Eben und auch folgendes machte Nel deutlich:MGLimace schrieb:Selbst wenn man alle (widersprüchlichen und teilweise widerlegten) Aussagen von OP glaubt, bleibt immer noch, daß er wissentlich mit tödlicher Munition in einen kleinen Raum geschossen hat wissentlich, daß er damit auf jeden Fall ein Leben auslöscht! Es ist scheißegal, was er dabei dachte, wer da drin ist, ob er behindert ist oder was auch immer! Er hat ein Leben eines anderen Menschen beendet, und damit sollte eigentlich auch seines beendet sein...
Wie auch schon bei Staatsanwalt Nel, hakt Richterin Masipa nach. Sie will wissen, warum Roux Pistorius' Situation mit der einer Frau vergleicht, die nach jahrelangem Missbrauch ihren Peiniger angreift. Es ist so, erklärt Roux. Eine Frau, die ihren Peiniger plötzlich attackiert, tötet ihn nicht wegen dieses einen Vorfalls. Sondern weil sie genug hat. So habe sich auch Pistorius wegen des vermuteten Eindringlings gefühlt.Roux ist mehr mit Theatralik rübergekommen und Nel mit Fakten.
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/oscar-pistorius-verteidiger-barry-roux-haelt-schlussplaedoyer-a-985105.html
Chris Greenland
Oscar Pistorius Trial ---- My take on this
At the heart of this matter is the very simple proposition by the defence that OP should be excused criminal liability because he -
1. he acted out of fear
2. induced by a sound he heard in the relative security and sanctity of his own home in a relatively secure area
3.and that fear induced in him a conclusion that he was about to be attacked
4. and divested him of an appreciation of the reality that he actually was not in any danger and/or under any sort of attack
5. and induced him to fire on the Beki Cele basis of "Shoot to Kill", i.e, when in some possibility of danger, shoot first.
Now NONE of these factors are currently supported in our law as a reason to be excused criminal liability.
a) on his own version he could only have concluded that there was an "intruder" in the toilet, as opposed to "an attacker in his personal space"
b) that intruder might well have been a street kid, as a reasonable possibility
c) you cannot just fire at an intruder on your property, i.e, as I said on Carte Blanche, you cannot just "execute an intruder"
d) before firing on another human being you MUST be under ACTUAL threat of imminent serious injury or death with no other recourse as to how to deal with the threat.
A. That is the situation even if you discard ALL the other evidence, i,e, chuck out the evidence of ALL the other witness, e.g, Michelle Burger, Johnson, the Stipps ... etc ... who state that they heard a woman scream ..etc ...
B. So the above remains the case whatever Roux SC may succeed with "on the facts" in his argument to-day
C. it is possible that OP may escape liability .... but for that to happen the Court will have to make NEW law .. which it can do.
D. at the heart of that "new law" will be the proposition that the ordinary long established standard of the "reasonable man", that is at the heart of our law, is modified when it comes to a disabled person.
E. this appears unlikely especially given the fact, eloquently adverted to by Prof James Grant, that, to do that, you have to gratuitously discount the fact that OP was very well aware of the circumstances in which you can fire on a human being, as evidenced by his gun licence test results.
Post Script: Roux has just said that he "genuinely believes that the trial should have been about culpable homicide" i.e, unlawful but UNINTENTIONAL killing.
The question that arises is why did the defence not tender a plea to culpable homicide?
.OP's case would then have made a lot more sense.
https://www.facebook.com/Justice4ReevaSteenkamp/posts/10152635935965960
Es gibt auch ein Internetforum, in dem tausende User kuriose Beweise liefern, dass die Erde eine Scheibe ist.
Actually, whether the cord could or could not reach is quite irrelevant…
IF the fan was to be place where OP pointed to :
1- The available slack in the extension cord would have to be pulled out from underneath the bedside table… Consequently, the cord would NOT retreat back underneath the bedside table when police moved the fan where it was shown to be on the photo… unless we are dealing with a MAGICAL cord.
2- The multi-plug at the end of the extension cord would have moved in the same direction as the fan… Consequently, the multi-plug would have been closer to the end of the bed to accommodate OP's version of where he put the fan AND then when police moved the fan where it was shown to be on the photo, the multi-plug would be facing the opposite way, it would be turned around… unless we are dealing with a MAGICAL cord.
3- The extension cord would have been at an angle : from the wall socket to the corner of the bed… Consequently, when police moved the fan, the cord would have looped on itself NOT be in a straight line from the socket to the fan… the same goes for the hair-clipper cord which would have looped.
4- The cord of the hair-clipper would have been pulled along with the multi-plug and would have been extended to accommodate the position of the fan… that clipper cord would also NOT retreat back on its own when Police moved the fan… unless we are dealing with a MAGICAL cord.
… this is precisely WHY Nel specifically said "leaving the multi-plug where it is could the fan reach the location alleged by OP"
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?252572-Trial-Discussion-Thread-50-14-08-8-Day-40-final-arguments-continue&p=10836064#post10836064
Natürlich! Eines ihrer leichtesten Übungen :Y: Genauso, wie das Duvet so auf dem BodenInterested schrieb:police tampered the scene und die haben das Kabel dann akkurat auf die richtige Länge und Richtung gezogen
Aggressive shouts and swearing immediately prior to pleading an extremely vulnerable "involuntary" state to excuse multiple shots directly into a person.
Game over Mr Roux?
3:12 is based on nothing other than Johnson's notes - the very same note which roux was at pains to discredit. How is 3:12 a fact as the time of some gunshots? Please tell me that since it is not common cause.
Blood spatter trail across duvet and carpet. Highly improbable. despite everything Roux said the fans weren't there which proves the "snowball of lies".
Gastric contents. Admitted by defence. She ate at some time. She at least was awake, roaming the house, for some reason.
Startles? Darmen proven to be biased - it's in the record - it's very clear. Where is the "reflexive (provoked) PPD" in case law? It is nowhere. A new precedent for OP - this admittedly bad and lying witness lol!
Common cause: The phone call data. That's it. The rest Roux has amply demonstrated is unreliable inferences from witness recollections that might be in error so the disproof of impressions is not exactly final.
I also enjoyed the part where Roux argued that OP's screams were not emotional and Stipp was in fact lying in saying he heard emotional screams. That was great.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost.php?p=74146037&postcount=9023
