When Skies Are Grey Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Well he wasn't guilty of murder..... http://news.sky.com/story/1333817/oscar-pistorius-cleared-of-reeva-murder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Well he wasn't guilty of murder..... http://news.sky.com/story/1333817/oscar-pistorius-cleared-of-reeva-murder He wasn't found guilty of murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 He cannot have foreseen killing whoever was behind the toilet door, she said. It's the last thing you expect when you shoot a gun at somebody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Either he has one heck of a lawyer or judges there don't cost much. Either way, incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 I am really struggling to get my head around with her intreptation. Judge seems to be suggesting that unless the state can prove what the defendent was thinking at the time or there are numerous witnesses there will always be an element of doubt so must find not guilty. Basically you are therefore free to do what you like as long as there are no witnesses and you can argue you did not mean to. That seems bollocks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 I'm am hugely overworked and so haven't any time to really read what the judge and other people have said, but I cannot comprehend how the Judge can rule that deliberately firing a gun at someone does not intend to kill them, especially when that person has been trained in fire arms use and is using dum-dum bullets. With modern fire arms and especially bullets it is not reasonable to assume you won't kill someone if you fire at them. If you have a gun and you use it, it is reasonable that you will kill someone doing that. I think the law is an ass if the Judge is saying that isn't true. What was Pretorious doing firing through the door - trying to scare someone? No - he was trying to hit someone and in doing that it is reasonable to conclude that a person might die as a result of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Has the topic of intoxicants been touched upon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Thanks. Mine's a G & T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 @Donald & spook rofl Next time it's my round, I'm using that in my best Terry-Thomas voice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 I've read a bit more and now understand and realize I was being unfair to the judge. Her ruling has helped me understand an issue of the law I've not really understood in the past. She actually wrote: "[Given] the size of the toilet and the type of ammunition, a reasonable person would have foreseen that the person inside the toilet might be struck and might dies as a result [of him shooting through the door]" Now shooting a gun through the toilet door is unreasonable and could kill, but this isn't necessarily murder. South African law has 3 levels of killing: Pre-meditated Murder - you set out and planned to kill someone. Murder dolus eventualis - where you deliberately act, without planning, and kill someone - stabbing someone in a fight say. And Culpable homcide - where the person acts recklessly, or negligently, and someone dies. It's quite subtle - firing through the door to try to kill someone is murder dolus eventualis. Firing through a door, because you are being reckless is not - its culpable homicide. A reasonable person would have run away, called for help, got away etc. Pretorius recklessly reached for his gun in a panic and fired away. What was he doing - trying to kill someone. No. Just recklessly reacting without out thought. That's what makes it homicide and not murder. I do have to say it's a fine point of law and a subtle difference - if someone in a fight picked up a bottle or a knife the distinction between the two behaviours could be very difficult to make. That makes the law very reliant to the skills of the defence and the prosecution. Not the best. Did the judge get it right? It would have been incomprehensible to me if he'd been found entirely innocent. The judge says it wasn't murder, but reckless manslaughter. She's heard the arguments far more than me. So that is that afaic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted September 12, 2014 Author Share Posted September 12, 2014 I am really struggling to get my head around with her intreptation. Judge seems to be suggesting that unless the state can prove what the defendent was thinking at the time or there are numerous witnesses there will always be an element of doubt so must find not guilty. Basically you are therefore free to do what you like as long as there are no witnesses and you can argue you did not mean to. That seems bollocks! I'm with you on this one LL. I can believe that he didn't plan her murder from the start of the evening, so it wasn't the worst one, but from what I heard of the trial I can't see how he wasn't convicted on the slightly lesser charge. If you hear a noise in the bathroom you don't just reach for a gun and shoot through the door 4 times. The first thing you do is to check it's not just your wife gone for a pee, or the cat drinking out of the toilet or whatever. I simply don't believe his story - it's far more likely they had a row, she dumped him, he went ballistic, she locked herself in the toilet and he shot her through the door in the heat of the moment. Of course I have no evidence for that, nor did the state, apart from general plausibility, so what you say about being able to do what you like and claim you didn't mean to is dead right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 I watched the 'truth behind' documentary on BBC 3 this evening. It is to do with beyond all reasonable doubt , so there was a doubt. It was decided by the judge and two assistants (different terminology, I can't remember, presumably two judges in training - there is no jury system in RSA) so the decision is probably correct on the evidence. Let's see what the sentence is, which can range from a fine to 15 years. What struck me was the humility and forgiveness of Reeva's parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 The fact that SA is an extremely violent society is very important when considering how Pistorius reacted to the perceived threat. Not something we can easily take on board with our predominately unarmed coppers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 I feel justice has hardly been done with this sentencing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 You'd need the wisdom of Solomon to know what went on in that room on that night. You'd also need to have been present at the trial. Was he simply firing his gun in a gung-ho fashion, or was it deliberate or was he totally scared out of his wits and panicked? We don't live in SA so it's hard to identify with the levels of fear that some people live with there. Especially someone who is physically extremely vulnerable. Did he wake suddenly and forget she was even in the apartment that night, but was advised not to go that route? Did she flush the toilet as has been claimed elsewhere? If so, burglars don't do that as far as I can guess, so was it all deliberate after all? Did her parents really ask him for (and received) money after her death? What's all that about? Gosh, it's a puzzle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.