Must admit I always thought that the fact that his girlfriend had locked herself in the toilet was hugely significant. Who does that in the middle of the night? But then I was discussing it with my sister and she said "I do".
I don't think the Judge has expressed her reasoning particularly well. But it was down to the prosecution to prove that his version of events was false. They clearly demonstrated that it was extremely unlikely but they never produced the smoking gun that proved absolutely that it couldn't have happened the way he said.
In the end it comes down to what constitutes reasonable doubt. Its a subjective test, everyone will have a slightly different threshold on "reasonableness". I thought any doubt would unreasonable or fanciful, a view clearlynot shared by the judge.
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
From the Beeb:
Quote:Prosecutors may have grounds to appeal over how the judge interpreted the law with regard to the lesser murder charge of dolus eventualis, of which the athlete was cleared.
In South African law, this charge - also known as common-law murder, as distinct from premeditated murder - applies if the accused knew they might kill someone but still went ahead with their course of action.
The judge's critics argue that dolus eventualis includes the possibility of meaning to kill one person and ending up killing another. But Judge Masipa dismissed this possibility: "Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door - let alone the deceased - as he thought she was in the bedroom," she said.
That prompted legal expert professor Pierre de Vos to tweet: "Not sure rejection of dolus eventualis is correct here.
"Surely if you shoot into a door of a small toilet and know somebody behind door you foresee and accept possibility of killing?"
I only know of SA law what I've read during this trial, but this is the same point I made above, and if an eminent SA law professor sees this obvious point, how come a judge doesn't?
It is beyond ridiculous to say a person doing this doesn't foresee the bullets might kill the person behind the door. What else could they possibly foresee? They cannot credibly argue they didn't foresee that a person shot at short range might be killed.
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
Joined: Jun 19 2002 Posts: 14970 Location: Campaigning for a deep attacking line
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:From the Beeb:
I only know of SA law what I've read during this trial, but this is the same point I made above, and if an eminent SA law professor sees this obvious point, how come a judge doesn't?
It is beyond ridiculous to say a person doing this doesn't foresee the bullets might kill the person behind the door. What else could they possibly foresee? They cannot credibly argue they didn't foresee that a person shot at short range might be killed.
Yep.
And, frankly, I just don't believe he didn't notice his girlfriend wasn't laying in bed next to him when he woke up. How that can be taken seriously or believed in any way is a joke in my opinion.
I only know of SA law what I've read during this trial, but this is the same point I made above, and if an eminent SA law professor sees this obvious point, how come a judge doesn't?
It is beyond ridiculous to say a person doing this doesn't foresee the bullets might kill the person behind the door. What else could they possibly foresee? They cannot credibly argue they didn't foresee that a person shot at short range might be killed.
But if that person was an intruder he would have been allowed to kill him. The prosecution haven't been able to prove that Pistorious knew it was his girlfriend behind the door.
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
Richie wrote:Charleze Theron's mum did it and wasn't charged, on that basis
Do you mean the Charlize Theron whose mother faced with her husband armed with a shotgun and saying he was going to kill them both, shot him in self-defence, or some other Charlize Theron, as I'm puzzled as to why you think that is the same.
Shooting first someone who is in your face, armed with a shotgun and saying they are going to kill you and your child is, you think, the same thing?
She was not prosecuted NOT because she was allowed to "shoot an intruder" but because she was allowed to shoot him in self-defence to save her own life and that of her daughter. Him being an "intruder" was not a relevant issue. Him being about to shoot her dead was kind of the big point.
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 17134 Location: Johannesberg, South Africa
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:Do you mean the Charlize Theron whose mother faced with her husband armed with a shotgun and saying he was going to kill them both, shot him in self-defence, or some other Charlize Theron, as I'm puzzled as to why you think that is the same.
Shooting first someone who is in your face, armed with a shotgun and saying they are going to kill you and your child is, you think, the same thing?
She was not prosecuted NOT because she was allowed to "shoot an intruder" but because she was allowed to shoot him in self-defence to save her own life and that of her daughter. Him being an "intruder" was not a relevant issue. Him being about to shoot her dead was kind of the big point.
Yes, the same Charleze Theron whose mother faced with her husband armed with a shotgun and saying he was going to kill them both, who shot said husband as an act of self defence, as the Oscar Pistorius afraid an armed intruder was in his house threatening his life and that of his girlfriend.
Joined: Oct 19 2003 Posts: 17898 Location: Packed like sardines, in a tin
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:Do you mean the Charlize Theron whose mother faced with her husband armed with a shotgun and saying he was going to kill them both, shot him in self-defence, or some other Charlize Theron, as I'm puzzled as to why you think that is the same.
Shooting first someone who is in your face, armed with a shotgun and saying they are going to kill you and your child is, you think, the same thing?
She was not prosecuted NOT because she was allowed to "shoot an intruder" but because she was allowed to shoot him in self-defence to save her own life and that of her daughter. Him being an "intruder" was not a relevant issue. Him being about to shoot her dead was kind of the big point.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 125 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
