+6

It is not even like the victim's exact position in the house was not known or that she went to some unexpected or less expected place like a basement or a different room. No, she moved from an exact spot that is the most adjacent to the spot of the defendant and went to the most commonly intended place, especially from the sleeping bed or when one was about to leave (The later is probably what was intended). The defendant (I still call him the defendant because he was not convicted with what involves intentionally targeting the victim with full recognition of her identity) supposedly missed both noticing her absence then her existence or take that into account. He supposedly failed to do both of those things despite how doing that was needed to see if there was a reason for the fear to begin with. He supposedly did not check to search for the answer if there was a valid reason for his fear by checking for the existence of the victim in her spot.Then instead of the failure to do so becoming a reason emphasising even more that he should think if there is a real reason for his fear when the fact of recognizing a person in the toilet area presented itself to him he supposedly also failed to take into account that it could be his girlfriend and ignored this second one. All this allegation of fear supposedly because of a window he heard being opened.

One should also not be confused with the use of the word "fear" here. The defendant stated, which seems to be intended to answer how could he missed noticing the absence of his girlfriend from the bed, that he was too afraid to turn on the lights. Even without the fact that, absent other alternatives like trying to physically reach her, turning on the lights to check for the existence of his girlfriend was needed to see if there is a reason for the fear, that does not sound like what fear would naturally makes someone do. It seems that one would be more inclined to turn on the lights to see what is around him because of that fear. Even horror movies sound much more terrifying in dark than in lighted environment. Instead, the defendant is actually informing us with that allegation of a level of control over his alleged fear that overcame the pull of the much more natural reaction. Yet, despite such control over his fear he supposedly failed to take into account when he recognized someone in the toilet area that it could be his girlfriend. 

+5

Who on earth would recognize that there is somebody in the toilet area then of the first things that comes to mind would not include the possibility that it could be the other occupant in the house and instead thinks it is an intruder? 

What sane person would be more inclined to explain that there is someone in the toilet area with the window he saw open instead of the other way around let alone ignoring that other explanation entirely? 

I could have a roommate or any other occupant with me in the house sign an agreement not to go there and still not be anywhere close to ignoring such possibility in general not to mention enough to fire four bullets through the door. He did not even claim that he called his girlfriend by name asking if she was the one in the toilet area before shooting. 

+4

The fake court proceedings that handled the case of Trayvon Martin here had to pretend honest jury selection. There, on the other hand, no jury needed even for cases like these and you get everything ready in the system.

The statement mentioned about the defendant having a genuine belief that his life was in danger, if was really stated by the higher court , which is a level I don't even know the lower court had reached beyond that of stating a doubt, was like the million ton object that fall on the back of a camel that needed at max a feather to be broken and crushed it like flour. Did the person who stated such claim of certainty really think he could eclipse facts like these because of his position as a judge?   

+3

Look at THIS.How often a bail is given after such conviction and for the price of an IPhone or two?

Also, some say that he was found guilty of murdering his girlfriend and that could be the definition of a misleading statement. No, he was found guilty of murdering a person who happened to be his girlfriend. He was not found guilty of intentionally murdering his girlfriend which the facts seems to be screaming for.

In addition, any doubt in the dishonesty and corruption of this higher court is greatly minimized with a statement like this if the site is correct:

"Leach said although Pistorius had genuine beliefs his life was in danger,.."

So, it was not even seen as being a reasonable doubt but, to this court, it appears to have some how jumped that stage to become an established fact.

Also, remember how the news were reporting that a murder conviction would mean a minimum of 15 years imprisonment according to the South African Law? Now, after that conviction, according to this article the "minimum" appears to have magically transformed into a "maximum" 

"His jail term hasn't been decided, but he faces up to 15 years in prison"

Again, the defense presented does not sound to me anywhere close to put a serious doubt or alter the view of this being a direct killing intended on the victim in her identity.

If you give a free pass on the taking of life what is left? In a just system this defendant probably would had been put to death some time ago.

+2

continuing from the post below

The ruling of the court came as if the facts of the case were that the defendant's girlfriend came through the window and entered the toilet area then the defendant came shooting through the toilet area door thinking that she was an intruder. That couldn't be further from the truth. 

Also, from the excerpts, the court appears to speak about the lack of sufficient existence of a threat or the perception of a threat by the defendant to his life. Actually, before that, he did not show how what happened would make a reasonable person suddenly changes to act as if there was really an intruder in his home to begin with. Whether this was not included in the threat talk or just a higher level of specificity it adds support for that it was an intentional killing targeting that girl. 

In addition, what the court noticed regarding not firing a warning shot, despite all the claims by the defendant that he kept shouting on the allegedly perceived intruder to exit his home, also supports the intentional targeting to that girl.

At least for the lower court, I think that it could be a sever understatement to say that I would be very surprised if it was honest and not corrupt in its ruling on the case.I cant see how any reasonable layman jury would see a reasonable doubt in that girl was intentionally targeted to be killed so how about a jury entirely comprised of judges (or professionals in the judiciary depending on the status of the two other assistants who made the ruling with the lower court judge)?    

+1

continuing from the post below:

THIS still sound like a joke because of how hard  it seems to see a reasonable doubt in the intentional killing of that girl which probably could provide a significantly tougher sentencing range. I wonder if errors in finding of facts at this level did not warrant correcting the lower court there what could? Instead of being made into an escape route, the reasoning of this court could have provided a little bit of fall back support even if we assume the defendant did not intend to kill his girlfriend despite the absence of a reasonable doubt.

 

Continuing from the post below

Notice, as bad choice as that would also be, this is not like the guy suddenly found the house on fire and he did not check on the other person before trying to deal with that fire. There checking on the other person is part of the solution while here it is also part of seeing the problem itself. That is because only if the noise came from someone else it would have been a problem.

The status of continued confidence or lack of suspicion in that his girlfriend did not leave the bed conflicts with the status of being surprised by the sound. As much as that alleged hearing of a sound was surprising as much as there was more reason to establish or eliminate the other person being its source by checking his existence in his place. The defendant's alleged behaviour seems far from being natural especially if turning the head toward the person would have sufficiently check the existence of that other person, let alone when one also walks all that distance near the bed from the balcony according to the defendant's allegation. And what called for such level of confidence that his girlfriend was still in the bed? It seems that there are reasons for her to be awakened starting from his move from the bed beside her then going to the balcony and doing all what he alleged doing. I don't think that I also need to point out how very often people go to the bathroom when their sleep gets interrupted.     

Continuing with the post below

It is not like there were 10 persons living in that house and he mistakenly accounted for only 9 of them or even two persons sleeping in separate rooms. It was two persons sleeping in the same bed of the same room.

In addition entering a house through a bathroom makes the intruder more susceptible to being surprised unlike entering it through other rooms where it is less probable for an unoccupied room to become suddenly occupied.

I was also thinking that bathroom windows are often not large enough for a convenient entry by a human like regular windows especially when they are for a separate area like the one for the toilet in the bathroom here . I searched a little bit and found as shown in the windows picture from outside HERE in addition to that, the bathroom windows were not even on the first floor. On the other hand it seems that there are windows that are easier for breaking in below.

Back to the issue of size, if we assume it is the other big one, why would an intruder choose to trap himself in the toilet area and close the door? 

Remember, all that in a house described in the caption below the picture in #5 HERE as being in a "gated community with high walls and 24-hour guards".   

Also, moving without the prosthetic legs fits better with expecting being the shooting attacker than the one being attacked or shot at. One could think that the first thing a person with such disability especially if it was also a reason behind his fear would try in such situation is to handle the issue of his mobility. Instead what we see here is sacrificing mobility in order to reach the target faster. In other words we see here sacrificing faster reaction later because of lower mobility capability for the sake of faster action at the beginning which fits less with expecting to be attacked by the target. On the other hand, it seems to fit much better with him trying to reach the victim, knowing it is his girlfriend, fast because of anger and/or intentionally trying to reach the victim while she is still in the toilet section of the bathroom.   

Also,why did not that sense of danger and urgency make the suspect try to awake his girlfriend fast by physically moving or shaking her? In addition to better preparation, she could in the mean time call for local security or the police and the like.  

Continuing with the post below

How could it be possible that he couldn't see it could be his girlfriend in that bathroom? It seems to come naturally that when you have someone else with you home his existence would be something you account for everywhere you go in that house and especially for a place like a bathroom. Are we talking about an adult here or someone acting like an infant enjoying watching a person appear and disappear from behind an object because it forgets about what it cant see even if it is still in the same place with it?

And assuming it did not occur to him that it could be his girlfriend from the onset, how is it possible that such possibility was not revived after firing the first shot and make him think what have I done before continuing to fire the rest of the bullets? That seems to make the continuing with the shooting like the starting of the shooting both fit good with trying to take advantage from the inability to see what is behind the door. In addition to that we should also assume that no sound came from the victim until he finished shooting. 

Look at the "INTERACTIVE" part HERE.What person having another person with him in the house, let alone someone like him living in a gated housing complex with security, hears a sound in the bathroom and not only the first thing but also the only thing that comes to his mind is that it must be an intruder (#2) not the other person with him in the house? Moreover, isn't the action of opining a window fits with that of bringing the two fans in that both related to the need for cooling? Notice also that it seems he had to pass on the bed while going to from #1 to fire on the bathroom?

Anyway, aside from all that, even if we assume that the intruder defence which seems to be like a joke is true a question still remains about endangering the society by a person who lacks the capability to make a correct judgment to this level. If you fail like this in making the correct judgment here how can you be trusted on the life of others with, for example, driving a car?  Shouldn't it be that the same lack of correct judgment that gave you an excuse here also take the same level of your rights like a normal person to be trusted on things that could affect the safety of other people? So even if we assume honest intention, imagine how much that claim could take from other rights? If you make judgments like this then is it safe for people to allow you to even just walk among them or neighbor them? 

  

    

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

That trial in South Africa, somebody shoots a girlfriend,  who was apparently spending the night with him, from behind the bathroom door claiming he thought she was an intruder, are you kidding me? From the beginning this claim sounded like a joke and one could have a hard time avoiding thoughts about a corrupt trial. Now, after a year in prison according to news reports, he was moved to continue his maximum five years sentence in a South African style of house arrest that makes one wonder about extending the privileges to conducting concert tours. This clearly strengthens the suspicion in the honesty of the trial of that claim. 

Is it possible that if I know more about the case like those dealing with  it I would change my view? I actually think about how if I know more details about that claim I could make a stronger argument. Still however the answer to that question is yes although from my position here I do not see a significant probability for that.

The level of shedding of blood and coming back with any week excuses to cover for it we see in the world these days seems to be making a joke of the concept of real self defense. 

In addition to having reasons for the war there are sometimes also significant reasons for a battle and this seemed to clearly apply on the attack of 9/11. From the beginning it could hardly be avoided that Bin Laden was trying to revenge the rocket attack on a factory that represented an important economic source to him by attacking an equivalent target using the air planes to simulate rockets. 

People need to realize more that what is required by a court facing the question of same sex marriage is to rule on the legal validity of the current government process called marriage in its exclusion for that. It is not its job to define or rule on the applicability of the definition of marriage on a same sex relation. In other words, it should be kept in mind that the job of that court is to update or change the government process called marriage to be legally valid. It is not the job of the court to keep or find a fit with what marriage really means. 

   

My talk in the two posts below about being in a trusted position could be very confusing because the situation vary depending on whether the trusted (the clerk in this case),assuming the religiously valid and invalid parts of the job cannot be religiously accepted as inseparable into two jobs, has the choice not to be in that position or not. In both cases justice simply requires giving that legal marriage right thing to its owners even if we assume there is no religiously valid use for it. The difference is that if the clerk believes giving that right by choice is religiously wrong and the condition above apply positively on him then that wrong will be in accepting being in such position without justification while the giving of that right to its owners which causes that wrong will continue to be not only valid but religiously required. 

What is the job requirement of the clerks who issue the marriage licences regarding application of the law and the legal system? Is it to apply the law as they believe it should be or is it to apply the law as it is? Because if it is the later then even if that same sex legal marriage recognition is as wrong as describing a dinosaur as a cat, those who apply for such license have the right for it to be acknowledge as existing in the legal system as it is.     

Continuing with the post below.

An example that is closer to the role of a clerk who register marriages is if one imagine himself being trusted on a storage area were various people store things belonging to them. If the duty of that job is to give back each thing to its owner when he comes asking for it and write that down, would religion requires the person holding that job to allow only those with items that have use that is valid religiously to get their things back? 

I spoke earlier in a different blog of mine about the issue of religion and the registration of marriage for same sex couples by the clerks.

My point there was to point out that one may need to consider the rights such legal recognition, and you can replace the word "marriage" with any other word if it confuses you, gives before stating that it is against his/her religion. Because if there is a reasonably religiously acceptable use for it would it still be your responsibility if it used otherwise? 

After writing that I noticed even if we assume that there is no reasonably religiously acceptable use for that legal recognition from the point of registering the marriage for a same sex couple that may still not answer negatively that doing that as part of a job of issuing marriage licences generally would be in violation of religion. 

To explain that let me take the issue of alcohol in Islam as an example. To my best understanding about following Islam, despite how alcohol is forbidden I cannot sell it but I can sell grape to a person even if I know that he will be using it to make alcohol. 

This later possibility is related to the first argument here. 

But what if instead of those two possibilities somebody calls me to be a witness to a fact which I know being true regarding how an amount of alcohol belongs to him? Assuming no hardship in that, if I want to restrict myself with Islam should I accept or refuse?Which issue takes precedence in this case, that I should not help someone in drinking alcohol or that I should be just and a witness for the truth? 

If you answer that like me with the later option then one may follow that by this question which I recently noticed. Does that apply only to being a witness to the truth or this in itself is a special case of giving what you were trusted on to whom they belong? If so, even assuming there is no religiously valid use from the point of registering legal marriage for same sex couples for that recognition, still couldn't that action be considered giving back a right upon which you were trusted from your position as a general marriage registration clerk and therefore religiously valid?  

For the use of the expression "say it as he/she sees it" I want to point out the importance of recognizing the difference between when saying something is called for by true conviction and trying to work through and abide the self by the facts from when it comes from mere whims and psychological motivation. 

Also about the new health care law, despite all the TV commercials about the "Open Enrollment Period" I just knew a moment ago that, except for some special reasons, if you don't obtain insurance during that period you cannot obtain one until the next "Open Enrollment Period", even if you just want that insurance for your own use and don't care about it being recognized by the government and don't mind paying the penalty fee. I am not going to argue about the validity of such law here. I just want to ask what kind of monkey run show would convey the meaning of "Open Enrollment Period" the way it was conveyed and without emphasizing the fact I mentioned above?  And why call it "Open Enrollment Period"? Why not calling it Permitted Enrollment Period or even better Permitted Health Insurance Acquiring Period? The difference of the use of the word "open" from the word "permitted" here is that the later restrict understanding to yes for enrollment during the period which suggests no for outside the period without confusing the meaning because of varying level of openness. Actually, since you not only will be unable to obtain insurance later but you also have to pay a penalty for not having insurance, it could have also better called Mandatory Enrollment Period.   

If this country is being run by those acting like monkeys, it could still be because of the corruption. Anyway, yesterday I tried to apply for health insurance through the government website. One of the questions I was asked because I am a naturalized citizen is to provide a number for a certificate of naturalization or something of that sort. I have been a citizen since 2000 or around that, and was never asked or know or seen any question for that number anytime anywhere. Although I never voted, I doubt very much that I would have needed it to do that. It was probably on a paper I received 15 years ago in the naturalization ceremony and nobody even told me that I may need it. It was not in use until the government suddenly decided to resurrect it from a paper that could be misplaced a long time ago.