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

[MeeBee]

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

Yes, that's the report button

 

[LemonMousse]

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.

You should be allowed to kill an intruder in your home even when they have locked themselves into a toilet to hide from you?

Oh dear.

Thank god I don't live in a country that has a gun culture. No common sense, no reasoning, no decency....just kill.

Yikes.

 

[atthelake]

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

Download tapatalk !! Augh are you viewing in a browser ? Highly recommend !!!

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[MeeBee]

You should be allowed to kill an intruder in your home even when they have locked themselves into a toilet to hide from you?

Oh dear.

Thank god I don't live in a country that has a gun culture. No common sense, no reasoning, no decency....just kill.

Yikes.

Because that's what intruders do...

I'm in favor of harsher gun laws but I certainly see the value in them for people who live far out on the country and are miles away from the nearest police station and for self defense purposes. Please don't interpret my opinion on gun culture in general.

 

[K.T]

Yes, I will question Judge Masipa and the assessors competence (or their reading of SA law) from the contradictions in her judgement so far, the inexplicable disregard of four independent witnesses, ignoring Sean Rens testimony, the ammunition issue, and the summary judgement that the shooting of explosive bullets was too fast for a victim to make a sound - lack of making a scream is in direct contradiction to expert witness testimony.

I imagine quite a few legal analysts are doing the similar critiques, as well as victim advocates, general public and journalists.

Also, I've read quite a few appeal judgments that have changed trial judgements, for and against defendants, the law is a series of semantic intellectual propositions...the very existence of appeals that have altered judgements makes forum members complaining about our trial criticism just hypocritical and bizarre.

 

[vanatos]

Because that's what intruders do...

Reeva is an intruder?

I thought the excuse you can kill an intruder, usually needs to be that you know, it is an intruder, at least.

 

[Interested Bystander]

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

I have only points of law can be appealed and I don't think it makes any difference to what will happen to OP. I think the law is discussed and, if necessary, altered to make it better understood but I am happy to be "shot down" with respect to that.

 

[MeeBee]

Reeva is an intruder?

I thought the excuse you can kill an intruder, usually needs to be that you know, it is an intruder, at least.

We're not talking about Reeva we're talking about intruders and how you should be allowed to deal with them. Yes, if there is an intruder in your home you should be able to shoot to defend. If you genuinely made a mistake then you deserve leniency. Pretty clear.

 

[LemonMousse]

Because that's what intruders do...

I'm in favor of harsher gun laws but I certainly see the value in them for people who live far out on the country and are miles away from the nearest police station and for self defense purposes. Please don't interpret my opinion on gun culture in general.

Intruders kill? Always?

No, they do not.

And I am a little appalled that you feel shoot first, question later is morally acceptable.

I don't. And no civilised nation does either...that's why the self-defence laws exist.

 

[sleuth-d-]

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.

thanks for answering.
bib. absolutely, if defending reasonably they are innocent.
and for balance, imo... if any law is commuting the sentence of a killer then i disagree with it completely.

 

[jay-jay]

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.

I was also making a valid point which related to their previous posts.

 

[Sherbert]

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

I think, by that stage, we were feeling too unwell, weak and tired to notice!

 

[Exchange973]

Nothing bizarre about it at all, but it's interesting you introduce that word .. people quite often use it on messageboards when they have no other coherent argument, or are not prepared to enter into sensible debate.

Look - no point arguing about this. The threads are there to see. You only need to read them to see that people on this forum were not complaining about Masipa's competence en masse like they are now. I am prepared to enter into sensible debate - but it is clear from your posts that you have your view and I have mine, no point arguing about it further.

Better to spend time talking about how evil OP is because of what some mystic said/how his eyes looked in a particular photo :laughing:

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

Yeah she said it towards the end after lunch!

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

Did she say that?I missed that part.

Yeah she said it towards the end after lunch!

 

[MeeBee]

Intruders kill? Always?

No, they do not.

And I am a little appalled that you feel shoot first, question later is morally acceptable.

I don't. And no civilised nation does either...that's why the self-defence laws exist.

I don't though. But I believe if you make a genuine mistake you should not be punished to the full extent of the law. That's outrageous to me. And I know it's outrageous to most people given the amount of support usually shown to people who make this mistake. It's only for OP that they think you should be locked away regardless of the circumstances, because them either way he's guilty of murder, which is pretty ridiculous.

 

[LemonMousse]

I have only points of law can be appealed and I don't think it makes any difference to what will happen to OP. I think the law is discussed and, if necessary, altered to make it better understood but I am happy to be "shot down" with respect to that.

Not my opinion. James Grant a Professor of Law in SA, and he should know, I think.

And I am pretty sure in this country (UK) the same facility exists....if it's clear that the judge did not correctly apply the letter of the law, or showed signs of misunderstanding it, then that can be appealed. They just can't appeal because they don't agree with the verdict....it has to be an arguable and specific point of law.

 

[jay-jay]

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.

^^ there you go, exchange .. there's another one! Hope you are keeping count ;-)

 

[Giles]

I was also making a valid point which related to their previous posts.

No.

It's respectful when quoting to mention if you have Snipped the original post.

 

[jay-jay]

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

.. also known as the 'censorship' button, for some ;-)