1058 users online (165 members and 893 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 78 of 78 FirstFirst ... 28 68 76 77 78
Results 1,156 to 1,160 of 1160
  1. #1156
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,189
    Quote Originally Posted by Tortoise View Post
    It was a radio interview - well worth listening to

    https://radiochatter.wordpress.com/2...orius-release/

    Pistorius knew his bullets would go through the door so he had direct intent to kill.
    Cheers Tortoise.
    Ironically I originally found this interview and posted it on WS last year. After a good while of not engaging with the case on WS I forget all the angles. ( That's probably a good thing really....like a brain cleanse!)

    I do recall the DJ responsible for the interview has since been trolled mercilessly via Twitter by Pistorians.

  2. #1157
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Greater Than View Post
    Tons of posts spelling out the "proof" you're asking for in this thread: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...roved-the-case (including one written by YOU stating OP committed murder).

    Happy reading!
    ....my personal opinion has nothing to do with what i'm saying about proof i mentioned in a post above the word "objective", anyone who has followed this case will know there is no objective proof or evidence to back up one version or another, i have also stated in the past that i am keeping my mind open as to what happened and i intend to continue to do so....we may well all have our opinions but they are based more on instinct rather than evidence.....

  3. #1158
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    682
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin de France View Post
    ...definition of proof in law...

    a. The establishment of the truth or falsity of an allegation by evidence.

    b. The evidence offered in support of or in contravention of an allegation.
    Good start, now define "evidence."

    But in the mean time, let's approach this from a new perspective. Given that DD of Reeva has been ruled out, the judges still have to make a decision.

    Of the choices in front of them, which would you decide if you were in their shoes:

    A. JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE:
    1) Can you declare it a justifiable homicide just because the accused claimed to have held the honest belief that they were acting lawfully in self-defense and thought they were lawfully entitled to shoot and kill someone they mistakenly believed to be an intruder, even though the circumstances did not substantiate any basis for this belief and the actions of the accused exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defense?

    2) Did the prosecution establish beyond a reasonable doubt (sorry that's all you get in cases like this) that the accused could not have held an honest belief under the circumstances-- did the accused honestly believe that they had no other choice but to kill someone in order to save their own life? Would they have honestly thought under those circumstances that they were acting in lawful self-defense by killing the person behind the door?

    B. NEGLIGENCE:
    1) If the accused is not entitled to an acquittal for a justifiable homicide under lawful self-defense, was he negligent in some way that led to the unintended consequence of the death of the person behind the door?

    C) INTENT: If the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused could not have held a genuine and honest belief that there was legitimate basis for killing in self-defense, then the court must determine if there was some form of intent to kill:

    1) DD-- The State could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Oscar intended to kill Reeva specifically, and he is no longer on trial for that. So, no need to worry about proof of intention in that regard.

    2) DI-- Dolus indirectus or indeterminatus is technically not the appropriate charge here, so disregard.

    3) DE-- Did he shoot four rounds into that door in an unlawful and unjustified response to a mistaken threat with reckless disregard whether or not someone behind that door might get killed??
    Last edited by Marfa Lights; 02-18-2016 at 10:51 AM.

  4. #1159
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    682
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin de France View Post
    ......you started off ok but when i came to "confessed killer"...! is there anything that "proves" that the intruder version is a lie ? .....i'm not making an subjective opinion like the majority of posts on here, i already have my own opinion of what i think happened, what i am trying to show is that as far as objective proof, evidence or fact regarding a deliberate murder, there is none....and so i can't see how on the basis of lack of evidence how his version can be disputed and he can be sent to prison for murder, moreover i think the case is a complete judicial shambles resulting in a unsatisfactory situation and that an appeal to the Con court is possible...
    We no longer have to worry about proving or disproving his intruder story-- Masipa has established a factual finding that his intruder story was reasonably possibly true and that the State did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was not.

    So going forward from that factual finding, the SCA and all of us, are obliged to respect that finding as fact. No proof necessary. No one can legally dispute his version that it was reasonably possibly true that he thought an intruder might have entered the house.

    Nor is there any further legal question of a deliberate murder of Reeva. Masipa also ruled that the State did not prove their case for a premeditated murder of Reeva. So that horse has left the barn. (Yes, some people certainly still believe he murdered her intentionally and want to continue to discuss the case in those terms.) But for the court case, we can forget about any need for proof or evidence that he intended to murder her directly.

    What's left? Are you concerned that the SCA had to pick up where Masipa left off and determine whether or not his PPD claim was legitimate? Is it unacceptable for the court to have to evaluate whether or not there was any legitimate basis for the accused to have thought they were lawfully entitled to kill someone. Or can anyone justify a homicide by simply claiming they were in fear for their life?

    Is it not necessary to ask them "Why?" "What made you think that?" And then to (objectively) evaluate the circumstances that made them (subjectively) believe they had to kill someone in defense of their life.

    The court will have to rely on the evidence presented in court (Mangena's ballistic report for instance) and principally on the testimony of the accused (I fired because I heard a noise and I thought someone might be coming out to get me.)

    Taking all the testimony and physical evidence the court has to evaluate if the accused had any basis for their subjective beliefs that the use of lethal force was warranted under the circumstances that they themselves have described. Especially relying on physical evidence (the door/the bullet-ridden body) the court must determine if this evidence coincides with the testimony of the accused. (Did he shoot uncontrollably? If so, is it possible for there to have been such a tight grouping and for 3 out of 4 bullets to hit their target.

    In this case, it was virtually impossible for the defense to refute that Oscar would have known he was not lawfully entitled to fire four rounds into a closed door without knowing who was on the other side and whether or not they even presented any potential threat.

    His unfounded misapprehensions did not qualify as legal justifications for killing someone in putative private defense. He could not meet the legal standards for the defense. Therefore he was guilty of either negligently (unintentionally) killing someone or intentionally killing them. Under South African law, his deliberate actions in firing four rounds at the closed door of a small toilet cubicle, at a minimum meant that he did not care if someone was killed. This is not negligence. It is DE.

  5. #1160
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    CA always, FL now
    Posts
    19,011
    New thread

    Link

Page 78 of 78 FirstFirst ... 28 68 76 77 78


Similar Threads

  1. Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #70 *Appeal Verdict*
    By Coldpizza in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 259
    Last Post: 06-11-2016, 04:32 PM
  2. Replies: 1022
    Last Post: 12-19-2015, 08:49 AM
  3. Replies: 1157
    Last Post: 12-08-2015, 08:29 AM
  4. Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~
    By KateB in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 1079
    Last Post: 08-19-2015, 08:07 PM
  5. Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~
    By KateB in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 1087
    Last Post: 08-05-2015, 09:28 PM

Tags for this Thread