_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

It bothers me in a way, too. I console myself with the fact that the results seem to be the correct ones regardless of the angry mob and, also, that the angry mob is really a relatively small group of people that have the time and inclination to spend 9/10's of their lives on social media. It seems like a huge group, but it's really not. A lot of them also aren't the type who are likely to carry a lot of credibility in the "real world." Which probably has a lot to do with why they're always disappointed when the correct result is achieved in spite of their delusions!

That is the problem with having a curious and open mind, it seemed impossible that the case could be as simple as it appeared to be, but it was.

Shame on Nel.

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

Karamdy and Junebug,

I agree the behavior and illusion of power, intelligence and influence that web posters have is both amusing and disturbing.


It is a bit farcical that in the eyes of the single minded mob, Judge Masipa has gone from being a highly regarded and capable no nonsense judge, to an addled brain, dementia ridden, star struck, Pistorian puppet, all because she gave a sound verdict that diverged from their collective thought.



Good Gravy.

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

That's so very true Carmelita. I find one of the biggest mistakes people make is to trawl the internet and Twitter simply regurgitating other people's opinions and comments. It may make them seem a bit more clued up to some, but essentially it renders them incapable of thinking for themselves. After such a long time they're in too deep with the rest of the crowd and find themselves unable to change tack.

I think the judge has been sensible and consistent throughout. I can sort of understand people questioning her comments regarding whether or not OP should have anticipated that it was likely he'd kill whoever was behind the toilet door. My view is that he should have been aware of this. That said, if the resulting verdict meant the sentence passed would have to be one for murder I believe it would have been incorrect.

The resulting crime was that he unintentionally killed his girlfriend. A murder charge would necessitate a mandatory sentence which clearly would be inappropriate in this case. Judge Masipa has decided to interpret the law in the way that makes perfect sense, thereby enabling her to pass discretionary sentence appropriate to the crime committed. That's fine by me.

I can sort of understand people questioning her comments regarding whether or not OP should have anticipated that it was likely he'd kill whoever was behind the toilet door.

Good to see you Steve,

I had been turning that question over in my head today, I kept thinking about and dissecting Judge Masipa’s words and she in essence said that although a reasonable man would anticipate that shooting into the toilet would likely result in the death of whoever was in the toilet, for the verdict on dolus eventualis much weight must be given to Oscar’s subjective reality, his state of mind and testimony must be considered. Masipa obviously gave much weight to Oscar’s state of mind during the “incident.”



I am remembering some of Nel’s cross now. He pounded Oscar about Oscar’s “intent” demanding something along the line that “You meant to kill whoever was behind the door” to which Oscar replied something along the line “I never meant / wanted to kill anyone” Nel demanded that Oscar did, Oscar denied that he did. It was one of the many times that Nel tried to put words in Oscar’s mouth.

Oscar never admitted once on the stand to intending to kill even an intruder. (At least I don't think he did, but maybe my memory isn't spot on here as I vaguely remember Roux on re-direct reaffirming that Oscar never intended to kill anyone even an intruder) as Oscar may have answered "yes" to one of Nel's demand's that Oscar intended to kill the perceived intruder to protect himself and Reeva.

Now I understand.

Surely Nel thought that Oscar would say that he intended to kill the perceived intruder, who would not intend to kill an advancing intruder? Yet Oscar said he didn’t intend to kill the perceived intruder.


It had to be one of the moments that Nel realized the full ramifications of overplaying his hand.


Where there is not intent there cannot be dolus eventualis it is so simple that it is actually rather baffling.


And again appeals can only be on error in the matter of law, not in the judge’s determining of fact. Fact has been found. Period.


I wonder if Nel has a personal animosity toward the Pistorius family.

Pretty much just typing out loud here.

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

As to the internet nutters who spend their days down the rabbit hole hating and giving accolades to each other I haven't decided if it is more pathetic or amusing. But I am leaning toward pathetic

:

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

Just saw that 48 hours is running a program entitled Blade Runner: The Verdict at 7 pm Central time (right now)

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

It cannot be conclusive that he should have known he would kill whoever was behind the door regardless of whether it was an involuntary reaction due to increasing startles or if it was intentional.

The cubicle was about 5 feet square. There was plenty of room in there to avoid a "kill" shot. The area to the right side of the toilet was large enough where she or anyone could have been protected entirely by the wall. In fact, standing at the back wall on the right side would have caused all the shots to miss. To say he followed her scream as she fell is so laughable, it's hard to even find the words to describe it. Once he pulled the trigger on the first shot, the reverberation would have been so loud, he wouldn't have heard anything except the ringing in his ears.

He had no idea where a person's torso could have, or would have been, or where a head might have been. All the shots could have missed or all could have been non fatal wounds. Being that he had no "visual" she correctly said he could not anticipate the result. That is the key.

The blathering boobs had said she erred in saying that he could not anticipate he would kill "Reeva" but she corrected that in her summation and added "or any other person."

If they appeal, they will only look more stupid than they already look. Masipa had the case law that nailed it airtight.

I think that a reasonable person should foresee that firing 4 bullets into a small bathroom (toilet) would likely end the life of, or, severely injure any occupant of the bathroom. Especially hollow point bullets, for dolus eventualis in SA there is apparently a very liberal standard that must be applied which allows for the subjective view or state of mind of the accused to carry greater weight than the thought process of a reasonable man.

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

I'd say they're mutually interlinked when deciphering the standard necessary to conclude a basis for murder.

But Oscar couldn't see through a wood door and that's what he was firing at. And adrenaline was controlling the few seconds it took. It's like swinging a bat at a pinata. If you hit it, all the candy is going to come out. But you're blindfolded. The only true factual indisputable conclusion you can reach with Oscar is that the door was going to be damaged. Even serious injury is light years from life-ending and if that's what it had turned out to be, there would be zero basis for a murder charge. Then the intent underlays everything.

The gajillion other reasons that are solely pertinent to Oscar only reinforce the conclusion of no "dolus."

You can bet your booties if that door was open and he fired those shots, the verdict would have been murder.

Aavi you have had the simplicity of the case right all along and I am impressed that you never got sidetracked by the circus. So kudos to you.

I think the most important words in your post are “solely pertinent to Oscar” and those are, as the Judge Masipa implied in her rendering of judgement the “peculiarities” that formed Oscar’s subjective thought process at the time of the incident.

The judge’s finding of fact about Oscar’s state of mind is the reason that Oscar was found guilty of culpable homicide rather than murder.



Oscar was found not guilty of pre-meditated murder because the judge believed that his version of events was not only reasonably possibly true but the most likely truth given the evidence of the case. The State did nothing viable to dismiss Oscar’s version. Because in my opinion Oscar’s version is the true version.

Oscar was found not guilty of murder, which he could have been found guilty of, if Masipa believed that Oscar had the intent to kill. It is here that she was very clear that the law must allow for a subjective reality when it comes to intent regardless of objective reality.

The judge did not believe after listening to Oscar’s testimony and assessing what she believed his state of mind most likely was in the seconds before pulling the trigger that Oscar foresaw that his actions would kill another person and he then reconciled himself to the fact and decided to fire unlawfully regardless of his knowledge. This is a finding of fact and not of law so it cannot be appealed. Only matters of law can be appealed and I find it very curious that TV attorney's are saying that this could be a reason for appeal. A finding of fact cannot be a reason for appeal.

Negligence is a different standard it is the objective standard of a reasonable man, a reasonable man would know that firing 4 rounds into a small cubical would likely result in the death or grave injury of the person inside that cubical, the law gives no room for lateral thought in this question, it is a simple test of reason.

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

Nel's malicious prosecution involved playing the "Domestic Violence Card", in the same way Schemers play the "Race Card"
Pretty easy to fire up a section of the Mob who readily transfer their own bad relationship experiences on every other relationship.
And of course there is no shortage of crazy men-haters and "Psychobabble" to reinforce all this. (Ref Alyce LaViolette)

This does a HUGE disservice to genuine cases of DV abuse.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Judge Masipa was right on Dolus and murder
Nicholas Taitz
12 Sep 2014 02:33 (South Africa)

Whether or not you believe Oscar Pistorius’ version of events or trust him as a reliable witness, you cannot fault Judge Masipa’s understanding of the law.

The partial handing down of judgment in the Pistorius case by the Honourable Judge Masipa has predictably resulted in a storm of controversy, with some people hailing the verdict as a vindication of Oscar’s innocence, whilst many others lament his acquittal on murder. As a matter of law, the Learned Judge has been much criticised in social media and online articles for an alleged misunderstanding and misapplication of the principles relating to intention in criminal law, specifically a form of intention known asdolus eventualis. The purpose of this article is not to agree with Judge Masipa’s acquittal on the charge of murder, for reasons I will briefly allude to below, but rather to defend her correct understanding and application of the principles of intention in general, and dolus eventualis in particular.
[.....]
The real position is that even if Pistorius had dolus generalis or dolus eventualis to kill any person behind that door (as he no doubt did – one or the other, and the distinction sometimes becomes quite fuzzy between these two), he still did not intend to kill anyone unlawfully. He thought he was killing someone who was about to attack him – in other words, he did not intend to kill unlawfully, in his own mind. This is a fundamental aspect from a legal point of view.

Indeed, the true nature of Pistorius’ (now successful) defence in this case is one of so-called putative self-defence.
[.....]
...more at link
http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinioni ... BbNaVeKVui

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Get it, Maroons?

It is actually NOT that complicated!!

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

The curious case of Oscar Pistorius and the Judge who would be maligned.


Here are some things that have been asserted across the WWW including Twitter, Facebook, gossip sites and comments after “news” articles.


Because of Judge Masipa’s ruling anyone can now kill a spouse or for that matter any house guest, all they need to do is wait for them to go into the toilet and then pop them, so it is written so it is said. <<<< While you may think I am joking and that someone could not possibly be so dull as to read this into a verdict where a man has been convicted of culpable homicide and said verdict can carry a 15 year sentence, unfortunately, I am quite serious. Some people now believe that folks have been given card blanche to kill their partners/guests. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. But emotions (where I can only imagine these preposterously nonsensical scenarios are bred) are not a well of rational thought. It can be emphatically stated that open season on toilet users, has not just been sanctioned by Judge Masipa's verdict. The rule of law has not been thrown out the window.



Many have opined that Masipa is either suffering from dementia, or she is simply addle brained. Other possibilities are that she could be a Pistorian puppet, she may have either developed a sexual interest in, or, a grandmotherly concern for Pistorius. Some seem to think that there is also a probability that she was promoted to her judgeship by Nelson Mandela because of the color of her skin rather than her qualifications. The plethora of reason’s as to why Masipa ruled as she did, does not end there. It has been said that it is entirely possible that she is simply dumb and ignorant of the law and/or her assessors manipulated the kindly foolish older woman into her decision, because it is obvious that she was reading her decision for the first time when she was delivering it from the bench.

Another nonsensical theory is that she has a limp, so it is possible that Masipa is taking a swing at the folks that do not understand people with disabilities. Giving Pistorius a free pass on premeditated murder and murder to balance things out because of her empathy for his disability.


Another alleged scenario that may have led to Masipa’s verdict states that she may have been given a “look” from someone, and she knew what that "look" meant, a look from the likes of a Don Corleon type figure, a clairvoyant look which instilled in the good judge exactly how she must rule.

Masipa has also been accused of corruption, it has been implied and stated outright that she was bribed and that she sold her soul for some rand, there are also accusations that Arnold Pistorius bought the verdict.

Not too much I can say as there is such foolhardiness in all of these scenarios, not to mention that there are what appear to be libelous assertions in some of the postings. To address some of the nonsense is akin to arguing with an adult as to the existence of the Tooth Fairy. There has been nothing that I have read or heard to sustain this sullying of Judge Masipa, no attempts at putting forth a rational reason for the “feelings of bribery” or any evidence of such to base the very serious accusations. There is simply condemnation and mud slinging at a woman with more knowledge, experience, and information than the lynch mob of internet poster’s who are assailing her good character.

Masipa is a judge who did her best to interpret the law and rendered a fair and just verdict. How sexist, ignorant and disgusting the attacks on Masipa are, and I hope that some people are held accountable for their malicious contemptible words. Judge Masipa is well respected and has a stellar record even against high power establishment defendants.


As further proof of how Masipa "got it wrong" I have been given a psychology lesson about the psyche of males and females and their word choices. I have read that men do not scream and they do not say that they were terrified, they "shout", and they may say that they were scared shitless. <<<Talk about sexism. I wonder if Travis Alexander, who was brutally murdered by Jodi Arias with both a gun and a knife, felt that it was unmanly to be terrified? I find this line of thought disgusting, ignorant and disturbing.


I have also been informed that Sam Taylor an ex-girlfriend of Pistorius suffered terribly at the hands and words of Pistorius, yet her mother never suggested that Sam cease dating Pistorius, even though her mother was aware of Pistorius’s cruel treatment of her daughter. Sam has scar’s from Pistorius’s treatment of her (pinching and/or biting scars, but scars, just the same) perhaps she will be asked to reveal those scars at a civil hearing. Sam also had to hide Pistorius’s gun twice as she was so frightened of him, which left Pistorius shouting something such as “Where is my gun” apparently something soothed the irate Pistorius to the point of him going to bed with no knowledge of where his gun was. That seems to be a very incongruous turn of events, Pistorius went from an irate screaming mad man searching for his missing gun to counting sheep. Curious.


The words that have been associated with Sam Taylor are “victim, could have been Reeva, lucky to be alive, absolutely believe her, classic case of domestic abuse,” oddly enough something I have not read associated with her is the thought of secondary gain, did I mention that Sam has written a book? As far as I know there has been no reason given as to why Nel did not question her about her alleged experience’s with Pistorius’s rage and his abusive actions, which I would think would go to pattern of behavior in a criminal trial.


Offered as more proof that Judge Masipa, the same Judge Masipa who has been a life long advocate for abused woman, somehow did not see Reeva as a human being is in the rendering of her verdict, Judge Masipa referred to Reeva as “the deceased” not mentioned of course is that Judge Masipa referred to Pistorius as “the accused” during the reading of the verdict. This is probably her normal courtroom etiquette. But it seems because people do not agree with Judge Masipa’s ruling that they must seek to make the unremarkable sinister.


I wonder if any of those condemning Masipa and her verdict have been open minded enough, cerebral enough, to say maybe just perhaps, Judge Masipa ruled as she did because she was on the bench for the entire trial, she knows the laws of SA, she saw and heard the nuances of everything in the courtroom, she is a learned judge, she had two assessors who advised and consulted with her on both the facts and legalities of the case, one a newly minted academic who is going to interpret the law to the letter, and one a former defense attorney who know’s defense law inside out, and it was their unanimous conclusion of the facts and the law, that the case merited a guilty of culpable homicide verdict.


I know it is difficult to detach one’s emotions when one is so certain of a truth, but a judge, and above all the law, has no luxury of emotion, justice must be blind. I am dumfounded that people would rather that "their truth" be discovered and confirmed rather than “The Truth” be discovered. It is the human condition to want to be right but it is the moral high ground to want the truth regardless of our own biased looking glass and preconceived notions.

The bottom line is that the Pistorius case, like all cases that are justly tried came down to intent and evidence, the State’s failure to prove any motive or malice and state of mind of the accused is what the verdict rested upon.


Shame on those who prefer that the evidence be twisted to fit their opinion rather than aligning their opinion to fit the evidence. Evidence as I have said all along must be viewed in a light most positive to the defendant. That is a matter of law.

Kudos to Judge Masipa.

I feel I must add that I cannot for a moment pretend to share or comprehend the grief of Reeva's parent's or the pain that they must live with each moment of their lives, to know that their beloved Reeva so full of hope and life was taken from them in such a violent and tragic manner. I think that it is a singular incomprehensible hell, I have not been there so I will not belittle their loss by pretending to know what they are going through, I wish them only God's peace and comfort in their good memories. May they find solace in the life that Reeva so loved until those horrid last moments. I do not fault them for their emotions, their pain or their feeling's toward Pistorius.

God's Peace to all those who are personally touched by Reeva's death. Shame on those who have turned Reeva's death into an agenda rather than a horrific tragedy.

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

Amazing Carm.... but no surprise I have run with the twitter and forum pack in the past.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Nicely said, Carmelita!

_________________