+29

Actually before thinking about competency, does the decision to acquit the guy from intentionally targeting the victim in her identity sounds like a decision one could make in good faith? If not, then regardless of how much an acquittal cannot be challenged, that would not apply here. That is because the rule, like any other rule, is about really doing the task and doing it with bias does not count as such. It does not count as real work just like kidding does not count as real.

+28

If there is something that is going to be presented to the court of appeal there, it should at least contain a challenge to the competency of the lower court because of how its acquittal verdict clearly shows that. The court of appeal needs to be shown that. It also needs to be told even if we assume a reasonable layman may see reasonable doubt in the intentional killing of the victim targeting her in her identity, a professional in the field, especially a criminal court judge, would be prevented from such mistake by recognizing how taking reasonable doubt to this level would render the judicial system useless. Indeed, if the allegations of the defendant here can make a reasonable doubt that he shot that girl targeting her then close the courts and open ice cream shops instead. Why bother? How many of all cases that ended with conviction to a defendant on this whole planet were not open to doubts at this level?  

+27

I can hardly believe that the version involving the victim hiding herself behind the bathroom door was really the best theory the prosecutor could have come up with for the events of that night. Most probably it was the result of intentional disfigurement to provide a less reasonable argument for a better excuse for the judge. Nevertheless, the intentional shooting of the victim targeting her in her identity was very clearly beyond any need for knowledge at this level for the events of the murder night for any reasonable person to have no reasonable doubt against it.

I think they tried to divide (or lose) the responsibility of the murder level corruption there and the above was in the prosecutor's part. I also read, like in HERE, that the judge of the lower court had told the prosecutor that he can appeal the acquittal but not the sentencing.

While one maybe light years away from seeing what is going on there as a good faith process, I still wondered why would she choose to allow the most important thing for the defendant to be challenged? That continued until I read in the judgment of the supreme court of appeal there that acquittals can not be challenged. So apparently it was also part of the dividing the responsibility game.

Remember, unlike the Zimmerman's court here where all what they had to do is to corruptly select the jury, in a no jury system, judges, need much better excuses for their corruption. 

+26

He speaks about a "competent" court, which imply performing at an acceptable level compared to other courts, while at the same time ignores how much below the average layman was the performance of the lower court in its alleged inability to see that the guy shot dead that girl intentionally targeting her. Being competent is about performing at an acceptable intelligence level. The decision of the  lower court acquitting the guy from shooting dead that girl intentionally targeting her was more like failing at the basic cognition level of a normal person. If, for example, a person solves fast a third degree algebra equation people would ask him how could he see the answer this quickly. On the other hand, if a person cannot see, for example, in two men standing close to him that one is taller than the other, people would ask that person what is wrong with him. The behaviour of that court in its acquittal of that guy was much closer to the second than the first of those two examples.    

Even assuming that, for some reason, acquittal cannot be appealed that does not give the decision there an exemption from being scrutinized for competency at least like how any other thing the court may do can also be scrutinized for that competency. Things are scrutinized for competency because of what they could indicate about and their potential roles in making main final decisions like that. The connection of the acquittal decision is even stronger because it is itself a main final decision.

In summery, based on what the supreme court of appeal there itself said, it is wrong in deciding that the acquittal cannot be appealed at least for the reason mentioned above. The acquittal can be appealed through its being also an extremely clear competency issue. 

+25

What about the behavior of that Supreme Court of Appeal there and its being complicit and part of the game in not reversing the acquittal that the guy intentionally shot dead that girl targeting her? 

In the link mentioned in the preceding post the writer says:  

"... as was observed by Corbett CJ in Magmoed[8] „the traditional policy and practice of our law‟ is that an acquittal by a competent court in a criminal case is final and conclusive and may not be questioned in any subsequent proceeding." (page 13)

 

What point there is in the difference in treatment for the state challenging acquittal versus the state challenging conviction to turn it to a worse conviction for the defendant?

Anyway, he spoke about a "competent court". The judgment of the acquittal here itself shows how the trial court was far from being competent.      

+24

Read "[15]", "[16]" and "[17]" (starting from page 9), related to the allegations of the shooter, in the JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA . As if by itself the allegation of blindly assuming there is an existence of an intruder not the person home with you in a probable place like the toilet area was already not sufficiently unnatural, improbable and conflicting with itself.   

+23

I think that at least when the miscarriage of justice is this outrageously clear in a murder case people need to be more vocal in pointing out this clarity. The judge of the trial there should know that she is severely deluding herself if she thinks that she successfully created any amount of cloudiness against seeing the killing there as direct murder targeting that girl and that the judge gave that guy a free pass on that.With this clarity, I don't think I would have found it easy to stay silent if there is a question needs to be answered about the guy taking away the IPhone of that girl not to mention taking away her life.

I wonder if they understand the term "criminal courts" there to mean that those courts should be run by judges who are criminal.   

+22

Here is a very significant thing those courts there may not have expected or at least wished that the world would take into account.

When wrong verdicts are made by courts in here and other similar places they are generally jury made verdicts. But there not only sentencing comes from the judges, but also the verdict because there is no jury. This means that the trial judge there herself, not a bunch of laymen from different professions, saw a reasonable doubt in that the guy shot dead that girl intentionally targeting her. I was talking with ordinary people in my mind when I said that no reasonable person would see a reasonable doubt here until my perplexity jumped even much further when I remembered today that they do not use the jury system there.         

+21

The prosecutor there is saying that he will not appeal the new sentence. They probably think that they already had played enough of fake disagreement among the parts of the judicial systems there to deceive the world that there was true attempt to seek justice. They probably think that they played enough amount of spinning things among themselves in order to lose the facts and the case. 

They also probably thought the world would not notice the action of the murder corrupt courts after that passing of time.  

+20

What makes his allegation so specially outrageous is that unlike if he had gone out to buy dinner and forgot to account for the person home with him, here the issue of a person existing behind the toilet door is itself about additional existence to his own but still he supposedly missed to account for the existence of the other person home with him. 

And that goes on top of how he should have a desire to take account for the existence of the other person home with him in order to explain the noise he supposedly heard and caused him all that alleged fear.

+19

Also, he did not wonder why all the noises and sounds did not awake his girlfriend and make her come or talk to him.

He doesn't give any reason or provide a why explanation for the sudden sever state of fear that supposedly came to him and supposedly was the reason for his mind to fail in taking account for those things. 

Also, that state of fear supposedly led him to directly assume the existence of intruder instead of acting on the wish that there was no intruder and look for or at least ask the other person with him in the house "Is that you name" like people do in such situations. And he supposedly continued to miss doing that from the time he supposedly herd the noise to the time he recognized a person behind the bathroom door. 

Moreover, he says that he was too afraid to turn on the lights in the bedroom. But fear by itself, at least for a person at the fight stage as was his alleged situation in going after the noise he supposedly heard, should have instead made him want to turn on the lights unless some reasoning like avoiding getting  seen changed that aim. That shows him indirectly admitting to a level of self control far from fitting with a state of fear causing missing all what was mentioned in the preceding post and here.

  

+18

The allegation that someone recognizes somebody else in some area of his home, especially one needed and frequently accessed like the toilet area, but it does not occur to him that it could be the other person with him in that home, you need to search for a world in some far far galaxy to tell that to it but not this one.

And as if that is not enough, you have to add to it how he supposedly did not recognize that girl was not still in bed despite coming from that same bedroom. 

+17

Don't be misled by those murder level corrupt courts to lose focus from the much higher priority issue. If it were merely a question of the level of guilt in killing an intruder without knowing its identity or giving sufficient warnings, like if the shooter were alone in his home, I wouldn't have written anything of what I wrote about it.

+16

I don't care what the murder level corrupt courts there try to pretend. This has it written in the sky that he intentionally went after that girl to the toilet and shot her dead targeting her not any other person. No reasonable person can find any reasonable doubt in that. 

By the way, the new sentence came from the same judge who made the old conviction and sentence.

+15

The guy was bailed after conviction (POST +3)? Aside from other things, if they did not tolerate keeping him waiting in prison, how could one believe they were seriously sentencing him?

I wonder if this one or the Zimmerman's would win the worst fake court drama award?  

+14

So the guy whom it sounds like a joke to even suggest that he did not intentionally shoot and kill his girlfriend targeting her (THIS and the following nine posts) ended up not anywhere close to being really punished, again. Wow, you could have knocked me out with a feather because of the big surprise, right?