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

[LemonMousse]

your original quote highlighted the scope for [mis]interpretation within that law... so marsipa has been limited by a badly written law. if the law allowed for 'a person' rather than 'the deceased' in the paragraph you highlighted then she would have been able to convict eventualis.

a win for court legalese, a defeat for common sense.

which imo, doesn't get to the bottom of what actually happened, just to what has been judged/proven under sa law.

Not pretending to be a lawyer....but I think you are mistaken.

The passage quoted is regarding a murder charge, so clearly there is a "deceased" - otherwise there would be no murder charge.

Changing it to "person" would make no difference.

Someone is dead, and that someone is the deceased. This has no bearing at all on whether the deceased died because of an intentional, deliberate act or a mistake.

Masipa's mistake is (according to the law professionals) that while she acknowledged that there was no transference of intent just because he didn't know it was Reeva, she did not take this into account when applying it to Eventualis. Who was behind the door is irrelevant to an Eventualis conviction, but she based her decision on the fact (to her) that he didn't know it was Reeva, and couldn't have foreseen that it was her, since he thought she was in bed.

This is nonsensical. Because even if he thought she was in bed, he knew someone was behind the door. So why didn't she address this? Does she think he didn't intend to kill the person behind the door, whoever that was?

My understanding of what the lawyers are saying, and it's bit nothing to do with confusion over "deceased" and "person".

 

[Hatfield]

But that is why I agree with Masipa. If she believes he believed an intruder was coming to attack him then I don't believe he should be convicted of murder because he believe he was only trying to protect himself. Perhaps she would has been able to convict and it would have been wrong.

It's hard to get to the heart of what really happened when the only person who knows is OP and he has testified. All she can go on are facts and what she knows to be true. She believes OP because of various circumstances, not just having taken his word at face value. There are other factors at play, as she outlined.

I do agree with you for the first part. I struggle with how she came to the conclusion that OPs story of the intruder was even true in the first place but if she truly believed him then there have been cases here in the states that didnt even charge a person that thought there was an intruder who turned out to be a drunk boy entering the wrong house. Link below.

However, I have also seen cases go the other way as well where a guy was charged with murder when he shot some drunk girl trying to get in his front door who just had an accident down the road. So it seems it comes down to individual circumstances of each case.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/parents-cry-murder-drunk-teen-killed-home-invasion/story?id=21474534&page=2

OPs case is even more unique and disturbing in that he didnt even actually see the intruder at all.

 

[MeeBee]

Can someone clarify 'transferable malice' relative to this case? Someone told me that it does not apply to SA law, so if he was charged with murdering reeva, he cannot be found guilty if he thought he was killing someone else. As you have explained its a critical point, and makes it slightly understandable how he got away without a murder charge.

I found this article that mentions transferable malice. I missed this in her reading of the ruling. I don't know what transferable malice really is though.

"Judge Masipa rejected Pistorius’s actions could qualify for murder with “transferable malice” (the readiness to kill another human being)."

http://www.newsweek.com/oscar-pistorius-not-guilty-murder-girlfriend-reeva-steenkamp-269714

 

[turaj]

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

I'm stunned......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not stunned as in general I consider the situation in SA one of "whose got the money" and the Pistorius family does...simply different justice...not unique to SA but really obvious in this case. Yes the bucket is now for those of us hoping for a better outcome for the family.

 

[Z&BsMommy]

But what was his mistake, exactly?

Let's accept he genuinely thought there was an intruder in the toilet. What does the law say he should do?
Does it say...."Head right in there and shoot them before they can shoot you?"

No. It says...you MUST avoid confrontation if you can. You MUST escape if you can. You MUST take all reasonable avoidant actions if you can.

ONLY if you are left with no other choice, and the attack on you is happening or extremely imminent then are you allowed to shoot.

This does not fit with Pistorius. No way.

[emoji8] THIS!!!!!! Can I vote you to be the judge?

 

[MeeBee]

I do agree with you for the first part. I struggle with how she came to the conclusion that OPs story of the intruder was even true in the first place but if she truly believed him then there have been cases here in the states that didnt even charge a person that thought there was an intruder who turned out to be a drunk boy entering the wrong house. Link below.

However, I have also seen cases go the other way as well where a guy was charged with murder when he shot some drunk girl trying to get in his front door who just had an accident down the road. So it seems it comes down to individual circumstances of each case.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/parents-cry-murder-drunk-teen-killed-home-invasion/story?id=21474534&page=2

Absolutely. That's why sometimes I'm conflicted and sometimes I understand and sometimes I disagree. I have a belief but it just depends on the circumstances.

 

[mirage1]

Doesn't that mean he shot at the door, not at Reeva or the intruder?

The door was not a threat, he never shot 'at the door' so to speak, he was shooting the person behind it. I suspected the judge was very weak from the beginning and I was right but I still cant see how did not get done on murder. He clearly had intent to kill SOMEONE.

 

[Viper]

Can someone clarify 'transferable malice' relative to this case? Someone told me that it does not apply to SA law, so if he was charged with murdering reeva, he cannot be found guilty if he thought he was killing someone else. As you have explained its a critical point, and makes it slightly understandable how he got away without a murder charge.

It is transferred intent. If OP intended to kill the intruder but instead killed Reeva he is still guilty of killing, murder. He intended to kill a person, the intruder, he shot at who he thought was the intruder and he killed a person, Reeva; his intent to kill the intruder is transferred to Reeva, the person he actually killed.

 

[LemonMousse]

Usually with bench trials either side can appeal, ergo Amanda Fox's on going appeals and counter appeals, but since prosecutors are certainly not meant to be persecutors I would doubt they would appeal unless she has clearly gone against clear evidence to the contrary or erred in law, but since the evidence doesn't get better with time, and any evidence the State did have for murder, premed or not, of Reeva, was really very flimsy once you have the correct times in place so I think they will be happy with CH.

That's the point. The experts are saying she DID err in the law, and that could be the basis of an appeal by the State. Nothing to do with her rejection of evidence or anything of that kind.

 

[Madeleine74]

My take on this: the judge started with the sentence she intends to give OP, that is if any, and she has worked backwards from there. Not objectively or rationally or even logically, but she is protecting him from the law, instead of holding him fully accountable to the law. (IMO)

 

[mirage1]

I found this article that mentions transferable malice. I missed this in her reading of the ruling. I don't know what transferable malice really is though.

"Judge Masipa rejected Pistorius’s actions could qualify for murder with “transferable malice” (the readiness to kill another human being)."

http://www.newsweek.com/oscar-pistorius-not-guilty-murder-girlfriend-reeva-steenkamp-269714

Well she did say this

The judge said: “The blow struck and killed the person behind the door. The fact the person turned out to be the deceased, not an intruder, is irrelevant.”
“The starting point though is if the accused had the intention of killing the person behind the door.”
Pistorius has stated he didn’t mean to kill and was acting out of self defence.
The whole case hinges on whether he intended to kill the person behind the door.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Anyone listening to the Oscar Channel. Did I just hear that Nel is appealing on a point of law and that was why they were all in chambers? I had only half an ear on what was being said as there was a discussion going on in the room. I may be completely wrong - did anyone else hear anything? If not, it is my mistake and I apologise in advance.

 

[MeeBee]

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.

Agree.

 

[mirage1]

It is transferred intent. If OP intended to kill the intruder but instead killed Reeva he is still guilty of killing, murder. He intended to kill a person, the intruder, he shot at who he thought was the intruder and he killed a person, Reeva; his intent to kill the intruder is transferred to Reeva, the person he actually killed.

Then there is no possible way he should have gotten off from a murder charge. Unless Judge believed firing 4 shots at close range, was not intent to kill, but she never addressed this anyway?

 

[turaj]

I'm curious - are you saying that someone has actually bribed Masipa. Or just that she was intimidated by OP's money. What do you mean "money talks"?

Given the profile of this case no I doubt a direct bribe has been given not at all. I would say more of a general understanding of the situation and these decision makers are well aware of the Pistorius family involvement in so many important facets of SA economy. I should say money and power as this family has both are there and guess one can only speculate as to whether it influenced what seems to be unfolding as a very weak verdict. As I have mentioned it happens everywhere but I would have been more surprised here if he had been found of murder which is what I think it was.

 

[popsicle]

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.

Two totally different cases, and not to mention this one was a trial by jury.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Can someone clarify 'transferable malice' relative to this case? Someone told me that it does not apply to SA law, so if he was charged with murdering reeva, he cannot be found guilty if he thought he was killing someone else. As you have explained its a critical point, and makes it slightly understandable how he got away without a murder charge.

But he wasn't charged with murdering Reeva, he was charged with murdering a person.

 

[aa9511]

OMGGGGGGG. Was this a case of "celebrity justice"? Could not believe my eyes when I saw the headline today..................

 

[MeeBee]

But he wasn't charged with murdering Reeva, he was charged with murdering a person.

He actually was charged with murdering Reeva which is why he was acquitted of murder because the judge believed he didn't intend to kill her.

 

[fruity]

And this, folks, is why juries are a good thing.