Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #66~ the appeal~

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, no, jilly...imo the best thing to do when you login on Thurs for Appeal Result Hearing is go directly to the LAST page where Mods will provide a link to a New Thread just before the Court convenes.

Thanks so much for this fb. I did read a post awhile back stating that it was hoped the Mods would do this but, obviously missed the reply!
 
Indeed, not just ISIS. But if this mass shooting that is currently underway in California (very sad!) happened in South Africa, and the killers simply claimed that they thought that their lives were in danger and shot all these people because they thought they were attacking the shooters, they would all get away with it.

Especially with Masipa.

By the way, do you (or anyone else) know if Masipa has retired? I know she was turned down for that promotion, but, I'd like to know that we've seen the end of her on the bench.
 
Of course, many people who believe that Pistorius could be telling the truth don't make cruel and disparaging remarks about Reeva and can still criticise Pistorius for his macho- entitled guns-girls-cars attitude etc

bbm

Lastly please understand :please: : OP can't have told the truth and he never thought of an intruder except as an cowardly excuse (which he had played with in his mind in case of maybe needing it some day - I think, his capacity of rage incl. reasons was known to himself).
Please, do me the favour!
I would post especially for you all my recognition as there were :drumroll: and :rockon: and :goodpost: and :cheer:
 
If the verdict is upheld tomorrow and everyone with an anxiety disorder is given licence to kill, I suggest the following tips for any overnight guests staying with an anxious gun owner.

  • Sleep with a catheter
  • Bring your own rustle-free sheets
  • Bring pureed food for snacking. Chewing noises could get you shot
  • Learn to levitate so you can move around silently
  • Use breathing strips
I'm sure there are more, but that's a start.
 
Cotton, here's your Ulrich Roux link:

http://www.enca.com/oscar-trial-could-set-new-precedent-televised-court-cases

On the same subject, defence lawyer William Booth said there were two possible grounds for appeal - that of OP claiming he was badgered by the State and that of witnesses not being called because they did not want to be televised.

"If your client is being badgered, you get up as a lawyer. You object. There is also duty on the judge. I don't believe you can sit back".

Masipa called a timeout every time OP broke down, and she reprimanded Nel once or twice. If anyone did badgering in this trial it was Roux. Every newspaper reported on the grilling he gave to Michelle Burger. That was brutal, and she was only an ear witness, not someone accused of murder.

Booth said the issue of witnesses was not a relevant point because the judgment on the televising of the case made provision for witnesses being called in camera (i.e. in the judge's chamber or when spectators have been removed from the courtroom).

http://www.enca.com/oscar-trial-could-set-new-precedent-televised-court-cases

How Barry Roux could use either of these as the basis of an appeal is totally beyond me.

1. He gave his consent to the trial being televised providing that defence witnesses, including OP, not be shown.

2. His so-called witnesses who said they wouldn't appear could have done so if Roux asked Masipa to remove the spectators from the court. Who were these witnesses anyway, friends? Ha, this was Roux's excuse because I doubt there was anyone who wanted to come forward in mitigation. Roux was saving face IMO.

They should call Roux the Silver Fox - sly and cunning.

Always when he invaginates his Koi lips forward, he's been lying and exaggerating - my impression of very short and few TV-pics. :)
 
LOL, actually I sent you mine ;) and now I realize it worked. Hmm, didn't know that I'm so powerful. Good lesson - for me ;)

Naah, don't worry, the sun will shine for you! Are you going to South Australia? Did you plan to visit the romantic vineyards of Adelaide Hills and luxuriate (bask?) on the wonderful beaches of Fleurieu Peninsula?

I want you to take a "case study" in prison, please visit the murderer of Stephanie Scott and the murderer of Karlie Pearce-Stevenson and tell us! ;)
 
realistically, the pistorius/imagined intruder defence would only be useful in cases similar to his… the domestic violence/no witnesses situation.

imo, tomorrow we will see where sa law stands on this.


Plenty of that in SA :( - one woman is killed every 8 hours by an intimate partner and there have already been murderers attempting to use the Oscar Pistorius defence. I hope all goes well tomorrow but I still have concerns that it will be fudged and he will get away with murder.
 
I'm hoping for justice for Reeva (and her parents)! :heartbeat:

Reeva.jpg
 
From the link that Fossil supplied, it is worth a read

amongst several other significant points which are "crucially important for South African law of evidence and criminal law" he writes on PPD

We should expect the SCA to confirm that the defence of putative private defence must fail if there is dolus eventualis (forsight of the possibility and reckless persistence) relating to any of these requirements. In other words, that the defence must fail if the accused foresaw the possibility (and persisted nevertheless), that any of the requirements may not have been met. Thus, the defence must fail if the accused foresaw the possibility of all or of any of the following:
1. That s/he was not under attack;
2. That no attack had commenced or was imminent;
3. That there was no attack on a legally protected interest that s/he was entitled to defend;
4. That no force was necessary;
5. That the force used was excessive in the circumstances; or
6 The force used was not directed at the attacker.
If the court confirms this, the claim of putative private defence must fail.

http://criminallawza.net/2015/12/02...-of-appeal-judgement-in-the-pistorius-appeal/
 
James Grant has made an excellent post

Especially as to the test for PPD:

http://criminallawza.net/2015/12/02...-of-appeal-judgement-in-the-pistorius-appeal/

We will hear whether the court confirms that, a defence of putative private defence must fail, when dolus eventualis is sufficient for a finding of intention (as it is for murder), if the accused had foresight of the possibility, at the critical time, that any of the requirements of private/self defence may not be have been satisfied. The significance is that the true defence (that is, not the “putative” mistaken defence), requires, for the defence to succeed, that:
1. The accused was under an unlawful attack;
2. That the attack had commenced or was imminent;
3. That the attack was directed at an interest of the accused which he was entitled to defend;
4. That force was necessary to repel the attack;
5. That no more force than was necessary to avert the attack was used, and that in any event, such force was reasonable given the circumstances; and
6. The force used was directed at the attacker.
A defence of putative private defence is that, while there was, in reality, no valid claim of private defence, the accused was mistaken so that s/he believed that all requirements were satisfied.
We should expect the SCA to confirm that the defence of putative private defence must fail if there is dolus eventualis (forsight of the possibility and reckless persistence) relating to any of these requirements. In other words, that the defence must fail if the accused foresaw the possibility (and persisted nevertheless), that any of the requirements may not have been met. Thus, the defence must fail if the accused foresaw the possibility of all or of any of the following:
1. That s/he was not under attack;
2.That no attack had commenced or was imminent;
3. That there was no attack on a legally protected interest that s/he was entitled to defend;
4. That no force was necessary;
5. That the force used was excessive in the circumstances; or
6. The force used was not directed at the attacker.
If the court confirms this, the claim of putative private defence must fail.

As you can see Masipa was OUTRAGEOUSLY lazy not to work through the individual points of the test.

Just claiming he was in fear of his life is not enough (per Leach).

ETA -oh SNAP!

He could see the door was not opening

He was aware that he had not verified who was in the toilet.

The force was clearly not necessary and was obviously excessive!
 
James Grant has made an excellent post

Especially as to the test for PPD:

http://criminallawza.net/2015/12/02...-of-appeal-judgement-in-the-pistorius-appeal/



As you can see Masipa was OUTRAGEOUSLY lazy not to work through the individual points of the test.

Just claiming he was in fear of his life is not enough (per Leach).

ETA -oh SNAP!

He could see the door was not opening

He was aware that he had not verified who was in the toilet.

The force was clearly not necessary and was obviously excessive!
It's just unbelievable that anyone could think he was justified in shooting because he heard a noise. A noise that immediately became a threat to his life! It's just crazy. He had the upper hand once he had his gun pointing at the closed door. People (supporters) seem to completely overlook the fact he was never ever in any danger. Not even a whiff of danger. Here's hoping the right thing is done tomorrow and a clear message sent out to people like OP who think they're above the law. And of course he had to say he was in fear for his life. What else could a dishonest and evasive witness say?
 
So will we find out what the verdict is on the appeal tomorrow? Or is it just another hearing?
 
James Grant has made an excellent post

Especially as to the test for PPD:

http://criminallawza.net/2015/12/02...-of-appeal-judgement-in-the-pistorius-appeal/



As you can see Masipa was OUTRAGEOUSLY lazy not to work through the individual points of the test.

Just claiming he was in fear of his life is not enough (per Leach).

ETA -oh SNAP!

He could see the door was not opening

He was aware that he had not verified who was in the toilet.

The force was clearly not necessary and was obviously excessive!

He testified that he did not direct his aim at the attacker so he's failed no.6 too.
 
If the verdict is upheld tomorrow and everyone with an anxiety disorder is given licence to kill, I suggest the following tips for any overnight guests staying with an anxious gun owner.

  • Sleep with a catheter
  • Bring your own rustle-free sheets
  • Bring pureed food for snacking. Chewing noises could get you shot
  • Learn to levitate so you can move around silently
  • Use breathing strips
I'm sure there are more, but that's a start.

:thinking: I think I perceive a slight problem. If you move around silently, so as not to disturb your anxious gun-owning, wide-awake, nervous wreck of a host, there's every chance that he'll jump to the conclusion that it couldn't possibly be you in the bathroom, so you'll probably end up being blasted to pieces anyway; and, to top it all, he'll then try to suggest that your terrible accident could have been avoided, if only you hadn't been careless enough to keep so quiet in the first place!

:banghead::banghead::banghead:
 
:thinking: I think I perceive a slight problem. If you move around silently, so as not to disturb your anxious gun-owning, wide-awake, nervous wreck of a host, there's every chance that he'll jump to the conclusion that it couldn't possibly be you in the bathroom, so you'll probably end up being blasted to pieces anyway; and, to top it all, he'll then try to suggest that your terrible accident could have been avoided, if only you hadn't been careless enough to keep so quiet in the first place!

:banghead::banghead::banghead:
BIB - lol. So silence is really not golden!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
181
Guests online
2,204
Total visitors
2,385

Forum statistics

Threads
589,946
Messages
17,928,025
Members
228,009
Latest member
chrsrb10
Back
Top