Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~

[aftermath]

Umm...

... you do realise it was OP's defence team who would have made sure his affidavit included specifically chosen emotive words for 'dramatic emphasis'? Even if those words were purely designed to garner sympathy and had nothing to do with how OP really felt that night? And you're not cynical about that?...

Do you not see there is a difference between a defendant's sworn affidavit and the state's appeal document?

 

[cottonweaver]

Thanks for that. Good ole Kelly. Did you happen to read any of the poems in that section? My favourite was Oscar, You are Loved. So inspiring. Interesting too that all the people leaving comments are women. Remember ladies, handsome is as handsome does!

What? Neither you nor your wife etc have a photo of a praying Oscar with his top off as your screensaver? You need to shape up Lithgow.

 

[soozieqtips]

Do you not see there is a difference between a defendant's sworn affidavit and the state's appeal document?

I'm not talking about the difference. I'm talking about the fact you never analyse OP's 'emotive' words (or criticise them) in such great detail, and unless I've missed your posts, I don't believe I've ever read a logical reason why.

 

[lithgow1]

What? Neither you nor your wife etc have a photo of a praying Oscar with his top off as your screensaver? You need to shape up Lithgow.

No I confess that I don`t, but will admit that the drawing of the shirtless Oscar done as a representation of Michelangelo`s Adam on the Sistine Chapel, complete with God reaching out his hand to touch OP made me look twice! Have you seen that, along with the comments praising its beauty, skill and how the drawer has captured his smile just right? I will stop though - it is just too easy really to take the ... out of them and their Hallmark greeting card poems.

 

[GR_Turner]

What? Neither you nor your wife etc have a photo of a praying Oscar with his top off as your screensaver? You need to shape up Lithgow.

Have you seen the justice for Reeva FB page? I think those on the extremes at both ends are basically a bit nuts. Neither group see him as a real human being imo.

 

[aftermath]

I'm not talking about the difference. I'm talking about the fact you never analyse OP's 'emotive' words (or criticise them) in such great detail, and unless I've missed your posts, I don't believe I've ever read a logical reason why.

The reason why is because of the difference between the two

 

[cottonweaver]

No I confess that I don`t, but will admit that the drawing of the shirtless Oscar done as a representation of Michelangelo`s Adam on the Sistine Chapel, complete with God reaching out his hand to touch OP made me look twice! Have you seen that, along with the comments praising its beauty, skill and how the drawer has captured his smile just right? I will stop though - it is just too easy really to take the ... out of them and their Hallmark greeting card poems.

So you were tempted? Huh

Anyway time to make amends then Lithgow.......... for your irreverent satirical thoughts and of course for your undoubted lack of objectivity

You can make a small contribution to avoid JustBalloonsLtd insolvency by getting your order in for Friday. They over-ordered - clearance offer on bulk buys of this product line:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Uninflated-White-Latex-Balloons-Packed/dp/B00CFICIFU

At least the URL means you don't even have to open the link!

 

[cottonweaver]

The reason why is because of the difference between the two

Unwittingly you seem to have managed a Haiku there

ie. universal truths in almost 17 syllables. Very Zen

 

[aftermath]

Unwittingly you seem to have managed a Haiku there

ie. universal truths in almost 17 syllables. Very Zen

Thank you - I thought it might come across as a bit more fortune-cookie than Zen-Haiku!

 

[Interested Bystander]

http://constitutionallyspeaking.co....ntion-to-kill-someone-behind-the-toilet-door/

Pistorius judgment: Was there no intention to kill someone behind the toilet door?

Sep 11th, 2014
by Pierre De Vos.

“The acquittal of Oscar Pistorius on a murder charge on Thursday (he may yet be convicted of culpable homicide) has puzzled some lawyers. This is why…………….”


Another article from the Constitutionally Speaking Blog.

Rather than post several links, one can find all the articles on the OP case here:-

http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/?s=oscar+pistorius

 

[cottonweaver]

Have you seen the justice for Reeva FB page? I think those on the extremes at both ends are basically a bit nuts. Neither group see him as a real human being imo.

I'll go and have a look and see if I can find something objectionable or clear signs of insanity and let you know.

 

[cottonweaver]

Have you seen the justice for Reeva FB page? I think those on the extremes at both ends are basically a bit nuts. Neither group see him as a real human being imo.

Is this the page you mean?
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-for-Reeva-Steenkamp/582566525105984

This is their purported 'mission statement':
"Whether or not it was murder or an accident, any death demands justice and in the wake of the media circus surrounding this case, what justice can there be?

TBH the rest of the linked page is comments that are fairly level-headed. Can you link me to what exactly you're referring to?

 

[lithgow1]

Is this the page you mean?
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-for-Reeva-Steenkamp/582566525105984

This is their purported 'mission statement':
"Whether or not it was murder or an accident, any death demands justice and in the wake of the media circus surrounding this case, what justice can there be?

TBH the rest of the linked page is comments that are fairly level-headed. Can you link me to what exactly you're referring to?

I am sure that there are disturbed people on both ends of the spectrum (I have read some very off comments about what punishment OP should receive on various South African websites) but IMO it is worth remembering that when it comes to support sites, Reeva Steenkamp is the one who is dead and Oscar Pistorius is the person who killed her.

 

[soozieqtips]

The reason why is because of the difference between the two

And what about before the appeal was submitted - what was your reason then for not analysing OP's 'emotive' words with the same cynicism you applied to Nel's? I've never seen you accuse OP of using emotive adjectives for 'dramatic emphasis' despite him using several of them in his affidavit and during his testimony. You've occasionally (and seemingly reluctantly) admitted OP 'may' have lied, but you've always skipped quickly past before adding some kind of justification for it.

In other words, it seems even when you do concede he may have fabricated some events, you still find a reason to excuse him - always. I appreciate that analysing OP's choice of words might take several months/years, and that it's quicker to go for Nel and his single word... but it seems an unbalanced approach to take if you claim to be impartial (and I don't claim to be).

 

[mrjitty]

Nor any emotive rhetoric from the state to persuade supreme court judges.

I can only presume you have not read any other appeal documents

Lawyers love rhetoric

 

[cottonweaver]

...And aren't courts "theatres"?

 

[mrjitty]

what all the legal experts have been saying since the day after the judgment:

"it was never our argument that an accused’s untruthful evidence should lead to his
conviction117. our respectful argument is that if an accused’s evidence is rejected as
untruthful the court will rely on the objective facts. this in casu would have resulted in
a conviction on murder"

this!

 

[cottonweaver]

I am sure that there are disturbed people on both ends of the spectrum (I have read some very off comments about what punishment OP should receive on various South African websites) but IMO it is worth remembering that when it comes to support sites, Reeva Steenkamp is the one who is dead and Oscar Pistorius is the person who killed her.

BIB agreed - typically on newspaper comments - I saw something ridiculous recently about cutting off his arms?! But I didn't see anything disturbed or really "off" on that link i just posted and they don't seem to have closed groups like the Pistorians do - private messaging circles etc.

 

[cottonweaver]

this!

Glad you're happy to see that.

I only skimmed the 20 pages on case law and dolus, objecto, abberato (sp?) as I thought I'd leave that for you and the more knowledgeable.

 

[mrjitty]

Hello Mr Jitty! Referring to your example, I would say that, whilst understandable, the killer's reaction was unlawful because, in reality, there was no immediate threat to his life. However, he lacked dolus because he had no intention to kill unlawfully. In other words, he probably satisfies the criteria for PPD.

Depending on the circumstances, he'd be likely to get an acquittal; at worst, it's culpable homicide.

Your example provides an interesting reminder that, even looking at the matter from OP's perspective, his reaction was unreasonable. In contrast, despite the putative element, the reaction of the shooter in your example is understandable.

I entirely agree that the wording of Masipa's judgement leaves a lot to be desired and I fervently hope, (against my better judgement), that the Appellate Court will be thorough, watch the recordings, including the screams evidence, and find the means to revisit her tenuous findings of fact.

As the State is challenging Masipa's handling of the circumstantial evidence, ideally, they need to look at the totality of that evidence, not just the excerpts recommended by the Defence.

Hello again!

I think we are essentially saying the same thing.

In my training back in the olden days we tended to analyse stuff in stages.

So the starting point is the state must prove intention for murder (either DD or DE in this case). If they don't then murder cannot get off the ground. In this case, any sentient adult will foresee that firing 4 shots at a human risks death - so DE is made out

So then the inquiry shifts to whether the accused has any of the defences available.

To me self defense essentially provides lawful justification.

However you can certainly see defences like automatism as negating intention.

To me the big problem, however you look at it, is that because the accused used excessive force, there is no legal justification no matter who was in the toilet. So murder.

CH only arises where his mistake was negligent but the force was reasonable.

I think Masipa simply screwed that part up.

The acid test is this - if you improve OPs case by switching Reeva for a dead intruder - self defence would not have applied on that findings of Masipa. It would have been murder of the intruder via excessive force.