Oscar Pistorius thread

atpbx said:
I understand it might not be your viewpoint and indeed that in the eyes of the law that the two circumstance could be different.

However in reality they just are not, I cannot see why I would fire into a door if I did not intend to seriously injure/ kill something on the other side.

You would not do it to scare someone, you would not do it to warn them you had a gun, you would only need to do it once to let them know you had a gun.

He has gone to the door, fired into it repeatedly because he is either mental (which it has been proved he is not) OR he intended to hurt the person on the other side.

In a situation where its a 50/50 chance that its your girlfriend or a burglar on the other side of the door how can you possibly justify shooting first and asking questions later?

Its a ******** argument.
Click to expand...

As it happens I agree with you. I'm just trying to interpret and explain my view of the judge's decisions.

As for the last part, I would challenge anyone to give a reasonable justification why, in the civilized world, a private citizen should be allowed to own a firearm of this type.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom