Oscar Pistorius thread

Where can I apply to be a South African judge?

Few hours in the morning, hour and half lunch, ten minutes work after lunch and then home in time to relax in the sun for the afternoon. Talk about job and knock!
 
Castiel said:
Because it's not intent, to have intent you must show that the person shot to kill on purpose, not simply shot in defence or because they were afraid or any other reason even if they were negligent in doing so.
Click to expand...

But if I am afraid and scared I can still intend to kill someone....
 
Judge says: "How could the accused reasonably have foreseen that the shot he fired would kill the deceased?"

Then later says: "a reasonable person, with the accused's disability, would have foreseen that firing into small cubicle might hit and kill person inside"

These statements, imo, appear to be contradictory.
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
Judge says: "How could the accused reasonably have foreseen that the shot he fired would kill the deceased?"

Then later says: "a reasonable person, with the accused's disability, would have foreseen that firing into small cubicle might hit and kill person inside"

These statements, imo, appear to be contradictory.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I thought.
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
Judge says: "How could the accused reasonably have foreseen that the shot he fired would kill the deceased?"

Then later says: "a reasonable person, with the accused's disability, would have foreseen that firing into small cubicle might hit and kill person inside"

These statements, imo, appear to be contradictory.
Click to expand...

Except the deceased is Reeva, who wasn't in the cubicle as far as OP knew at the time. The argument also suggests that OP was not in a reasonable state of mind (as opposed to being mentally incompetent) and was negligent at the time...not that he fired with intent to kill, but that he should have realised that his actions could kill...there is significant difference.
 
Last edited:
My FaceBook feed is blowing up. No one back home is happy with any of this. As if we weren't seen as a joke of a country already to the rest of the world...
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
Judge says: "How could the accused reasonably have foreseen that the shot he fired would kill the deceased?"

Then later says: "a reasonable person, with the accused's disability, would have foreseen that firing into small cubicle might hit and kill person inside"

These statements, imo, appear to be contradictory.
Click to expand...

Doing someone which you plan and know will high chance of killing a specific individual = Murder

Doing someone which could result in someone's death but not intending it = Manslaughter.
 
So he didn't think to call out to the person behind the door or look under door and see's ladies feet. He murdered her, this is a farse
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom