Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

[soozieqtips]

Stop with the latin as if you and your buddies are the only who understand it.

He's done as has been charged. He went towards danger with the intent to kill.

The person who was behind that door had a right to life and he didn't have the right to take it as there was no danger that existed that he could possibly fear.

As Nel pointed out, why did he relate a 'noise' as someone about to attack him? How did he go from 'noise' to 'attack'? Despite some staunch supporters feeling there's no case and OP is innocent, I think the Judge knows exactly what type of person OP is and what he's capable of. She must have witnessed hundreds just like him, changing their versions from one minute to the next, blaming others for everything, having convenient memory lapses over significant points. He's a bull that charges after the red flag every time. He's not vulnerable and fearful. He's the one who terrorises other people!

 

[clearskies1]

Two questions

1. There's lot's of debate about just what was the conversation between NetCare and OP. Wouldn't NetCare have recorded all calls, similar to any other emergency service like 911? This is done in North America.

2. Nel said he would come back to the small fan power cable being under the speaker but I don't recall that taking place. Anyone remember? Here is a pic of it

http://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/small-fan-2-day-19-part-2.png

Link to netcare emergency operations center web page. Last sentence refers to digital recordings:
http://www.netcare911.co.za/live/content.php?Item_ID=4074

 

[Gryffindor]

<modsnip>
He's done as has been charged. He went towards danger with the intent to kill.

The person who was behind that door had a right to life and he didn't have the right to take it as there was no danger that existed that he could possibly fear.

<modsnip> I'll explain for you

Dolus directus is the legal terminology applicable in SA. You first have to understand the law and definitions to discuss accurately. You may wish to read my post a few pages back which will clarify

The charge I quoted are Nel's words - the specific charge. By using these "Latin words" it distinguishes the degrees of the charge. Blame SA, it's their use of definition, I'm afraid.

Again. Dolus directus. NOT proven.

 

[Carmelita]

The unrepaired window is just one thing. There are various other things that suggest he wasn't as security-obsessed as he claims.

Ladders not put away
Window not locked or barred
Sleeping with open windows/doors to balcony
Failure to summon security
etc

Oh, and ... he doesn't remember disarming the alarm when coming down to open the front door. I think there's a real possibility that the alarm was never switched on at all that night.

IMO Oscar’s behavior is that of an extremely security conscious man. Yes there were renovations being made to his home and ladders were about, sleeping with the balcony doors open on to a second story would fit into his purported inability to sleep. (Yes I know he has also claimed to have been asleep). It was a hot muggy night and from my understanding his air-conditioning was not working. Failure to communicate with security in his frenzied state doesn’t indicate anything to me about “safety conscious” Oscar, nor does his not remembering disarming the alarm.

Could he have been more diligent. Certainly.

 

[Viper]

Link to netcare emergency operations center web page. Last sentence refers to digital recordings:
http://www.netcare911.co.za/live/content.php?Item_ID=4074

Thank you for sharing that!

Quote:
"Digital voice recording of all telephone lines ensures an accurate audit of events and allows for pro-active quality assurance and clinical governance"

So when do we get to here OPs words? This should be good! Surely all can agree.

 

[Mystymiss]

The downstairs window being broken is not proof that Oscar was not hyper vigilant about his safety. He was well armed, the house was alarmed and the bedroom door was fortified. The window not being attended to would only weaken Oscar’s defense if there were not so much else pointing to his concerns about his personal safety, and not so many other tangible safety nets in place.

The condition of the window may be a defect in his verifiable diligence to personal safety but it certainly doesn’t nullify it.

You are kidding right? Some one who is really sooooo fearful/worried about intruders would secure all doors & windows that would allow access into his house....I do it every single night!! and if a window was broken on the first level of my home, it would have been fixed the day it broke or boarded up to keep intruders out....isn't fear OP's reason he carries a gun... Look I'm saying OP is not as fear full as he claims to be.

 

[wb180]

IMO Oscar’s behavior is that of an extremely security conscious man. Yes there were renovations being made to his home and ladders were about, sleeping with the balcony doors open on to a second story would fit into his purported inability to sleep. (Yes I know he has also claimed to have been asleep). It was a hot muggy night and from my understanding his air-conditioning was not working. Failure to communicate with security in his frenzied state doesn’t indicate anything to me about “safety conscious” Oscar, nor does his not remembering disarming the alarm.

Could he have been more diligent. Certainly.

Oscar should have listened to you because I never heard him say he couldn't sleep because he was fearful of the balcony doors opened. He actually said he couldn't sleep because he thought maybe it was a humid and hot day.

 

[Carmelita]

BIB. Tell me more about these "fortified bedroom doors"... opcorn:

I said door. Not doors. His bedroom door had an interior lock. Simple.

 

[minor4th]

Would he actually do any jail time or just some kind of supervised confinement in this case?

He could get a non-custodial sentence or he could do jail time. That is within the judge's discretion.

 

[Mystymiss]

IMO Oscar’s behavior is that of an extremely security conscious man. Yes there were renovations being made to his home and ladders were about, sleeping with the balcony doors open on to a second story would fit into his purported inability to sleep. (Yes I know he has also claimed to have been asleep). It was a hot muggy night and from my understanding his air-conditioning was not working. Failure to communicate with security in his frenzied state doesn’t indicate anything to me about “safety conscious” Oscar, nor does his not remembering disarming the alarm.

Could he have been more diligent. Certainly.

OH gees! you have to be kidding

 

[kaos]

<modsnip> I'll explain for you

Dolus directus is the legal terminology applicable in SA. You first have to understand the law and definitions to discuss accurately. You may wish to read my post a few pages back which will clarify

The charge I quoted are Nel's words - the specific charge. By using these "Latin words" it distinguishes the degrees of the charge. Blame SA, it's their use of definition, I'm afraid.

Again. Dolus directus. NOT proven.

<modsnip>

Let me clarify. In your opinion it has not been proven, in mine it very much has but then I'm not a South African judge.

 

[Carmelita]

You are kidding right? Some one who is really sooooo fearful/worried about intruders would secure all doors & windows that would allow access into his house....I do it every single night!! and if a window was broken on the first level of my home, it would have been fixed the day it broke or boarded up to keep intruders out....isn't fear OP's reason he carries a gun... Look I'm saying OP is not as fear full as he claims to be.

He may not have been as fearful for his own security as he is portraying himself in the trial. But his defense would have to have been a preemptive defense as there are quite a few people who have made statements about Oscars paranoia when it came to his own safety, long before he killed Reeva.

 

[minor4th]

Yes they have by virtue of his admission that he went towards possible danger without attempting to hide or flee.

The type of bullets he used have still to be addressed too.

That does not prove premeditation or planned killing.

 

[Gryffindor]

Thank you Beach x

 

[Carmelita]

Oscar should have listened to you because I never heard him say he couldn't sleep because he was fearful of the balcony doors opened. He actually said he couldn't sleep because he thought maybe it was a humid and hot day.

Sorry for the mis-communication, I didn't mean to imply that Oscar said that he couldn't sleep well due to the balcony doors being open, what I tried to state is that Oscar not sleeping well due to the doors being open would fit into his personality and into the his defense.

 

[Really?]

Yes, thanks for following up. Agree with you. I do think they were hanging out in bed together, not yet ready to go to sleep. Evidence shows OP was checking out an automobile on his ipad and evidence has also proved there was a little viewed on an ipad or iphone that night. So, I think we agree that when they were lounging in bed things were first OK, then something happened to cause the evening to unravel and turn deadly.

Yes......that "something" most likely was on his personal phone that disappeared that morning for, what, 16 days???

 

[Gryffindor]

That does not prove premeditation or planned killing.

Dolus directus- not proven.

What do you reckon for dolus eventualis, Minor?

 

[vansleuths]

Link to netcare emergency operations center web page. Last sentence refers to digital recordings:
http://www.netcare911.co.za/live/content.php?Item_ID=4074

So I wonder why they just didn't recall the recording from Netcare and they would have known exactly what was the conversation between OP and Netcare?

 

[kaos]

That does not prove premeditation or planned killing.

I disagree. He approached what he conceived was danger, never gave any warning that he was about to open fire. The type of bullets he used also indicate he didn't intend to maim but kill.

 

[BabaJ]

<modsnip> I'll explain for you

Dolus directus is the legal terminology applicable in SA. You first have to understand the law and definitions to discuss accurately. You may wish to read my post a few pages back which will clarify

The charge I quoted are Nel's words - the specific charge. By using these "Latin words" it distinguishes the degrees of the charge. Blame SA, it's their use of definition, I'm afraid.

Again. Dolus directus. NOT proven.

<modsnip>

....to my understanding, it is not as simple as culpable homicide in SA, there is also a question whether the defendant should have foreseen the possible consequences of his actions by reference to the 'reasonable man' and whether he is objectively tested against what a reasonable man' would do in the same circumstances. However, there is also a question whether OP could be compared to an "average man" in respect to his "perceived vulnerability".

http://www.legalcity.net/Index.cfm?fuseaction=RIGHTS.article&ArticleID=4191473