es geht vermutlich um dieses Text hier:
Pistorius has always argued Putative Private Defence. In layman's terms this means 'I genuinely but mistakenly believed I was acting in self-defence'. Describing the killing as 'AN accident' is not necessarily incongruous with this. In other words, I killed Reeva by accident/mistake.
If he says 'I pulled the trigger by accident' this is a different defence - the defence of Automatism or Involuntary Conduct. The legal definition of voluntary conduct is that the accused's conduct was governed by his conscious freewill. Where his conduct is not controlled by his conscious mind, the conduct will be involuntary and the accused will be acquitted. If he says 'I pulled the trigger
by accident' then the conduct was not voluntary as his mind was not applied to it, eg, my finger slipped and the gun went off.
Pistorius is skating very close to the line but in my opinion has not quite crossed it yet. He said 'it was an accident', which as I explained above can still be read in line with the putative defence. No doubt Nel will return to this and try push him further. http://cnnworldlive.cnn.com/Event/Oscar_Pistorius_trial_4?hpt=hp_c2
Kelly Phelbs ist keine Journalistin ;) http://www.publiclaw.uct.ac.za/staff/kphelps/