Until now, not much has been said on this subject. Probably because it has been televised around the world and all up-to-date information is out there. What is most pleasing is that Shrien Devani is on his way to face the music. That is another woman's revenge for an injustice perpetrated by a male who thought he was too clever.
LOL! The Reeva case is in recession ( is that the right word?) until 7th April. There is a website and I think it is: www.oscarpistoriustrial.-com or something similar. Maybe you could get an update there Kerouac.
Looking back on the long drawn out trial that had the world tuning in seems so futile now. The waste of the courts time and then there is the large money issue. It must be a real slap in the face for the judge who gave the incorrect verdict. We all knew it should have been a murder trial from the outset. All the red flags were there.
Tod, I didn't understand what you said, "It should have been a murder trial from the outset". Does the judge in ZA usually provide instructions about which charges should be laid, in the event of a killing?
We had a similar saga here, about Guy Turcotte, a young cardiologist who stabbed his two small children to death. He and his wife (who is an emergency doctor) both worked at a hospital in Saint-Jérôme, a small city north of Montréal. At the first trial the jury rendered a charge of "not criminally responsible due to mental disorder", which the prosecution later successfully appealed, contending that the former cardiologist had actually murdered his children out of jealousy, as his wife was going out with a family friend. He is now convicted of second-degree murder.
While Turcotte was not a famous athlete, he did enjoy significant prestige and from the outside, a most enviable lifestyle, with a house set in the Laurentians (high hills? low mountains?) north of Montréal. Many feel he enjoyed protection due to his position that an "ordinary" person would not have benefited from.
I was surprised to learn that in South Africa, it's against the law to shoot an intruder if your life is not in danger. That's not the case in some places here, such as Florida.
I suspect that that's the exception rather than the rule. Certainly, here in the UK, the law on self-defence requires proportionality to the threat: the circumstances would have to justify fear for your life (assuming you had a gun in the first place), and the simple fact of there being an intruder wouldn't of itself count as such (since few if any intruders would be likely to have a gun either).
That maybe so Patrick. Shooting someone in self defense is a HUGE risk. That is why I can tell you without a doubt, that many "self-defense" shootings by home owners have resulted in the intruder being shot dead - then a knife place firmly in his hand or nearby with his prints all over it. Scary stuff. One thing you will go to jail for is shooting an intruder in the back....even backside. That means he was going not coming towards you. All these technicalities are all well and good but imagine being woken from a dead sleep with someone hovering over you. You are in a tate of semi-conciousness and reach for your weapon of choice. You shoot, or bash him over the head, or both. He is un-armed, just intruding and stealing your stuff. How the hell do you know? You certainly don't stop to ask him "Excuse me Mr. Burglar...are you armed and about to attack me fatally?" So, in essence the law is on the side of the thief. Buggar!
NYC girl, that is the notorious "stand your ground" rule?
Indeed. The law removes the duty to retreat and is not limited to defending your property (home, office, etc.). Basically, if someone starts giving you grief while you’re having drinks at the bar and you believe he wants to fight you, you have the right to shoot him dead.
All these technicalities are all well and good but imagine being woken from a dead sleep with someone hovering over you. You are in a tate of semi-conciousness and reach for your weapon of choice. You shoot, or bash him over the head, or both. He is un-armed, just intruding and stealing your stuff. How the hell do you know? You certainly don't stop to ask him "Excuse me Mr. Burglar...are you armed and about to attack me fatally?" So, in essence the law is on the side of the thief. Buggar!
That was argued here in a particularly controversial case, though in the end it turned out that the forensics showed the householder had shot the intruder in the back when he was already down on the ground. What had made that case controversial was that the man in question was an elderly smallholder who lived alone out in the country and had had repeated burglaries: in the end it turned to a debate on how the circumstances had affected his mental state and whether that was a mitigating factor in sentencing.
It all turns on whether you can convince a jury that your reaction was a reasonable response to the circumstances, and you can't legislate for every possible variation. Equally it's hardly reasonable to say anyone can do anything they like to an uninvited intruder. So it has to fall back to some concept of proportionality.
Just so Patrick. Concerning the poor man's mental state - I would say he had had enough and wanted to put and end to the repeated burglaries. I would argue that the man had time to put alarm systems or more window and door protection but failed to do so by the sounds of things. We are in the process of updating all our alarm systems at home. Several movement alarms have had the plastic casing bullied by the hot sun. The second set of movement 'eyes' have also weathered in some instances. Besides these two systems we have armed response units, police and fire brigade emergency buttons placed in most rooms. The new addition to our protection will be more high powered floodlights. We have only two at the moment. As long as we stay inside and press a 'panic button' when outside alarms are triggered - we should be OK.
Perhaps the elderly smallholder couldn't afford to upgrade his alarm systems? Not only affluent people get burgled. A downstairs neighbour of mine was burgled; she was on an OAP and Guaranteed Income Supplement (for poor elderly people with no or inadequate pension benefits or personal savings/assets). Fortunately she wasn't at home.
Oh absolutely Lagatta. And that is a fact of burglaries here especially on farms where they rely on dear old 'Gunner' to guard the fort. When he has succombed to a bit of poison meat there is no more defense. I would emplore younger people with elderly parents to make sure their parents are properly protected, and even then, expect the worse. Then again some should not be living alone and I will tell you now that my mother kept refusing to move and I cannot explain the grief it caused her and us. Even given all the tools - they have very faint memories when it comes to routine protection.
Well, while we have other problems, I don't live in a country with a high rate of violent crime. Most murders and such here are either between people in criminal gangs such as drug dealers or the alas far too universal "conjugal" or "family violence. There have been a few home invasions but they are rare; most burglaries occur when the occupants are away at work.
The exception, of course, is our local Third World, the Indigenous peoples.
Criminals also attack people in their own communities, their own town or village or township or a neighbouring one. I'm more familiar with the situation in high-violent-crime rate places closer by in the Americas, when people here have sent money to a relative in Salvador or Haiti so he or she could improve their dwelling a bit and this attracted the local thieves.