Aktuelle Gerichtsprozesse
10.02.2015 um 21:32Genau so sehe ich das auch, ein Artikel von gestern...
Oscar Pistorius and the State in Three cases
09 February 2015, 12:20
Oscar Pistorius and the State in Three cases.
There have been three cases that come to mind when I think about Oscar Pistorius.Firstly the case of Rudi Visagie, who mistakenly and tragically shot and killed his only daughter in the mistaken belief she was a car thief. There was no question that his life was in danger and no question that his intention was to harm his daughter. Charges were later dropped. However if a car is being driven away from a house at a normal speed, there is the option to shoot the tyres rather than assumably shooting into the car where the likelihood is that the driver could be seriously injured or killed. The NPA never attempted to have the case reopened and in many respects ignored that a person was killed, probably taking the same approach that many felt that he would have to live with the tragic consequences of his actions. What however would have been the result if it was a car thief who was killed. Would the State then have taken the view that shooting, even one shot into a confined space was likely to result in the death of the driver. Would the legal definition of Dolus Eventualis be debated, the type of ammunition used, God forbid he used Black Talon ammunition or would it have been argued in his defence that this was the preferred ammunition used by law enforcement in the US and for the purposes of self defence. But since there was no trial, the State could not argue that shooting into car at a driver was intent to kill and the identity of the victim was therefore not relevant. It similarly couldn't be argued that since he had a gun licence he had passed a competency test and therefore should know that one can not shoot at a person in a car being driven away regardless of whether it was stolen or not.I have uttermost sympathy for Visagie, recognising that accidentally shooting someone you love must be a tragedy you never really recover from.
Another case is that of a man who mistook his pregnant wife for an intruder and shot her. The husband was convicted of CH and given a suspended sentence. Again the legal principle of Dolus Eventualis featured nowhere in the case. Yet shooting a person at point blank range, can and was in this case as likely to result in death as shooting through a door four times. It was never determined what his intentions were regarding the perceived intruder. There was nothing to suggest the NPA thralled through 1700 text messages etc from the couple to find any trace of disharmony in their relationship or identified-examined the contents of the wife's stomach to determine that the couple could have eaten late and argued, or assumed that items of clothes left inside out on a chair perhaps was an indication she was planning to leave him. Were neighbours 177m away interviewed to determine whether they heard raised voices in any language not necessarily identifiable or in a location unable to be determined. There was no suggestion made by the State that this was VAW yet statistically women are more likely to suffer domestic abuse during pregnancy and that domestic abuse often occurs for the first time during pregnancy. The State did not call for a 30 day psychological assessment and then conveniently ignore the findings because it did not back their case.
In another case a home owner shot and killed a man on his roof who he believed was attempting to burglar his home. The man shot in the direction of the deceased killing him. Again the charge was CH and a sentence of 7 years suspended for 5 years was given. Interestingly Oscar was given a 3 year sentence suspended for 5 years for the accidental single discharge of a fire arm in a restaurant. The NPA are not appealing the case, there was no discussion about Dolus Eventualis and no debate that shooting in the direction of a person equates with an intent to injure or kill. In fact the Judge in their summation said 'killing the victim didn't mean he did the right thing but it could happen to anyone' It should also be noted that in none of the above cases was the person disabled in any way, let alone had no lower legs and not in a position to defend themselves if attacked. In fact in two of the cases the person who shot could not claim he either perceived or was in immediate danger.
Although each case needs to be considered on their own merits what seems evident is that CH, the verdict that was given in Oscar’s case is the usual verdict. It then needs to be questioned why the NPA are not accepting the verdict in his case. Why do they feel that a sentence of 5 years is shockingly light when the previous cases resulted in no prison time. The state also wished a sentence of 15 years imprisonment for having his father’s ammunition in his safe and sought leave to appeal the not guilty verdict but failed to provide any testimony, witness statements or evidence regarding this charge. Their leave to appeal on this charge was unsuccessful.
It is my belief that Oscar Pistorius appears to be singled out for reasons that the NPA are not sharing despite the previous leaking of numerous pictures, details of the case to the media.
The NPA have failed to produce any details of cases where an application for leave to appeal was made considering the legal principle of Dolus Eventualis or why they have not previously considered overturning a 32 year legal decision which may prevent them appealing this case.
The granting of the leave to appeal to me, seems to suggest a two tier system of Justice, one for ordinary people and another for famous disabled athletes which the NPA seem to think should be used as a legal guinea pig firstly with the televising of the case against his will and secondly to overturn a legal precedent to ensure his case can be appealed to obtain a harsher sentence despite other cases were clearly considered to be CH and suspended sentences given.
http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Oscar-Pistorius-and-the-State-in-Three-cases-20150209 (Archiv-Version vom 11.02.2015)
Oscar Pistorius and the State in Three cases
09 February 2015, 12:20
Oscar Pistorius and the State in Three cases.
There have been three cases that come to mind when I think about Oscar Pistorius.Firstly the case of Rudi Visagie, who mistakenly and tragically shot and killed his only daughter in the mistaken belief she was a car thief. There was no question that his life was in danger and no question that his intention was to harm his daughter. Charges were later dropped. However if a car is being driven away from a house at a normal speed, there is the option to shoot the tyres rather than assumably shooting into the car where the likelihood is that the driver could be seriously injured or killed. The NPA never attempted to have the case reopened and in many respects ignored that a person was killed, probably taking the same approach that many felt that he would have to live with the tragic consequences of his actions. What however would have been the result if it was a car thief who was killed. Would the State then have taken the view that shooting, even one shot into a confined space was likely to result in the death of the driver. Would the legal definition of Dolus Eventualis be debated, the type of ammunition used, God forbid he used Black Talon ammunition or would it have been argued in his defence that this was the preferred ammunition used by law enforcement in the US and for the purposes of self defence. But since there was no trial, the State could not argue that shooting into car at a driver was intent to kill and the identity of the victim was therefore not relevant. It similarly couldn't be argued that since he had a gun licence he had passed a competency test and therefore should know that one can not shoot at a person in a car being driven away regardless of whether it was stolen or not.I have uttermost sympathy for Visagie, recognising that accidentally shooting someone you love must be a tragedy you never really recover from.
Another case is that of a man who mistook his pregnant wife for an intruder and shot her. The husband was convicted of CH and given a suspended sentence. Again the legal principle of Dolus Eventualis featured nowhere in the case. Yet shooting a person at point blank range, can and was in this case as likely to result in death as shooting through a door four times. It was never determined what his intentions were regarding the perceived intruder. There was nothing to suggest the NPA thralled through 1700 text messages etc from the couple to find any trace of disharmony in their relationship or identified-examined the contents of the wife's stomach to determine that the couple could have eaten late and argued, or assumed that items of clothes left inside out on a chair perhaps was an indication she was planning to leave him. Were neighbours 177m away interviewed to determine whether they heard raised voices in any language not necessarily identifiable or in a location unable to be determined. There was no suggestion made by the State that this was VAW yet statistically women are more likely to suffer domestic abuse during pregnancy and that domestic abuse often occurs for the first time during pregnancy. The State did not call for a 30 day psychological assessment and then conveniently ignore the findings because it did not back their case.
In another case a home owner shot and killed a man on his roof who he believed was attempting to burglar his home. The man shot in the direction of the deceased killing him. Again the charge was CH and a sentence of 7 years suspended for 5 years was given. Interestingly Oscar was given a 3 year sentence suspended for 5 years for the accidental single discharge of a fire arm in a restaurant. The NPA are not appealing the case, there was no discussion about Dolus Eventualis and no debate that shooting in the direction of a person equates with an intent to injure or kill. In fact the Judge in their summation said 'killing the victim didn't mean he did the right thing but it could happen to anyone' It should also be noted that in none of the above cases was the person disabled in any way, let alone had no lower legs and not in a position to defend themselves if attacked. In fact in two of the cases the person who shot could not claim he either perceived or was in immediate danger.
Although each case needs to be considered on their own merits what seems evident is that CH, the verdict that was given in Oscar’s case is the usual verdict. It then needs to be questioned why the NPA are not accepting the verdict in his case. Why do they feel that a sentence of 5 years is shockingly light when the previous cases resulted in no prison time. The state also wished a sentence of 15 years imprisonment for having his father’s ammunition in his safe and sought leave to appeal the not guilty verdict but failed to provide any testimony, witness statements or evidence regarding this charge. Their leave to appeal on this charge was unsuccessful.
It is my belief that Oscar Pistorius appears to be singled out for reasons that the NPA are not sharing despite the previous leaking of numerous pictures, details of the case to the media.
The NPA have failed to produce any details of cases where an application for leave to appeal was made considering the legal principle of Dolus Eventualis or why they have not previously considered overturning a 32 year legal decision which may prevent them appealing this case.
The granting of the leave to appeal to me, seems to suggest a two tier system of Justice, one for ordinary people and another for famous disabled athletes which the NPA seem to think should be used as a legal guinea pig firstly with the televising of the case against his will and secondly to overturn a legal precedent to ensure his case can be appealed to obtain a harsher sentence despite other cases were clearly considered to be CH and suspended sentences given.
http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Oscar-Pistorius-and-the-State-in-Three-cases-20150209 (Archiv-Version vom 11.02.2015)
