@peregrinaVielen Dank für die freundliche Belehrung. Ohne dich wüsste man gar nicht, was man während des Studiums alles falsch verstanden hat.
Hoffentlich liest du dir die Links von Tussinelda auch mal durch.
Hier noch ein weiterer:
http://newyorkcriminaldefenseblawg.com/tag/national-prosecuting-authority/ (Archiv-Version vom 05.01.2014)“The defense team for Pistorius has already conceded that he may be guilty of culpable homicide for having killed Reeva when he believed she was a burglar. However, this “mistake of fact” as we lawyers call it does not really help him. One cannot avoid a conviction for premeditated murder simply because one misidentified one’s victim; the concept of “transferred intent” applies. Put another way, if I intend to kill Person A, and instead accidentally kill Person B, I’m guilty of murder just the same as if I had in fact killed Person A. After all, under that hypothetical, one could say that I intended to kill a person, I deliberately attempted to kill a person, and I did in fact kill a person and these are the elements of intentional murder.
Just as problematically for him, Pistorius does not have a very good self-defense claim here. In some states in the U.S., it is legally acceptable to use deadly physical force where it is reasonably necessary to prevent a burglary of one’s home. In South Africa, on the other hand, deadly physical force can only be applied where it is reasonably necessary to prevent an imminent and deadly attack (a “proportionality standard,” so to speak). Thus, the big problem for Pistorius is that he can be convicted for the premeditated murder of a burglar unless he can show that he was objectively reasonable in acting the way that he did in firing upon his door. (Incidentally, the South African prosecutor, Gerrie Nel, correctly pointed out this problem with Pistorius’ defense at Pistorius’ bail hearing). It seems unlikely that a judge would find that Pistorius’ shooting at a door – without knowing who was behind it and with the clear intent to kill the person behind it (as evidenced by the use of four shots fired into a small chamber) – could possibly have been reasonably necessary to prevent imminent physical harm. After all, it is nearly impossible to conclude that the person behind the door presented an imminent threat of serious physical harm to Pistorius because… she didn’t. It was after all his girlfriend, not a burglar, and Pistorius – by his own admission and according to his version of events – did not take any reasonable steps to determine the seriousness of the threat posed by the person in the toilet.”
Luminarah schrieb:Lars Wienand ,das war echt der Hammer
KlaraFall schrieb:Jetzt weint er um sich.
Interested schrieb:@peregrina
fortylicks schrieb:....und war auch nur der Alter Ego von Surenas. Multiple Persönlichkeit??!! :)
CosmicQueen schrieb:Fahrlässige Tötung ist nunmal drin, sonst würde Roux umsont für O.P kämpfen, aber egal, glaubt was ihr wollt, zum Schluss wird man ja sehen was möglich ist ;)
