Richtig.Tussinelda schrieb:wir sind uns aber auch einig, dass es unterschiedliche Tötungsdelikte gibt, nicht wahr? Und da spielen eben bestimmte Gründe eine Rolle, die Verwerflichkeit der Tat, die Beweggründe etc........
Ist es so schwer zu verstehen, dass die Identität sekundär ist?
"In a scenario where you hear a noise behind a door and fire a shot through the closed door knowing a human being is behind it and foresee the possibility of injuring a person, you accept the risk that you might kill someone.
On the particular facts of this case (the Pistorius case) putative private self-defence has never been successful in a South African court where the accused fired through a closed door thinking his life was in danger. In this case the door was locked, so the intruder would have had to break down the door to enter the house.
“Subjectively he could have foreseen that his life was in danger, but that is not the test. The test is, if that subjective belief was objectively reasonable and if he could have taken other preventative steps.
The law is quite clear. If you can escape the imminent danger without putting your life in danger you have to do it. If you kill a person it must be in such severe circumstances that there’s virtually no other way open to protect your life.”
Experienced criminal defender and former Acting Judge Advocate Johan Engelbrecht SC agreed. “There’s no such thing as ‘wrong identification’. Private putative self-defence excludes intention because the person does not have the intention to kill,” he said.
http://citizen.co.za/129328/reasonable-reaction/ (Archiv-Version vom 30.03.2014)
:-)))))Mauberzaus schrieb:Man stelle sich die Szene vor. Oscar, der nach vier Schüssen der Freundin ruft. Die müsste sich entweder aus dem Staub gemacht haben oder sie würde bereits laut schreiend neben ihm stehen. Aber er erwartet sie offenbar im Schlafzimmer, vielleicht im Bett, ihn mit offenen Armen empfangend. ;-))) Die Gefahr scheint besiegt, die Panik ist schlagartig von ihm abgefallen, wer sich im Wc verbirgt, interessiert ihn nicht, obwohl er davon ausgehen müsste, soeben wegen einer Überreaktion einen Menschen getötet zu haben! Aber das beschäftigt ihn keineswegs. Nein, seine Gedanken wandern nun plötzlich zu Reeva, deren Verbleib ihn seit Einholen der Fans ins Schlafzimmer nicht weiter kümmerte. Und glaubt allen Ernstes sie ihm Schlafzimmer vorzufinden, obwohl während und nach dem Schusswechsel kein Mucks von ihr erfolgte?
Danke für den hochinteressanten link:Rabenfeder schrieb:Interessante Diskussion im Juraforum, ich beziehe weitgehend die Position von "enigma"
How is the Oscar Pistorius prosecution doing?
http://www.hlntv.com/video/2014/03/21/oscar-pistorius-murder-trial-prosecution (Archiv-Version vom 26.03.2014)
Justice Seekers - Reeva Steenkamp shot by Oscar Pistorius Blade Runner Admin1: The prosecution has been tight lipped about the timeline of events. I found it strange and somewhat frustrating that GN never objected to BR's heated cross examination methods.
But after the turn of events earlier this week I am optimistic that GN let the defence wiggle themselves right into a corner. I just can't see the state dropping all those witnesses and admit defeat. Their case has been too strong. BR has not come up with any viable or steadfast evidence to show his client's innocence. All BR did was to discredit witnesses and try convincing them that there are possibilities they could have heard/seen something else.
BR went as far as accusing a witness of making a mockery of the court, just not to give OP a chance! It went so far, the Judge had to reprimand BR.
No counter argument has been made so far, to show OP did not shoot on purpose. And the longer the trial went on, the shorter BR's cross examination became. Towards the end, his demeanour changed for aggressive to anger and frustration. He started of with a bang, but imo, because the prosecution did not start with opening statements and the defence has no idea what the state will produce next, made them weak and to the point that they became submissive.
The fact that "one fan" changed to "two fans" and the last bangs heard were indeed the gunshots, not the cricket bat, etc might very well bite OP in the behind.
We don't know what await all justice seekers next week, but it will be a very sad day if a man such a BR will be exposed due to his client's lies, manipulation and deceit.
BR convinced the audience (so to speak) of exactly what GN wanted him to.
Epic fail.
https://www.facebook.com/Justice4ReevaSteenkamp/posts/223109401230602?comment_id=383682&offset=0&total_comments=22
Jedem einen Freibrief zu töten für irrige Annahmen????
Der Waffenexperte hat ganz klar bestätigt, dass OP mit seinen Antworten gezeigt hat, dass er WUSSTE, wie er sich in einer solchen Situation zu verhalten hat.
Dass Reeva nicht getötet werden sollte, ist überhaupt nicht klar, denn alles spricht DAGEGEN. Ganz besonders die schon zig mal erwähnten Schreie nach dem ersten Schuss oder besser gesagt vor den Schüssen.
Der Mord ist ja nun mal bewiesen, denn Reeva ist tot.
Und das wusste OP, wie es der Waffenexperte vor Gericht bestätigt hatte.KlaraFall schrieb:The law is quite clear. If you can escape the imminent danger without putting your life in danger you have to do it. If you kill a person it must be in such severe circumstances that there’s virtually no other way open to protect your life.”
Experienced criminal defender and former Acting Judge Advocate Johan Engelbrecht SC agreed. “There’s no such thing as ‘wrong identification’. Private putative self-defence excludes intention because the person does not have the intention to kill,” he said.
http://citizen.co.za/129328/reasonable-reaction/ (Archiv-Version vom 30.03.2014)
The ammunition was first manufactured by Winchester Ammunition in 1991, and became popular in South Africa during the violent years before the end of apartheid.darauf beziehst Du Dich
Steyl said the ammo was banned just before the advent of democracy in 1994.
They are not illegal in South Africa, but are far from common here, although U.S. police forces often use them. Expanding bullets, sometimes known as “dum-dum” bullets, were banned from use in international warfare under the Hague Convention of 1899.
South African law, however, prohibits the use of expanding bullets by police and military in the country, but it is still available to citizen consumers. Private firearm owners can purchase hollow-point bullets at most gun shops, according to Gulf News.http://www.ibtimes.com/what-are-expanding-bullets-dum-dums-used-oscar-pistorius-shoot-reeva-steenkamp-cause-more-damage
If you examine all the evidence presented thus far in the Oscar Pistorius case, there's just one critical fact, in my opinion. Perhaps this is just common sense, but I love stepping back and looking at the obvious when everyone overanalyzes a case and gets lost in it. Here's the obvious. Who locks the bathroom door when they go to the bathroom in their boyfriend's house? Do you typically get up in the middle of the night to relieve yourself and lock the bathroom door? No. Do you lock the bathroom door to wash your face or brush your teeth? No. Do you go to the bathroom to make a private phone call? Sometimes. Do you lock the door? No. Is it reasonable to lock the door after a fight if you are scared and in a possible domestic-abuse situation? Yes.(Amy Dardashtian is a television correspondent and attorney living and working in New York City. She is a graduate of Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and has reported on trials in the tri-state area.)
If the bathroom door was indeed locked, as the facts seem to indicate, then Reeva Steenkamp likely locked herself in the bathroom to keep Oscar Pistorius out. If she didn't lock the door, then why did Pistorius use a bat to knock it down after the murder? So there you go. The most telling piece of evidence in the whole case! However, despite this glaringly odd fact pointing toward Pistorius' guilt, the prosecution doesn't have a strong-enough case.
Prosecutors are overreaching. It's become a default rule in high-profile cases, and in my opinion that's what led to the acquittal of George Zimmerman. Ambitious prosecutors overreach for the highest murder charge when the evidence just isn't there. In the Pistorius trial, as in the Zimmerman trial, a conviction on a lesser charge, in this case culpable homicide, would be almost an automatic slam dunk. Now, perhaps nothing short of life in prison will satisfy as justice to model Reeva Steenkamp's family, and that's understandable, but from a purely legal perspective, it's an unlikely success for prosecutors. Premeditated murder requires planning and deliberation. Let's get even more specific: It requires the time to form the conscious intent to kill and then act on it after enough time for a reasonable person to second-guess that decision. If you look at the facts of the Pistorius case, you'll find that there is simply no evidence to prove this type of planning and deliberation. The prosecution can't just speculate on state of mind. Guesswork won't hold up in a court of law. Prosecutors must establish that the Blade Runner intended to kill his girlfriend as part of a malicious and calculated plan.
So far there has been a rumor that a witness heard the couple fighting intensely about an hour prior to the shooting. If they were fighting, who knows how long the fight lasted? How can we guess whether the shooting did or did not occur in the heat of passion immediately following or in the midst of a fight, thereby ruling out premeditation? There must be evidence. In the stereotypical heat-of-passion scenario, a man walks in on his woman in bed with another man. The scorned spouse may immediately pick up a gun and go after his wife or her lover, in the heat of passion. However, occasionally, a scorned spouse may lie in wait for a few days, plan out the murder of his wife or lover and execute it days later after taking steps to plot it, such as purchasing a weapon. In such cases, prosecutors can prove concrete steps were taken to plan the murder and thereby formulate the intent.
However, the Pistorius case presents no such evidence of planning. To the contrary, if there is testimony that a heated argument preceded the murder, then that is more supportive of negligent homicide than premeditated murder.
The prosecution tried to base its whole theory of premeditation around Pistorius' prosthetic legs. Initially, prosecutors claimed that Pistorius took the time to put on his prosthetic legs. They claimed that the time that passed while he put on his prosthetic legs was sufficient to allow him to think out and plan the murder. But just recently we heard a ballistics expert testify that Pistorius likely shot Steenkamp while on his stumps. This evidence completely belied the prosecution's theory, and with no one to contradict it, it seems the prosecution has or will concede that he was not wearing his prosthetics. Now the prosecution appears to be left with zero evidence to prove intent.
Even if the ruling judge firmly believes in the prosecution's theory, prosecutors still bear the burden of proving premeditated murder beyond a reasonable doubt. There is just too much doubt about what went on in Pistorius' mind and in that house that evening. In my opinion, the rest of the evidence is just totally irrelevant. How he acted after the fact and whether he screamed or she screamed does not prove deliberation and planning. Unless the prosecution can find some solid evidence from inside that house, it will not succeed. Neither circumstantial witnesses like neighbors nor experts can speak to Pistorius' state of mind. The judge, of course, has the discretion to convict on a lesser charge, but the prosecution is undermining the strength of such a conviction by focusing all its efforts on trying to prove premeditation. This is what happened with George Zimmerman, and thus he was acquitted.
Das habe ich nicht nur geschrieben sondern auch anhand der Schreie begründet.
It's incredibly odd that if OP felt so very vulnerable on his stumps, to the degree that he was willing to shoot someone dead, that he didn't just put his legs on. They were right there by the bed and would have taken about a second to put on.Beweisen muss ICH gar nichts, ich bin nicht der Ankläger und gebe hier nur meine Meinung wieder.
Surely in moments of intense vulnerability you take whatever small steps you can to reduce your vulnerability. Your life might depend on it.
And he can hardly claim he'd have been just as vulnerable with his legs on because they are prosthetics given that he managed to carry a 9 stone woman down a staircase wearing them.
So, he walked past his awake girlfriend without alerting her to the danger
He walked past a panic alarm that could have had help there in minutes
He walked past a door that he could have unlocked and been through in a matter of seconds
He walked past the legs that could have made him feel and be less vulnerable
I don't find this even slightly plausible, on any level. I know that panic can make you behave strangely - but not that strangely. Fleeing danger is instinctive, it's a biological imperative that's there to try and save your life. Fighting is the most dangerous thing you can do, so it's only attempted when there are no other options. None of these things are conscious - you don't choose your options, you don't have time. Your subconscious chooses for you, and your body fills with adrenaline to give you enough energy to get the hell out of there.
I can't see that any of OP's actions that night are consistent with true panic. They are far more consistent with angry confrontation.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=238797&page=3
Gibt es nicht etliche Zeugen, die Schreie einer Frau bezeugen?
