Oscar Pistorius: The Appeal

[pinball wizard]

Use that in my example above that (The fight)

Do you still come to the same conclusion?

I would suppose that if witness testimony could lead the court to a point where it is shown the aggressor at some point was aware of his actions, intent and outcome, maybe.

Of course your example makes me think of the Bees Roux incident, which still stuns me with the way the law was completely ignored.

 

[marine1]

Also Masipa said OP was a bad witness but yet took all his versions as fact and the correct ones????
That is another issue the Judges seem to have with her ruling
Masipa fked up and got it wrong.

 

[marine1]

I would suppose that if witness testimony could lead the court to a point where it is shown the aggressor at some point was aware of his actions, intent and outcome, maybe.

Of course your example makes me think of the Bees Roux incident, which still stuns me with the way the law was completely ignored.

How was the law ignored? Bees claims he was in danger which if you look at the scenario could be fact, why was he in the cops car?
He should never have been there, there was something fishy, the cop was armed Bees wasnt

 

[Pitbull]

Which is why we're at the SCA. masipa's application of the law that the difference between a loved one and an attacker should result in different verdicts was incorrect, or so says the state - correctly so in my opinion. As in the case of the ex rugby guy. It would appear that sympathy on the part of the court overrides the application of the law.

But there are thousands such cases. Not in relation to shootings but accidents where the drivers were driving recklessly and so forth. Now what do we do. Are we saying courts can not apply sympathy no more? Courts can not determine the punishment to fit the crime based on facts and it should be purely based on the LAW and maximum prescribed sentence? Let's assume the SCA agrees with you and this is the case, how will this affect people already convicted of lesser crimes with the same scenario? How does this change the way courts handle these type of cases going forward? I don't agree with it. But then again I'm not a Judge of the Supreme Court of Appeals. This is going to be a very big decision

 

[pinball wizard]

Let's assume the SCA agrees with you and this is the case, how will this affect people already convicted of lesser crimes with the same scenario? How does this change the way courts handle these type of cases going forward? I don't agree with it. But then again I'm not a Judge of the Supreme Court of Appeals. This is going to be a very big decision

Which is why I am certain that if the SCA sides with the state here, this will end up at the concourt.

 

[marine1]

Which is why I am certain that if the SCA sides with the state here, this will end up at the concourt.

Want to bet?
I am willing to put money on it, Roux knows he got away with murder and who will pay for the Concourt app?
Thats even if the Concourt will listen or entertain this app if it ever goes ahead.
This all based on the probability that the SCA side with the state which they should do

 

[Pitbull]

It doesnt matter what I think, the law is clear

Yes, the law has been clear for many many years... But has been applied the same way it has been in Masipa's verdict.

It doesnt matter who was behind the door, it was murder and the Judge in the SCA seems to agree. From the start this has been my stance.

It does matter Marine. People make mistakes and because of that people die. That is why we have a lesser murder charge of Culpable Homicide.
You give me an example then of culpable homicide because based on your view of the law, we don't need culpable homicide.

How you can even compare the two? If there is a fight, firstly who started it? Who defended and who provoked the attack?
Was the victim the aggressor or the victim?
If said killer said that then he is guilty of murder as his intention was to kill. Murder must have intent.
OP, if he shot 1 x shot, perhaps the outcome would be different however even the firearms control act and the Section 49 of the CPA states clearly when and how you may fire a gun and under what circumstances you may do so.
He broke every rule in the book

In both instances someone was killed. You're saying intent is not relevant when it is. You can quote all the fire-arm acts in the world all you like. The decision of how this is applied rests with the judge. And it should be fair to everyone, not made to fit some people more than others. With your Dolus Eventuallis claim, both OP and the Fighter should get Murder 1 simple as that. Again, why have Culpable homicide then?

 

[pinball wizard]

How was the law ignored? there was something fishy,

and it was settled as a civil matter, that's how.

 

[pinball wizard]

Also Masipa said OP was a bad witness but yet took all his versions as fact and the correct ones????
That is another issue the Judges seem to have with her ruling
Masipa fked up and got it wrong.

Yeah, even at the trial I was speechless at this double standard from Masipa. Absolute piffle.

 

[Pitbull]

How was the law ignored? Bees claims he was in danger which if you look at the scenario could be fact, why was he in the cops car?
He should never have been there, there was something fishy, the cop was armed Bees wasnt

But him throwing the cop to the pavement and beating the crap out of him he should have known will lead to the death of the person he's attacking (Dolus Eventuallis) How can you now decide to apply it differently? Bees believes his life was in danger. So too does Oscar, who are we to now say Bees had a reason to kill him but Oscar doesn't have a reason to kill an Armed Robber behind his door?

 

[marine1]

Yes, the law has been clear for many many years... But has been applied the same way it has been in Masipa's verdict.

Masipa got it wrong, its murder, she also took OP's versionS but said he was a bad witness???? Really?

It does matter Marine. People make mistakes and because of that people die. That is why we have a lesser murder charge of Culpable Homicide.

but this was not a mistake. A mistake could have been 1 x shot, then yes I would agree. Bud I have been in situations like this before. So I do have insight as to how a person would or could react.

You give me an example then of culpable homicide because based on your view of the law, we don't need culpable homicide.

Accidental / not intentional

In both instances someone was killed. You're saying intent is not relevant when it is. You can quote all the fire-arm acts in the world all you like. The decision of how this is applied rests with the judge. And it should be fair to everyone, not made to fit some people more than others. With your Dolus Eventuallis claim, both OP and the Fighter should get Murder 1 simple as that. Again, why have Culpable homicide then?

No it is not up to the Judge how it is applied. She or he has to follow the rules and the law, lets see what the SCA actually say in the end but based on what I heard yesterday, she cocked it up based on D/E and also based on the FACT she took OP's version(S) but said he was a bad witness and totally ignored Mangena's testimony.
I called her out then and I am calling her out again, even after being attacked by Paul, the so called legal expert, remember?

 

[Former member 61586]

Wish we had a double jeopardy rule in this country. The state basically gets to bankrupt you on appeals.

 

[marine1]

and it was settled as a civil matter, that's how.

Yes you dont say because the family want a settlement and civil court is nothing like crim court

Yeah, even at the trial I was speechless at this double standard from Masipa. Absolute piffle.

Yup but the "experts" know better

But him throwing the cop to the pavement and beating the crap out of him he should have known will lead to the death of the person he's attacking (Dolus Eventuallis) How can you now decide to apply it differently? Bees believes his life was in danger. So too does Oscar, who are we to now say Bees had a reason to kill him but Oscar doesn't have a reason to kill an Armed Robber behind his door?

Is that not dollus directus?
You cannot compare the 2 cases, how do you not see that????

 

[Pitbull]

Masipa got it wrong, its murder, she also took OP's versionS but said he was a bad witness???? Really?
but this was not a mistake. A mistake could have been 1 x shot, then yes I would agree. Bud I have been in situations like this before. So I do have insight as to how a person would or could react.
Accidental / not intentional

No it is not up to the Judge how it is applied. She or he has to follow the rules and the law, lets see what the SCA actually say in the end but based on what I heard yesterday, she cocked it up based on D/E and also based on the FACT she took OP's version(S) but said he was a bad witness and totally ignored Mangena's testimony.
I called her out then and I am calling her out again, even after being attacked by Paul, the so called legal expert, remember?

I actually read an article this morning that people should not read into what happened yesterday. There are 5 judges with the majority vote winning. The fact that 1 Judge has an issue with how something was applied and grilling Roux does not mean him or the other Judges even disagree with it. They are trying to ruffle the feathers to see why this law was applied the way it was that's the reason they have both parties in court and not just read the judgment and rule on it.

If it was purely based on application of the law. They had no reason to even be in court, the 5 judges could just sit and vote on whether it was applied correctly or not according to them after reading the judgement. One should not read too much into what happened yesterday Even Roux saying he "lost" can be a tactic. Let's wait and see what they say. I doubt they'll change it to murder but that is just my personal opinion as I can't see how you can not differentiate between the victim and an attacker.

In SA this is very very important. Sure sent someone to jail for making the wrong decision, but murder? Why punish someone twice if they mistakenly killed a loved one? Kill a loved one on purpose and rot in jail for the rest of your life. There needs to be a distinction.

 

[Pitbull]

Yes you dont say because the family want a settlement and civil court is nothing like crim court




Yup but the "experts" know better





Is that not dollus directus?
You cannot compare the 2 cases, how do you not see that????

Nope.

Dolus Directus (direct intent), is where the consequences of an action were both foreseen and desired by the perpetrator. You want to kill someone, so you shoot him

Dolus Eventualis: "Intent in the form of dolus eventualis or legal intention, which is present when the perpetrator objectively foresees the possibility of his act causing death and persists regardless of the consequences, suffices to find someone guilty of murder

These two cases are exactly the same. Only difference is one shot someone through a door thinking his life was in danger. The other willingly attacked a perceived thread and continued to beat him to death. Even Face slamming him into the pavement.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Wish we had a double jeopardy rule in this country. The state basically gets to bankrupt you on appeals.

We do. It's in the bill of rights. Appeals != double jeopardy.

 

[marine1]

I actually read an article this morning that people should not read into what happened yesterday. There are 5 judges with the majority vote winning. The fact that 1 Judge has an issue with how something was applied and grilling Roux does not mean him or the other Judges even disagree with it. They are trying to ruffle the feathers to see why this law was applied the way it was that's the reason they have both parties in court and not just read the judgment and rule on it.

If it was purely based on application of the law. They had no reason to even be in court, the 5 judges could just sit and vote on whether it was applied correctly or not according to them after reading the judgement. One should not read too much into what happened yesterday Even Roux saying he "lost" can be a tactic. Let's wait and see what they say. I doubt they'll change it to murder but that is just my personal opinion as I can't see how you can not differentiate between the victim and an attacker.

1000000%

 

[Pitbull]

Wish we had a double jeopardy rule in this country. The state basically gets to bankrupt you on appeals.

SA has Double Jeopardy.

This was brought up by Roux. And the reason I'm asking about all the other cases people got convicted of Culpable Homicide with the exact same circumstances. This ruling will have very far reaching implications and the judges will take this into account when handing down their verdict. This verdict will be used as a precedent going forward and god forbid you kill someone when in a motor accident by accidentally running a red light or a stop street you didn't see. /shiver

 

[Former member 61586]

Wait. If SA has double jeopardy, how can they get a second shot at Pistorius? Surely what he was convicted of stands? He can appeal, but the state cannot appeal to make the sentence worse? Or what am I not understanding about double jeopardy?

My knowledge of the law is based on my many years of the "The Practice", "Boston Legal" and the Law and Order Series.

 

[marine1]

SA has Double Jeopardy.

This was brought up by Roux. And the reason I'm asking about all the other cases people got convicted of Culpable Homicide with the exact same circumstances. This ruling will have very far reaching implications and the judges will take this into account when handing down their verdict. This verdict will be used as a precedent going forward and god forbid you kill someone when in a motor accident by accidentally running a red light or a stop street you didn't see. /shiver

Dear god man, accidentally is the key word
OP did not shoot accidentally !!!!!!
Accident = Culp Hom
Intentional = murder.
As for Bees, that could have been self defense and thats why he got off

I dont understand how you are not understanding the difference????