Oscar Pistorius: The Appeal

Found this in Wiki

Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right ... not to be tried for an offence in respect of an act or omission for which that person has previously been either acquitted or convicted ...
— Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s. 35(3)(m)
 
marine1 said:
Dear god man, accidentally is the key word
OP did not shoot accidentally !!!!!!
Accident = Culp Hom
Intentional = murder.
As for Bees, that could have been self defense and thats why he got off

I dont understand how you are not understanding the difference????
Click to expand...

Yip, seems like you need to be our Chief Justice Marine :p

You seem to have the law all figured out.
 
marine1 said:
Not at all but perhaps I have some experience I this ?????
Click to expand...

The Law is a funny thing.

I'll wait to hear what the SCA says and I'll be happy with their finding. Doesn't matter if I agree or not. I hope you will do the same :p
 
Am with Marine on this one - and I disagree that he would have got convicted of culpable homicide if there had been an intruder behind the door it could still have been a murder charge. I do however think the NPA would have declined to prosecute in the case of an intruder but that is another matter.
 
ambroseg1 said:
Wait. If SA has double jeopardy, how can they get a second shot at Pistorius? Surely what he was convicted of stands? He can appeal, but the state cannot appeal to make the sentence worse? Or what am I not understanding about double jeopardy?

My knowledge of the law is based on my many years of the "The Practice", "Boston Legal" and the Law and Order Series.
Click to expand...

The appeals process is part of the natural course of the justice system. It doesn't constitute double jeopardy. I'm assuming that only comes into play if the appeals process has been exhausted and the conviction/aquittal stands, and no new evidence has been brought to light.
 
Cray said:
Am with Marine on this one - and I disagree that he would have got convicted of culpable homicide if there had been an intruder behind the door. I do however think the NPA might have declined to prosecute in the case of an intruder but that is another matter.
Click to expand...

We agree??? :D

Must agree with you on the second part
 
AthenianOwl said:
You too.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I'm not claiming my view is correct ;) Just how I would apply it since you get different degrees of murder. Having a one shoe fits all does not compute. I'm open to be proven wrong I base my view on previous convictions not emotions.
 
marine1 said:
I think this case was very clear cut. Yes a fight could not be proved but the screams were heard.
Murder imo was the only outcome all in my humble opinion
Click to expand...

I put it to you that Oscar screams like a girl.

The timeline of the screams was not properly established, even the husband/wife neighbours had slightly different stories
 
marine1 said:
Cant believe people are still arguing intent.
FFS you dont blow 4 holes into a closed cubicle where nobody could possibly live and not have intent to kill

I am still 100% convinced he did it intentionally
Amazing how everyone forgets the screams that were heard.
I am still of the opinion he murdered her due to a fight
Click to expand...

I feel the same.

Have you seen the insert on Carte Blanche, where they clearly showed the toilet was flushed just before she bled into the bowl.
He must have heard the toilet flush before he pulled the trigger. No robber in his right mind will hide in the toilet from a threat and flush it.
 
marine1 said:
Cant believe people are still arguing intent.
FFS you dont blow 4 holes into a closed cubicle where nobody could possibly live and not have intent to kill

I am still 100% convinced he did it intentionally
Amazing how everyone forgets the screams that were heard.
I am still of the opinion he murdered her due to a fight
Click to expand...

^This times a million
 
InusB said:
I feel the same.

Have you seen the insert on Carte Blanche, where they clearly showed the toilet was flushed just before she bled into the bowl.
He must have heard the toilet flush before he pulled the trigger. No robber in his right mind will hide in the toilet from a threat and flush it.
Click to expand...

I do believe he killed her on purpose following some kind of altercation. The problem is that wasn't proven. Because it can't be proven how can I now say he murdered her in cold blood?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X