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


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!"

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


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.

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


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

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


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...

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


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.

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)

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


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..