I wonder if those persons on here who insultingly denigrate the likes of Professor James Grant to level of mere ‘media talking heads’ noticed him in court alongside Gerrie Nel.
After the success of the leave to appeal in which his part was acknowledged by Gerrie Nel can these people actually now credit him with knowing what he is talking about.
Honestly, I don't have a huge amount of respect for Grant's opinions nor his style of communication, on this case at least. I followed an exchange he was having with a couple of people on Twitter, and the comment he was making was just wrong - can't remember the exact context, but I think he was conflating "intention to shoot" with "intention to kill", while totally ignoring the fact Masipa made a clear distinction between those two things - and when this was pointed out to him, he refused to acknowledge he was wrong and just said "agree to disagree". He's very much wedded to his opinions even when those are very clearly shown to be incorrect.
My view of him rests entirely on the arguments he makes and, especially, how prepared he is to follow the logic where it leads, rather than simply defending his own arguments. He does the latter far too much. Compare that to, for example, Pierre de Vos, whose writing is very much better than Grant's and whose views are far more objective.
I really couldn't care less which courtroom Grant pops up in. Lawyer appears in courtroom, big woop.
By the way, I must admit I haven't yet watched the appeal arguments, though I have read the appeal. Did Nel make use of Grant's argument on dolus eventualis? Just curious because it didn't seem to appear at all in the written document. You say Nel "acknowledged" Grant, but did the arguments which appeared on Grant's blog form part of the grounds for Nel's appeal?
You want to put yourself into the scenario of feeling threathened in SA by an intruder, right?
OK.
From what we have learnt of SA and it's crime rate etc.
Now, put yourself into a scenario of living in an estate where you pay highly for security and want to feel safe 24/7. It costs money to to have that security. So, if you can afford it, you pay. You now feel you can leave your balcony windows open, ladders hanging about in the garden and not bother getting a downstairs window repaired. You have only to press a button for security. Security constantly patrol the whole estate and no one can get in to the estate without the proper pass. Electric fences surround the estate. So, you can relax knowing you have payed for a good security system.
That's how secure you feel.
On to ear witness evidence. Someone hears arguing which keeps them awake. Screams are heard. Then gun shots. Neighbours call security. A neighbour goes to the source of the commotion who happens to be a DR. Sees a house full of blood and a dead body.
The house owner says they thought it was an intruder. The neighbours wonder how an intruder can get in with all this security.
So, the house owner claims an intruder broke in to their house and they say they were defending themselves. In their evidence, they say they seen no one. They shot at a noise which could be anything. A bird, a child or a loved one. But, at the very least an intruder. An intruder is the least possible reason on an estate like this.
However, you continually use a scenario that is about an intruder breaking into any house in any country under circumstances that do not include the security of this particular estate and which you question people how they would react to an intruder on an ordinary estate or house that does not include this type of security and how they would react.
But in a similar estate nearby the electric fence was only down for a couple of days before intruders invaded a house and someone was shot by mistake! That's not a normal situation.
15 years has been mentioned. Even though he would probably not be eligible for part of that being outside of prison presumably the 15 years in reality could be as little as 7 or less with parole?
I wonder if this would be long enough to satisfy the populace, as it is only 2 years longer than the potential 5 years he could be spending inside now?
Are you among the populace? Would you be satisfied?
But in a similar estate nearby the electric fence was only down for a couple of days before intruders invaded a house and someone was shot by mistake! That's not a normal situation.
Of fgs porky. What has that got to do with the estate OP lived on where the electic fence was not down?
I wonder if those persons on here who insultingly denigrate the likes of Professor James Grant to level of mere ‘media talking heads’ noticed him in court alongside Gerrie Nel.
After the success of the leave to appeal in which his part was acknowledged by Gerrie Nel can these people actually now credit him with knowing what he is talking about.
He's had his 15 minutes. You're obviously impressed. I'm not.
This is a guy who uses schoolboy maths (wrongly) to calculate the reliability of his evidence and apparently 5 people hearing what sounds like a woman is more reliable that 1. Some very weird ideas.
However I do find what he writes easy to follow even if I don't agree with it all.
I've mentioned several times that when a competent shooter is holding a gun the responsibility is pretty much instinctive. You don't need to think about it, it's just there. You learn at a very early stage of shooting training that the gun in your hand is a lethal weapon.
I can't really answer your question because I've never been in that position, neither I must add has OP.
I appreciate the response.
Of course I am bound to ask that if you cannot be sure how you would react then how can anyone here be sure that OP could not have easily overlooked correct procedure in his frightened state.
I'm just trying to get to grips with a situation that is totally alien to me. I just have no first hand feel of how I would react in the situation OP describes. I don't fire guns and if you gave me one I would probably end up shooting everyone else by mistake and maybe even myself.
Evidently no one is capable of discussing a hypothetical without getting bogged down with "OP the murderer"
What hypothetical? OP fired into the toilet intentionally, do you contend that he fired 4 close grouped shots without the intention to kill?
If so, please clarify exactly what test need be passed for you to be satisfied someone intended to kill.
The Judge should be the one going to be appeals, for being so dumb in the first place.
You would believe she was paid off or completely blind to all the evidence.
Simple Scenario:
1 I go to bed with my girlfriend
2 I wake up, she is not there!!
3 I could turnover and go back to sleep, but I choose to get up and shoot a number of bullets through the toilet door.
4 Case closed - psychopath gets the death penalty not a comfy private sell where he can tell stories and pretend that he is normal.
South African justice did it again today. Makes you wonder if the right people go to prison there, always thought we had the worst injustice system.
Of course I am bound to ask that if you cannot be sure how you would react then how can anyone here be sure that OP could not have easily overlooked correct procedure in his frightened state.
^_^ poor ickle frightened '>:( REEVA GET THE FKCU OUTTA MY ARSE >:(' Pisspoorstorius.
A factual finding in a legal context is a conclusion reached by the judge about the facts of the case. The prosecution aren't allowed to appeal those findings, they're only allowed to appeal on points of law. Hence something like "I accept that the accused believed his life was in danger for the following reasons" is a factual finding, and can't be appealed unless there's some legal issue underpinning it. That doesn't include rehashing the facts of the case, like arguing about phone calls or ear witnesses.
Ok, we'll start at the concept of these 'factual findings' of yours that hold great legal sway. Imagine now he is lying to the judge. Why would he do such as a thing?
The Judge should be the one going to be appeals, for being so dumb in the first place.
You would believe she was paid off or completely blind to all the evidence.
Simple Scenario:
1 I go to bed with my girlfriend
2 I wake up, she is not there!!
3 I could turnover and go back to sleep, but I choose to get up and shoot a number of bullets through the toilet door.
4 Case closed - psychopath gets the death penalty not a comfy private sell where he can tell stories and pretend that he is normal.
South African justice did it again today. Makes you wonder if the right people go to prison there, always thought we had the worst injustice system.
Huh? You were saying a judge's factual finding can be overturned if it's incorrect. I was pointing out that it can't. Her ruling can only be overturned on points of law, not fact.
Masipa did give a series of clear reasons why she accepted (or at any rate accepted there was a reasonable possibility that) OP feared for his life. Even if you disagree with them they were there.
Comments
Honestly, I don't have a huge amount of respect for Grant's opinions nor his style of communication, on this case at least. I followed an exchange he was having with a couple of people on Twitter, and the comment he was making was just wrong - can't remember the exact context, but I think he was conflating "intention to shoot" with "intention to kill", while totally ignoring the fact Masipa made a clear distinction between those two things - and when this was pointed out to him, he refused to acknowledge he was wrong and just said "agree to disagree". He's very much wedded to his opinions even when those are very clearly shown to be incorrect.
My view of him rests entirely on the arguments he makes and, especially, how prepared he is to follow the logic where it leads, rather than simply defending his own arguments. He does the latter far too much. Compare that to, for example, Pierre de Vos, whose writing is very much better than Grant's and whose views are far more objective.
I really couldn't care less which courtroom Grant pops up in. Lawyer appears in courtroom, big woop.
By the way, I must admit I haven't yet watched the appeal arguments, though I have read the appeal. Did Nel make use of Grant's argument on dolus eventualis? Just curious because it didn't seem to appear at all in the written document. You say Nel "acknowledged" Grant, but did the arguments which appeared on Grant's blog form part of the grounds for Nel's appeal?
The male presenter on 5 live breakfast just after 7am. It wasn't Nicky Campbell. They corrected the report later.
Seconded:D:D:D:D
But in a similar estate nearby the electric fence was only down for a couple of days before intruders invaded a house and someone was shot by mistake! That's not a normal situation.
Chris Warburton?
Are you among the populace? Would you be satisfied?
Of fgs porky. What has that got to do with the estate OP lived on where the electic fence was not down?
Exactly
Are you telling me you don't see that as at all worrying cos it scares the living crap out of me!
Nope.
Well, don't go to SA then if you are that scared. One wonders how anyone has survived in SA with the way you talk.
And I still remember your post from last night. You weren't scared then, were you?
He's had his 15 minutes. You're obviously impressed. I'm not.
This is a guy who uses schoolboy maths (wrongly) to calculate the reliability of his evidence and apparently 5 people hearing what sounds like a woman is more reliable that 1. Some very weird ideas.
However I do find what he writes easy to follow even if I don't agree with it all.
You'd be okay living like that then?
BIB
The numbers of deaths from shootings is horrendous!
I appreciate the response.
Of course I am bound to ask that if you cannot be sure how you would react then how can anyone here be sure that OP could not have easily overlooked correct procedure in his frightened state.
If so, please clarify exactly what test need be passed for you to be satisfied someone intended to kill.
You would believe she was paid off or completely blind to all the evidence.
Simple Scenario:
1 I go to bed with my girlfriend
2 I wake up, she is not there!!
3 I could turnover and go back to sleep, but I choose to get up and shoot a number of bullets through the toilet door.
4 Case closed - psychopath gets the death penalty not a comfy private sell where he can tell stories and pretend that he is normal.
South African justice did it again today. Makes you wonder if the right people go to prison there, always thought we had the worst injustice system.
I've abandoned the hypothetical. Wrong crowd
And.....?
Ok, we'll start at the concept of these 'factual findings' of yours that hold great legal sway. Imagine now he is lying to the judge. Why would he do such as a thing?
Professor Grant?
You don't have any logical basis to make any conclusion.
So i'll ask again, what test need be passed for you to be satisfied someone intended to kill?
Yes porky. I've researched the crime rate in SA.
You're are talking as if IS infiltrated OP's toilet.
BIB. Did I say that?
Is a factual finding based on fact?
Is an IS terrorist with a gun any more dangerous than a similarly armed local?