Australian Politics Forum - Blade Runner out of Jail?

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Blade Runner out of Jail?
Reply #60 - Dec 4^th, 2015 at 12:16pm

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??????

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Blade Runner out of Jail?
Reply #61 - Dec 4^th, 2015 at 12:19pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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 sayâ€”

(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..

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 39701 Gender:	Re: Blade Runner out of Jail? Reply #62 - Dec 4^th, 2015 at 12:23pm Have you read Alinta's link?
Back to top	IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Blade Runner out of Jail?
Reply #63 - Dec 4^th, 2015 at 12:49pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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 sayâ€”

(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..

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged