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.
Of course you don't have to and if you use unreasonable force you will still be found guilty and put in prison but to say the identity of the person is irrelevant is ridiculous.
He was convicted of manslaughter... but thanks for proving my point.
Tony Martin was convicted of murder. A later appeal reduced that to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, ie. serious mental illness.
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.
Perhaps some feel that anyone without legs should escape punishment ;-)
He was convicted of manslaughter... but thanks for proving my point.
On the grounds of being mentally ill (diminished responsibility) not self defence. He was originally convicted of murder and his self defence appeal was rejected. Had he not been unwell the original murder verdict would have stood.
It's just a shame this verdict didn't come before he was released from prison. If he was still in prison then I presume he wouldn't have been allowed to go to house arrest as the previous conviction was overturned. He should be in jail now, not living in luxury at this uncle's home.
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.
Killing a burgler is murder. This isn't the Wild West and I'm sorry but your home is not your castle.
Of course you don't have to and if you use unreasonable force you will still be found guilty and put in prison but to say the identity of the person is irrelevant is ridiculous.
But he's been judged to have used un-reasonable force. So how does the identity angle alter things? Are you saying that if you use un-reasonable force against an intruder, you should be treated more leniently than if you use it against someone whose identity you know?
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".
Well we could all use that excuse. We have to look at it objectively, otherwise you could get off any crime by applying a subjective measure to it.
On the grounds of being mentally ill (diminished responsibility) not self defence. He was originally convicted of murder and his self defence appeal was rejected. Had he not been unwell the original murder verdict would have stood.
And? it proves you can kill someone if you genuinely believe you are in fear. The only reason they went with the mentally ill angle is because he shot them when they were running away.
If they were in his bathroom i doubt they would have had to argue the point to prove it was manslaughter.
But he's been judged to have used un-reasonable force. So how does the identity angle alter things? Are you saying that if you use un-reasonable force against an intruder, you should be treated more leniently than if you use it against someone whose identity you know?
Well, yes... if you don't think they're trying to rob you or worse then it would be murder.
And? it proves you can kill someone if you genuinely believe you are in fear. The only reason they went with the mentally ill angle is because he shot them when they were running away.
If they were in his bathroom i doubt they would have had to argue the point to prove it was manslaughter.
No it doesn't. His defence of self defence was rejected. It means that perhaps because he was mentally ill he didn't react in the same way as someone who wasn't mentally ill would have. Had he not been mentally ill the murder conviction would have stood.
Well, yes... if you don't think they're trying to rob you it would be murder.
Isn't that basically a license to kill someone you've got a grievance against, but you think no-one could directly link you to? All you've got to do is persuade them to come back to your house, then blammo !
'I've never met him before in my life your Honour. As far as I was concerned, he was an intruder. Probably armed, for all I knew. I feared for my life'.
'Did you? Ok, five years for manslaughter, house arrest after one year'.
Shooter walks out of prison laughing his ass off.
ETA - thinking about it, it doesn't even need to be a stranger. Just because you know the victim doesn't mean you couldn't claim they were going to rob you. "Hey, he knew I kept a lot of cash around the place. I never thought he'd rob me though." It's your word against, well, a dead man's.
if you know better than them get in touch and point out where they have gone wrong in their unanimous decision. Your legal brain is wasted here on DS by the looks of.
Comments
Of course you don't have to and if you use unreasonable force you will still be found guilty and put in prison but to say the identity of the person is irrelevant is ridiculous.
Tony Martin was convicted of murder. A later appeal reduced that to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, ie. serious mental illness.
Perhaps some feel that anyone without legs should escape punishment ;-)
On the grounds of being mentally ill (diminished responsibility) not self defence. He was originally convicted of murder and his self defence appeal was rejected. Had he not been unwell the original murder verdict would have stood.
Here you go.
http://cdn.24.co.za/files/Cms/General/d/1801/db3888fd1bc24611805612316c9e413b.pdf
Killing a burgler is murder. This isn't the Wild West and I'm sorry but your home is not your castle.
I would have to agree with this. At the time I did wonder if she had much of a clue what was going on.
Well we could all use that excuse. We have to look at it objectively, otherwise you could get off any crime by applying a subjective measure to it.
And? it proves you can kill someone if you genuinely believe you are in fear. The only reason they went with the mentally ill angle is because he shot them when they were running away.
If they were in his bathroom i doubt they would have had to argue the point to prove it was manslaughter.
Guilty because of media and the noisy minority instead of legal procedure.
edit: not so shocked - this is the way a lot of things are going!
No he was found guilty by applying the law correctly.
Well, yes... if you don't think they're trying to rob you or worse then it would be murder.
Guilty due to him committing murder - unless of course you're more law savvy than the top 5 judges in SA.
Not at all. The decision was made purely on the basis of law by Justice Leach and his learned colleagues.
Read the judgement and you will understand
Serious legal mistakes were made by Masipa in the original trial.
That is just an appeal to authority. Judges get things wrong all the time. Why do you think the verdict was changed on appeal? ;-)
No. Guilty because legal procedure was not followed initially and, if it had been, this would be the correct verdict.
No it doesn't. His defence of self defence was rejected. It means that perhaps because he was mentally ill he didn't react in the same way as someone who wasn't mentally ill would have. Had he not been mentally ill the murder conviction would have stood.
And these judges have just corrected that wrong decision. For all 5 to agree says something, no?
All it says is that they agree... it doesn't make them right.
'I've never met him before in my life your Honour. As far as I was concerned, he was an intruder. Probably armed, for all I knew. I feared for my life'.
'Did you? Ok, five years for manslaughter, house arrest after one year'.
Shooter walks out of prison laughing his ass off.
ETA - thinking about it, it doesn't even need to be a stranger. Just because you know the victim doesn't mean you couldn't claim they were going to rob you. "Hey, he knew I kept a lot of cash around the place. I never thought he'd rob me though." It's your word against, well, a dead man's.
FGS, are you on a wind up?
"The five judges, who were unanimous in their verdict..." http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/dec/03/oscar-pistorius-appeal-court-guilty-murder-reeva-steenkamp-live
if you know better than them get in touch and point out where they have gone wrong in their unanimous decision. Your legal brain is wasted here on DS by the looks of.
5 senior judges unanimously ? I think not!