But why else would a sane man fire four bullets blindly through a door behind which he knows someone is standing/sitting behind? He intended to kill the person behind that door. There is logically no other explanation.
Oscar Pistorius thread
- Thread starter Gilly
- Start date
But why else would a sane man fire four bullets blindly through a door behind which he knows someone is standing/sitting behind? He intended to kill the person behind that door. There is logically no other explanation.
Soldato
Don't bring logic into this 
Oh, like firing four black talon rounds through a door that you know someone is on the other side of you mean?
Soldato
damn another OJ.
Um...South Africa?
Prove that and your good to go....I agree, I think he intended to kill and knew exactly who was behind that door. I find it ridiculous that you would assume an intruder so quickly and without checking the woman sleeping next to you. But this isn't about what we think, but about what can be proven.
But it is proven by the fact that there is no other outcome to his actions. A man such as Oscar, who has been proven to be not mentally ill, would have known that the only outcome to firing four bullets through that door would have been the likely death or at best serious injury of the person behind it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Well looks like Pistorius and Britain have one thing in common....
We're both about to get away Scot Free.
We're both about to get away Scot Free.
Soldato
The judge is clearly saying that he should have realised that his actions could lead to a murder but he didn't. And we only have his word for that. So, simply by saying he didn't realise that four dumdums might kill someone, he has reduced common murder to culpable homicide.
Boom boom!
Soldato
I wonder if Shrien Dewani is taking notes...
Which I think is ridiculous.
You don't have to be mentally Ill in order to act negligently without intent. Just not in a reasonable state of mind.
Assumption isn't proof...the burden is for his actions to be proven to be intentional with regard to murder, the prosecution clearly have not made that case. You even illustrate this by saying that the outcomes could have been death or injury...injury or intent to injure even is not murder...therefore there is reasonable doubt, even you have it.
Could lead to killing someone, killing is not murder and could is not did....that is the point. Therefore he was negligent.
? Yes it is. So I could bludgeon someone to death, but then claim that I only intended to injure them and get away with not being done for murder? In your view all perpetrators of murder could just say that they did not realise their actions would kill who they had killed.
Last edited:
But that is my point. He DID intend to kill the person behind the door. His actions display this. There is no other possible reason or explanation for firing four shots through a door that you know someone is standing behind. He did that because he did intend to kill whoever was behind the door. If he had not intended to kill the person behind the door his actions would have been totally different.
It's doesn't.
His actions alone simply show he fired into a cubicle where he thought an intruder posed a threat to him and his GF. That doesn't imply intent to kill, but negligence insofar that he should have realised his actions could have killed.
My view isn't that people can just say something to make it true, but that prosecutors must adequately prove the intent was there...as you said, he could have intended to injure the person, the prosecution did not adequate demonstrate his intent, and that means the Judge cannot assume intent.
Last edited:
Soldato
Yep, saw my mistake after posting. I understand and accept all these points, I just don't agree with them.
When does neglifgence become recklessness and thus culpable homicide become common murder ?
God only knows. I don't agree either, but the court is limited to judgements based on what has been proven, not on what could or should have happened.