Coffin assault trial

[Slootvreter]

Me raising my fist, doesn't mean I'm going to hit you. Me raising my fist and threatening to hit you, doesn't mean I'm going to hit you. Me attempting to raise my fist and threatening to hit you while being held back by a 3rd individual shows that I intend to hit you.

Witch hunt. Made an example of. That's all.

Without actually even intending to kill or killing someone :crylaugh:

 

[C4Cat]

Me raising my fist, doesn't mean I'm going to hit you. Me raising my fist and threatening to hit you, doesn't mean I'm going to hit you. Me attempting to raise my fist and threatening to hit you while being held back by a 3rd individual shows that I intend to hit you.

You raising a gun at me and threatening to kill me might also be seen as attempted murder though.

None of us actually know what those guys intended - did they intend to kill or just scare - if it was obvious and clear-cut there would be no need for a judge. The whole point of a judge is to to interpret the law and make decisions based on information that may not be clear cut and obvious. To be safe, just don't do **** like that. Rather don't threaten to kill people and go out of your way to convince them you really mean it because you might end up being held accountable.

 

[Slootvreter]

You raising a gun at me and threatening to kill me might also be seen as attempted murder though.

None of us actually know what those guys intended - did they intend to kill or just scare - if it was obvious and clear-cut there would be no need for a judge. The whole point of a judge is to to interpret the law and make decisions based on information that may not be clear cut and obvious. To be safe, just don't do **** like that. Rather don't threaten to kill people and go out of your way to convince them you really mean it because you might end up being held accountable.

They did not intend to kill, because they didn't.

 

[S7wede]

You raising a gun at me and threatening to kill me might also be seen as attempted murder though.

None of us actually know what those guys intended - did they intend to kill or just scare - if it was obvious and clear-cut there would be no need for a judge. The whole point of a judge is to to interpret the law and make decisions based on information that may not be clear cut and obvious. To be safe, just don't do **** like that. Rather don't threaten to kill people and go out of your way to convince them you really mean it because you might end up being held accountable.

A gun isn't a fist. A gun exists to maim and kill. Once again you are confusing 2 very different things. You seem to be unable to grasp that different circumstances call for different outcomes.

 

[Slootvreter]

A gun isn't a fist. A gun exists to maim and kill. Once again you are confusing 2 very different things. You seem to be unable to grasp that different circumstances call for different outcomes.

He's going to tell you that a coffin is meant for the dead

 

[Saber_rider45]

A gun isn't a fist. A gun exists to maim and kill. Once again you are confusing 2 very different things. You seem to be unable to grasp that different circumstances call for different outcomes.

Why does a coffin exist?

 

[Slootvreter]

Why does a coffin exist?

There we go!

Ban threatening assault coffins!

Even though nobody died :crylaugh:

 

[Slootvreter]

Why does a coffin exist?

Anyway, the answer is to put the dead in. Not someone who is still alive?

 

[Pitbull]

You raising a gun at me and threatening to kill me might also be seen as attempted murder though.

None of us actually know what those guys intended - did they intend to kill or just scare - if it was obvious and clear-cut there would be no need for a judge. The whole point of a judge is to to interpret the law and make decisions based on information that may not be clear cut and obvious. To be safe, just don't do **** like that. Rather don't threaten to kill people and go out of your way to convince them you really mean it because you might end up being held accountable.

Nope, there is a different charge for both those scenarios.

Pointing a Firearm is a separate charge to someone shooting at you and missing. Which would be a double whammy depending on location. Discharging a firearm in built up or public place and Attempted Murder.

Pointing a firearm doesn't show intent. Discharging it shows intent.

 

[C4Cat]

Nope, there is a different charge for both those scenarios.

Pointing a Firearm is a separate charge to someone shooting at you and missing. Which would be a double whammy depending on location. Discharging a firearm in built up or public place and Attempted Murder.

Pointing a firearm doesn't show intent. Discharging it shows intent.

This is a different case all together but seems relevant and one extract in particular stood out:

In determining intention the court had to consider only what went on in the accused’s mind. Therefore the test for intention was subjective, Reddi explained.

https://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/news/an-intention-to-kill-legally-speaking-1199671

 

[S7wede]

This is a different case all together but seems relevant and one extract in particular stood out:

https://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/news/an-intention-to-kill-legally-speaking-1199671

I think you are shooting yourself in the foot. What you intend to prove is that intent lies in the VICTIMS's mind rather than the accuser. The accused in this case, have already told the court that they never intended to kill the victim and that statement is backed up by their actions. There was no evidence to contradict this fact. Furthermore this goes on to show that the judge made a grievous error in her judgement as she tried to basically convict these 2 off the thought crime of the victim rather than the facts presented by the state.

 

[C4Cat]

I think you are shooting yourself in the foot. What you intend to prove is that intent lies in the VICTIMS's mind rather than the accuser. The accused in this case, have already told the court that they never intended to kill the victim and that statement is backed up by their actions. There was no evidence to contradict this fact. Furthermore this goes on to show that the judge made a grievous error in her judgement as she tried to basically convict these 2 off the thought crime of the victim rather than the facts presented by the state.

No the accused's mind not the victim.
Point is it's not the 'action' as you previously asserted, it's simply the intent in a persons mind.

Also interesting is it's considered subjective, so it really is up to the judge to determine intent.
Do you really think the fact that 'they told the court they didn't mean it' actually counts for anything?
I mean of course they are going to say that, irrespective of what they actually intended at the time.

 

[S7wede]

No the accused's mind not the victim.
Point is it's not the 'action' as you previously asserted, it's simply the intent in a persons mind.

Also interesting is it's considered subjective, so it really is up to the judge to determine intent.
Do you really think the fact that 'they told the court they didn't mean it' actually counts for anything?
I mean of course they are going to say that, irrespective of what they actually intended at the time.

That is why the court requires this pesky thing called evidence. Since they couldn't prove it was anything but a threat, it remains nothing but that. You see, victim testimony does count, but it cannot be taken for abject fact. If it did, I could accuse you of wanting to murder me right now, spin a bunch of lies and a judge, in your own opinion, should take what I say seriously. This cannot happen and the rule of law requires evidence beyond a doubt. The very fact we are having this discussion is testament to fact that doubt does exist and that the state could not prove without a shadow of a doubt that they ever intended to kill the victim and that their actions were nothing more than scare tactics.

 

[theratman]

Correct, he was detained for trespassing.

But I fully support the conviction of assault. 3 -5 years and at the judge's discretion suspended if needed. But if Suspended they need to do many hours of community service. What they did was wrong and very despicable no matter the colour of the victim. And on that I do believe they should be punished and punished within the frame work of the law.

I disagree with first part somewhat, you don't detain someone by putting them into a coffin and threatening their life. If they'd caught him, cuffed / ziptie and called the police / taken him to the cop shop I would stay he was detained.

 

[Slootvreter]

I disagree with first part somewhat, you don't detain someone by putting them into a coffin and threatening their life. If they'd caught him, cuffed / ziptie and called the police / taken him to the cop shop I would stay he was detained.

That's also not how you kidnap someone :crylaugh:

 

[theratman]

That's also not how you kidnap someone :crylaugh:

In*criminal law,*kidnapping*is the unlawful*asportation*and confinement of a person against his or her will. Thus, it is a composite crime. It can also be defined as false imprisonment by means of abduction, both of which are separate crimes that when committed simultaneously upon the same person merge as the single crime of kidnapping. The asportation/abduction element is typically but not necessarily conducted by means of force or fear. That is, the perpetrator may use a weapon to force the victim into a vehicle, but it is still kidnapping if the victim is enticed to enter the vehicle willingly, e.g., in the belief it is a taxicab

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping

In the case of*S v Mellors*an adult woman was kidnapped at the library. The woman was not taken anywhere, but was forced to make certain telephone calls. This was still found to be kidnapping in that the woman was unable to leave the library (in other words, her right to freedom of movement was infringed).

http://legalhero.co.za/kidnapping_and_abduction_in_sa/

Please tell me what it is if it's not kidnapping..

 

[Cray]

In*criminal law,*kidnapping*is the unlawful*asportation*and confinement of a person against his or her will. Thus, it is a composite crime. It can also be defined as false imprisonment by means of abduction, both of which are separate crimes that when committed simultaneously upon the same person merge as the single crime of kidnapping. The asportation/abduction element is typically but not necessarily conducted by means of force or fear. That is, the perpetrator may use a weapon to force the victim into a vehicle, but it is still kidnapping if the victim is enticed to enter the vehicle willingly, e.g., in the belief it is a taxicab

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping

In the case of*S v Mellors*an adult woman was kidnapped at the library. The woman was not taken anywhere, but was forced to make certain telephone calls. This was still found to be kidnapping in that the woman was unable to leave the library (in other words, her right to freedom of movement was infringed).

http://legalhero.co.za/kidnapping_and_abduction_in_sa/

Please tell me what it is if it's not kidnapping..

This has been mentioned on this thread multiple times, all to be ignored or forgotten by the time the next round of

he got 11 years for hurting someone's feelings

comes around.

 

[Slootvreter]

In*criminal law,*kidnapping*is the unlawful*asportation*and confinement of a person against his or her will. Thus, it is a composite crime. It can also be defined as false imprisonment by means of abduction, both of which are separate crimes that when committed simultaneously upon the same person merge as the single crime of kidnapping. The asportation/abduction element is typically but not necessarily conducted by means of force or fear. That is, the perpetrator may use a weapon to force the victim into a vehicle, but it is still kidnapping if the victim is enticed to enter the vehicle willingly, e.g., in the belief it is a taxicab

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping

In the case of*S v Mellors*an adult woman was kidnapped at the library. The woman was not taken anywhere, but was forced to make certain telephone calls. This was still found to be kidnapping in that the woman was unable to leave the library (in other words, her right to freedom of movement was infringed).

http://legalhero.co.za/kidnapping_and_abduction_in_sa/

Please tell me what it is if it's not kidnapping..

Preventing a trespasser from leaving your property is kidnapping?

 

[Slootvreter]

This has been mentioned on this thread multiple times, all to be ignored or forgotten by the time the next round of



comes around.

Oh, I forgot. They scared him as well.

 

[Cray]

Preventing a trespasser from leaving your property is kidnapping?

Now you are just trolling...