Oscar Pistorius: The Appeal

[Pitbull]

Judgement correct?
OP should have known that by firing 4 shots into a door he could have killed someone, that cannot be culpable Hom, how a sane person doesnt understand this is beyond me

It's not about understanding that's the issue.

Again, if it was an armed intruder you would have no issues with it. You have an issue with it because it was Reeva. You're conclusion is based on emotion. The law is not based on emotion.

 

[marine1]

It's not about understanding that's the issue.

Again, if it was an armed intruder you would have no issues with it. You have an issue with it because it was Reeva. You're conclusion is based on emotion. The law is not based on emotion.

Nope I have an issue with it because he shot an innocent person, if it was an intruder there is an element of danger.
There was none here and in the eyes of the law, if it as an intruder, its still murder.

 

[USZA]

Nope I have an issue with it because he shot an innocent person, if it was an intruder there is an element of danger.
There was none here and in the eyes of the law, if it as an intruder, its still murder.

This is exactly what is being discussed right now at the appeal hearing.

 

[marine1]

This is exactly what is being discussed right now at the appeal hearing.

Please keep us updated

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Judge Madjiet: It seems as if you are arguing dolus directus (the consequences of an action were both foreseen and desired by the perpetrator) rather than dolus eventualis (when the perpetrator objectively foresees the possibility of their act causing death and persists regardless of the consequences).

Interesting.

 

[Geoff.D]

This case is important because it helps in clarifying when a gun owner is "allowed" to use a handgun for protection.

Every single hand gun owner in the country should remember from the test he/she underwent to obtain a handgun licence, the questions regarding when one is "allowed" to use the firearm for self defence or not.

So it is correct that the legal questions should be addressed and ruled on. Then once these issues have been cleared out of the way, the specifics of the case in question become the debate.

So we should let the experts get on with it, and if you are a gun owner, take note of the developments ----- they are going to impact on future cases where a firearm is used for self defence, and the shooting results in the death of someone.

What I am tired of is the sensationalism that went with this case, it has been overboard from the get go, far beyond what a "reasonable man/person" should be accepting.

 

[Pitbull]

Nope I have an issue with it because he shot an innocent person, if it was an intruder there is an element of danger.
There was none here and in the eyes of the law, if it as an intruder, its still murder.

No you don't. You have on more than one occasion praised people for shooting armed intruders. But because it's Reeva it's an issue. Not going to debate this with you. It is what it is.

 

[OCP]

He shot through a closed door at an unknown target without a clear threat to his life...... my puny brain fails to comprehend why there is even a debate on murder or not.

 

[marine1]

No you don't. You have on more than one occasion praised people for shooting armed intruders. But because it's Reeva it's an issue. Not going to debate this with you. It is what it is.

You are wrong, I have no objection to taking the life of an intruder, but if he did it this way, without a threat its still murder even though I think he would have been right.
If someone is in your house nd there is no threat and you shoot blindly into a closed door and kill that person its murder.
Doesnt matter who is behind the door. If it was a criminal I would say **** the criminal but its still murder in the eyes of the law

 

[USZA]

Roux is up.

Arguing from a very different POV; contending that the outcome was based on fact and not on the judge's interpretation of the law.

 

[herbertk]

#OscarPistorius Leach: if you put four shots through the door you must know that you will kill somebody. BB

OUCH

IMHO - this is what it all rests on

 

[USZA]

Judge Leach: "it would be a miracle if he didn't shoot someone", referring to smallness of bathroom and Oscar's intent #OscarPistorius

But one of the judges but all of them are contending the same thing.

 

[pinball wizard]

Roux concedes that person firing shots into small toilet cubicle could foresee injury or possible death for person inside

Yikes.

 

[akescpt]

sounds like killer is going back despite nel's initial fsuckup

 

[USZA]

sounds like killer is going back despite nel's initial fsuckup

By the sounds of it, it wasn't Nel who stuffed up; it was the judge who took only certain pieces of evidence into account, the exact words being flung around being "piecemeal".

 

[marine1]

So it seems the judge agrees. Facts speak for themselves can't wait to see the outcome when do they release the verdict

 

[herbertk]

#OscarPistorius Leach: Pistorius can be convicted of murder even if he believed Reeva was in the bedroom. BB

Eina!

 

[AthenianOwl]

Eina!

Rekt

 

[herbertk]

#OscarPistorius Leach: Masipa’s analysis of dolus eventualis seems wrong. BB

Boom!

 

[USZA]

#OscarPistorius Judge saying Masipa misapplied the law by only considering whether it was Steenkamp behind the door.

And this is but one point where she misapplied the law. Judge also contended that she misapplied the law by not taking all evidence into account.