Oscar Pistorius, das Model, der Valentinstag und das war dann Notwehr

Tussinelda schrieb:naja, der Tatort ist versaut, DAS wird sicherlich eine Rolle spielen, die übersehene Kugel, die Fotos, die Polizisten machten und teuer verkauften etc. aber Du hast Recht, der jetzige Chefermittler ist ein ganz anderes Kaliber, nicht sensationsgeil, sehr erfahren, sehr korrekt

Dateline Keith Morrison uncovers brand new developments in the murder case against Olympic track star Oscar Pistorius.

http://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/full-episode-oscar-pistorius-race-his-life-n41946

CosmicQueen schrieb:Unfassbar, die wollen wohl auf jeden Fall den Fall gewinnen und brauchen mächtig viel Überzeugungsmaterial.

CosmicQueen schrieb:Ich habe schlecht über Reeva geschrieben???

Arwen1976 schrieb:Für mich gehört sie daher zu den Punkten, die faktisch vorhanden sind, aber ich abgeklärt wissen möchte - zeitliche Abläufe, Rekonstruktion ect. Es spielt sehr vieles zusammen und die EV ist nur ein Punkt von vielen, aber wie gesagt, das einzige, was uns momentan offiziell zur Verfügung steht.

Arwen1976 schrieb:Wir sind prinzipiell einer Meinung, drücken es nur jeweils anders aus.
Wichtig ist eigentlich nur, daß wir alle ab Montag wertefrei versuchen, alle offiziellen Erkenntnisse zu berücksichtigen und am Ende die Frage beantwortet bekommen, ob Reeva Steenkamp wissentlich oder unwissentlich erschossen wurde.

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)

"Cape Town - There could be a few surprises on the first day of Oscar Pistorius’s murder trial, criminal law expert William Booth has told News24.
Pistorius’s trial for the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp will start on Monday at the North Gauteng High Court.
“We don’t know what [Pistorius’s] legal team will be doing exactly,” Booth told News24.
The State will put in the plea to Pistorius and the Paralympian would then have to plead to those charges.
The initial indictment lists 107 witnesses to testify for the State.
Among them are Pistorius's sister Aimee, his uncle Arnold, former police investigator Hilton Botha, and residents of the Silver Woods Country Estate in Pretoria, where he lived."

Watch the video here:
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Oscar_Pistorius/Expert-Surprises-possible-at-start-of-Pistorius-trial-20140301

What to expect on Day 1 of the Oscar Pistorius trial

Externer Inhalt
Durch das Abspielen werden Daten an Youtube übermittelt und ggf. Cookies gesetzt.

The question then is whether the accused had the requisite intention to kill another person. Intention must not be confused with motive. The person’s motive is the reason why he acted in the manner he did and is usually thought of as irrelevant for determining guilt. Motive can explain why an accused formed the intention to kill another person, but is separate from that intention.

Forensic evidence about the trajectory of the bullets and the other evidence at the crime scene could be important — especially if this contradicted the version of events put up by the accused. No such evidence has been led at the bail hearing.

In a case where the state has proven that an accused had shot and killed another person in his house in the absence of an attack on his life or property, it would be difficult to escape conviction for murder unless the accused is found to have acted in putative self-defence. Where an accused is found to have genuinely believed that his life was in danger and that he was using reasonable means to avert an attack on himself or his property, he may escape conviction for murder on the grounds that he lacked the requisite intention.



As intention is tested subjectively, the pivotal question would be what the actual state of mind of the accused was at the time when he killed the victim. If an accused genuinely but mistakenly believed that an attack was imminent or that his life was in danger, the court will find that he lacked the intention to be convicted of murder.

Tussinelda schrieb:wer war jetzt noch mal im Bad, außer O.P. und den ermittelnden Beamten? Wenn Du so etwas in den Raum stellst, dann solltest Du Dich auch entsprechend dazu äussern bitte.

Tussinelda schrieb:und hier noch einmal, putative self-defense bitte beachten: wenn ein Angeklagter aufrichtig/ernsthaft aber irrtümlich glaubte, dass ein Angriff drohte/bevorstand oder das sein leben in Gefahr war, wird das Gericht feststellen, dass es an der Absicht fehlte, um des Mordes verurteilt zu werden

De Vos said there could be no dispute that Steenkamp’s killing had been unlawful and it would be impossible to argue that Pistorius had acted in self-defence as no attack on his life had commenced or was imminent.

He said it would be difficult to escape a murder conviction unless Pistorius was found to have acted in putative self-defence.

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.

Tussinelda schrieb:huch, link vergessen

http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/about/ (Archiv-Version vom 23.02.2014)

The De Oliveira case suggests that if the state could make out a prima facie case that a reasonable person in Oscar Pistorius’s position could not honestly have believed that he was acting in self-defence, that a defence of putative self-defence would not easily succeed unless Pistorius himself testified as to his state of mind.

If this defence of putative private defence succeeds, that would not, however, be the end of the matter. A court could still find that a reasonable person would have foreseen that his actions would have caused the death of a person and would not have proceeded with his actions despite foreseeing the consequences. In such a case the accused can be convicted of culpable homicide. In other words if a court finds that a reasonable person would not have proceeded with the conduct, then he would be found guilty of culpable homicide.

As I pointed out at the start, it is rather nonsensical from a legal point of view, to speculate at this point whether Pistorius will be found guilty of murder. None of us know. This is not going to stop people speculating about his guilt or innocence, but such speculation might have to do more with the morbid fascination of people with the case than with any legally responsible analysis.

“The court has to look at the facts objectively and must make a finding if it was reasonable for the accused to think he was in danger.

“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.

If it’s totally unreasonable to think your life is in danger under the prevailing circumstances, it is murder. ”However, if the accused thought his actions were reasonable but the reasonable man would have realised that his life was not in danger, then he’s guilty of culpable homicide.

“Murder is the intentional killing of a human being while culpable homicide is the negligent killing of a person.

http://citizen.co.za/129328/reasonable-reaction/ (Archiv-Version vom 30.03.2014)

Nearly six million guns are currently in circulation in South Africa, with just under half of them in the hands of criminals and the others in the hands of civilians who don't trust the police to stop the crooks. In total, one person in every eight has a weapon.

BBC reporter Pumza Fihlani said divisions are invisible too and that those with something to protect feel they must take matters into their own hands to do so.

"South Africa has one of the highest crime rates in the world and is considered as one of the most violent and unequal societies.

"Many here feel that the police are losing the fight against crime and those with money or valuables feel compelled to protect them at any cost," she said.

A black market in firearms is fueled by the difficulty in getting a gun licence from police. The bureaucratic procedure can take years and is heavily criticised by gun groups. Getting a gun depends on whether the constabulary thinks you need it, not how vulnerable you feel. The result is piles of black market unlicensed firearms - often in the wrong hands and fostering still further paranoia.

“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.”

Tussinelda schrieb:bitte les doch richtig, falls er aufrichtig ernsthaft, aber IRRTÜMLICH annahm, sein Leben sei in Gefahr....denn DAS ist ja genau der Punkt auf den es ankommt bei putative self-defense, alles andere wäre ja dann reguläre self-defense

Tussinelda schrieb:ja, das hatte ich ja schon zig mal geschrieben, es ist dann culpable homicide, was die Verteidigung ja von Anfang an sagte und da muss es noch nicht einmal Gefängnis geben, denn da kann der Richter frei entscheiden, es gibt kein Mindeststrafmaß, allerdings vermute ich, wenn es darauf hinauslaufen sollte, dass die Richterin ihn nicht ohne Gefängnisstrafe davon kommen lässt, sie ist wohl ziemlich rigoros, was Strafen betrifft, ich verstehe gar nicht, warum das immer wieder diskutiert wird. Putative self-defense ist eine Möglichkeit, die die Verteidigung in Betracht ziehen wird, ob sie darauf plädieren werden wir sehen, ich denke schon, denn es passt ja zur e.V. und dazu, dass er auf unschuldig plädiert.

Comtesse schrieb:Es kommt also nicht darauf an, was jemand subjektiv empfunden hat, wenn es objektiv keinen Sinn macht, in der Situation so zu empfinden. UND er hatte andere Möglichkeiten, der eingebildeten Gefahr zu entgehen, die er hätte nutzen müssen (" If you can escape the imminent danger without putting your life in danger you have to do it."). Damit sprechen gleich 2 Dinge gegen sein Verhalten.

Im Klartext heißt das doch: Eine abgeschlossene Tür zwischen dir und einem Eindringling stellt keine Notwehrsituation dar, also liegt auch keine putative Notwehrsituation vor. Ist doch nicht so schwer zu verstehen.

Even if the Paralympic champion is found not guilty, his reputation will never be the same again as no stone in his personal life is left unturned. A foretaste came on Saturday when Britain's Sun newspaper reported that Pistorius, 27, had a new girlfriend, Leah Skye, a 19-year-old student paramedic, labelled "blade stunner" by the paper. A source close to the story told the Observer that the couple had in fact already separated‚ coincidentally, on Valentine's Day.

Tussinelda schrieb:As intention is tested subjectively, the pivotal question would be what the actual state of mind of the accused was at the time when he killed the victim. If an accused genuinely but mistakenly believed that an attack was imminent or that his life was in danger, the court will find that he lacked the intention to be convicted of murder.