what?



Quote:

Oscar Pistorius will be released on parole from prison on August 21 after just 10 months in jail for shooting dead his girlfriend. The proposed release date has provoked an angry reaction from the parents of model and television presenter Reeva Steenkamp, 29, who Pistorius shot on Valentine's Day in 2013.

Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/world/2015/06/08/22/37/oscar-pistorius-could-be-released-from-prison-in-august#IxCWm2OFA48hUqM2.99

If he was a poor man or a black black man he would have died in jail......of old age.

It pays to have privilege.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 7:01am:

what? Quote: Oscar Pistorius will be released on parole from prison on August 21 after just 10 months in jail for shooting dead his girlfriend. The proposed release date has provoked an angry reaction from the parents of model and television presenter Reeva Steenkamp, 29, who Pistorius shot on Valentine's Day in 2013. Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/world/2015/06/08/22/37/oscar-pistorius-could-be-released-from-prison-in-august#IxCWm2OFA48hUqM2.99

Middle class domestic violence.

Women rarely survive.

Remember these 2 sentences.

he didnt really get a sentence did he????....what was it 5 years ......10 months non parole... ::)

one thing I guess he has to live with it...

I trust his life is broken...I dont usually wish that on anyone....

but this guy doesnt deserve to move on with his life as if nothing has happened....

cods wrote on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 8:29am:

he didnt really get a sentence did he????....what was it 5 years ......10 months non parole... ::) one thing I guess he has to live with it... I trust his life is broken...I dont usually wish that on anyone.... but this guy doesnt deserve to move on with his life as if nothing has happened....

She got the death penalty.

Her entire family got a life sentence.

He got 10 months bed and breakfast.

Justice.

"Masipa took more than an hour to announce her verdict in Pretoria, in a sentence that is dividing opinion in a nation that has been riveted by his nearly seven-month trial.

Pistorius' legal team said after the ruling they expect Pistorius will serve about 10 months in prison before completing his time under house arrest.

Under South African law, he must serve at least one-sixth of his sentence - in this case, about 10 months - before he can be considered for parole."

Knowing next to nothing about the SA parole system, I wondered at the time why Judge Masipa did not specifically set a non parole period (as would occur in Australia) as part of the sentence. 

I've cut this quote from an article I found at the time as it clarified my query.

Alinta wrote on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 8:49am:

"Masipa took more than an hour to announce her verdict in Pretoria, in a sentence that is dividing opinion in a nation that has been riveted by his nearly seven-month trial. Pistorius' legal team said after the ruling they expect Pistorius will serve about 10 months in prison before completing his time under house arrest. Under South African law, he must serve at least one-sixth of his sentence - in this case, about 10 months - before he can be considered for parole." Knowing next to nothing about the SA parole system, I wondered at the time why Judge Masipa did not set a non parole period (as would occur in Australia) in her sentencing remarks. I've cut this quote from an article I found at the time as it clarified my query.

read the highlighted piece again and you have the answer to your question.....

the media circus surrounding the story ran for longer than the actual sentence ... what a joke, and I thought it was only the Australian judicial system which was screwed.

I can still never believe that he would get out of bed to look for an intruder without at least telling the gf he says he thought was in that bed to stay there and be quiet.


None of this story adds up.

OJ Simpson, got away with murder. Michael Jackson got away with being a kiddy fiddler. Mike Tyson served three years for rape. Reuben 'Hurricane' Carter got released and had a crap movie made about him because of an even more crap Dylan song even though he gunned down a barful of people. Yea, woe the blackman.

double plus good wrote on Jun 10^th, 2015 at 4:51am:

OJ Simpson, got away with murder. Michael Jackson got away with being a kiddy fiddler. Mike Tyson served three years for rape. Reuben 'Hurricane' Carter got released and had a crap movie made about him because of an even more crap Dylan song even though he gunned down a barful of people. Yea, woe the blackman.

you are talking America not Sth Africa..


then on the other hand blacks are gunned down every day by the police in America just doing their duty.. of course

I have yet to see any Police found guilty of killing a black even if he isnt armed... ::) ::)

do we think this would be the case if white kids were  being killed almost on a daily basis????????????

double plus good wrote on Jun 10^th, 2015 at 4:51am:

OJ Simpson, got away with murder. Michael Jackson got away with being a kiddy fiddler. Mike Tyson served three years for rape. Reuben 'Hurricane' Carter got released and had a crap movie made about him because of an even more crap Dylan song even though he gunned down a barful of people. Yea, woe the blackman.

Carter never gunned down a bar full of people.  He was released by a supreme court judge on the basis of faulty evidence as shown by the constitution.. he never received a fair trial and the evidence was not fully presented or weighed up, and relied on the verbal evidence of criminals and drug addicts who got deals.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jun 10^th, 2015 at 11:50am:

double plus good wrote on Jun 10th, 2015 at 4:51am: OJ Simpson, got away with murder. Michael Jackson got away with being a kiddy fiddler. Mike Tyson served three years for rape. Reuben 'Hurricane' Carter got released and had a crap movie made about him because of an even more crap Dylan song even though he gunned down a barful of people. Yea, woe the blackman. Carter never gunned down a bar full of people.  He was released by a supreme court judge on the basis of faulty evidence as shown by the constitution.. he never received a fair trial and the evidence was not fully presented or weighed up, and relied on the verbal evidence of criminals and drug addicts who got deals.

[smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Bulls&it! Carter was released because the eye-witness who identified him and his accomplice died from shot gun wounds in hospital inflicted from 2 feet in front of her. He was a self confessed violent felon who was released because he became a poster child for well meaning m.o.r.o.n.s  like Zimmerman.

Am not surprised........


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34993002

Alinta wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 7:25pm:

Am not surprised........ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34993002

Me neither.

double plus good wrote on Jun 10^th, 2015 at 2:48pm:

Bulls&it! Carter was released because the eye-witness who identified him and his accomplice died from shot gun wounds in hospital inflicted from 2 feet in front of her. He was a self confessed violent felon who was released because he became a poster child for well meaning m.o.r.o.n.s  like Zimmerman.

Wrong!

Oscar....Oscar....Back to prison for you!!!

:) :) :)

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/12/03/oscar-pistorius-convicted-of-murder.html

Pistorius found guilty of murder on appeal

Gnads wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 8:09pm:

double plus good wrote on Jun 10th, 2015 at 2:48pm: Bulls&it! Carter was released because the eye-witness who identified him and his accomplice died from shot gun wounds in hospital inflicted from 2 feet in front of her. He was a self confessed violent felon who was released because he became a poster child for well meaning m.o.r.o.n.s  like Zimmerman. Wrong!

I agree with Double....Ruben Carter was guilty IMO!!!

:-? :-? :-?

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/04/spare_us_the_lies_about_the_late_hurricane_carter_mulshine.html

Alinta wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 7:25pm:

Am not surprised........ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34993002

Not surprised either, but very disappointed. The prosecution case never even got close to proving murder. Manslaughter was the correct verdict IMO.

Gnads wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 8:09pm:

double plus good wrote on Jun 10th, 2015 at 2:48pm: Bulls&it! Carter was released because the eye-witness who identified him and his accomplice died from shot gun wounds in hospital inflicted from 2 feet in front of her. He was a self confessed violent felon who was released because he became a poster child for well meaning m.o.r.o.n.s  like Zimmerman. Wrong!

Does this ID drawing from the woman victim's description fit John Artis?

http://www.graphicwitness.com/carter/pix/mugshotst.jpg

I also believe the heights given for the offenders were quite different, as were the tail lights of the white car.

I simply don't believe that Pistorius would get out of bed, grab a gun and head off looking for an 'intruder' - presumably with the toilet light on - without checking or even saying something to his lady who presumably, according to him. was in bed next to him.

Wouldn't YOU first ensure that your other person was safe, then say -  'shhhh - stay here - someone's in the house' - before heading off looking for an 'intruder'?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 10:05pm:

Alinta wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:25pm: Am not surprised........ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34993002 Not surprised either, but very disappointed. The prosecution case never even got close to proving murder. Manslaughter was the correct verdict IMO.

Pig's arse.  If you reckon someone is behind a door and you shoot through the door.....what is your intent other than to put a bullet into anyone behind the door?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 10:11pm:

I simply don't believe that Pistorius would get out of bed, grab a gun and head off looking for an 'intruder' - presumably with the toilet light on - without checking or even saying something to his lady who presumably, according to him. was in bed next to him. Wouldn't YOU first ensure that your other person was safe, then say -  'shhhh - stay here - someone's in the house' - before heading off looking for an 'intruder'?

Or wait until she turn on the lights to go to the toilet

Follow her. Aim. Fire!

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 8:13am:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jun 9th, 2015 at 7:01am: what? Quote: Oscar Pistorius will be released on parole from prison on August 21 after just 10 months in jail for shooting dead his girlfriend. The proposed release date has provoked an angry reaction from the parents of model and television presenter Reeva Steenkamp, 29, who Pistorius shot on Valentine's Day in 2013. Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/world/2015/06/08/22/37/oscar-pistorius-could-be-released-from-prison-in-august#IxCWm2OFA48hUqM2.99 Middle class domestic violence. Women rarely survive. Remember these 2 sentences.

Some do that possibly shouldn't... Lisa?

Oh how un-pc of a leftie! I've switched sides, just for this post. Nah, I'm not known for my political correctness.

Even if there was an unknown intruder in the toilet with the light on how did Oscar know his life was in danger....One would expect a real and present threat to blast holes in someone!!!

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 10:26pm:

Even if there was an unknown intruder in the toilet with the light on how did Oscar know his life was in danger....One would expect a real and present threat to blast holes in someone!!! :-? :-? :-?

For people with 2 legs - the normal reaction is "Honey is that you" or "Hurry up I am busting"

For people with no legs - the normal reaction is shoot down the locks because he was busting

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 10:26pm:

Even if there was an unknown intruder in the toilet with the light on how did Oscar know his life was in danger....One would expect a real and present threat to blast holes in someone!!! :-? :-? :-?

Apparently not in South African Gated Communities...

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 10:26pm:

Even if there was an unknown intruder in the toilet with the light on how did Oscar know his life was in danger....One would expect a real and present threat to blast holes in someone!!! :-? :-? :-?

I cannot accept his story. If he claimed/was diagnosed a paranoid schiz, maybe, but then he shouldn't have a firearm. He shot her, he knew she was in there, you don't fire through a closed toilet door, late at night, with your loved one in the domicile unless you know exactly where she is, I'm pretty sure he did.

Aussie wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 10:15pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:05pm: Alinta wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:25pm: Am not surprised........ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34993002 Not surprised either, but very disappointed. The prosecution case never even got close to proving murder. Manslaughter was the correct verdict IMO. Pig's arse.  If you reckon someone is behind a door and you shoot through the door.....what is your intent other than to put a bullet into anyone behind the door?

And the definition of murder requires intent to kill a particular victim, doesn't it??
Shooting at person A and unintentionally killing person B is manslaughter, not murder.

Setanta wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 10:31pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:26pm: Even if there was an unknown intruder in the toilet with the light on how did Oscar know his life was in danger....One would expect a real and present threat to blast holes in someone!!! :-? :-? :-? I cannot accept his story. If he claimed/was diagnosed a paranoid schiz, maybe, but then he shouldn't have a firearm. He shot her, he knew she was in there, you don't fire through a closed toilet door, late at night, with your loved one in the domicile unless you know exactly where she is, I'm pretty sure he did.

Again, the prosecution never managed to prove he 'knew' she was in the toilet, he always stated that to his knowledge, she was in the bedroom, behind him.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 11:17pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:15pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:05pm: Alinta wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:25pm: Am not surprised........ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34993002 Not surprised either, but very disappointed. The prosecution case never even got close to proving murder. Manslaughter was the correct verdict IMO. Pig's arse.  If you reckon someone is behind a door and you shoot through the door.....what is your intent other than to put a bullet into anyone behind the door? And the definition of murder requires intent to kill a particular victim, doesn't it?? Shooting at person A and unintentionally killing person B is manslaughter, not murder.

I think it's rather obvious he knew who he was shooting at.

I ask you, if you thought there was an intruder in the dunny, an invader of your home, not someone you loved, who was coincidently not accounted for, before action was taken, "Hey, love, I heard something(smacks empty bed), get down beside the bed or out on the balcony, I don't want you hurt because "I'm going in!"

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 11:19pm:

Setanta wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:31pm: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:26pm: Even if there was an unknown intruder in the toilet with the light on how did Oscar know his life was in danger....One would expect a real and present threat to blast holes in someone!!! :-? :-? :-? I cannot accept his story. If he claimed/was diagnosed a paranoid schiz, maybe, but then he shouldn't have a firearm. He shot her, he knew she was in there, you don't fire through a closed toilet door, late at night, with your loved one in the domicile unless you know exactly where she is, I'm pretty sure he did. Again, the prosecution never managed to prove he 'knew' she was in the toilet, he always stated that to his knowledge, she was in the bedroom, behind him.

Funny isn't it

He claimed she was behind him

But no one alive to testify otherwise so they took his word for it

But the fact that she's dead - does not then make his story invalid?

Maqqa wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 11:29pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:19pm: Setanta wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:31pm: philperth2010 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:26pm: Even if there was an unknown intruder in the toilet with the light on how did Oscar know his life was in danger....One would expect a real and present threat to blast holes in someone!!! :-? :-? :-? I cannot accept his story. If he claimed/was diagnosed a paranoid schiz, maybe, but then he shouldn't have a firearm. He shot her, he knew she was in there, you don't fire through a closed toilet door, late at night, with your loved one in the domicile unless you know exactly where she is, I'm pretty sure he did. Again, the prosecution never managed to prove he 'knew' she was in the toilet, he always stated that to his knowledge, she was in the bedroom, behind him. Funny isn't it He claimed she was behind him But no one alive to testify otherwise so they took his word for it But the fact that she's dead - does not then make his story invalid?

No, his story was always that he shot at what he thought to be an intruder, or intruders and accidently shot her instead. He never denied that he had shot her.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 11:31pm:

No, his story was always that he shot at what he thought to be an intruder, or intruders and accidently shot her instead. He never denied that he had shot her.

They seem to assume no intent and the prosecutor has to prove intent

Maqqa wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 11:37pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:31pm: No, his story was always that he shot at what he thought to be an intruder, or intruders and accidently shot her instead. He never denied that he had shot her. They seem to assume no intent and the prosecutor has to prove intent

Which they failed to do, hence the original manslaughter conviction.

Setanta wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 11:28pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:17pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:15pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:05pm: Alinta wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:25pm: Am not surprised........ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34993002 Not surprised either, but very disappointed. The prosecution case never even got close to proving murder. Manslaughter was the correct verdict IMO. Pig's arse.  If you reckon someone is behind a door and you shoot through the door.....what is your intent other than to put a bullet into anyone behind the door? And the definition of murder requires intent to kill a particular victim, doesn't it?? Shooting at person A and unintentionally killing person B is manslaughter, not murder. I think it's rather obvious he knew who he was shooting at. I ask you, if you thought there was an intruder in the dunny, an invader of your home, not someone you loved, who was coincidently not accounted for, before action was taken, "Hey, love, I heard something(smacks empty bed), get down beside the bed or out on the balcony, I don't want you hurt because "I'm going in!"

According to his statement, he went (with his pistol) to check on a noise. When it appeared there was one or more intruders in the toilet, he then yelled at his girlfriend to stay where she was, and then told the 'intruder/s to come out or he'd shoot'.

A perfectly viable series of events. There'd be no reason to wake up the other person until you knew whether the noise was a potential danger, or a tree branch tapping on the window (for example) or something equally harmless.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 11:47pm:

According to his statement, he went (with his pistol) to check on a noise. When it appeared there was one or more intruders in the toilet, he then yelled at his girlfriend to stay where she was, and then told the 'intruder/s to come out or he'd shoot'. A perfectly viable series of events. There'd be no reason to wake up the other person until you knew whether the noise was a potential danger, or a tree branch tapping on the window (for example) or something equally harmless.

You're not trying to pull my leg are you? Is that what you would do?

You don't know where your loved one is but you tell her to stay there. You also tell her, I presume, that you are arming yourself to check it out. You get no response and rather than wake her and give her directions, get confirmation, you head to the dunny with your firearm.

Really?

Edit: I hope you are not a "more firearms" proponent. Great responsibility...

No double jeopardy protection in South Africa!

http://www.smh.com.au/world/south-africas-supreme-court-finds-oscar-pistorius-guilty-of-murder-20151203-glf1b3.html

Setanta wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 11:57pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:47pm: According to his statement, he went (with his pistol) to check on a noise. When it appeared there was one or more intruders in the toilet, he then yelled at his girlfriend to stay where she was, and then told the 'intruder/s to come out or he'd shoot'. A perfectly viable series of events. There'd be no reason to wake up the other person until you knew whether the noise was a potential danger, or a tree branch tapping on the window (for example) or something equally harmless. You're not trying to pull my leg are you? Is that what you would do? You don't know where your loved one is but you tell her to stay there. You also tell her, I presume, that you are arming yourself to check it out. You get no response and rather than wake her and give her directions, get confirmation, you head to the dunny with your firearm. Really? Edit: I hope you are not a "more firearms" proponent. Great responsibility...

Perhaps you should read what I actually wrote???
You have the sequence backwards.....he'd ALREADY left the bedroom with the gun well before he thought it necessary to wake her up.

That's a fairly standard sort of behaviour, to be honest. If I hear odd noises at night, I don't immediately awaken everyone else in the house before I go to investigate. After all, most of the time it's likely to be nothing.

Oscar appears jail bound. The Appeals Judge found fault in the trial hearings and findings.

Looks like Oscar is headed for the high jump, hope he takes his blades with him, he'll need them.

Who says white men can't jump?

Why is the media wasting so much time on this? He's guilty. Go Straight to Jail. Do not pass Go. (and hopefully that's the last we hear of the whining  little bastard)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 11:47pm:

Setanta wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:28pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:17pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:15pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:05pm: Alinta wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:25pm: Am not surprised........ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34993002 Not surprised either, but very disappointed. The prosecution case never even got close to proving murder. Manslaughter was the correct verdict IMO. Pig's arse.  If you reckon someone is behind a door and you shoot through the door.....what is your intent other than to put a bullet into anyone behind the door? And the definition of murder requires intent to kill a particular victim, doesn't it?? Shooting at person A and unintentionally killing person B is manslaughter, not murder. I think it's rather obvious he knew who he was shooting at. I ask you, if you thought there was an intruder in the dunny, an invader of your home, not someone you loved, who was coincidently not accounted for, before action was taken, "Hey, love, I heard something(smacks empty bed), get down beside the bed or out on the balcony, I don't want you hurt because "I'm going in!" According to his statement, he went (with his pistol) to check on a noise. When it appeared there was one or more intruders in the toilet, he then yelled at his girlfriend to stay where she was, and then told the 'intruder/s to come out or he'd shoot'. A perfectly viable series of events. There'd be no reason to wake up the other person until you knew whether the noise was a potential danger, or a tree branch tapping on the window (for example) or something equally harmless.

What I don't understand is why Reva said nothing when Oscar yelled at his girlfriend to stay where she was, and then told the 'intruder/s to come out or he'd shoot'.... Why does Oscar scream like a woman....Blasting holes in someone without a clear and present threat to one's safety is murder IMO....Perhaps Oscar thought someone was going to steal his toilet paper???

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 4^th, 2015 at 7:33am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:47pm: Setanta wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:28pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:17pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:15pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:05pm: Alinta wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:25pm: Am not surprised........ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34993002 Not surprised either, but very disappointed. The prosecution case never even got close to proving murder. Manslaughter was the correct verdict IMO. Pig's arse.  If you reckon someone is behind a door and you shoot through the door.....what is your intent other than to put a bullet into anyone behind the door? And the definition of murder requires intent to kill a particular victim, doesn't it?? Shooting at person A and unintentionally killing person B is manslaughter, not murder. I think it's rather obvious he knew who he was shooting at. I ask you, if you thought there was an intruder in the dunny, an invader of your home, not someone you loved, who was coincidently not accounted for, before action was taken, "Hey, love, I heard something(smacks empty bed), get down beside the bed or out on the balcony, I don't want you hurt because "I'm going in!" According to his statement, he went (with his pistol) to check on a noise. When it appeared there was one or more intruders in the toilet, he then yelled at his girlfriend to stay where she was, and then told the 'intruder/s to come out or he'd shoot'. A perfectly viable series of events. There'd be no reason to wake up the other person until you knew whether the noise was a potential danger, or a tree branch tapping on the window (for example) or something equally harmless. What I don't understand is why Reva said nothing when Oscar yelled at his girlfriend to stay where she was, and then told the 'intruder/s to come out or he'd shoot'.... Why does Oscar scream like a woman....Blasting holes in someone without a clear and present threat to one's safety is murder IMO....Perhaps Oscar thought someone was going to steal his toilet paper??? :-? :-? :-?

Perhaps because she didn't want to let the intruder/s know where she was.
And in SA, the laws are slightly different...

"The right to defend yourself
In common law, the controlling principle on the right to use force to defend one’s self or one’s property is proportionality: the defensive act may not be more harmful than necessary to ward off the attack. Although there are no hard and fast rules, courts weigh up the interests protected by the defensive act against the interests infringed by the unlawful attack.

In determining whether a crime victim acted reasonably, the courts judge each case on its own merits. Certainly, an owner who is confronted by a robber is not expected to abandon his property. He is entitled to protect it, and the court will consider all the circumstances2 when deciding whether the means of defending the property were reasonable.

This right to self-protection can provide a defence to a charge of assault or even, in some cases, murder. Our law allows you to defend yourself, another person, your property or the property of another against a current or imminent unlawful attack.3 When a person pleads private defence, his claim is that the injury he caused was, in the circumstances, lawful and permissible."

https://www.issafrica.org/pubs/CrimeQ/No.8/duPlessis.htm

Also remember..this is a disabled man who thought he was the only thing between his girlfriend and a group of potential rapists and/or murderers..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 4^th, 2015 at 6:22am:

Setanta wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:57pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:47pm: According to his statement, he went (with his pistol) to check on a noise. When it appeared there was one or more intruders in the toilet, he then yelled at his girlfriend to stay where she was, and then told the 'intruder/s to come out or he'd shoot'. A perfectly viable series of events. There'd be no reason to wake up the other person until you knew whether the noise was a potential danger, or a tree branch tapping on the window (for example) or something equally harmless. You're not trying to pull my leg are you? Is that what you would do? You don't know where your loved one is but you tell her to stay there. You also tell her, I presume, that you are arming yourself to check it out. You get no response and rather than wake her and give her directions, get confirmation, you head to the dunny with your firearm. Really? Edit: I hope you are not a "more firearms" proponent. Great responsibility... Perhaps you should read what I actually wrote??? You have the sequence backwards.....he'd ALREADY left the bedroom with the gun well before he thought it necessary to wake her up. That's a fairly standard sort of behaviour, to be honest. If I hear odd noises at night, I don't immediately awaken everyone else in the house before I go to investigate. After all, most of the time it's likely to be nothing.

sorry gizmo but we are not talking Australia we are talking Pretoria SA...where they lived in a secured guarded house.....but where crime was high on the list......[guns handy]

do you or would you... grab a GUN in the dark to check out a noise???????.... I dont think so...

but by all accounts its the first thing you do in  Pretoria....

he was ANGRY... 4 shots tells me he didnt want anyone to leave that room alive....he had plenty of time  to ring for help....

had he been on the inside of the door shooting out I could maybe give him a glimmer of doubt....

What intruder would hide in the toilet with the light on???

:-? :-? :-?

cods wrote on Dec 4^th, 2015 at 8:32am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 6:22am: Setanta wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:57pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:47pm: According to his statement, he went (with his pistol) to check on a noise. When it appeared there was one or more intruders in the toilet, he then yelled at his girlfriend to stay where she was, and then told the 'intruder/s to come out or he'd shoot'. A perfectly viable series of events. There'd be no reason to wake up the other person until you knew whether the noise was a potential danger, or a tree branch tapping on the window (for example) or something equally harmless. You're not trying to pull my leg are you? Is that what you would do? You don't know where your loved one is but you tell her to stay there. You also tell her, I presume, that you are arming yourself to check it out. You get no response and rather than wake her and give her directions, get confirmation, you head to the dunny with your firearm. Really? Edit: I hope you are not a "more firearms" proponent. Great responsibility... Perhaps you should read what I actually wrote??? You have the sequence backwards.....he'd ALREADY left the bedroom with the gun well before he thought it necessary to wake her up. That's a fairly standard sort of behaviour, to be honest. If I hear odd noises at night, I don't immediately awaken everyone else in the house before I go to investigate. After all, most of the time it's likely to be nothing. sorry gizmo but we are not talking Australia we are talking Pretoria SA...where they lived in a secured guarded house.....but where crime was high on the list......[guns handy] do you or would you... grab a GUN in the dark to check out a noise???????.... I dont think so... but by all accounts its the first thing you do in  Pretoria.... he was ANGRY... 4 shots tells me he didnt want anyone to leave that room alive....he had plenty of time  to ring for help.... had he been on the inside of the door shooting out I could maybe give him a glimmer of doubt....

Here in Australia??...no I wouldn't grab a gun, I use a a 4 battery, 40cm long 3 kilo maglite.

But in South Africa I probably would grab a gun. Better to be holding it, and not need it, than to need it and have it still in the draw/safe etc.

And 4 shots through the door doesn't mean he was angry, more likely frightened. And this is a guy with no lower legs remember, so he'd be at a disadvantage in terms of speed of movement against someone with 2 complete legs.
Shooting multiple times is what pistol self-defense trainers tell you to do.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 4^th, 2015 at 8:47am:

cods wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 8:32am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 6:22am: Setanta wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:57pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:47pm: According to his statement, he went (with his pistol) to check on a noise. When it appeared there was one or more intruders in the toilet, he then yelled at his girlfriend to stay where she was, and then told the 'intruder/s to come out or he'd shoot'. A perfectly viable series of events. There'd be no reason to wake up the other person until you knew whether the noise was a potential danger, or a tree branch tapping on the window (for example) or something equally harmless. You're not trying to pull my leg are you? Is that what you would do? You don't know where your loved one is but you tell her to stay there. You also tell her, I presume, that you are arming yourself to check it out. You get no response and rather than wake her and give her directions, get confirmation, you head to the dunny with your firearm. Really? Edit: I hope you are not a "more firearms" proponent. Great responsibility... Perhaps you should read what I actually wrote??? You have the sequence backwards.....he'd ALREADY left the bedroom with the gun well before he thought it necessary to wake her up. That's a fairly standard sort of behaviour, to be honest. If I hear odd noises at night, I don't immediately awaken everyone else in the house before I go to investigate. After all, most of the time it's likely to be nothing. sorry gizmo but we are not talking Australia we are talking Pretoria SA...where they lived in a secured guarded house.....but where crime was high on the list......[guns handy] do you or would you... grab a GUN in the dark to check out a noise???????.... I dont think so... but by all accounts its the first thing you do in  Pretoria.... he was ANGRY... 4 shots tells me he didnt want anyone to leave that room alive....he had plenty of time  to ring for help.... had he been on the inside of the door shooting out I could maybe give him a glimmer of doubt.... Here in Australia??...no I wouldn't grab a gun, I use a a 4 battery, 40cm long 3 kilo maglite. But in South Africa I probably would grab a gun. Better to be holding it, and not need it, than to need it and have it still in the draw/safe etc. And 4 shots through the door doesn't mean he was angry, more likely frightened. And this is a guy with no lower legs remember, so he'd be at a disadvantage in terms of speed of movement against someone with 2 complete legs. Shooting multiple times is what pistol self-defense trainers tell you to do.

rubbish this is a bloke who fired a gun under the table in a restaurant...and so up himself he was afraid of no one...dont believe it mate just dont..he and Reeva were arguing... she was starting to see the real Oscar and didnt like him..if she told him she was leaving its the worst thing she could do...

as for the legs... did you see his re enactment video... omg he was amazing....believe me in that situation he was as good as anyone with both legs..

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 4^th, 2015 at 8:39am:

What intruder would hide in the toilet with the light on??? :-? :-? :-?

why would he be in the bedroom?????....

why pick on Oscar who was a well known gun freak ::) ::)

nothing really adds up....and I am so glad justice seems to be happening over there..Reeva deserves that much.

cods wrote on Dec 4^th, 2015 at 9:01am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 8:47am: cods wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 8:32am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 6:22am: Setanta wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:57pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:47pm: According to his statement, he went (with his pistol) to check on a noise. When it appeared there was one or more intruders in the toilet, he then yelled at his girlfriend to stay where she was, and then told the 'intruder/s to come out or he'd shoot'. A perfectly viable series of events. There'd be no reason to wake up the other person until you knew whether the noise was a potential danger, or a tree branch tapping on the window (for example) or something equally harmless. You're not trying to pull my leg are you? Is that what you would do? You don't know where your loved one is but you tell her to stay there. You also tell her, I presume, that you are arming yourself to check it out. You get no response and rather than wake her and give her directions, get confirmation, you head to the dunny with your firearm. Really? Edit: I hope you are not a "more firearms" proponent. Great responsibility... Perhaps you should read what I actually wrote??? You have the sequence backwards.....he'd ALREADY left the bedroom with the gun well before he thought it necessary to wake her up. That's a fairly standard sort of behaviour, to be honest. If I hear odd noises at night, I don't immediately awaken everyone else in the house before I go to investigate. After all, most of the time it's likely to be nothing. sorry gizmo but we are not talking Australia we are talking Pretoria SA...where they lived in a secured guarded house.....but where crime was high on the list......[guns handy] do you or would you... grab a GUN in the dark to check out a noise???????.... I dont think so... but by all accounts its the first thing you do in  Pretoria.... he was ANGRY... 4 shots tells me he didnt want anyone to leave that room alive....he had plenty of time  to ring for help.... had he been on the inside of the door shooting out I could maybe give him a glimmer of doubt.... Here in Australia??...no I wouldn't grab a gun, I use a a 4 battery, 40cm long 3 kilo maglite. But in South Africa I probably would grab a gun. Better to be holding it, and not need it, than to need it and have it still in the draw/safe etc. And 4 shots through the door doesn't mean he was angry, more likely frightened. And this is a guy with no lower legs remember, so he'd be at a disadvantage in terms of speed of movement against someone with 2 complete legs. Shooting multiple times is what pistol self-defense trainers tell you to do. rubbish this is a bloke who fired a gun under the table in a restaurant...and so up himself he was afraid of no one...dont believe it mate just dont..he and Reeva were arguing... she was starting to see the real Oscar and didnt like him..if she told him she was leaving its the worst thing she could do... as for the legs... did you see his re enactment video... omg he was amazing....believe me in that situation he was as good as anyone with both legs..

Well, every time I've had an argument or a break up with a girl, she's either gone to her parents or her BFFs straight after the fight, not gone to bed beside me for several hours..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 4^th, 2015 at 9:05am:

cods wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 9:01am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 8:47am: cods wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 8:32am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 6:22am: Setanta wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:57pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:47pm: According to his statement, he went (with his pistol) to check on a noise. When it appeared there was one or more intruders in the toilet, he then yelled at his girlfriend to stay where she was, and then told the 'intruder/s to come out or he'd shoot'. A perfectly viable series of events. There'd be no reason to wake up the other person until you knew whether the noise was a potential danger, or a tree branch tapping on the window (for example) or something equally harmless. You're not trying to pull my leg are you? Is that what you would do? You don't know where your loved one is but you tell her to stay there. You also tell her, I presume, that you are arming yourself to check it out. You get no response and rather than wake her and give her directions, get confirmation, you head to the dunny with your firearm. Really? Edit: I hope you are not a "more firearms" proponent. Great responsibility... Perhaps you should read what I actually wrote??? You have the sequence backwards.....he'd ALREADY left the bedroom with the gun well before he thought it necessary to wake her up. That's a fairly standard sort of behaviour, to be honest. If I hear odd noises at night, I don't immediately awaken everyone else in the house before I go to investigate. After all, most of the time it's likely to be nothing. sorry gizmo but we are not talking Australia we are talking Pretoria SA...where they lived in a secured guarded house.....but where crime was high on the list......[guns handy] do you or would you... grab a GUN in the dark to check out a noise???????.... I dont think so... but by all accounts its the first thing you do in  Pretoria.... he was ANGRY... 4 shots tells me he didnt want anyone to leave that room alive....he had plenty of time  to ring for help.... had he been on the inside of the door shooting out I could maybe give him a glimmer of doubt.... Here in Australia??...no I wouldn't grab a gun, I use a a 4 battery, 40cm long 3 kilo maglite. But in South Africa I probably would grab a gun. Better to be holding it, and not need it, than to need it and have it still in the draw/safe etc. And 4 shots through the door doesn't mean he was angry, more likely frightened. And this is a guy with no lower legs remember, so he'd be at a disadvantage in terms of speed of movement against someone with 2 complete legs. Shooting multiple times is what pistol self-defense trainers tell you to do. rubbish this is a bloke who fired a gun under the table in a restaurant...and so up himself he was afraid of no one...dont believe it mate just dont..he and Reeva were arguing... she was starting to see the real Oscar and didnt like him..if she told him she was leaving its the worst thing she could do... as for the legs... did you see his re enactment video... omg he was amazing....believe me in that situation he was as good as anyone with both legs.. Well, every time I've had an argument or a break up with a girl, she's either gone to her parents or her BFFs straight after the fight, not gone to bed beside me for several hours..

I didnt say they had broken up.... but I believe thats what she was thinking about.....they had only been together 3 months...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2015 at 11:17pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:15pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:05pm: Alinta wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:25pm: Am not surprised........ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34993002 Not surprised either, but very disappointed. The prosecution case never even got close to proving murder. Manslaughter was the correct verdict IMO. Pig's arse.  If you reckon someone is behind a door and you shoot through the door.....what is your intent other than to put a bullet into anyone behind the door? And the definition of murder requires intent to kill a particular victim, doesn't it?? Shooting at person A and unintentionally killing person B is manslaughter, not murder.

Queensland:


Quote:

CRIMINAL CODE - SECT 302 302 Definition of murder (1) Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say—     (a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed or that of some other person or if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous bodily harm;     (b) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;     (c) if the offender intends to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such crime;     (d) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering thing for either of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (c);     (e) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes; is guilty of murder. (2) Under subsection (1)(a) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed. (3) Under subsection (1)(b) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person. (4) Under subsection (1)(c) to (e) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to result.

There may be a handful of posters here who are interested .......

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2015/12/03/Pistorius-guilty-of-murder---read-the-full-judgement

Aussie wrote on Dec 4^th, 2015 at 9:30am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:17pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:15pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:05pm: Alinta wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:25pm: Am not surprised........ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34993002 Not surprised either, but very disappointed. The prosecution case never even got close to proving murder. Manslaughter was the correct verdict IMO. Pig's arse.  If you reckon someone is behind a door and you shoot through the door.....what is your intent other than to put a bullet into anyone behind the door? And the definition of murder requires intent to kill a particular victim, doesn't it?? Shooting at person A and unintentionally killing person B is manslaughter, not murder. Queensland: Quote: CRIMINAL CODE - SECT 302 302 Definition of murder (1) Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say—     (a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed or that of some other person or if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous bodily harm;     (b) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;     (c) if the offender intends to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such crime;     (d) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering thing for either of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (c);     (e) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes; is guilty of murder. (2) Under subsection (1)(a) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed. (3) Under subsection (1)(b) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person. (4) Under subsection (1)(c) to (e) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to result.

what clause does PROVOCATION get taken into account???...  ::) ::)

Quote:

what clause does PROVOCATION get taken into account???...

Irrelevant to a murder charge.

cods wrote on Dec 4^th, 2015 at 9:41am:

Aussie wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 9:30am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:17pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:15pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:05pm: Alinta wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:25pm: Am not surprised........ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34993002 Not surprised either, but very disappointed. The prosecution case never even got close to proving murder. Manslaughter was the correct verdict IMO. Pig's arse.  If you reckon someone is behind a door and you shoot through the door.....what is your intent other than to put a bullet into anyone behind the door? And the definition of murder requires intent to kill a particular victim, doesn't it?? Shooting at person A and unintentionally killing person B is manslaughter, not murder. Queensland: Quote: CRIMINAL CODE - SECT 302 302 Definition of murder (1) Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say—     (a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed or that of some other person or if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous bodily harm;     (b) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;     (c) if the offender intends to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such crime;     (d) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering thing for either of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (c);     (e) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes; is guilty of murder. (2) Under subsection (1)(a) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed. (3) Under subsection (1)(b) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person. (4) Under subsection (1)(c) to (e) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to result. what clause does PROVOCATION get taken into account???...  ::) ::)

Under South African law..killing to defend  yourself, another person or your property or another persons property is self defense..
So shooting for self-defense and accidentally killing a person is not murder.

Aussie wrote on Dec 4^th, 2015 at 9:30am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:17pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:15pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:05pm: Alinta wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:25pm: Am not surprised........ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34993002 Not surprised either, but very disappointed. The prosecution case never even got close to proving murder. Manslaughter was the correct verdict IMO. Pig's arse.  If you reckon someone is behind a door and you shoot through the door.....what is your intent other than to put a bullet into anyone behind the door? And the definition of murder requires intent to kill a particular victim, doesn't it?? Shooting at person A and unintentionally killing person B is manslaughter, not murder. Queensland: Quote: CRIMINAL CODE - SECT 302 302 Definition of murder (1) Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say—     (a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed or that of some other person or if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous bodily harm;     (b) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;     (c) if the offender intends to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such crime;     (d) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering thing for either of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (c);     (e) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes; is guilty of murder. (2) Under subsection (1)(a) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed. (3) Under subsection (1)(b) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person. (4) Under subsection (1)(c) to (e) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to result.

Yes?? And since he didn't INTEND to kill Reeva (or anyone else, in truth) and was firing to scare/wound an intruder it is STILL not murder..

15 years is a joke of a sentence. The poor little rich boy with the supermodel girlfriend that he so blatantly murdered in cold blood because she refused to open her legs for him is only getting 15 years. Granted, the prison system in South Africa may be brutal and hopefully has nothing but hard labor in store for the creep in which case he'll die there.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 4^th, 2015 at 10:40am:

Aussie wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 9:30am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:17pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:15pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:05pm: Alinta wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:25pm: Am not surprised........ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34993002 Not surprised either, but very disappointed. The prosecution case never even got close to proving murder. Manslaughter was the correct verdict IMO. Pig's arse.  If you reckon someone is behind a door and you shoot through the door.....what is your intent other than to put a bullet into anyone behind the door? And the definition of murder requires intent to kill a particular victim, doesn't it?? Shooting at person A and unintentionally killing person B is manslaughter, not murder. Queensland: Quote: CRIMINAL CODE - SECT 302 302 Definition of murder (1) Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say—     (a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed or that of some other person or if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous bodily harm;     (b) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;     (c) if the offender intends to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such crime;     (d) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering thing for either of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (c);     (e) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes; is guilty of murder. (2) Under subsection (1)(a) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed. (3) Under subsection (1)(b) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person. (4) Under subsection (1)(c) to (e) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to result. Yes?? And since he didn't INTEND to kill Reeva (or anyone else, in truth) and was firing to scare/wound an intruder it is STILL not murder..

Tell that to the South African Appeal Court which disagrees with you, but, I guess you know more than it does on South African Law.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 4^th, 2015 at 10:40am:

Aussie wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 9:30am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:17pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:15pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:05pm: Alinta wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:25pm: Am not surprised........ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34993002 Not surprised either, but very disappointed. The prosecution case never even got close to proving murder. Manslaughter was the correct verdict IMO. Pig's arse.  If you reckon someone is behind a door and you shoot through the door.....what is your intent other than to put a bullet into anyone behind the door? And the definition of murder requires intent to kill a particular victim, doesn't it?? Shooting at person A and unintentionally killing person B is manslaughter, not murder. Queensland: Quote: CRIMINAL CODE - SECT 302 302 Definition of murder (1) Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say—     (a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed or that of some other person or if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous bodily harm;     (b) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;     (c) if the offender intends to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such crime;     (d) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering thing for either of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (c);     (e) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes; is guilty of murder. (2) Under subsection (1)(a) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed. (3) Under subsection (1)(b) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person. (4) Under subsection (1)(c) to (e) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to result. Yes?? And since he didn't INTEND to kill Reeva (or anyone else, in truth) and was firing to scare/wound an intruder it is STILL not murder..

Did you read the transcript link I posted Gizmo? 

You'll find Dolus Eventualis intention covered by the Appeal Court there.

Alternatively just google Dolus Eventualis intention for basic information and you'll probably realise what you're missing in your reasoning.

Marla wrote on Dec 4^th, 2015 at 10:44am:

15 years is a joke of a sentence. The poor little rich boy with the supermodel girlfriend that he so blatantly murdered in cold blood because she refused to open her legs for him is only getting 15 years. Granted, the prison system in South Africa may be brutal and hopefully has nothing but hard labor in store for the creep in which case he'll die there.

Are you sure you don't want to blame it on the Koch Brothers too Marla????

As for the rest of the post..where is the actual PROOF that a) he killed her in cold blood, or b) that she refused to 'open her legs' for him??????

Aussie wrote on Dec 4^th, 2015 at 11:09am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 10:40am: Aussie wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 9:30am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:17pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:15pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:05pm: Alinta wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:25pm: Am not surprised........ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34993002 Not surprised either, but very disappointed. The prosecution case never even got close to proving murder. Manslaughter was the correct verdict IMO. Pig's arse.  If you reckon someone is behind a door and you shoot through the door.....what is your intent other than to put a bullet into anyone behind the door? And the definition of murder requires intent to kill a particular victim, doesn't it?? Shooting at person A and unintentionally killing person B is manslaughter, not murder. Queensland: Quote: CRIMINAL CODE - SECT 302 302 Definition of murder (1) Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say—     (a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed or that of some other person or if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous bodily harm;     (b) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;     (c) if the offender intends to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such crime;     (d) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering thing for either of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (c);     (e) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes; is guilty of murder. (2) Under subsection (1)(a) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed. (3) Under subsection (1)(b) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person. (4) Under subsection (1)(c) to (e) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to result. Yes?? And since he didn't INTEND to kill Reeva (or anyone else, in truth) and was firing to scare/wound an intruder it is STILL not murder.. Tell that to the South African Appeal Court which disagrees with you, but, I guess you know more than it does on South African Law.

Well since the guinea pig I owned in 1975 seems to know more about the law than you, I'd do much better talking to the South African Appeal Court, even though their new ruling is based on politics and public/media opinion than South African Law..

Have you read Alinta's link?

Alinta wrote on Dec 4^th, 2015 at 11:51am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 10:40am: Aussie wrote on Dec 4th, 2015 at 9:30am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:17pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:15pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 10:05pm: Alinta wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:25pm: Am not surprised........ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34993002 Not surprised either, but very disappointed. The prosecution case never even got close to proving murder. Manslaughter was the correct verdict IMO. Pig's arse.  If you reckon someone is behind a door and you shoot through the door.....what is your intent other than to put a bullet into anyone behind the door? And the definition of murder requires intent to kill a particular victim, doesn't it?? Shooting at person A and unintentionally killing person B is manslaughter, not murder. Queensland: Quote: CRIMINAL CODE - SECT 302 302 Definition of murder (1) Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say—     (a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed or that of some other person or if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous bodily harm;     (b) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;     (c) if the offender intends to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such crime;     (d) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering thing for either of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (c);     (e) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes; is guilty of murder. (2) Under subsection (1)(a) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed. (3) Under subsection (1)(b) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person. (4) Under subsection (1)(c) to (e) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to result. Yes?? And since he didn't INTEND to kill Reeva (or anyone else, in truth) and was firing to scare/wound an intruder it is STILL not murder.. Did you read the transcript link I posted Gizmo?  You'll find Dolus Eventualis intention covered by the Appeal Court there. Alternatively just google Dolus Eventualis intention for basic information and you'll probably realise what you're missing in your reasoning.

Yes, I did read Alinta's link..and IMO "Dolus Eventualis" still wasn't proven in either the original case..or in the Appeals case..