Ha, no I just don't get drawn into a media witch hunt. Many people will use the old line "innocent until proven guilty" but few will actually abide by it, instead they will want to run along with the story of a barbaric maniac who brutally guns down his beautiful girlfriend that the media feeds everyone. Then when the judge gives a decision on the case, let's not forget someone who has heard every piece of evidence (I will safely say no one on here has) and someone who knows SA law (I would say very few if any on here do not), people on here will come out with things like "what a joke", "disgrace", "he is definitely guilty of murder".
Having listened to what the judge is saying, it seems reasonable to me: 1. Premeditated? They could not prove he was lying about knowing she was in there. 2. Was it murder? I can understand what the judge is saying, that shooting at someone through a door. Could anyone know for definite that the person behind that door would be killed? No is the answer. 3. From the sounds of it he will be convicted of manslaughter, because he knew that by firing the gun, there was a good chance the person would be hit and possibly killed.
Now I'm willing to listen to a lawer who is expert in SA law and tell me I'm talking nonsense and the judge is completely wrong and using very weak case law, until then, "innocent until proven guilty".
I know that if I thought heard someone in my property in the middle of the night the first thing I'd do is wake my girlfriend who is lying right next to me. Just saying.
Bloody right. I'd kick her out of bed to go and deal with them. "Go on love. Call me if you need any help."
Ha, no I just don't get drawn into a media witch hunt. Many people will use the old line "innocent until proven guilty" but few will actually abide by it, instead they will want to run along with the story of a barbaric maniac who brutally guns down his beautiful girlfriend that the media feeds everyone. Then when the judge gives a decision on the case, let's not forget someone who has heard every piece of evidence (I will safely say no one on here has) and someone who knows SA law (I would say very few if any on here do not), people on here will come out with things like "what a joke", "disgrace", "he is definitely guilty of murder".
Having listened to what the judge is saying, it seems reasonable to me: 1. Premeditated? They could not prove he was lying about knowing she was in there. 2. Was it murder? I can understand what the judge is saying, that shooting at someone through a door. Could anyone know for definite that the person behind that door would be killed? No is the answer. 3. From the sounds of it he will be convicted of manslaughter, because he knew that by firing the gun, there was a good chance the person would be hit and possibly killed.
Now I'm willing to listen to a lawer who is expert in SA law and tell me I'm talking nonsense and the judge is completely wrong and using very weak case law, until then, "innocent until proven guilty".
I have no idea how this has happened!! If I heard something in the house the first thing I'd do is make sure the wife/fiance/girlfriend was safe next to me, then get out and do what I had to. It's a cover up. Also, why did it need 4 shots all aimed towards the head, to warn someone off, and who was behind a locked door? One shot so they know you have a gun, then ring the police.
He'll get done for the next charge surely? He hasn't got a leg to stand on.
Pistorius's version(s) of events (whichever one he's currently relying on) are so far removed from reality that for the Judge to even entertain them, let alone allow the case to rely on them, is nothing short of absurd. Nothing he said makes any sense or provides any sort of reasonable explanation for the events of that fateful (and fatal) night.
Ha, no I just don't get drawn into a media witch hunt. Many people will use the old line "innocent until proven guilty" but few will actually abide by it, instead they will want to run along with the story of a barbaric maniac who brutally guns down his beautiful girlfriend that the media feeds everyone. Then when the judge gives a decision on the case, let's not forget someone who has heard every piece of evidence (I will safely say no one on here has) and someone who knows SA law (I would say very few if any on here do not), people on here will come out with things like "what a joke", "disgrace", "he is definitely guilty of murder".
Having listened to what the judge is saying, it seems reasonable to me: 1. Premeditated? They could not prove he was lying about knowing she was in there. 2. Was it murder? I can understand what the judge is saying, that shooting at someone through a door. Could anyone know for definite that the person behind that door would be killed? No is the answer. 3. From the sounds of it he will be convicted of manslaughter, because he knew that by firing the gun, there was a good chance the person would be hit and possibly killed.
Now I'm willing to listen to a lawer who is expert in SA law and tell me I'm talking nonsense and the judge is completely wrong and using very weak case law, until then, "innocent until proven guilty".
people have a very skewed view of the courts and their supposed role of being the hander-outer of "justice"
they are there to administer the law not "justice" and if a crime can't be legally proven then the court can't convict a person of that crime, however unjust that may seem
Ha, no I just don't get drawn into a media witch hunt. Many people will use the old line "innocent until proven guilty" but few will actually abide by it, instead they will want to run along with the story of a barbaric maniac who brutally guns down his beautiful girlfriend that the media feeds everyone. Then when the judge gives a decision on the case, let's not forget someone who has heard every piece of evidence (I will safely say no one on here has) and someone who knows SA law (I would say very few if any on here do not), people on here will come out with things like "what a joke", "disgrace", "he is definitely guilty of murder".
Having listened to what the judge is saying, it seems reasonable to me: 1. Premeditated? They could not prove he was lying about knowing she was in there. 2. Was it murder? I can understand what the judge is saying, that shooting at someone through a door. Could anyone know for definite that the person behind that door would be killed? No is the answer. 3. From the sounds of it he will be convicted of manslaughter, because he knew that by firing the gun, there was a good chance the person would be hit and possibly killed.
Now I'm willing to listen to a lawer who is expert in SA law and tell me I'm talking nonsense and the judge is completely wrong and using very weak case law, until then, "innocent until proven guilty".
According to the judge Pistorius fired 4 shots into the bathroom knowing that someone was in there, whether that be a potential burgler or his girlfriend.
Ha, no I just don't get drawn into a media witch hunt. Many people will use the old line "innocent until proven guilty" but few will actually abide by it, instead they will want to run along with the story of a barbaric maniac who brutally guns down his beautiful girlfriend that the media feeds everyone. Then when the judge gives a decision on the case, let's not forget someone who has heard every piece of evidence (I will safely say no one on here has) and someone who knows SA law (I would say very few if any on here do not), people on here will come out with things like "what a joke", "disgrace", "he is definitely guilty of murder".
Having listened to what the judge is saying, it seems reasonable to me: 1. Premeditated? They could not prove he was lying about knowing she was in there. 2. Was it murder? I can understand what the judge is saying, that shooting at someone through a door. Could anyone know for definite that the person behind that door would be killed? No is the answer. 3. From the sounds of it he will be convicted of manslaughter, because he knew that by firing the gun, there was a good chance the person would be hit and possibly killed.
Now I'm willing to listen to a lawer who is expert in SA law and tell me I'm talking nonsense and the judge is completely wrong and using very weak case law, until then, "innocent until proven guilty".
Ha, no I just don't get drawn into a media witch hunt. Many people will use the old line "innocent until proven guilty" but few will actually abide by it, instead they will want to run along with the story of a barbaric maniac who brutally guns down his beautiful girlfriend that the media feeds everyone. Then when the judge gives a decision on the case, let's not forget someone who has heard every piece of evidence (I will safely say no one on here has) and someone who knows SA law (I would say very few if any on here do not), people on here will come out with things like "what a joke", "disgrace", "he is definitely guilty of murder".
Having listened to what the judge is saying, it seems reasonable to me: 1. Premeditated? They could not prove he was lying about knowing she was in there. 2. Was it murder? I can understand what the judge is saying, that shooting at someone through a door. Could anyone know for definite that the person behind that door would be killed? No is the answer. 3. From the sounds of it he will be convicted of manslaughter, because he knew that by firing the gun, there was a good chance the person would be hit and possibly killed.
Now I'm willing to listen to a lawer who is expert in SA law and tell me I'm talking nonsense and the judge is completely wrong and using very weak case law, until then, "innocent until proven guilty".
All valid points, I just have 1 question...
Is Col short for Colin?
It's not, close though.
Collette? You're points are valid but in your heart do you believe he didn't know his girlfriend was in there?
Ha, no I just don't get drawn into a media witch hunt. Many people will use the old line "innocent until proven guilty" but few will actually abide by it, instead they will want to run along with the story of a barbaric maniac who brutally guns down his beautiful girlfriend that the media feeds everyone. Then when the judge gives a decision on the case, let's not forget someone who has heard every piece of evidence (I will safely say no one on here has) and someone who knows SA law (I would say very few if any on here do not), people on here will come out with things like "what a joke", "disgrace", "he is definitely guilty of murder".
Having listened to what the judge is saying, it seems reasonable to me: 1. Premeditated? They could not prove he was lying about knowing she was in there. 2. Was it murder? I can understand what the judge is saying, that shooting at someone through a door. Could anyone know for definite that the person behind that door would be killed? No is the answer. 3. From the sounds of it he will be convicted of manslaughter, because he knew that by firing the gun, there was a good chance the person would be hit and possibly killed.
Now I'm willing to listen to a lawer who is expert in SA law and tell me I'm talking nonsense and the judge is completely wrong and using very weak case law, until then, "innocent until proven guilty".
According to the judge Pistorius fired 4 shots into the bathroom knowing that someone was in there, whether that be a potential burgler or his girlfriend.
How is that not murder?
You need to understand the definition of murder:
"Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this premeditated state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter)."
Ha, no I just don't get drawn into a media witch hunt. Many people will use the old line "innocent until proven guilty" but few will actually abide by it, instead they will want to run along with the story of a barbaric maniac who brutally guns down his beautiful girlfriend that the media feeds everyone. Then when the judge gives a decision on the case, let's not forget someone who has heard every piece of evidence (I will safely say no one on here has) and someone who knows SA law (I would say very few if any on here do not), people on here will come out with things like "what a joke", "disgrace", "he is definitely guilty of murder".
Having listened to what the judge is saying, it seems reasonable to me: 1. Premeditated? They could not prove he was lying about knowing she was in there. 2. Was it murder? I can understand what the judge is saying, that shooting at someone through a door. Could anyone know for definite that the person behind that door would be killed? No is the answer. 3. From the sounds of it he will be convicted of manslaughter, because he knew that by firing the gun, there was a good chance the person would be hit and possibly killed.
Now I'm willing to listen to a lawer who is expert in SA law and tell me I'm talking nonsense and the judge is completely wrong and using very weak case law, until then, "innocent until proven guilty".
According to the judge Pistorius fired 4 shots into the bathroom knowing that someone was in there, whether that be a potential burgler or his girlfriend.
How is that not murder?
Seems I misunderstood, I hold my hands up I have not passed the bar exam in South Africa. This is from the Independent:
According to South African law, intent in the form of dolus eventualis means it is enough to find someone guilty of murder if the perpetrator objectively foresees the possibility of his or her act causing death and persists regardless of the consequences.
In Pistorius’s case, it would seem that dolus eventualis murder would apply if he had fired four shots into a cubicle that he had known was occupied, aware his actions would kill, regardless of who he thought was in there.
But it is more complicated than that, since Oscar Pistorius was initially put on trial specifically for the murder of Reeva Steenkamp.
If the judge accepts that he thought Reeva Steenkamp was in the bedroom at the point when he shot each bullet - then he could not possibly have foreseen that firing his gun through the door could have killed her.
According to the judge Pistorius fired 4 shots into the bathroom knowing that someone was in there, whether that be a potential burgler or his girlfriend.
How is that not murder?
Exactly! Even if the Judge accepts Pistorius's own version of events, how can anyone possibly contend that firing 4 shots at short range from a powerful handgun, at head and chest height, would expect anything other than to kill whoever was on the other side of the door?
Ha, no I just don't get drawn into a media witch hunt. Many people will use the old line "innocent until proven guilty" but few will actually abide by it, instead they will want to run along with the story of a barbaric maniac who brutally guns down his beautiful girlfriend that the media feeds everyone. Then when the judge gives a decision on the case, let's not forget someone who has heard every piece of evidence (I will safely say no one on here has) and someone who knows SA law (I would say very few if any on here do not), people on here will come out with things like "what a joke", "disgrace", "he is definitely guilty of murder".
Having listened to what the judge is saying, it seems reasonable to me: 1. Premeditated? They could not prove he was lying about knowing she was in there. 2. Was it murder? I can understand what the judge is saying, that shooting at someone through a door. Could anyone know for definite that the person behind that door would be killed? No is the answer. 3. From the sounds of it he will be convicted of manslaughter, because he knew that by firing the gun, there was a good chance the person would be hit and possibly killed.
Now I'm willing to listen to a lawer who is expert in SA law and tell me I'm talking nonsense and the judge is completely wrong and using very weak case law, until then, "innocent until proven guilty".
According to the judge Pistorius fired 4 shots into the bathroom knowing that someone was in there, whether that be a potential burgler or his girlfriend.
How is that not murder?
Seems I misunderstood, I hold my hands up I have not passed the bar exam in South Africa. This is from the Independent:
According to South African law, intent in the form of dolus eventualis means it is enough to find someone guilty of murder if the perpetrator objectively foresees the possibility of his or her act causing death and persists regardless of the consequences.
In Pistorius’s case, it would seem that dolus eventualis murder would apply if he had fired four shots into a cubicle that he had known was occupied, aware his actions would kill, regardless of who he thought was in there.
But it is more complicated than that, since Oscar Pistorius was initially put on trial specifically for the murder of Reeva Steenkamp.
If the judge accepts that he thought Reeva Steenkamp was in the bedroom at the point when he shot each bullet - then he could not possibly have foreseen that firing his gun through the door could have killed her.
Looking forward to the outrage this provokes.
So basically escapes murder on a technicality because he thought he was murdering a different person? Brilliant.
This differs slightly from what the Independent is saying but the BBC says that common-law murder means "Unlawfully intended to kill in the heat of the moment but without "malice aforethought". Either: Shot door intending to kill, or knew someone might be killed and still fired gun". This does not appear to rule out murder because the person on the other side of the door was not the person you thought you were killing.
Generally speaking when firing 4 shots through a locked door, you arent intending to tiggle that person with the bullets, you are planning on killing them. There is where the technicalities of law are beyond me I'm afraid
But it then comes down to murder v manslaughter. Surely if you were going to murder someone you'd want to shoot them as close as possible and with no obstruction i.e. with no door in the way. By having that door in the way it obstructs the target meaning you could not know for definite that you would (again that important word) kill the person behind the door.
On the other hand, shooting at someone through a door, there is a good chance you might (that is the distinction) hit and injure or kill the person behind the door, leads to manslaughter.
But it then comes down to murder v manslaughter. Surely if you were going to murder someone you'd want to shoot them as close as possible and with no obstruction i.e. with no door in the way. By having that door in the way it obstructs the target meaning you could not know for definite that you would (again that important word) kill the person behind the door.
On the other hand, shooting at someone through a door, there is a good chance you might (that is the distinction) hit and injure or kill the person behind the door, leads to manslaughter.
The thing is he wanted to murder who ever was in the toilet door or no door!! I know that in SA it is very common to have your house burgled during the night
But it then comes down to murder v manslaughter. Surely if you were going to murder someone you'd want to shoot them as close as possible and with no obstruction i.e. with no door in the way. By having that door in the way it obstructs the target meaning you could not know for definite that you would (again that important word) kill the person behind the door.
On the other hand, shooting at someone through a door, there is a good chance you might (that is the distinction) hit and injure or kill the person behind the door, leads to manslaughter.
So if you closed your eyes while holding a knife and preceded to make stabbing actions with it towards what you believe could be an intruder you can get away with not murdering them cos you can’t see them.
And that is where the intricacies of law can drive you mad. The likes or would and might that make the difference between murder and manslaughter. What I dont get is that people have been found guilty of murder for punching someone who then fell and hit their head on a curb and later died of their injuries. Surely the intention there was to hit the person. You would have no means of knowing that person would then fall and hit their head. That is full of mights, coulds and ifs. It's very contradictory
But it then comes down to murder v manslaughter. Surely if you were going to murder someone you'd want to shoot them as close as possible and with no obstruction i.e. with no door in the way. By having that door in the way it obstructs the target meaning you could not know for definite that you would (again that important word) kill the person behind the door.
On the other hand, shooting at someone through a door, there is a good chance you might (that is the distinction) hit and injure or kill the person behind the door, leads to manslaughter.
So if you closed your eyes while holding a knife and preceded to make stabbing actions with it towards what you believe could be an intruder you can get away with not murdering them cos you can’t see them.
It would be pretty hard to convince a judge you had your eyes closed.
But it then comes down to murder v manslaughter. Surely if you were going to murder someone you'd want to shoot them as close as possible and with no obstruction i.e. with no door in the way. By having that door in the way it obstructs the target meaning you could not know for definite that you would (again that important word) kill the person behind the door.
On the other hand, shooting at someone through a door, there is a good chance you might (that is the distinction) hit and injure or kill the person behind the door, leads to manslaughter.
So if you closed your eyes while holding a knife and preceded to make stabbing actions with it towards what you believe could be an intruder you can get away with not murdering them cos you can’t see them.
It would be pretty hard to convince a judge you had your eyes closed.
You don't have to, they have to prove you had them open.
But it then comes down to murder v manslaughter. Surely if you were going to murder someone you'd want to shoot them as close as possible and with no obstruction i.e. with no door in the way. By having that door in the way it obstructs the target meaning you could not know for definite that you would (again that important word) kill the person behind the door.
On the other hand, shooting at someone through a door, there is a good chance you might (that is the distinction) hit and injure or kill the person behind the door, leads to manslaughter.
So if you closed your eyes while holding a knife and preceded to make stabbing actions with it towards what you believe could be an intruder you can get away with not murdering them cos you can’t see them.
It would be pretty hard to convince a judge you had your eyes closed.
maybe. but i guess no blind person in South Africa has ever been sentenced of murder.
Looks like a pretty wonky decision from where I'm sitting, especially considering the seemingly transparent bullshitting throughout his testimony, multiple examples of previous erratic behaviour and general character of an arrogant tosser.
But it then comes down to murder v manslaughter. Surely if you were going to murder someone you'd want to shoot them as close as possible and with no obstruction i.e. with no door in the way. By having that door in the way it obstructs the target meaning you could not know for definite that you would (again that important word) kill the person behind the door.
On the other hand, shooting at someone through a door, there is a good chance you might (that is the distinction) hit and injure or kill the person behind the door, leads to manslaughter.
So if you closed your eyes while holding a knife and preceded to make stabbing actions with it towards what you believe could be an intruder you can get away with not murdering them cos you can’t see them.
It would be pretty hard to convince a judge you had your eyes closed.
maybe. but i guess no blind person in South Africa has ever been sentenced of murder.
Comments
Having listened to what the judge is saying, it seems reasonable to me:
1. Premeditated? They could not prove he was lying about knowing she was in there.
2. Was it murder? I can understand what the judge is saying, that shooting at someone through a door. Could anyone know for definite that the person behind that door would be killed? No is the answer.
3. From the sounds of it he will be convicted of manslaughter, because he knew that by firing the gun, there was a good chance the person would be hit and possibly killed.
Now I'm willing to listen to a lawer who is expert in SA law and tell me I'm talking nonsense and the judge is completely wrong and using very weak case law, until then, "innocent until proven guilty".
Is Col short for Colin?
He'll get done for the next charge surely? He hasn't got a leg to stand on.
Aw, bless him, diddums.
Jesus wept.
people have a very skewed view of the courts and their supposed role of being the hander-outer of "justice"
they are there to administer the law not "justice" and if a crime can't be legally proven then the court can't convict a person of that crime, however unjust that may seem
How is that not murder?
"Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this premeditated state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter)."
According to South African law, intent in the form of dolus eventualis means it is enough to find someone guilty of murder if the perpetrator objectively foresees the possibility of his or her act causing death and persists regardless of the consequences.
In Pistorius’s case, it would seem that dolus eventualis murder would apply if he had fired four shots into a cubicle that he had known was occupied, aware his actions would kill, regardless of who he thought was in there.
But it is more complicated than that, since Oscar Pistorius was initially put on trial specifically for the murder of Reeva Steenkamp.
If the judge accepts that he thought Reeva Steenkamp was in the bedroom at the point when he shot each bullet - then he could not possibly have foreseen that firing his gun through the door could have killed her.
Looking forward to the outrage this provokes.
Rile them up a bit so they'll definitely try to hurt you rather than maybe try to hurt you?
On the other hand, shooting at someone through a door, there is a good chance you might (that is the distinction) hit and injure or kill the person behind the door, leads to manslaughter.
I'm not a judge though so what would I know.