I am currently a Sergeant for the Doral Police Department and as much as have followed the case the evidence does not add up. Oscar Victorious contends he shot at the enclosed toilet in which his girlfriend Reeve was hiding because she believed an intruder was in the house. The Prosecutors accuse and find the defendant was shooting at his girlfriend since Reeve had screamed and asked her to get out of her home Oscar Victorious has wept in court, however has changed his stories in several occasions and made several mistakes and contradicted himself and expressed Uncertainty.
At times his memory seems very sharp, however when he explains his decisions to fire four shots through the toilet killing Reeve. He insists he did not have time to think. He seems the action was involuntarily and accidental. In my professional law enforcement opinion Mr.. Victorious has created such confecting information that it appears he has abandoned his original claim that he acted in self-defense, hence claiming that the action of shooting was accidental and involuntary. South African laws state that a self-defense argument would consist of Victorious intended to shoot the intruder in fear for his life which would be deemed reasonable.
An example of such can be defined as per Defense: Unlawfulness 33. 1. 2 an example of such can be described as follows: The defense must be directed against the attacker; Necessary to avert the attack; and A reasonable response to the attack. Example Case 1 In R v Quizzical, [142] where the accused stabbed and killed the deceased in a crowded beer hall, he claimed that the deceased had attacked him with a knife, and that he was acting in self-defense. He was convicted of murder; he appealed. The Appellate Division held,
The evidence is that the hall was packed and that movement therein was difficult. But the observation places a risk upon the appellant that he was not obliged to bear. He was not called upon to stake his life upon “a reasonable chance to get away”. If he had done so he may well have figured as the deceased at the trial, instead of as the accused person. Moreover, one must not impute to a person who suddenly becomes the object of a murderous attack that mental calm and ability to reason out ex post facto ways of avoiding the assault without having recourse to violence. 143] No-one, then, is obliged to flee if flight does not offer a safe avenue of escape: for example, if it would merely expose one to a stab in the back. In such circumstances a person is entitled to stand his ground and defend himself. Gladiola’s conviction was overturned. Example Case 2 The test for private defense is an objective one. If X thinks that he is in danger, but in fact is not, or if he thinks that someone is unlawfully attacking him, but in fact the attack is lawful, his defensive measures do not constitute private defense.
Where an accused is charged with murder, the court held in S v but he s convicted of culpable homicide for exceeding the bounds of reasonable self- defense, an assault will have been involved if it is found that the accused realized that he was applying more force than was necessary. If the accused believes, erroneously but honestly, that his person or property is in danger, his conduct in defense of it is not private defense. His mistake, however, may remove the element of intention.
Example Case 3 The accused in S v De Oliver, [146] who lived in a secure and burglar-proofed house in a dangerous area, was awoken one afternoon by the presence of several en outside the house on his driveway. He picked up his pistol, opened window and fired six shots. Two of them hit the men, one killing and the other injuring. There was no indication that an attack on the house was imminent. The accused failed to testify; his defense of putative private defense failed.
He was convicted of murder and of two counts of attempted murder. The case has been very intriguing to me due to the fact that the prosecutors have told Mr.. Victorious he has changed his defense from Putative self-defense to involuntary action. The prosecutors have advised him he can only have one defense not two. Victorious states he did not intend to fire but he fired, He states he never intended to kill someone, however never gave any warning shots. He has also claimed he fired at the toilet door by accident.
None of the stories in my personal opinion add up and as a prosecutor, judge or juror without a reasonable account Mr.. Victorious stories are very different for example: Involuntary action is a rare defense involving action taken UN consciously for example: A person who suffers from sleep walking or an epileptic attach can be considered Involuntary action, However this was not the case of the defendant. During his testimony he also claims that is was an accident.
This is a vastly different claim and a claim of accident amounts to a claim of involuntariness as per my research by Professor James Warrant of Watersides University who commented this on his legal website on Sunday April 13, 2014. If Victorious argued that he mistakenly believed he had a right it shoot and Kill, this would be a valid defense, “But in his testimony he seems to change his defense, and the discharge of the fire arm was accident (an accident 4 times) 4 shots were fired. It is my personal opinion his conduct was not under the control of his mind.
This was also confirmed by Professor Grant as well and is conclusive to my opinion of this case. Professor grant also indicated this case will be very hard to prove innocent since the involuntary defense is difficult to pursue: The court systems in South Africa presume that ordinary conduct is voluntary. “If you have done something wrong you need to lay the basis for a claim to have done so involuntarily/’ Professor Grant quoted Victorious has no basis for such a claim. The actions of Mr.. Victorious will be ruled by a judicial system and a judge. The actions he has shown to do constitute his actions.
Many in Law Enforcement would seem to differ in my opinion, however we are yet to see until the court has ruled and the jurors and judicial system had made their decision. I take comfort in knowing the difference between accidental and Self Defense and Putative Self-defense. And look forward to continuing the trial and seeing if justice will prevail.
