Shebeen Posted October 22, 2019 Share Agreed, but if the evidence isn't there, there is nothing that the judge can do.Eye witness surely good enough evidence? Agrees to plead guilty. Gets new lawyer and changes his tune? Utter bull$h1t https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/i-was-not-drunk-motorist-charged-with-killing-two-cyclists-20180115 https://m.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/he-lied-to-me-mother-of-durban-cyclist-killed-after-accused-changes-plea-20170915 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shebeen Posted October 22, 2019 Share https://www.iol.co.za/thepost/community-news/i-am-extremely-sorry-says-man-cleared-in-m4-cyclists-death-35275119 Judge Pillay said the magistrate’s court judgment was impugned mainly on the basis that the court rejected Ramnarain’s defence - that there was a reasonable possibility that immediately prior to the collision, a rock hit his windscreen, affecting his ability to see through it. I dunno. An Indian guy from Phoenix in his thirties driving his gti from a night club at 5am... There's a reasonable chance that he was hammered and driving fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schnavel Posted October 22, 2019 Share I dunno. An Indian guy from Phoenix in his thirties driving his gti from a night club at 5am... There's a reasonable chance that he was hammered and driving fast. While you are likely right, it sadly cannot be proved. *Edit: from what I understand, the police did such a poor job, alcohol levels etc. weren't checked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shebeen Posted October 22, 2019 Share While you are likely right, it sadly cannot be proved. *Edit: from what I understand, the police did such a poor job, alcohol levels etc. weren't checked.An eyewitness testified that he came speeding past him just before the accident. That is more proof than a convenient rock in the car. I don't buy his story one bit, neither should the judges. Making am example of the poor police work is not on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King_Crispy Posted October 22, 2019 Share Does the prosecutor have to win the case? Can the judge not use his own brain? I don't know how it works. This part gets to me. So all the criminals running around not prosecuted are because the judge says the police did not do a good enough job. It will be an almighty day when one of these crims gets a hold of one of these judges and their families and does a number on them.Like I said, our judicial system is in a proper toestand. It's broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamS2 Posted October 22, 2019 Share Does the prosecutor have to win the case? Can the judge not use his own brain? I don't know how it works. This part gets to me. So all the criminals running around not prosecuted are because the judge says the police did not do a good enough job. It will be an almighty day when one of these crims gets a hold of one of these judges and their families and does a number on them. The state prosecutor has to present a compelling case, and to do that he depends on the investigating officers to collect evidence correctly, and testify accordingly (along with expert witnesses). Neither of those things happened, so the state prosecutor has their hands tied. The judge can only make a decision based on the version presented by the state versus the version presented by the accused, both of which rely on the power of the evidence. In South Africa all it takes is a combination of a good lawyer and a lazy police officer, and you can get away with literally anything. I personally know of people who have gotten off very serious offences by simply being able to afford good lawyers. One of the cases involved 8 police officers as witnesses, and NOT A SINGLE ONE arrived in court to testify, so the case was dropped. Last I heard less than 2% of DUI cases in SA result in prosecution due to a) incorrect procedures when collecting evidence, and b) arresting officers not arriving at court to testify. It's nothing short of a bloody shambles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bergy Posted October 23, 2019 Share the defence attorny focuses primarily on his client,where as the state prosecutor probably has 100 cases to prosecute,and is overworked,so limited time,focus and resources per case,plus shoddy police work,it can only go one way,most of the good state prosecutors have left and become rich defence attorneys,they know exactly how to beat the system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shebeen Posted October 23, 2019 Share I can accept that. However can the judge not look at all the evidence from his/her point of view? I guess he/she only has the evidence provided by all involved. He needs to work with that?! Can the family of the deceased party then not sue the police for negligence? I mean the judge has admitted it himself that they were shoddy. Look the guilty party is free and that is undeniably tragic. But can you sue the police for not doing their job? or a civil case for damages against the driver (or is that the states I'm thinking about) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shebeen Posted October 23, 2019 Share https://salife.co.za/m4cyclists-families-have-their-say-in-court/ One of the decreased riders wife was also in the group. I'm inclined to believe her version. I know – I think everyone in this room and beyond knows – that Justice has only been partially served in the verdict you have been handed. I was there; I saw how drunk you were that morning. You were still drunk 2 hours and 20 minutes later, when you decided to get behind the wheel and drive recklessly in your state, you disregarded the lives of anyone else who might have crossed your path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shebeen Posted October 23, 2019 Share I can accept that. However can the judge not look at all the evidence from his/her point of view? I guess he/she only has the evidence provided by all involved. He needs to work with that?! Can the family of the deceased party then not sue the police for negligence? I mean the judge has admitted it himself that they were shoddy. Look the guilty party is free and that is undeniably tragic. But can you sue the police for not doing their job?Evidence:Eyewitnesses say he looked drunk and you could smell alcohol on his breath.He was taken to hospital, but they couldn't find a doctor to perform tests there. Doctor eventually takes sample at 7:40 am, 2:40 after the accident.Conclusion from doctor- man is still moderately drunk. *** Defendants story. I only had 4 ciders and was not drunk.Lawyer- blood test taken too late, and he was in shock so looked drunk. *** Would be interesting to see what the measured level was of the inadmissible test. You could surely use that to show that he lied about only having four drinks. In other news, story has traction on mybb thread, lots of focus on cyclists being on the freeway as the main issuehttps://mybroadband.co.za/forum/threads/drunk-drivers-slammed-after-two-cyclists-killed.798510/I wonder if life insurance pays out or uses this an excuse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.