His disability is not an excuse for murder. There are plenty of blind people who are at far more of a disadvantage (in an intruder situation) than he is and plenty of amputees with nothing like his physical strength. He certainly liked throwing his weight around for someone who has turned out to be a bit of a coward.
It may contribute to his paranoia but then if he was so paranoid then why wasn't that house more secure? .. why weren't there bars on the bathroom window? .. why wasn't his car garaged? .. why wasn't he sure if his alarm was working properly? .. why didn't he live in a peaceful part of the world with low crime rates? .. he had the money .. he had the choice.
Why above all .. when it takes seconds .. did he not put his prosthetics on when going to face an intruder? He could have done that whilst keeping his gun trained on the corridor .. he could have enlisted Reeva's help. It doesn't make sense.
While you wait, feel free to go back and review the posts where I've already addressed the issue of the law itself. You will then find you need wait no longer.
Is that it? Then you don't understand the law.
There are NO circumstances where doing what this man did is acceptable. None at all.
Since it seems to have escaped your notice, there in fact was no burglar.
If OP genuinely thought someone other than Reeva was in there, then it could have been anyone.
Would SA be cheering if he'd shot an unarmed 15 year old who'd climbed up the ladder for a dare?
Know your target. See your target. Know what lies beyond your target. Remove yourself from danger before firing if you can.
These are the rules FOR A REASON. One of those reasons is so that you don't blow your girlfriends brains out of the back of hear head by "accident".
This poster boy for ignoramuses everywhere broke every single rule. And you are delusional if you think he wouldn't be on trial if there really was a "burglar". Delusional and wrong.
There are NO circumstances where doing what this man did is acceptable. None at all.
Since it seems to have escaped your notice, there in fact was no burglar.
If OP genuinely thought someone other than Reeva was in there, then it could have been anyone.
Would SA be cheering if he'd shot an unarmed 15 year old who'd climbed up the ladder for a dare?
Know your target. See your target. Know what lies beyond your target. Remove yourself from danger before firing if you can.
These are the rules FOR A REASON. One of those reasons is so that you don't blow your girlfriends brains out of the back of hear head by "accident".
This poster boy for ignoramuses everywhere broke every single rule. And you are delusional if you think he wouldn't be on trial if there really was a "burglar". Delusional and wrong.
There are NO circumstances where doing what this man did is acceptable. None at all.
Since it seems to have escaped your notice, there in fact was no burglar.
If OP genuinely thought someone other than Reeva was in there, then it could have been anyone.
Would SA be cheering if he'd shot an unarmed 15 year old who'd climbed up the ladder for a dare?
Know your target. See your target. Know what lies beyond your target. Remove yourself from danger before firing if you can.
These are the rules FOR A REASON. One of those reasons is so that you don't blow your girlfriends brains out of the back of hear head by "accident".
This poster boy for ignoramuses everywhere broke every single rule. And you are delusional if you think he wouldn't be on trial if there really was a "burglar". Delusional and wrong.
I understand the law. I also understand prosecutions are not brought about solely based on the letter of the law, something you can't seem to wrap your head around.
As for everything else...well it's a rant that has nothing to do with my completely hypothetical scenario where he gets it right and kills an actual burglar.
His disability is not an excuse for murder. There are plenty of blind people who are at far more of a disadvantage (in an intruder situation) than he is and plenty of amputees with nothing like his physical strength. He certainly liked throwing his weight around for someone who has turned out to be a bit of a coward.
It may contribute to his paranoia but then if he was so paranoid then why wasn't that house more secure? .. why weren't there bars on the bathroom window? .. why wasn't his car garaged? .. why wasn't he sure if his alarm was working properly? .. why didn't he live in a peaceful part of the world with low crime rates? .. he had the money .. he had the choice.
Why above all .. when it takes seconds .. did he not put his prosthetics on when going to face an intruder? He could have done that whilst keeping his gun trained on the corridor .. he could have enlisted her help. It doesn't make sense.
Why not call out to Frank for help? He was living on the premises!
Since hearing about the elusive Frank, I believe now more than ever that he knew exactly where Reeva was.
His disability is not an excuse for murder. There are plenty of blind people who are at far more of a disadvantage (in an intruder situation) than he is and plenty of amputees with nothing like his physical strength. He certainly liked throwing his weight around for someone who has turned out to be a bit of a coward.
It may contribute to his paranoia but then if he was so paranoid then why wasn't that house more secure? .. why weren't there bars on the bathroom window? .. why wasn't his car garaged? .. why wasn't he sure if his alarm was working properly? .. why didn't he live in a peaceful part of the world with low crime rates? .. he had the money .. he had the choice.
Why above all .. when it takes seconds .. did he not put his prosthetics on when going to face an intruder? He could have done that whilst keeping his gun trained on the corridor .. he could have enlisted Reeva's help. It doesn't make sense.
I understand the law. I also understand prosecutions are not brought about solely based on the letter of the law, something you can't seem to wrap your head around.
As for everything else...well it's a rant that has nothing to do with my completely hypothetical scenario where he gets it right and kills an actual burglar.
No, you don't understand the law if you think the particulars of this case - inserting a real burglar for Reeva & keeping everything else the same - would prevent OP being brought for trial.
If someone were to break the law this badly, they WOULD be put on trial. Perhaps Sun-reading "Bring back Capital Punishment" cretins might shout a bit, but there are some intelligent people in this country, thankfully.
Beside which, your "point" is non-existent.
There was no burglar. The dead person is Reeva. OP broke the law horrendously and she is dead because of that.
"Oh, well, if she really was a burglar he wouldn't be on trial" is quite the stupidest thing I have actually seen in this thread.
I don’t think Tom Wolmarans’ appearance in court today is going to enhance his ‘reputation’ as a Forensic Ballistic Expert.
Apart from having an appearance and mannerisms of ‘Uncle Bulgaria’ from the Woobles the journalistic tweets from today are also not that kind……
"Roux nudges Wolmarans through his evidence like a respectful son with a slightly doddery father"
‘Wolmarans is trying to remember the spread of bullets holes in door, forgetting that the actual door is beside him in court until Roux reminds him’
"When I was younger I could pull the trigger much faster than I can now."
“Wolmarans asks the judge to repeat herself because he is hard of hearing. Let's hope he didn't do the sound tests!”
“Wolmarans throwing the state a bone as he describes the black tip bullet as a "collectors piece" saying "you can't put your hands on it. Expect Nel to capitalise on this nugget”
“Wolmarans says bullets are a collectors's item. He had to "turn somebody's arm" to get them.”
“Now Wolmarans falls victim to the technology gremlin. His phone goes off -he apologises to stern-faced judge,says he forgot to switch it off”
“Wolmarans also appears to dabble in “true murder” mystery writing”
“Wolmarans has been in court throughout the case, sitting with a slightly Eyorish manner”
He really was a disaster imo. And the BIB I thought I had imagined that. How foolish did he look on that one.
Nel is going to rip him apart when he cross examines him. Sadly he deserves it.
I want to hear how OP got the black talon bullets that are not available to anyone now.
It is important to remember that before you can act in self-defence, the attack against you should have commenced, or at least be imminent. For example, if the thief pulls out a firearm and aims in your direction, then you would be justified in using lethal force to protect your life.
However, you cannot shoot the unsuspecting thief on the premise that if you confront him, he would place your life in danger. The pre-emptive strike principle is not applicable in private defence cases.
Exactly - and don't forget that OP stood for someone who wanted to be viewed as able to compete with able-bodied people and was a poineer , and campaigner and role model for disabled people and athletes who shouldn't be treated any differently to anyone else - such was his claim that his disaiblity never held him back , and it certainly didn't prevent him from using his gun through a closed door now did it !!
Now it suits him , he'll get his Defence to use his disability as a negative , come closing argument , i'm sure !
Why not call out to Frank for help? He was living on the premises!
Since hearing about the elusive Frank, I believe now more than ever that he knew exactly where Reeva was.
All the time he had help on the premises so, like you say, it's even more unbelievable. Phoning Stander to help lift Reeva downstairs was unbelievable too.
Frank could have been there in no time and he also could have checked out the ground level for additional intruders or misplaced ladders etc. No .. it's just a load of old tosh.
Exactly - and don't forget that OP stood for someone who wanted to be viewed as able to compete with able-bodied people and was a poineer for those thinking they should be treated any differently to anyone else - now it suits him , he'll get his Defence to use it in his favour !
I think to claim that disability is any kind of excuse is doing disabled people a huge disservice and is highly insulting.
I fully understand it would still be illegal to kill a real burglar in the same way. It was never my position that it would somehow become legal.
The tone of your post was clearly that if there actually had been a burglar, it would somehow be justifiable enough....in the minds of the SA public, at least.....to stop him being brought to trial.
I highly doubt that.
Burglars have a right to life too. Particularly if they are not physically threatening you in the slightest, and have, in fact, locked themselves in the bog to hide from you.
Exactly - and don't forget that OP stood for someone who wanted to be viewed as able to compete with able-bodied people and was a poineer , and campaigner and role model for disabled people and athletes who shouldn't be treated any differently to anyone else - such was his claim that his disaiblity never held him back , and it certainly didn't prevent him from using his gun through a closed door now did it !!
Now it suits him , he'll get his Defence to use his disability as a negative , come closing argument , i'm sure !
I think Nel said somewhere that his disability is not any mitigation, and neither it should be.
The tone of your post was clearly that if there actually had been a burglar, it would somehow be justifiable enough....in the minds of the SA public, at least.....to stop him being brought to trial.
Yes, that is my belief. So hammering me over the head with the law I was already fully aware of does nothing to change that.
edit: But even if you disagree, there is no call or justification to label it the stupidest thing said in the thread so far. It is not a crazy prospect at all.
Comments
It may contribute to his paranoia but then if he was so paranoid then why wasn't that house more secure? .. why weren't there bars on the bathroom window? .. why wasn't his car garaged? .. why wasn't he sure if his alarm was working properly? .. why didn't he live in a peaceful part of the world with low crime rates? .. he had the money .. he had the choice.
Why above all .. when it takes seconds .. did he not put his prosthetics on when going to face an intruder? He could have done that whilst keeping his gun trained on the corridor .. he could have enlisted Reeva's help. It doesn't make sense.
Someone said that OP was still guilty of murder even if he didn't intent to murder Reeva and that was your answer?
What sort of answer is it? What do you mean?
You haven't answered it at all.
Cheers you. It was very interesting indeed.
And spot on.:D
Is that it? Then you don't understand the law.
There are NO circumstances where doing what this man did is acceptable. None at all.
Since it seems to have escaped your notice, there in fact was no burglar.
If OP genuinely thought someone other than Reeva was in there, then it could have been anyone.
Would SA be cheering if he'd shot an unarmed 15 year old who'd climbed up the ladder for a dare?
Know your target. See your target. Know what lies beyond your target. Remove yourself from danger before firing if you can.
These are the rules FOR A REASON. One of those reasons is so that you don't blow your girlfriends brains out of the back of hear head by "accident".
This poster boy for ignoramuses everywhere broke every single rule. And you are delusional if you think he wouldn't be on trial if there really was a "burglar". Delusional and wrong.
Ouch! You're on fine form today.
As for everything else...well it's a rant that has nothing to do with my completely hypothetical scenario where he gets it right and kills an actual burglar.
Why not call out to Frank for help? He was living on the premises!
Since hearing about the elusive Frank, I believe now more than ever that he knew exactly where Reeva was.
Very well put.
No, you don't understand the law if you think the particulars of this case - inserting a real burglar for Reeva & keeping everything else the same - would prevent OP being brought for trial.
If someone were to break the law this badly, they WOULD be put on trial. Perhaps Sun-reading "Bring back Capital Punishment" cretins might shout a bit, but there are some intelligent people in this country, thankfully.
Beside which, your "point" is non-existent.
There was no burglar. The dead person is Reeva. OP broke the law horrendously and she is dead because of that.
"Oh, well, if she really was a burglar he wouldn't be on trial" is quite the stupidest thing I have actually seen in this thread.
And that is truly saying something.
My jaw hit the floor when I heard about Frank
He really was a disaster imo. And the BIB I thought I had imagined that. How foolish did he look on that one.
Nel is going to rip him apart when he cross examines him. Sadly he deserves it.
I want to hear how OP got the black talon bullets that are not available to anyone now.
It is important to remember that before you can act in self-defence, the attack against you should have commenced, or at least be imminent. For example, if the thief pulls out a firearm and aims in your direction, then you would be justified in using lethal force to protect your life.
However, you cannot shoot the unsuspecting thief on the premise that if you confront him, he would place your life in danger. The pre-emptive strike principle is not applicable in private defence cases.
http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/when-can-you-shoot-to-defend-yourself-1.223629#.U2u0lvldXTp
I heard nothing so why am I on the street outside the front door when others arrive?
Why am I here what happened?
He's been nobbled, threatened call it what you like . It's safer for him to plead ignorance
Exactly - and don't forget that OP stood for someone who wanted to be viewed as able to compete with able-bodied people and was a poineer , and campaigner and role model for disabled people and athletes who shouldn't be treated any differently to anyone else - such was his claim that his disaiblity never held him back , and it certainly didn't prevent him from using his gun through a closed door now did it !!
Now it suits him , he'll get his Defence to use his disability as a negative , come closing argument , i'm sure !
Frank could have been there in no time and he also could have checked out the ground level for additional intruders or misplaced ladders etc. No .. it's just a load of old tosh.
I think to claim that disability is any kind of excuse is doing disabled people a huge disservice and is highly insulting.
The tone of your post was clearly that if there actually had been a burglar, it would somehow be justifiable enough....in the minds of the SA public, at least.....to stop him being brought to trial.
I highly doubt that.
Burglars have a right to life too. Particularly if they are not physically threatening you in the slightest, and have, in fact, locked themselves in the bog to hide from you.
I think Nel said somewhere that his disability is not any mitigation, and neither it should be.
edit: But even if you disagree, there is no call or justification to label it the stupidest thing said in the thread so far. It is not a crazy prospect at all.