capacity or anything, but if you want to be sure, you could PM beach (admin.)

 

[Viper]

Yes, the public in SA thinks shooting at a truck from your bedroom window is perfectly acceptable, at least for athletes, which was my original point. Apparently, shooting through your bathroom door at what you think is an intruder is A OK as well.

No, it's against the law to shoot at someone that is stealing your truck or anything else unless they are immediately threatening you with great bodily harm/death. That is why he was initially prosecuted for Murder. Public opinion came in because of the perceived penalty that the father would pay for the rest of his life, the personal penalty of living with having killed his own daughter.

 

[Nali87]

Yes, the public in SA thinks shooting at a truck from your bedroom window is perfectly acceptable, at least for athletes, which was my original point. Apparently, shooting through your bathroom door at what you think is an intruder is A OK as well.

So now the people of SA are the culprits? In my view, the public of SA thinks that if a father makes a horrible mistake that leads to the death of his own child then that person had been punished enough. The two cases are completely different and your statement above is a very bitter and baseless remark.

 

[Lefthand]

Hello, a long time lurker here, decided to join to express my thoughts.

I think the outcome has been foreshadowed since the beginning of the trial. I remember Roux called State witness lying, and we heard nothing from Masipa. But when it's Nel turn to call Oscar a liar, Masipa reprimanded him. I have always found that bizarre. Why is it okay for Roux to call others lying, but it's not okay for Nel to do the same? The answer is obvious now - from the very beginning, Masipa has never believed in anyone's testimony other than Oscar's. That's why she is okay with calling others lying, but when it comes to Oscar, it's not okay.

Which brings me to my next point - so many people here had criticized Nel for not doing more - but really, if Masipa had already intended to throw away anything State was going to present, no matter what Nel did, it would not change her mind. The same way with those who believed in Oscar's innocent, no amount of logic, common sense, debate is going to change their perspective.

The saddest thing about this case is that, it is supposed to be about Reeva's death. However, her words were ignored, her screams were silenced, her presence was only an afterthought replaced by Oscar's tears, screams and puking.

 

[Paul Connelly]

Hi there. I wouldn't have thought so, since you aren't making claims to be a professional in a legal capacity or anything, but if you want to be sure, you could PM beach (admin.)

Thanks for that. I hope it's not necessary. I'll probably have every Pistorian apologist vehemently exhorting my Bishop to defrock me. He'll be much harsher than Masipa :shame:

 

[Hope4More]

Here is an article that explains why Masipa was RIGHT about Dolus Eventualis
http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opin...a-was-right-on-dolus-and-murder/#.VBMi5_ldVNR

What does everyone think about it?

I think it explains in crystal clear language why and and how Judge Marsipa correctly interpreted the law. The lawyer-author says this and also that he disagreed with Marsipa on several key facts of the case. It's a balanced article. Thanks for posting it.

 

[ColonelMustard]

So, Reeva died for nothing. Absolutely nothing.

 

[ColonelMustard]

How will we know if Nel appeals?

 

[fox1lady]

That would be Dolus Directus wouldn't it rather than Dolus Eventualis?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I can't get my head round Masipa discounting so many State witnesses on the basis that their testimonies either contradicted each other, or were embellished by what they'd read in the media, and were therefore unreliable. Yet she bought OP's BS, when she had already deemed him to be a very poor witness who changed his story. Where's the logic in that? Or the justice?





http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rius-guilty-culpable-homicide-reeva-steenkamp

I don't think it's Carice.

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/lat...orius-millions-cleared-murder-Reeva-Steenkamp

"Oscar Pistorius to make millions after being cleared of murdering Reeva Steenkamp

OSCAR Pistorius is set to rake in millions from book and TV deals after being sensationally cleared of murdering girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp."

What a surprise ..

If anyone contributes to the making of any money for OP, then I can only hope that they befall something hideous.

 

[fox1lady]

My interpretation of what the prosecution was getting at was that even if they cleared him of murdering Reeva, the court should convict him of murdering the person behind the door. Example, if OP heard a noise and got peed off and angry because he thought someone had entered his home and deliberately got his gun in order to kill the person in the toilet and fired four shots in order to kill him then surely that is premeditated murder... the fact that he killed Reeva instead of the intruder is eventualis... or even generalis. Am I wrong?

 

[JuneBug67]

You'd like to think so wouldn't you? However, never underestimate how our background and experiences can condition our thinking and prejudice our rationale. It's like love, we find it easy to show affection for some and so hard for others. Empathy, like love, comes from caritas, to care, to love, they are intertwined and we are never equitable in our giving of them.

Empathy is not like love, and it's not sympathy. It's the ability to recognize the emotions of others and feel as they might feel. And there is an astounding lack of it in most quarters.

 

[fox1lady]

Judge Masipa has totally lost all her credibility in this case. Especially when Uncle Arnold states in her court that the family would like to show her just how grateful they are for allowing OP to get away with Reeva's murder. I wonder just HOW grateful she is expecting them to be???? Shameful!

 

[A lucas]

Still reeling that Masipa didn't even visit OP's house to get a sense of scale to support her theory and judgement. Clearly she didn't need to because she'd already made up her mind he was innocent. Why waste time eh?

 

[JuneBug67]

My interpretation of what the prosecution was getting at was that even if they cleared him of murdering Reeva, the court should convict him of murdering the person behind the door. Example, if OP heard a noise and got peed off and angry because he thought someone had entered his home and deliberately got his gun in order to kill the person in the toilet and fired four shots in order to kill him then surely that is premeditated murder... the fact that he killed Reeva instead of the intruder is eventualis... or even generalis. Am I wrong?

The article recently posted opines that he had to have perceived the act as unlawful for eventualis. So because the judge and assessors accept that he thought it was an intruder behind the door, and perceived a right to defend himself, he cannot have had the intent to kill as an unlawful act.