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
I think you can have an opinion going in and still be objective. His opinion was probably based on his years of experience and nothing in the trial changed that for him.
Includes this point, which some people still refuse to accept.
"Some have argued that the charge of murder was somehow defective and restricted the prosecution to prove that Pistorius knew (or foresaw) that it was specifically Steenkamp behind the door. Phelps has argued that: “ … the problem started off with the way that the indictment was drafted. It focused closely on him shooting at Reeva Steenkamp and not on whoever was behind the door”. Yet the indictment read as follows, and could not conceivably have said anything else:
COUNT 1 – MURDER …IN THAT … the accused did unlawfully and intentionally kill a person, to wit, REEVA STEENKAMP, a 29 year old female.
Given that the crime of murder is the unlawful intentional killing of another human being, it is difficult to understand how this restricted the prosecution to having to prove that the accused knew it was Steenkamp behind the door. "
Well I agree that OP is a murderer, whoever was behind the door, but Judge Masipa found him not guilty of the intentional part, so it's CH in law.
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."
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 could believe this statement, if OP had been firing a water pistol...
Nail gun....ehm...don't know.
But, Killing gun...with killing bullets...let me ponder for a while? intention was to....what?
The verdict would have been very different if it had been a nail gun.
Death would have been unlikely if fired on most parts of the body but they only fire when in contact with whatever you're nailing so if death had resulted even Oscar couldn't have got off with murder.
The verdict would have been very different if it had been a nail gun.
Death would have been unlikely if fired on most parts of the body but they only fire when in contact with whatever you're nailing so if death had resulted even Oscar couldn't have got off with murder.
The verdict would have been very different if it had been a nail gun.
Death would have been unlikely if fired on most parts of the body but they only fire when in contact with whatever you're nailing so if death had resulted even Oscar couldn't have got off with murder.
Good point. Get it.. point? No? I'm here till Thursday...
" Thought" and " imaginary" is not how the gun laws in SA can be applied on or interpreted to. That's just not good enough.
If every person who applied for a gun licence were to sit a test whether oral or written and ignored the terms of the licence tests like OP then no one would be given a licence. And also it would give a licence to unlawful killing and chaos.
It might be a good thing to keep gun ownership down, but would not be good if there are lots of illegal guns in the country.
So if I understand you correctly you don't think he went to the bathroom with the intention to deliberately kill someone?
There is not enough information to know whether he deliberately went to get the gun to use it, or to threaten with it.
We don't know what words were exchanged between them.
And as I see it words were exchanged.
What I was saying was that if you keep a gun with that expanding ammo you would have some intention of blowing someone away, should you point the gun at them or where you think they are, and fire four times.
Yes you could kill someone with another weapon also, but that one, to me, shows intent to make sure you do, not just disarm them or have them back off.
So if I understand you correctly you don't think he went to the bathroom with the intention to deliberately kill someone?
I don’t think he ever went into the kitchen with the intention of actually killing the washing machine.
However, in this case he picked up a firearm which he knew how to use, which contained hollow point ammunition he knew the effects of. He then cocked the weapon ready to use and advanced towards the ‘intruder’
Even at this stage it may be reasonable to argue about his INTENTION to kill but given his knowledge and training he MUST have known at a later stage that the most likely consequence of him aiming in the direction of an ‘intruder’ and pulling the trigger four times is that someone would finish up dead.
For Masipa to suggest he would not foresee the consequences of his actions is a patent nonsense
Particularly, bearing in mind we are talking about a person who in In November 2011 posted a photograph of himself at a shooting range bragging about his score, when he said, 'Had a 96% headshot over 300m from 50shots! Bam!'
As we now know Oscar is no slouch when it comes to headshots, even though a closed door!
That is my point porky that he did more than stop the intruder.
Or disarm him.
And he knew it.
And we can see from the gun range video that he knew it.
One warning shot from a gun with standard ammo would have done what?
I guess there aren't any volunteers to recreate the scene though.
To be fair, we can't from that video because he is using a different, larger caliber gun and different ammunition. Presumably he would have had some idea of what his 9mm could do though.
There is not enough information to know whether he deliberately went to get the gun to use it, or to threaten with it.
We don't know what words were exchanged between them.
And as I see it words were exchanged.
What I was saying was that if you keep a gun with that expanding ammo you would have some intention of blowing someone away, should you point the gun at them or where you think they are, and fire four times.
Yes you could kill someone with another weapon also, but that one, to me, shows intent to make sure you do, not just disarm them or have them back off.
Theres not enough good evidence to refute the intruder story and there's no other version to go on so I'll be sticking with that.
I have never thought that the type of gun or the ammunition would have any bearing on the verdict. For whatever reason that's the gun and the ammo that he happened to have to hand when he "needed" it. In SA it is difficult to see anyone just picking up a bat if they have a gun, what with all the intruders about.
I agree that if you fired that gun through the door you would expect that the person behind the door might be killed.
Theres not enough good evidence to refute the intruder story and there's no other version to go on so I'll be sticking with that.
I have never thought that the type of gun or the ammunition would have any bearing on the verdict. For whatever reason that's the gun and the ammo that he happened to have to hand when he "needed" it. In SA it is difficult to see anyone just picking up a bat if they have a gun, what with all the intruders about.
I agree that if you fired that gun through the door you would expect that the person behind the door might be killed.
We've already gone round and round on evidence.
I don't think that ammo just happened to be there.
People choose ammo like that. They usually choose it for a reason.
The prosecution probably thought of it, when the video of OP blowing away a watermelon surfaced.
I wasn't suggesting that he pick up a cricket bat.
I was saying he kept ammo nearby on purpose knowing that if he fired, the person would end up devastated.
So as I see it the plan of guaranteed kill would have been on his mind.
Comments
I think you can have an opinion going in and still be objective. His opinion was probably based on his years of experience and nothing in the trial changed that for him.
I could believe this statement, if OP had been firing a water pistol...
Nail gun....ehm...don't know.
But, Killing gun...with killing bullets...let me ponder for a while? intention was to....what?
Well I agree that OP is a murderer, whoever was behind the door, but Judge Masipa found him not guilty of the intentional part, so it's CH in law.
The question is, who wrote this???
Where's sandy?
Good work.
Now, I'm definitely giving you another hundred lines after that post.
That's daft. By that logic no one could ever pick up such a weapon with the intention of defending themselves.
The verdict would have been very different if it had been a nail gun.
Death would have been unlikely if fired on most parts of the body but they only fire when in contact with whatever you're nailing so if death had resulted even Oscar couldn't have got off with murder.
That is covered elsewhere in the article. I recommend that you read the whole thing.
I only posted a small part as an example, and chose that paragraph as it is something that quite a few people seem to have misunderstood.
That would have been torture.
The person would have to be tied down.
They would die from shock. ;-)
*runs away*
What's wrong now?
That is my point porky that he did more than stop the intruder.
Or disarm him.
And he knew it.
And we can see from the gun range video that he knew it.
One warning shot from a gun with standard ammo would have done what?
I guess there aren't any volunteers to recreate the scene though.
" Thought" and " imaginary" is not how the gun laws in SA can be applied on or interpreted to. That's just not good enough.
If every person who applied for a gun licence were to sit a test whether oral or written and ignored the terms of the licence tests like OP then no one would be given a licence. And also it would give a licence to unlawful killing and chaos.
It might be a good thing to keep gun ownership down, but would not be good if there are lots of illegal guns in the country.
Are you saying he set off from the bedroom to deliberately kill the intruder?
Let's back up because I think this is the imagined intruder.
One success the defense scored is getting people to buy into the mental image of the intruder-intruder.
What I am saying is that when OP picked up that gun, he knew that if he shot it at anyone, the effects would be devastating.
And if he shot four times, for certain very good chance he could kill someone.
So I don't see how the judge can say he didn't foresee that possibility, or what she meant by it.
So if I understand you correctly you don't think he went to the bathroom with the intention to deliberately kill someone?
So you agree with me the killing gun must be the weapon of choice for those wishing to kill, not the water pistol, or heaven forbid an air rifle.
Of course.
There is not enough information to know whether he deliberately went to get the gun to use it, or to threaten with it.
We don't know what words were exchanged between them.
And as I see it words were exchanged.
What I was saying was that if you keep a gun with that expanding ammo you would have some intention of blowing someone away, should you point the gun at them or where you think they are, and fire four times.
Yes you could kill someone with another weapon also, but that one, to me, shows intent to make sure you do, not just disarm them or have them back off.
I don’t think he ever went into the kitchen with the intention of actually killing the washing machine.
However, in this case he picked up a firearm which he knew how to use, which contained hollow point ammunition he knew the effects of. He then cocked the weapon ready to use and advanced towards the ‘intruder’
Even at this stage it may be reasonable to argue about his INTENTION to kill but given his knowledge and training he MUST have known at a later stage that the most likely consequence of him aiming in the direction of an ‘intruder’ and pulling the trigger four times is that someone would finish up dead.
For Masipa to suggest he would not foresee the consequences of his actions is a patent nonsense
Particularly, bearing in mind we are talking about a person who in In November 2011 posted a photograph of himself at a shooting range bragging about his score, when he said, 'Had a 96% headshot over 300m from 50shots! Bam!'
As we now know Oscar is no slouch when it comes to headshots, even though a closed door!
To be fair, we can't from that video because he is using a different, larger caliber gun and different ammunition. Presumably he would have had some idea of what his 9mm could do though.
Theres not enough good evidence to refute the intruder story and there's no other version to go on so I'll be sticking with that.
I have never thought that the type of gun or the ammunition would have any bearing on the verdict. For whatever reason that's the gun and the ammo that he happened to have to hand when he "needed" it. In SA it is difficult to see anyone just picking up a bat if they have a gun, what with all the intruders about.
I agree that if you fired that gun through the door you would expect that the person behind the door might be killed.
We've already gone round and round on evidence.
I don't think that ammo just happened to be there.
People choose ammo like that. They usually choose it for a reason.
The prosecution probably thought of it, when the video of OP blowing away a watermelon surfaced.
I wasn't suggesting that he pick up a cricket bat.
I was saying he kept ammo nearby on purpose knowing that if he fired, the person would end up devastated.
So as I see it the plan of guaranteed kill would have been on his mind.