Oscar Pistorius thread

[Wazz-1]

one more night of freedom!!

 

[atpbx]

Her review so far is just errant nonsense.

 

[robfosters]

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]

How is it not?

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.

 

[Wizzfizz]

The judge is having a laugh and trolling the world lol

 

[Jono8]

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.

But if I am afraid and scared I can still intend to kill someone....

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

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.

 

[_ST]

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.

That is exactly what I thought.

 

[Jono8]

That is exactly what I thought.

My point exactly as well.

 

[Castiel]

How is it not?

But if I am afraid and scared I can still intend to kill someone....

But can it proven. What we think and what can be adequately proved are two separate things.

 

[~Mike~]

Strange verdict.

 

[Wizzfizz]

Strange judge

 

[Castiel]

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.

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.

 

[Wizzfizz]

Except the deceased is Reeva, who wasn't in the cubicle.

She wasn't?

 

[Neil79]

Any normal person would've been done for murder, damn celebs getting away with murder!

 

[Castiel]

She wasn't?

Not according to OP, sorry that wasn't very clear was it. Lol.

 

[NexusK]

Judge is a **** tease.

 

[ubern00b]

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...

 

[estebanrey]

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.

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.

 

[Neil79]

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