Coffin assault trial

Don't even try that... It's been mentioned hundreds of times in this thread. You are now a Neo nazi, AWB, KKK supporter. Your opinion simply doesn't matter anymore.

There is nothing wrong with what he said, why would he be branded anything? It's those that ask stupid questions like where this guy was kidnapped from that should be branded.
 
Don't even try that... It's been mentioned hundreds of times in this thread. You are now a Neo nazi, AWB, KKK supporter. Your opinion simply doesn't matter anymore.
Well I think most people here agree with his opinion.

Looking forward to see who is branding him as any of those..
 
I want to understand this Attempted Murder charge better, and why people think it won't stick in an appeal.

Oosthuizen and Jackson were found guilty of the attempted murder of Mlotshwa.

The judge said that for an accused to be declared guilty of such a crime is if “he unlawfully engages in conduct that is not merely preparatory but has reached at least the commencement of the intended crime”.

Mphahlele further said the conduct of the accused at the scene is evidence of an intention to murder.

“Their conduct‚ if persisted with‚ could have led at the death of Mlotshwa.”

That just because they voluntarily withdrew does not mean the two men did not intend to commit the murder.
https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/so...uilty-of-attempted-murder-kidnapping-assault/

So in what way is the judge incorrect?
If I decide I'm going to murder you by, I don't know, say drowning you in the bath.
I run the bath and I force you into it and then at the last minute I realise I'll probably get caught so change my mind - is this not still attempted murder? I made the attempt after all and my intentions were clear - just because I change my mind at the last minute doesn't change the fact that I had the intention and made the attempt insofar as I went to the effort of filling the bath and forcing you into it.
 
I want to understand this Attempted Murder charge better, and why people think it won't stick in an appeal.


https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/so...uilty-of-attempted-murder-kidnapping-assault/

So in what way is the judge incorrect?
If I decide I'm going to murder you by, I don't know, say drowning you in the bath.
I run the bath and I force you into it and then at the last minute I realise I'll probably get caught so change my mind - is this not still attempted murder? I made the attempt after all and my intentions were clear - just because I change my mind at the last minute doesn't change the fact that I had the intention and made the attempt insofar as I went to the effort of filling the bath and forcing you into it.

Sure, but intent is a tricky one. I may want to beat you to death with a pool noodle, and say so, but I don't think it can be done.:D
 
I want to understand this Attempted Murder charge better, and why people think it won't stick in an appeal.


https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/so...uilty-of-attempted-murder-kidnapping-assault/

So in what way is the judge incorrect?
If I decide I'm going to murder you by, I don't know, say drowning you in the bath.
I run the bath and I force you into it and then at the last minute I realise I'll probably get caught so change my mind - is this not still attempted murder? I made the attempt after all and my intentions were clear - just because I change my mind at the last minute doesn't change the fact that I had the intention and made the attempt insofar as I went to the effort of filling the bath and forcing you into it.

You have to prove that the intent was to murder:

http://www.attorneys.com/homicide/attempted-murder-charges-and-penalties

Intimidation especially in circumstances such as these can be very tricky in court but you're making the assumption that they did have intent and changed their minds.
 
I want to understand this Attempted Murder charge better, and why people think it won't stick in an appeal.


https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/so...uilty-of-attempted-murder-kidnapping-assault/

So in what way is the judge incorrect?
If I decide I'm going to murder you by, I don't know, say drowning you in the bath.
I run the bath and I force you into it and then at the last minute I realise I'll probably get caught so change my mind - is this not still attempted murder? I made the attempt after all and my intentions were clear - just because I change my mind at the last minute doesn't change the fact that I had the intention and made the attempt insofar as I went to the effort of filling the bath and forcing you into it.

OK lets take a look at what you are comparing and use it as a baseline. forcing into a coffin and pouring petrol over it compared to a bath filled with water. well right here we have a problem because these 2 scenarios are quite different. the bath filled with water can kill you without any help from the accused. The coffin covered in petrol cannot. the only way they could be equal is if they had lit the coffin on fire. Then and only then would his life be put in any actual risk. It's not that they changed their minds, they didn't undertake the necessary steps to show intent to kill. Up until that point, it's a threat and is covered under the assault charges.
 
So in what way is the judge incorrect?
In the way that she's dumb as a box of bricks if she truly believes: "the conduct of the accused at the scene is evidence of an intention to murder"

It simply isn't, hence she is simply wrong.

If I decide to scare the shyte out of you to teach you a lesson you will never forget I might prepare a coffin, force you into it and tell you I'm gonna kill you. NONE of that is indicative of an intention to murder you, in this hypothetical case my only intention was to scare you shytless.

These dumbasses didn't refrain from going through with murder because they were scared of getting caught, do you really think they'd post the damn video if they had enough foresight to think about being caught? No, they didn't go through with it because they were never planning to do it.
 
I want to understand this Attempted Murder charge better, and why people think it won't stick in an appeal.


https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/so...uilty-of-attempted-murder-kidnapping-assault/

So in what way is the judge incorrect?
If I decide I'm going to murder you by, I don't know, say drowning you in the bath.
I run the bath and I force you into it and then at the last minute I realise I'll probably get caught so change my mind - is this not still attempted murder? I made the attempt after all and my intentions were clear - just because I change my mind at the last minute doesn't change the fact that I had the intention and made the attempt insofar as I went to the effort of filling the bath and forcing you into it.

Am not convinced that there was intent to ever commit murder... For one, what motive is there for murder..? Balance of probabilities says that these guys where F****ing idiots and definitely guilty of assault and kidnapping. However given the nature of what they where saying, it seems far more likely that there was never an intent to kill, simply a very bad way to "scare" him. Agree with all the other findings, the attempted murder charge is a stretch when an equally plausible explanation is that they where trying to scare him.
 
Can I kidnap someone who is on my property who should not be there? Meaning an intruder?

Oh wait. Not proven in (this ridiculous) court case :rolleyes:

You seem to be at an advanced stage of dementia.
 
I want to understand this Attempted Murder charge better, and why people think it won't stick in an appeal.


https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/so...uilty-of-attempted-murder-kidnapping-assault/

So in what way is the judge incorrect?
If I decide I'm going to murder you by, I don't know, say drowning you in the bath.
I run the bath and I force you into it and then at the last minute I realise I'll probably get caught so change my mind - is this not still attempted murder? I made the attempt after all and my intentions were clear - just because I change my mind at the last minute doesn't change the fact that I had the intention and made the attempt insofar as I went to the effort of filling the bath and forcing you into it.

It's simple really.

You need to prove that there was a real intent on killing someone.

There was no intent to kill the guy, that much is very clear. They wanted to scare him, but they were never going to kill him so there was no intent.
 
Was he allowed to leave? Then its not kidnapping but dont let the facts get in the way

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.
 
Was he allowed to leave? Then its not kidnapping but dont let the facts get in the way
So they forced him into a coffin but for some reason you think he was allowed to leave...? How exactly would he have been able to leave with them forcing the coffin closed...? If I didn't know better I would suggest you where trolling.
 
You have to prove that the intent was to murder:

http://www.attorneys.com/homicide/attempted-murder-charges-and-penalties

Intimidation especially in circumstances such as these can be very tricky in court but you're making the assumption that they did have intent and changed their minds.

OK lets take a look at what you are comparing and use it as a baseline. forcing into a coffin and pouring petrol over it compared to a bath filled with water. well right here we have a problem because these 2 scenarios are quite different. the bath filled with water can kill you without any help from the accused. The coffin covered in petrol cannot. the only way they could be equal is if they had lit the coffin on fire. Then and only then would his life be put in any actual risk. It's not that they changed their minds, they didn't undertake the necessary steps to show intent to kill. Up until that point, it's a threat and is covered under the assault charges.

They did explicitly state they were going to kill him and went quite far along the route towards killing him so that does demonstrate intent. Obviously if they had actually set him alight then the intention would be indisputable, so it that what is required?
 
They did explicitly state they were going to kill him and went quite far along the route towards killing him so that does demonstrate intent. Obviously if they had actually set him alight then the intention would be indisputable, so it that what is required?

Yes, because actions declare intent, not words. It's really not that hard to understand. People say things all the time and don't mean them. If every spoken word was taken seriously, the world would have ended long ago.
 
Yes, because actions declare intent, not words. It's really not that hard to understand. People say things all the time and don't mean them. If every spoken word was taken seriously, the world would have ended long ago.
It wasn't just words though, there was quite a bit of action too!
 
It wasn't just words though, there was quite a bit of action too!

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.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X