Surely his career is over? Will he be fit enough to compete when he is eventually allowed to? If taking drugs can get you banned for life, then surely killing someone is at least as bad as that?
The drugs thing is because they are designed to improve performance (ie cheating ) and I'm not sure commiting manslaughter does that.
5 years. Doesn't seem enough if you don't agree with the verdict but then for most of us that comes down to emotion, supposition and guess work, not facts. life and legality is complicated and imperfect and always will be.
It seemed strange to me, that the judge was reading out her own notes for the judgement and yet she seemed to stumble over many of the words as if she was reading someone else's statement. Am I just being suspicious or is there more to this than meets the eye?
It seemed strange to me, that the judge was reading out her own notes for the judgement and yet she seemed to stumble over many of the words as if she was reading someone else's statement. Am I just being suspicious or is there more to this than meets the eye?
It seemed strange to me, that the judge was reading out her own notes for the judgement and yet she seemed to stumble over many of the words as if she was reading someone else's statement. Am I just being suspicious or is there more to this than meets the eye?
Don't think there is any more than a judge been given the single biggest/highest profile case for many many years in South Africa and knowing the whole world will be listening/judging her verdict. She's come under stick during the case (mostly from people who have no knowledge of South African law, if any at all) and can be pretty sure she'll take a lot of flack for the verdict (and would have regardless of her decision.) Judges have to be able to handle a lot of pressure/stress but I doubt many will have had anything quite like this before.
How could he possibly know that shooting 4 bullets into a small room could kill someone.
THat's exactly what he was found guilty of, what's your point?
Lol. Looks like the sarcasm police are out in force.
Not sarcasm, I just don't see what point you are trying to make.
You will have to forgive me. I binned my law degree in the 1st year so I base my opinion on what I think may have happened rather than any actual legal insight. Yes he was found guilty of manslaughter because he couldnt possibly know that shooting 4 times through a door would actually kill someone. My personal opinion is that when you fire a gun four times (not once) into a small room that someone is standing in, your only intention is to kill them.
Personally if I was looking to murder someone, I'd make sure my view and my shot wasn't obstructed by a door.
So, in fear of your life, and armed with a powerful handgun capable of killing someone from a very long distance, you would in fact approach within arms reach of your assailant? Given, that you are disabled and on your stumps at the time, that seems extraordinarily brave. I applaud you Sir!!
How could he possibly know that shooting 4 bullets into a small room could kill someone.
THat's exactly what he was found guilty of, what's your point?
Lol. Looks like the sarcasm police are out in force.
Not sarcasm, I just don't see what point you are trying to make.
You will have to forgive me. I binned my law degree in the 1st year so I base my opinion on what I think may have happened rather than any actual legal insight. Yes he was found guilty of manslaughter because he couldnt possibly know that shooting 4 times through a door would actually kill someone. My personal opinion is that when you fire a gun four times (not once) into a small room that someone is standing in, your only intention is to kill them.
Personally if I was looking to murder someone, I'd make sure my view and my shot wasn't obstructed by a door.
So, in fear of your life, and armed with a powerful handgun capable of killing someone from a very long distance, you would in fact approach within arms reach of your assailant? Given, that you are disabled and on your stumps at the time, that seems extraordinarily brave. I applaud you Sir!!
How could he possibly know that shooting 4 bullets into a small room could kill someone.
THat's exactly what he was found guilty of, what's your point?
Lol. Looks like the sarcasm police are out in force.
Not sarcasm, I just don't see what point you are trying to make.
You will have to forgive me. I binned my law degree in the 1st year so I base my opinion on what I think may have happened rather than any actual legal insight. Yes he was found guilty of manslaughter because he couldnt possibly know that shooting 4 times through a door would actually kill someone. My personal opinion is that when you fire a gun four times (not once) into a small room that someone is standing in, your only intention is to kill them.
Personally if I was looking to murder someone, I'd make sure my view and my shot wasn't obstructed by a door.
So, in fear of your life, and armed with a powerful handgun capable of killing someone from a very long distance, you would in fact approach within arms reach of your assailant? Given, that you are disabled and on your stumps at the time, that seems extraordinarily brave. I applaud you Sir!!
Give me strength...
I don't know what you are insinuating here?
I'm pointing out that your contention that someone wanting to shoot someone would go and open the door first is ridiculous.
How could he possibly know that shooting 4 bullets into a small room could kill someone.
THat's exactly what he was found guilty of, what's your point?
Lol. Looks like the sarcasm police are out in force.
Not sarcasm, I just don't see what point you are trying to make.
You will have to forgive me. I binned my law degree in the 1st year so I base my opinion on what I think may have happened rather than any actual legal insight. Yes he was found guilty of manslaughter because he couldnt possibly know that shooting 4 times through a door would actually kill someone. My personal opinion is that when you fire a gun four times (not once) into a small room that someone is standing in, your only intention is to kill them.
Personally if I was looking to murder someone, I'd make sure my view and my shot wasn't obstructed by a door.
So, in fear of your life, and armed with a powerful handgun capable of killing someone from a very long distance, you would in fact approach within arms reach of your assailant? Given, that you are disabled and on your stumps at the time, that seems extraordinarily brave. I applaud you Sir!!
Give me strength...
I don't know what you are insinuating here?
I'm pointing out that your contention that someone wanting to shoot someone would go and open the door first is ridiculous.
Funny how this has resurfaced after the Dewani case wrapped up. The SA justice system must have become addicted to overblown, overhyped cases that capture the imagination of the international community.
Comments
How about a conviction for Rape ?
...
That's hilarious.
5 years. Doesn't seem enough if you don't agree with the verdict but then for most of us that comes down to emotion, supposition and guess work, not facts. life and legality is complicated and imperfect and always will be.
Give me strength...
And that isn't want I was saying anyway.
bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30408424
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-34993002
She won't be happy having her verdict overturned, and the new sentence might well reflect that.