Seems kind of strange to suggest the identity of the person is irrelevant because as far as i know killing someone you thought was a burglar isn't murder.
As far as you know? Based on what? And do you mean under UK or, presumably, SA law?
Even if that's true under SA law, there's presumably caveats to that, otherwise it'd be open season on anyone you could persude to enter your home.
Seems kind of strange to suggest the identity of the person is irrelevant because as far as i know killing someone you thought was a burglar isn't murder.
Of course it's murder if you fire a powerful weapon 4 times into a tiny little cubicle that has no way to escape. That's not self defence, it's an execution.
I've never believed his accounts of events that night. I'm sure they had a blazing row and she went to the bathroom just to get away from him. He went bezerk, totally lost it, and started shooting at her through the bathroom door.
So if it had been an intruder in the bathroom and Pistorious had shot him dead through the closed and locked door that would have been alright, would it? No, of course it wouldn't, it would have been murder. The new judge has got it right, at last.
Pistorious should be back in prison where he belongs. I hope he gets at least 25 years.
Seems kind of strange to suggest the identity of the person is irrelevant because as far as i know killing someone you thought was a burglar isn't murder.
Once self defence is ruled out then the identity of the victim becomes irrelevant.
Such a travesty. Not fair that he should be labelled a murderer because he defended his home from what he thought was an intruder. There is absolutely NO motive for him supposedly killing Reeva. Tired of these armchair prosecutors/keyboard warriors revelling in the man's guilty verdict. He is an olympic champion.
Such a travesty. Not fair that he should be labelled a murderer because he defended his home from what he thought was an intruder. There is absolutely NO motive for him supposedly killing Reeva. Tired of these armchair prosecutors/keyboard warriors revelling in the man's guilty verdict. He is an olympic champion.
He is indeed, an Olympic champion. He's also a convicted murderer.
Based on what he was convicted of the first time. Culpable homicide, which is basically manslaughter.
He's still guitly of killing someone but to say the identity of the person doesn't matter seems odd.
But the whole point of this appeal is that the first conviction was wrong in law. It doesn't form the basis from which you re-examine the case. You need to disregard that verdict completely and go back to the evidence again.
As cat's whiskers alludes to, if you've got a suspected intruder 'contained' in a locked room and he's no longer a theat to you, where's the justification in then trying to blow his head off? They can't harm you.
So would he go back to prison immediately? Can he appeal against his new murder conviction?
Much as I'm pleased at this latest development, I can't help feeling it's a bit...late. But better late than never, I guess.
Seems kind of strange to suggest the identity of the person is irrelevant because as far as i know killing someone you thought was a burglar isn't murder.
As cat's whiskers alludes to, if you've got a suspected intruder 'contained' in a room and he's no longer a theat to you, where's the justification in then trying to blow his head off?
Maybe because you think he will come out of it and blow your head off? Some pretty gruesome home invasions happen in south africa.
Anyway it's all besides the point. I still think it odd to say the identity of the person is irrelevant because it isn't.
Her death was undoubtedly a great tragedy but the issue here is Pistorius's culpability and his intent ( or lack of).
He was lying in bed, he has no legs. He was I imagine, scared out of his mind.
No punishment will bring her back. Pistorius has suffered enough.
Does this apply to all killers or just disabled ones?
By the way, he was not lying in bed when he murdered Reeva. He picked up his gun, walked to the bathroom and deliberately shot her through a closed door.
Finally a judge who can interpret the law! M'lady was clearly off kilter... Also I like how this judge referred to Reeva by her name instead of "the deceased" which must have been so heartbreaking for her parents to hear.
I suspected they had a argument and she wanted to leave.. She took refuge in the toilet maybe and he lost his temper and fired off bullets at the door to scare the shit out of her and in his thick head didn't realize the bullets would ricochet around the small room and kill her....
Then to save his pathetic arse ... Dreamt up his bullshit story.....which sounded off from the start.... Like others have said. Who fires off a gun when you do not know the whereabouts of your loved ones!
What a nasty little man he was... His temper was well known.. And his love of guns...
Bye bye Oscar.... See you when your around 50.....
Such a travesty. Not fair that he should be labelled a murderer because he defended his home from what he thought was an intruder. There is absolutely NO motive for him supposedly killing Reeva. Tired of these armchair prosecutors/keyboard warriors revelling in the man's guilty verdict. He is an olympic champion.
You can't go around killing intruders. What makes this worse is that even if we believe that he didn't know it was Reeva. He couldn't even see the 'intruder', he didn't know if the 'intruder' was armed or what if any level of threat the 'intruder' posed to him. He didn't warn the 'intruder' he just shot 4 times without any care. Just because someone comes into my house uninvited it doesn't give me the right to kill them. If it wasn't Reeva behind the door but a real 'intruder' he would still be guilty of murder.
But the whole point of this appeal is that the first conviction was wrong in law. It doesn't form the basis from which you re-examine the case. You need to disregard that verdict completely and go back to the evidence again.
As cat's whiskers alludes to, if you've got a suspected intruder 'contained' in a locked room and he's no longer a theat to you, where's the justification in then trying to blow his head off? They can't harm you.
It doesn't matter what the purpose of the appeal is my point was that killing a burglar isn't murder so to say the identity of the person you killed is irrelevant seems odd.
Such a travesty. Not fair that he should be labelled a murderer because he defended his home from what he thought was an intruder. There is absolutely NO motive for him supposedly killing Reeva. Tired of these armchair prosecutors/keyboard warriors revelling in the man's guilty verdict. He is an olympic champion.
Such a travesty. Not fair that he should be labelled a murderer because he defended his home from what he thought was an intruder. There is absolutely NO motive for him supposedly killing Reeva. Tired of these armchair prosecutors/keyboard warriors revelling in the man's guilty verdict. He is an olympic champion.
Why should this make any difference. Too much emphasis put on this fact, which virtually nothing at all to this case. At the time of his conviction many people were far too concerned about his sporting future and that any sentence would make it difficult or impossible for him to compete in running events and future Olympics.
Maybe because you think he will come out of it and blow your head off? Some pretty gruesome home invasions happen in south africa.
Anyway it's all besides the point. I still think it odd to say the identity of the person is irrelevant because it isn't.
So shoot him once or twice at a push to incapacitate him. Better still shout a warning before you shoot. You don't have to kill someone to defend yourself.
If it wasn't Reeva behind the door but a real 'intruder' he would still be guilty of murder.
That being said, people are reacting far too smugly as if this proves their assertion that "he knew who was behind the door and he meant to shoot her". That much will never be known, aside from the fact there was no motive.
So shoot him once or twice at a push to incapacitate him. Better still shout a warning before you shoot. You don't have to kill someone to defend yourself.
Yes in hindsight you can say "just do this". But until you're faced in the same situation we won't know how you'd react. And I'm sure we could all look back at you and say "but you should've done this instead".
Comments
Even if that's true under SA law, there's presumably caveats to that, otherwise it'd be open season on anyone you could persude to enter your home.
Of course it's murder if you fire a powerful weapon 4 times into a tiny little cubicle that has no way to escape. That's not self defence, it's an execution.
I've never believed his accounts of events that night. I'm sure they had a blazing row and she went to the bathroom just to get away from him. He went bezerk, totally lost it, and started shooting at her through the bathroom door.
So if it had been an intruder in the bathroom and Pistorious had shot him dead through the closed and locked door that would have been alright, would it? No, of course it wouldn't, it would have been murder. The new judge has got it right, at last.
Pistorious should be back in prison where he belongs. I hope he gets at least 25 years.
Once self defence is ruled out then the identity of the victim becomes irrelevant.
Based on what he was convicted of the first time. Culpable homicide, which is basically manslaughter.
He's still guitly of killing someone but to say the identity of the person doesn't matter seems odd.
He is indeed, an Olympic champion. He's also a convicted murderer.
I absolutely agree, any sane person would agree. I hope he gets a good long sentence now. This news has brightened my day.
As cat's whiskers alludes to, if you've got a suspected intruder 'contained' in a locked room and he's no longer a theat to you, where's the justification in then trying to blow his head off? They can't harm you.
Much as I'm pleased at this latest development, I can't help feeling it's a bit...late. But better late than never, I guess.
Tell that to Tony Martin.
He was convicted of manslaughter... but thanks for proving my point.
Maybe because you think he will come out of it and blow your head off? Some pretty gruesome home invasions happen in south africa.
Anyway it's all besides the point. I still think it odd to say the identity of the person is irrelevant because it isn't.
Does this apply to all killers or just disabled ones?
By the way, he was not lying in bed when he murdered Reeva. He picked up his gun, walked to the bathroom and deliberately shot her through a closed door.
I suspected they had a argument and she wanted to leave.. She took refuge in the toilet maybe and he lost his temper and fired off bullets at the door to scare the shit out of her and in his thick head didn't realize the bullets would ricochet around the small room and kill her....
Then to save his pathetic arse ... Dreamt up his bullshit story.....which sounded off from the start.... Like others have said. Who fires off a gun when you do not know the whereabouts of your loved ones!
What a nasty little man he was... His temper was well known.. And his love of guns...
Bye bye Oscar.... See you when your around 50.....
I suggest you read the judgment, you will find it very enlightening .
You can't go around killing intruders. What makes this worse is that even if we believe that he didn't know it was Reeva. He couldn't even see the 'intruder', he didn't know if the 'intruder' was armed or what if any level of threat the 'intruder' posed to him. He didn't warn the 'intruder' he just shot 4 times without any care. Just because someone comes into my house uninvited it doesn't give me the right to kill them. If it wasn't Reeva behind the door but a real 'intruder' he would still be guilty of murder.
It doesn't matter what the purpose of the appeal is my point was that killing a burglar isn't murder so to say the identity of the person you killed is irrelevant seems odd.
WTH has that got to do with anything?
Why should this make any difference. Too much emphasis put on this fact, which virtually nothing at all to this case. At the time of his conviction many people were far too concerned about his sporting future and that any sentence would make it difficult or impossible for him to compete in running events and future Olympics.
So shoot him once or twice at a push to incapacitate him. Better still shout a warning before you shoot. You don't have to kill someone to defend yourself.
Have you got a link to it? All i'm getting are news links.
That being said, people are reacting far too smugly as if this proves their assertion that "he knew who was behind the door and he meant to shoot her". That much will never be known, aside from the fact there was no motive.
Yes in hindsight you can say "just do this". But until you're faced in the same situation we won't know how you'd react. And I'm sure we could all look back at you and say "but you should've done this instead".