Hab die SUCHE betätigt und festgestellt, dass KlaraFall diesen oder einen ähnlichen Link bereits gepostet hat, finde es aber aufgrund der Vergleichsfälle inkl. Urteil nach SA-Recht und weil hier ja doch vieles untergeht aufgrund der Anzahl der vielen Posts, so wichtig, dass ich ein paar Zitate aus dem Artikel nochmal einfüge:
“On the particular facts of this case (the Pistorius case) putative private self-defence has never been successful in a South African court where the accused fired through a closed door thinking his life was in danger. In this case the door was locked, so the intruder would have had to break down the door to enter the house.
“Subjectively he could have foreseen that his life was in danger, but that is not the test. The test is, if that subjective belief was objectively reasonable and if he could have taken other preventative steps.
“The law is quite clear. If you can escape the imminent danger without putting your life in danger you have to do it. If you kill a person it must be in such severe circumstances that there’s virtually no other way open to protect your life.”
Und die Vergleichsfälle inkl. jeweiligem URTEIL:
"
Case 1:
A case often quoted is that of Antonio De Oliveira, who fired six shots through an open window, killing an employee, because he feared his life or property was in danger.
The Supreme Court of Appeal confirmed his murder conviction because there was no indication that any attack on his house was imminent and the reasonable man would not have believed he was entitled to fire at the persons outside his house.
De Oliveira never took the stand to testify about his state of mind at the time.
Case 2:
A Cape Town man, Ebrahim Sataardien, was in 1998 acquitted on a murder charge after shooting an unarmed man who attacked him and accused him of being a gangster, thinking his life was in danger. The court found he had honestly believed his life was in danger and did not have the intention to kill.
Case 3:
In S v Dougherty the accused, a 63-year-old man of Randburg, was initially convicted of murder after firing a volley of shots at two unarmed men who had attacked his friends in an apparent robbery. He claimed he had feared for his life. His conviction was overturned on appeal in 2002 and changed to one of culpable homicide.
Case 4:
A Cape Town man, Harry Joshua, went in search of the men who had earlier attacked and robbed his wife at their home and then shot dead four men believing he was in danger of being attacked. He was convicted of murder but the Appeal Court in 2002 acquitted him on one of the charges and changed two of his murder convictions to culpable homicide because his erroneous belief that he was in danger excluded “dolus” (or evil intent).
Case 5:
A damages claim against a Cape Town man who shot dead a stranger he thought was tampering with his wife’s car because he erroneously thought the man was about to attack him was dismissed in the Cape High Court in 2008. The court found that he had not acted unreasonably because he subjectively believed his life was in danger, even though his victim only had a bunch of keys in his hand.
".
http://citizen.co.za/129328/reasonable-reaction/ (Archiv-Version vom 30.03.2014)
CosmicQueen schrieb:Immerhin schreit ja Reeva laut Zeugen ca. 10 Minuten lang, da dafür muss es doch Gründe
