Nope, that became irrelevant. She has already chucked out the charge of the premeditated murder of Reeva.
Oscar Pistorius thread
- Thread starter Gilly
- Start date
Nope, that became irrelevant. She has already chucked out the charge of the premeditated murder of Reeva.
There was a murder charge of dolus eventualis, which means it doesn't matter who he thought he was trying to kill, simply that his actions could be reasonably expected to result in unlawful killing of a person.
This precisely.
The question has always been whether or not he murdered Reeva, not whether or not he killed her.
The judge said that because he believed that Reeva was still in bed, he could not have expected his shooting through the door to kill her, not that he couldn't expect that shooting through the door would kill whoever was behind it.
Yes, BUT, he believed Reeva was in bed, therefore he did not intend to kill HER, so the murder charge cannot stand.
I'm at work, I've only caught snippets of it, but I heard the last 5 minutes of her summing up before the lunch break.
I am just quoting this again because this is correct.
I've started to doubt myself, in fact
dolus eventualis might actually require that the accused forsaw the possibility that the victim (RS) could be killed by his actions. He believed, and the court accepted, that she was in bed. I think that's why it was ruled out.
I'm not even convinced of that; wouldn't be surprised to see him get house arrest or a suspended sentence and community service.
I think we all know that.
The Judge clearly, and without any ambiguity said that was irrelevant.
I've started to doubt myself, in fact
dolus eventualis might actually require that the accused forsaw the possibility that the victim (RS) could be killed by his actions. He believed, and the court accepted, that she was in bed. I think that's why it was ruled out.
She was explaining how he could still be charged with murder, if it was reasonable to believe that his actions would results in the death of a person (ie who he believed was behind the door), as per her examples of mistaken identity that she gave.
I've started to doubt myself, in fact
dolus eventualis might actually require that the accused forsaw the possibility that the victim (RS) could be killed by his actions. He believed, and the court accepted, that she was in bed. I think that's why it was ruled out.
Yes. Here's a good and simple explanation of dolus eventualis:
Dolus Eventualis refers to where a perpetrator foresees indirect consequences as a possibility. For example, you want to kill Bob, so you bomb his office, knowing that it's likely that other people will die.
(from here: http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/dolus-eventualis/)
In this instance the court has accepted that because he believed RS was in bed at the time, he couldn't have expected his actions to result in her death.
Ah more people thinking like English where we don't have guns, don't have such rights to shoot on site etc. If they found that he thought reeve was in bed, then there isn't much issue with him shooting. This is south Africa, you are armed and no south African would think about shooting twice. It's just the land they live in. Where you house is behind high wall estates, with armed guards. It is in no way comparable to England or what any off us to do, even the laws aren't comparable.
No idea if he'll be found guilty of anything or not, but this thread is pretty funny.
No idea if he'll be found guilty of anything or not, but this thread is pretty funny.
Then why after she had discounted the charge of the premeditated murder of Reeva, was there still the possibility that he would be charged with common law murder.
I've started to doubt myself, in fact
dolus eventualis might actually require that the accused forsaw the possibility that the victim (RS) could be killed by his actions. He believed, and the court accepted, that she was in bed. I think that's why it was ruled out.
This is correct.
As she pointed out, if you intend to kill person A (in this case the intruder) but instead mistake them for person B (Reeva), you can still be found guilty of murder. You have still murdered someone.
I have watched every minute of this trial. When the prosecution was saying Pistorius shot through the door he did not know who was behind it. Apart from thinking it may of been an intruder. Prosecution argued that it could have been a child in there. And by firing four shots through the door whether child or intruder he must have known he would kill the person on the other side of it. Hence murder.
Also when Pistorius sat his competency test for his firearms licence the prosecution went through the test, and it started unless he could see the intruder with a weapon it was not lawful to fire.
Also when Pistorius sat his competency test for his firearms licence the prosecution went through the test, and it started unless he could see the intruder with a weapon it was not lawful to fire.