In Pistoland consideration of probabilities are reversed
Pistorius admitted that he considered it possible that the highly improbably could occur in that a warning bullet may have ricochet and injured him but he considered it not possible that the highly probable would occur in that the bullets he aimed and fired deliberately at a person would actually kill that person.
He said wtte "I shot her, I thought she was an intruder"
That just seems like a statement of 2 facts. Neither of which indicate intent, as we now know.
It's about as useful an indicator of guilt as "I crashed my car into her and killed her"
they are two inextricably linked facts.
like saying I poisoned the food and Reeva ate it. I thought someone else was going to eat it. the second part of the sentence is there to justify the first.
your example should say I crashed my car into Reeva but I thought I was crashing into Sam.
Did you see the bit where he says that in Zimbabwe he had seen cases with less evidence of murder in which the accused had made just one or 2 mistakes in his testimony and been hanged?
Yet on his YouTube channel there's a video in which he explains that judges are trained not to assume that an accused who gives his evidence badly or lies must be guilty and explains why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvdzUyQRcE4
It's as though he has theory but then doesn't feel it should apply in practise.
he's not basing his opinion on oscar's lies though, is he? unless i've spectacularly missed the point (wouldn't be the first time)
he's not basing his opinion on oscar's lies though, is he? unless i've spectacularly missed the point (wouldn't be the first time)
You probably haven't missed the point . I'm not sure what you mean about not basing his opinions on OP's lies so perhaps I'm missing your point . I just meant to say that some of his comments in that discussion indicate someone not seeing things in an objective way. He is putting himself forward as an expert but giving his opinion based on his feelings, it seems.
he's not basing his opinion on oscar's lies though, is he? unless i've spectacularly missed the point (wouldn't be the first time)
no he isn't basing it on OP's lies, which is why Pinkbandana is missing the point not you. he is not even saying Oscar should have been found guilty. He is saying the court failed to give a logical explanation why he was not convicted of murder.
You probably haven't missed the point . I'm not sure what you mean about not basing his opinions on OP's lies so perhaps I'm missing your point . I just meant to say that some of his comments in that discussion indicate someone not seeing things in an objective way. He is putting himself forward as an expert but giving his opinion based on his feelings, it seems.
I don't agree. can you quote an example of his where you formed that impression?
Did you see the bit where he says that in Zimbabwe he had seen cases with less evidence of murder in which the accused had made just one or 2 mistakes in his testimony and been hanged?
Yet on his YouTube channel there's a video in which he explains that judges are trained not to assume that an accused who gives his evidence badly or lies must be guilty and explains why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvdzUyQRcE4
It's as though he has theory but then doesn't feel it should apply in practise.
I can see that you can lie about some things but not the main part.
For example you might say, I was not smoking weed that night ( that is a lie) because you don't want an additional charge, but you are on the whole telling the truth.
I don't see how that has to do with the implausibility of OP's version of events though.
he's not basing his opinion on oscar's lies though, is he? unless i've spectacularly missed the point (wouldn't be the first time)
I agree.
IMO, he's pointing out that a poor witness may not always be guilty and gives a very good example.
But that's just a point about possible miscarriages of justice and he gives the impression that he likes to look at trials fairly and tells the viewers to do the same.
To me it's an answer to a particular question. But it does not answer every trial case and I'm sure Judge Greenland never intended it to be.
You probably haven't missed the point . I'm not sure what you mean about not basing his opinions on OP's lies so perhaps I'm missing your point . I just meant to say that some of his comments in that discussion indicate someone not seeing things in an objective way. He is putting himself forward as an expert but giving his opinion based on his feelings, it seems.
seems we both missed the point
i thought you were saying that greenland based his opinions on oscar's guilt on the fact that he lied when he was on the stand. whereas what i've read on here (i haven't read the full transcribed interview yet) what he's saying is he's taken into account all the evidence put forward by the state and come to the conclusion that oscar is guilty and that the state couldn't have done anything more than what they could have done
i can see where you're coming from though. he was convinced of oscar's guilt before the verdict, so it's difficult for him to look at things objectively
As I see it the intent to kill starts back at the time you choose a particular gun with ammo you know will be devastating. In fact you have seen the effects of shooting with high-powered ammo at the gun range.
When you pick up that gun, you know what is going to happen if you fire it.
You probably haven't missed the point . I'm not sure what you mean about not basing his opinions on OP's lies so perhaps I'm missing your point . I just meant to say that some of his comments in that discussion indicate someone not seeing things in an objective way. He is putting himself forward as an expert but giving his opinion based on his feelings, it seems.
I seen the opposite.
And I see him looking at the law and how it is or not applied and in this case he shows concern as he in applying the law to this judgement in the OP trial points out it was not followed properly.
His opinion about his concern regarding potential consquences because of this judgement does not mean he is using mere opinion and feelings to the law as the law is not supposed to be about feelings or opinions.
going back to the question of whether the State can appeal sentencing as well as verdict - I have found this article.
this is the statement of a senior advocate - identity not given
" A senior advocate, who cannot be named for ethical reasons, agrees with this. “I think the State has a good chance to secure a murder verdict on appeal,” he said.
This is if the State can convince a court during leave to appeal that the judge made an error in law when she applied legal principles in coming to her finding.
According to the advocate, the State cannot appeal an error in fact.
“The general feeling is that the judge erred in her approach to the legal question of whether he was guilty or not on the doctrine of dolus eventualis (that he had to foresee the possibility that he could kill someone).”
The State will have to wait until the conclusion of these proceedings before it can apply for leave to appeal. “I think if it is granted, the matter will go before the Appeal Court in Bloemfontein, as there will be various important questions in law which will have to be determined. This will include whether the judge applied the principles of dolus eventualis,” the expert said.
The Supreme Court of Appeal court will only evaluate the issues on the record of the proceedings before it and on legal arguments. If it is found that there was an error in law and the verdict should have been murder, the appeal court will refer the matter back to the trial court, but only for resentencing.
The expert said the law did not provide for a retrial and Pistorius won’t have to testify again about the events of that morning.
Sentencing proceedings would have to start afresh, as they would have to be based on the (possible) new conviction of murder."
I was watching The Ryder Cup and popping in here during the ads. Also filling up skip clearing garage out as skip is being collected today. And I misread your post thinking you didn't believe anything I said.
I then deleted my reply but meant to delete the smilies but got back later too late.
going back to the question of whether the State can appeal sentencing as well as verdict - I have found this article.
this is the statement of a senior advocate - identity not given
" A senior advocate, who cannot be named for ethical reasons, agrees with this. “I think the State has a good chance to secure a murder verdict on appeal,” he said.
This is if the State can convince a court during leave to appeal that the judge made an error in law when she applied legal principles in coming to her finding.
According to the advocate, the State cannot appeal an error in fact.
“The general feeling is that the judge erred in her approach to the legal question of whether he was guilty or not on the doctrine of dolus eventualis (that he had to foresee the possibility that he could kill someone).”
The State will have to wait until the conclusion of these proceedings before it can apply for leave to appeal. “I think if it is granted, the matter will go before the Appeal Court in Bloemfontein, as there will be various important questions in law which will have to be determined. This will include whether the judge applied the principles of dolus eventualis,” the expert said.
The Supreme Court of Appeal court will only evaluate the issues on the record of the proceedings before it and on legal arguments. If it is found that there was an error in law and the verdict should have been murder, the appeal court will refer the matter back to the trial court, but only for resentencing.
The expert said the law did not provide for a retrial and Pistorius won’t have to testify again about the events of that morning.
Sentencing proceedings would have to start afresh, as they would have to be based on the (possible) new conviction of murder."
As I see it the intent to kill starts back at the time you choose a particular gun with ammo you know will be devastating. In fact you have seen the effects of shooting with high-powered ammo at the gun range.
When you pick up that gun, you know what is going to happen if you fire it.
How could you forget that?
Yes. He definitely intended to use the gun if he thought he had to. He definitely fired at the imaginary intruder because he wanted them stopped.
Comments
i keep reading "pistoland" as "poundland"
Here's a couple of posts with examples of people thinking that way.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost.php?p=74754813&postcount=22316
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost.php?p=74814546&postcount=241
I suggest you do read the whole article, it should help you to better understand the issues.
they are two inextricably linked facts.
like saying I poisoned the food and Reeva ate it. I thought someone else was going to eat it. the second part of the sentence is there to justify the first.
your example should say I crashed my car into Reeva but I thought I was crashing into Sam.
he's not basing his opinion on oscar's lies though, is he? unless i've spectacularly missed the point (wouldn't be the first time)
One could say....
Pistoland is where Pistorius lives
and
Poundland or should that be Randland is where Masipa and the assessors have recently taken up residence (allegedly of course)
and sobbing and volunteering to dedicate your victim's life to god.
You probably haven't missed the point
It could be said that she used her words quite cleverly, or, she did not understand the charge in the first place and neither understands SA law.
Did she or others even look at the potential consquences of this judgemant?
Can it be put down to a fledgling Democracy. But, even if it could, it still has caused great concern to many law people outside SA.
no he isn't basing it on OP's lies, which is why Pinkbandana is missing the point not you. he is not even saying Oscar should have been found guilty. He is saying the court failed to give a logical explanation why he was not convicted of murder.
It was Nigella Lawson and I didn't intend to throw it I tells ya!! *cries* *vomits*
I thought it was LaLaLand...
I don't agree. can you quote an example of his where you formed that impression?
I can see that you can lie about some things but not the main part.
For example you might say, I was not smoking weed that night ( that is a lie) because you don't want an additional charge, but you are on the whole telling the truth.
I don't see how that has to do with the implausibility of OP's version of events though.
Car is a tool used for transportation.
Gun is a tool used for killing.
Different purposes are they not?
I agree.
IMO, he's pointing out that a poor witness may not always be guilty and gives a very good example.
But that's just a point about possible miscarriages of justice and he gives the impression that he likes to look at trials fairly and tells the viewers to do the same.
To me it's an answer to a particular question. But it does not answer every trial case and I'm sure Judge Greenland never intended it to be.
OP has scant respect for people when they are alive, why would you think he would have any respect for anyone when they die?
seems we both missed the point
i thought you were saying that greenland based his opinions on oscar's guilt on the fact that he lied when he was on the stand. whereas what i've read on here (i haven't read the full transcribed interview yet) what he's saying is he's taken into account all the evidence put forward by the state and come to the conclusion that oscar is guilty and that the state couldn't have done anything more than what they could have done
i can see where you're coming from though. he was convinced of oscar's guilt before the verdict, so it's difficult for him to look at things objectively
When you pick up that gun, you know what is going to happen if you fire it.
How could you forget that?
Then you fire it four times.
I knew someone was going to say that
The point I was trying to make is that there is no intent to murder in the statement "I shot, I thought it was an intruder". Thats all.
I seen the opposite.
And I see him looking at the law and how it is or not applied and in this case he shows concern as he in applying the law to this judgement in the OP trial points out it was not followed properly.
His opinion about his concern regarding potential consquences because of this judgement does not mean he is using mere opinion and feelings to the law as the law is not supposed to be about feelings or opinions.
* bookcover, don't you start
:cool::D
this is the statement of a senior advocate - identity not given
" A senior advocate, who cannot be named for ethical reasons, agrees with this. “I think the State has a good chance to secure a murder verdict on appeal,” he said.
This is if the State can convince a court during leave to appeal that the judge made an error in law when she applied legal principles in coming to her finding.
According to the advocate, the State cannot appeal an error in fact.
“The general feeling is that the judge erred in her approach to the legal question of whether he was guilty or not on the doctrine of dolus eventualis (that he had to foresee the possibility that he could kill someone).”
The State will have to wait until the conclusion of these proceedings before it can apply for leave to appeal. “I think if it is granted, the matter will go before the Appeal Court in Bloemfontein, as there will be various important questions in law which will have to be determined. This will include whether the judge applied the principles of dolus eventualis,” the expert said.
The Supreme Court of Appeal court will only evaluate the issues on the record of the proceedings before it and on legal arguments. If it is found that there was an error in law and the verdict should have been murder, the appeal court will refer the matter back to the trial court, but only for resentencing.
The expert said the law did not provide for a retrial and Pistorius won’t have to testify again about the events of that morning.
Sentencing proceedings would have to start afresh, as they would have to be based on the (possible) new conviction of murder."
http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/oscar-won-t-testify-if-npa-appeals-1.1750413#.VClB_fldWUU
another opinion to throw into the mix!
Thanks, and no worries
Looking more and more like The Never Ending Story.
Yes. He definitely intended to use the gun if he thought he had to. He definitely fired at the imaginary intruder because he wanted them stopped.