Judge Knott is actually one step further away from the State's appeal argument than Masipa was. He excludes dolus eventualis wrt Reeva only and not, as Masipa did, wrt Reeva or anyone else.
Judge Knott is actually one step further away from the State's appeal argument than Masipa was. He excludes dolus eventualis wrt Reeva only and not, as Masipa did, wrt Reeva or anyone else.
And he's surely wrong when he says: "He did not shoot at the Deceased mistakenly thinking she was the intruder." and rejects error in persona.
And then later on he excludes dolus on the basis that he accepted that OP believed he was acting in self-defense, which is the other key argument against DE.
Judge Knott is actually one step further away from the State's appeal argument than Masipa was. He excludes dolus eventualis wrt Reeva only and not, as Masipa did, wrt Reeva or anyone else.
Isn't he saying that in accepting the defence claim that OP believed he was acting in self defence, any dolus is immediately removed?
I thought he articulated really well how and why the state's sudden-argument-loses-control-and-kills version was less credible than the defence's panic-response-to-perceived-intruder version
Isn't he saying that in accepting the defence claim that OP believed he was acting in self defence, any dolus is immediately removed?
I did whizz through it last night so you may well be right. I tried to check but it has since been edited and the DE part of the article is now only available in the original publication.
I thought he articulated really well how and why the state's sudden-argument-loses-control-and-kills version was less credible than the defence's panic-response-to-perceived-intruder version
I agree and it's not something that's been much discussed on here or anywhere really. I guess that's why some are so keen to see the negative in every newspaper report as they see in them evidence to bolster the state's version that OP could have just snapped and then gone so far as to commit murder without drugs or alcohol, any history of abusive relationships or a motive. I've often wondered why so many people seem so convinced of his guilt, even those who have looked at the evidence, and it does seem as though there has been a comprehensive blackening of his name and character and that this is why people are willing to believe it.
I agree and it's not something that's been much discussed on here or anywhere really. I guess that's why some are so keen to see the negative in every newspaper report as they see in them evidence to bolster the state's version that OP could have just snapped and then gone so far as to commit murder without drugs or alcohol, any history of abusive relationships or a motive. I've often wondered why so many people seem so convinced of his guilt, even those who have looked at the evidence, and it does seem as though there has been a comprehensive blackening of his name and character and that this is why people are willing to believe it.
I guess a hero-turns-murderer story is more interesting than a hero-feels-vulnerable-and-makes-a-mistake story. One is more Hollywood and the other a little disappointing, albeit more realistic.
I did whizz through it last night so you may well be right. I tried to check but it has since been edited and the DE part of the article is now only available in the original publication.
How odd! Suddenly having to pay to see the final part! !
I agree and it's not something that's been much discussed on here or anywhere really. I guess that's why some are so keen to see the negative in every newspaper report as they see in them evidence to bolster the state's version that OP could have just snapped and then gone so far as to commit murder without drugs or alcohol, any history of abusive relationships or a motive. I've often wondered why so many people seem so convinced of his guilt, even those who have looked at the evidence, and it does seem as though there has been a comprehensive blackening of his name and character and that this is why people are willing to believe it.
The little I did know of OP before the shooting, specifically the Olympic incidents, did not paint a very flattering picture. Apparently he "snapped" and was violent on these occasions, albeit against furniture not persons.
These character judgements might be fine for helping us to choose our friends and avoid trouble but useless in a court of law.
The little I did know of OP before the shooting, specifically the Olympic incidents, did not paint a very flattering picture. Apparently he "snapped" and was violent on these occasions, albeit against furniture not persons.
These character judgements might be fine for helping us to choose our friends and avoid trouble but useless in a court of law.
Yes, that's true. Do you disagree with 'judge knott' then?
The author must have got wind of the fact that we're interested ;-)
Yes, that and the interest of the other 8,000 people who viewed the page. The link was shared on twitter I think. What a shame though - I guess his/her intention was not entirely to educate the public then.
His actions after killing her gave rise to him doing little to nothing that would have helped to save her life and everything to ensure she did die
If I was OP and I wanted to be sure that Reeva was going to be dead and unable to condemn me then I would have waited for her breathing and heart to stop before calling for emergency help. After all there would be no sense in taking a risk that she might struggle on even with that head injury.
I could afford to wait because having seen the injury it would be obvious that I would not be waiting long. If it came out later that I had delayed I could always say I was in shock.
At this point even if she could still be resuscitated I would still be okay because by the time even the quickest emergency services could arrive it would then be too late.
Then, for appearances sake, I would first call for an ambulance.
Comments
A great find. Thanks for posting!
Judge Knott is actually one step further away from the State's appeal argument than Masipa was. He excludes dolus eventualis wrt Reeva only and not, as Masipa did, wrt Reeva or anyone else.
And he's surely wrong when he says: "He did not shoot at the Deceased mistakenly thinking she was the intruder." and rejects error in persona.
And then later on he excludes dolus on the basis that he accepted that OP believed he was acting in self-defense, which is the other key argument against DE.
Still, it was an interesting read
Isn't he saying that in accepting the defence claim that OP believed he was acting in self defence, any dolus is immediately removed?
That's how I took it as well.
I thought he articulated really well how and why the state's sudden-argument-loses-control-and-kills version was less credible than the defence's panic-response-to-perceived-intruder version
I did whizz through it last night so you may well be right. I tried to check but it has since been edited and the DE part of the article is now only available in the original publication.
I agree and it's not something that's been much discussed on here or anywhere really. I guess that's why some are so keen to see the negative in every newspaper report as they see in them evidence to bolster the state's version that OP could have just snapped and then gone so far as to commit murder without drugs or alcohol, any history of abusive relationships or a motive. I've often wondered why so many people seem so convinced of his guilt, even those who have looked at the evidence, and it does seem as though there has been a comprehensive blackening of his name and character and that this is why people are willing to believe it.
I guess a hero-turns-murderer story is more interesting than a hero-feels-vulnerable-and-makes-a-mistake story. One is more Hollywood and the other a little disappointing, albeit more realistic.
How odd! Suddenly having to pay to see the final part! !
The little I did know of OP before the shooting, specifically the Olympic incidents, did not paint a very flattering picture. Apparently he "snapped" and was violent on these occasions, albeit against furniture not persons.
These character judgements might be fine for helping us to choose our friends and avoid trouble but useless in a court of law.
The author must have got wind of the fact that we're interested ;-)
Yes, that's true. Do you disagree with 'judge knott' then?
Haha- looks that way!
Yes, that and the interest of the other 8,000 people who viewed the page. The link was shared on twitter I think. What a shame though - I guess his/her intention was not entirely to educate the public then.
https://geraldboardman.wordpress.com/2014/11/21/oscar-pistorius-what-really-happened/
Good grief! It's hard to know where to start with that! Some dodgy assertions being made in abundance! !
His actions after killing her gave rise to him doing little to nothing that would have helped to save her life and everything to ensure she did die
If I was OP and I wanted to be sure that Reeva was going to be dead and unable to condemn me then I would have waited for her breathing and heart to stop before calling for emergency help. After all there would be no sense in taking a risk that she might struggle on even with that head injury.
I could afford to wait because having seen the injury it would be obvious that I would not be waiting long. If it came out later that I had delayed I could always say I was in shock.
At this point even if she could still be resuscitated I would still be okay because by the time even the quickest emergency services could arrive it would then be too late.
Then, for appearances sake, I would first call for an ambulance.
Do you think he shouted for help before he shot her?
Interesting, what specific actions of his saw him do everything to ensure she died?
Yes, some dodgy assertions being made and the writer's bias was evident..........
Now where have we heard that before ;-);-)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-33049312
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/08/oscar-pistorius-appeal-date-november-released-august
So no surprises there then!
Will they they televise the appeal, do you know?