She might have gone to a worse place, though I can't comment on her spiritual position prior to her death.
Why did you feel the need to attack 'the religious lot'?
Oscar Pistorius thread
- Thread starter Gilly
- Start date
She might have gone to a worse place, though I can't comment on her spiritual position prior to her death.
Why did you feel the need to attack 'the religious lot'?
Do you think that people who accidently kill people in car crashes for example should be locked up for 15years?I can't even go thereif he walks that will be a travesty.
The court room cheering as he gets temporary freedom. Whatever next!
Do people really not value life? Reeva was a young woman who had possibly another 50-60 years of life ahead of her. Think of all the experiences his actions (whether premeditated or not) have robbed her of.
Next we will have the religious lot saying don't worry she has gone somewhere better, although they never seem to be in a hurry to get there.
Even If he is truely innocent, he will still have to live with the knowledge that he killed his girlfriend.
I can't even go there
The court room cheering as he gets temporary freedom. Whatever next!
Do people really not value life? Reeva was a young woman who had possibly another 50-60 years of life ahead of her. Think of all the experiences his actions (whether premeditated or not) have robbed her of.
Next we will have the religious lot saying don't worry she has gone somewhere better, although they never seem to be in a hurry to get there.
So, to put this into perspective, child wearing black at dusk or later runs out into a street after a ball, gets hit by a car and dies on the spot.
The driver needs to serve a jail term to the length of 15 years or the rest of their life?
If his story holds up to intense scrutiny I have every sympathy for him. To live with the knowledge that he has deprived his intended wife of life and himself the rest of his life with her will be purgatory.
Is it not a little different? In your example, the driver never intended to kill ANYONE. In this example, Oscar DID intend to kill someone. Just perhaps not the person it ended up being ...
...which in his country is not unlawful.
He may have been within his legal right in SA to shoot a burglar though.
What is the actual law around that? Is it never murder if they broke into your house?
I would imagine if you convinced a court or the police you were in fear of your life then it would be viewed as lawful.
It's very hazy. There are people that have walked away without any penalty whatsoever and there are those that have done hard time for, seemingly, the same offence.
You are allowed to fire upon someone (even in a public area) if you genuinely believe your life to be in danger. It is incumbent upon the defendant to prove that belief in their defence.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
He was indeed within his legal right to defend himself and his property. Had it actually been a burglar and they were armed (which is highly likely) then this would have been very quick court appearance and closed under the grounds of self defence.
Absolutely, we would all be congratulating him on dispensing of some piece of scum. But it does open up serious doubts that what he did was premeditated murder and not a horrendous accident.
I don't know about South Africa, but in the UK the defence of self-defence/defence of property comes down to "reasonable force". It's an objective test based on the subjective circumstances the defendant reasonably believed himself to be in.
So realistically, based on UK law, it comes down to whether Oscar perceived an immediate threat from the "intruder", whether it was reasonable for him to perceive this threat, and if so whether shooting him four times was the response of a reasonable person.
In my opinion, shooting somebody who is locked in your bathroom, and therefore posing no immediate threat, is not a reasonable use of force, in a similar way to Tony Martin shooting an intruder in the back as he was leaving was not reasonable, but it will be interesting to hear Oscar's testimony when the trial comes.
All that said, I think that granting bail was the correct decision. Putting him in jail now would have caused all manner of problems. Without being granted proper protection, he may well have ended up getting injured or worse in jail. And, given that he must have one of the most famous faces on the planet at present (and is a double amputee), running away isn't really an option for him.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 2,141
I don't think that it's really comparable. If we believe his story, we know that he fired his weapon recklessly without checking his target first. If you were to compare it to a driving offence, I guess the closest would be causing death by dangerous driving.
Only if you apply the scenario here.
He's not here, and therefore that is, IMO, the best match.
If he truly felt that his life was in danger then his actions are explainable and that is entirely relevant.
He wants to convince the Internet that he is right, when he clearly isn't.
It was up to the prosecution to prove that he is a flight risk, they put an ape on the stand that didn't do his homework and got his guts ripped out and exposed by Barry Roux. It's as simple as that. They made no clear and convincing argument that he's a flight risk or risk to the witnesses or public.
Going on merit, there couldn't have been any other decision but to grant him bail.
Very good post. Should be the definitive post to explain the bail decision
Silly example is silly as no one broke into his house
As for me?? if it was proved that i was a danger to the public and could abscond from the country then yes id be happy to stay in prison till my trial date.
Fact is none of the above was proved so he was let out on bail with conditions.
My point was about you saying he killed someone hence should be in prison regardless