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.
I think you're trying to say that there is some mitigation if you shoot to kill in self-defence, ie you think your life is in danger. A sane man in Tony Martin's position would have no reason to believe his life was in danger - the burglars were moving away from him at speed. The appeal found that he wasn't a sane man, and therefore couldn't be held to that measure.
If the body behind the toilet door had turned out to be a black man with a gun, this doesn't alter Oscar Pistorius' guilt. If OP genuinely believed that someone might shoot him through the door, he had only to retreat a few feet round the corner. He was in a secure estate patrolled by guards, and could have had security there within the minute. By his own account of events, his life was in 'danger' only because he chose to stand where he did and not to call security as soon as he heard the noise..
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 hear a noise in the middle of the night and sneak downstairs to accost the burglar and accidentally punch your wife in the face is their identity irrelevant?
The judge said there are two possible arguments of self defence. One of which, the one that could have been argued (as I understand it), Pistorius himself rejected. The other one didn't apply in light of the facts of his actions.
So, as there is no valid argument for self defence and as he fired his gun with the intention of killing someone, which he achieved, it is murder.
I think you're trying to say that there is some mitigation if you shoot to kill in self-defence, ie you think your life is in danger. A sane man in Tony Martin;s position would have no reason to believe his life was in danger - the burglars were moving away from him at speed. The appeal found that he wasn't a sane man, and therefore couldn't be held to that measure.
If the body behind the toilet door had turned out to be a black man with a gun, this doesn't alter Oscar Pistorius' guilt. If OP genuinely believed that someone might shoot him through the door, he had only to retreat a few feet round the corner. He was in a secure estate patrolled by guards, and could have had security there within the minute. By his own account of events, his life was in 'danger' only because he chose to stand where he did and not to call security as soon as he heard the noise..
Not forgetting the fact he walked past the door of his bedroom - an escape route out of the house - on his way to the bathroom. At that point he (allegedly) thought some guy had climbed through the bathroom window and quietly hidden in the toilet, shutting the door behind them. So the intruder had retreated for the time being ... why not quietly grab your phone, head downstairs and outside, call security and the police? Of course waking up your girlfriend on the way out and taking her with you?
This seems the logical and safest thing to do in such a situation. Not go walking into the face of danger while waving a gun and shouting at the intruder.
Yes. They clearly do not understand the law. As long as you think someone is trying to rob you anything goes after that.
I'll remember that if I ever want to off my husband "but I thought it was a robber, so I whacked him round the head with a golf club" (I don't have a husband or gold clubs but hey ho)
If you hear a noise in the middle of the night and sneak downstairs to accost the burglar and accidentally punch your wife in the face is their identity irrelevant?
Irrelevant to whom? My wife? Most definitely. She wouldn't care that I thought she was a burglar. All she knows is I punched her face. She'd also quite rightly wonder why - considering I must have noticed she wasn't in bed - I didn't consider that it might be her or even think to check if it was her before blindly lashing out.
Irrelevant to me? Yes. My intentions were good, but I'd have to accept that I was rash and stupid and accept any consequences. I certainly wouldn't feel smug or justified about it. When you know there are people in your house and you hear a noise, you first check it's not them. That's simple common sense, not an afterthought.
Now, do you want to address the hypothetical situation I put to you re. inviting someone into your house, killing them, then claiming they were going to rob you?
Yes. They clearly do not understand the law. As long as you think someone is trying to rob you anything goes after that.
Well obviously they are fallible otherwise the verdict wouldn't have been changed on appeal. You can't refer to a judges verdict because you agree with it as proof they are right.
I'm so relieved that the judges saw through the insanity of the original ruling and called this what it was. Murder. It will bring Reeva's family little comfort but at least they'll have the knowledge that the man who killed their daughter/sister has a murder conviction because of it. His story always stank of bull imo.
Irrelevant to the law. I mean, i don't even understand how this is being questioned because not only do we have different laws based on intent or perception but so do south africa so to even suggest that the identity of the victim is irrelevant seems odd to me and the only way it makes any sense is because he didn't know who was behind the door but if it had been a burglar or attempted murderer or if they had a weapon for example to say their identity is irrelevant seems odd.
If it is irrelevant then shooting a guy who has a machinegun in your bathroom is still murder.
The same judge who fell for his charms and basically let him off, is the one who's going to sentence him.
I'd be very surprised if it's a long sentence.
I'll remember that if I ever want to off my husband "but I thought it was a robber, so I whacked him round the head with a golf club" (I don't have a husband or gold clubs but hey ho)
You won't even have to pretend you thought he was an intruder. He said to me ''I'm going to eat your bar of chocolate''. I thought he was going to rob me for my chocolate so I hit him over the head with the iron 10 times. Not murder I say by the ruling of right honourable dinkydoobie.
The same judge who fell for his charms and basically let him off, is the one who's going to sentence him.
I'd be very surprised if it's a long sentence.
Reported as minimum fifteen years, possible discretion.
Well obviously they are fallible otherwise the verdict wouldn't have been changed on appeal. You can't refer to a judges verdict because you agree with it as proof they are right.
No matter how many of them there are.
This is not a matter of opinion or what observers agree with, the original judge was wrong on clear points of law and this was demonstrated clearly in this morning's summing up and verdict delivery.
The same judge who fell for his charms and basically let him off, is the one who's going to sentence him.
I'd be very surprised if it's a long sentence.
Doesn't it HAVE to be at least 15 years?
Of course he has already served one of them.
ETA: Apparently he will probably be out in a couple of years again:
The source added that even though Pistorius is now a convicted murderer, he could still be out of prison in just three years.
"The maximum is 15 years for unintentional murder, as he has been convicted, he can even get 10 years and eventually only serve 30 per cent, so three years."
Irrelevant to the law. I mean, i don't even understand how this is being questioned not only do we have different laws based on intent or perception but so do south africa so to even suggest that the identity of the victim is irrelevant seems odd to me and the only way it makes any sense is because he didn't know who was behind the door but if it had been a burglar or attempted murder, if they had a weapon for example that their identity would be irrelevant.
But in your hypothetical, the law wouldn't come into it? Whilst my wife would un-doubtedly be pissed off, I don't think she'd actually press charges for what she thinks (because I told her that's what it was) was an honest, but incredibly stupid, mistake. You've got use like for like examples if you want to draw any comparisons.
It's been fun DD, but I really think you're struggling now. Come on, I've played your game, why won't you play mine? It's very easy.
Comments
Where is the rolleyes smilie when you need it?
On a wind up I now think. ;-)
So who decides what is right?
Yes in this case the first judge got it wrong hence the reason for the new ruling.
Should be renamed Porky Poodle ;-)
Ok so as long as you think someone is trying to rob you you can kill them no questions asked???
I think you're trying to say that there is some mitigation if you shoot to kill in self-defence, ie you think your life is in danger. A sane man in Tony Martin's position would have no reason to believe his life was in danger - the burglars were moving away from him at speed. The appeal found that he wasn't a sane man, and therefore couldn't be held to that measure.
If the body behind the toilet door had turned out to be a black man with a gun, this doesn't alter Oscar Pistorius' guilt. If OP genuinely believed that someone might shoot him through the door, he had only to retreat a few feet round the corner. He was in a secure estate patrolled by guards, and could have had security there within the minute. By his own account of events, his life was in 'danger' only because he chose to stand where he did and not to call security as soon as he heard the noise..
If you hear a noise in the middle of the night and sneak downstairs to accost the burglar and accidentally punch your wife in the face is their identity irrelevant?
Yes, indeed.
Yes. They clearly do not understand the law. As long as you think someone is trying to rob you anything goes after that.
So, as there is no valid argument for self defence and as he fired his gun with the intention of killing someone, which he achieved, it is murder.
Not forgetting the fact he walked past the door of his bedroom - an escape route out of the house - on his way to the bathroom. At that point he (allegedly) thought some guy had climbed through the bathroom window and quietly hidden in the toilet, shutting the door behind them. So the intruder had retreated for the time being ... why not quietly grab your phone, head downstairs and outside, call security and the police? Of course waking up your girlfriend on the way out and taking her with you?
This seems the logical and safest thing to do in such a situation. Not go walking into the face of danger while waving a gun and shouting at the intruder.
You spelled believe wrong.
I'll remember that if I ever want to off my husband "but I thought it was a robber, so I whacked him round the head with a golf club" (I don't have a husband or gold clubs but hey ho)
Irrelevant to me? Yes. My intentions were good, but I'd have to accept that I was rash and stupid and accept any consequences. I certainly wouldn't feel smug or justified about it. When you know there are people in your house and you hear a noise, you first check it's not them. That's simple common sense, not an afterthought.
Now, do you want to address the hypothetical situation I put to you re. inviting someone into your house, killing them, then claiming they were going to rob you?
Well obviously they are fallible otherwise the verdict wouldn't have been changed on appeal. You can't refer to a judges verdict because you agree with it as proof they are right.
No matter how many of them there are.
Irrelevant to the law. I mean, i don't even understand how this is being questioned because not only do we have different laws based on intent or perception but so do south africa so to even suggest that the identity of the victim is irrelevant seems odd to me and the only way it makes any sense is because he didn't know who was behind the door but if it had been a burglar or attempted murderer or if they had a weapon for example to say their identity is irrelevant seems odd.
If it is irrelevant then shooting a guy who has a machinegun in your bathroom is still murder.
I'd be very surprised if it's a long sentence.
You won't even have to pretend you thought he was an intruder. He said to me ''I'm going to eat your bar of chocolate''. I thought he was going to rob me for my chocolate so I hit him over the head with the iron 10 times. Not murder I say by the ruling of right honourable dinkydoobie.
Reported as minimum fifteen years, possible discretion.
This is not a matter of opinion or what observers agree with, the original judge was wrong on clear points of law and this was demonstrated clearly in this morning's summing up and verdict delivery.
Doesn't it HAVE to be at least 15 years?
Of course he has already served one of them.
ETA: Apparently he will probably be out in a couple of years again:
The source added that even though Pistorius is now a convicted murderer, he could still be out of prison in just three years.
"The maximum is 15 years for unintentional murder, as he has been convicted, he can even get 10 years and eventually only serve 30 per cent, so three years."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/12029188/Oscar-Pistorius-appeal-decision-live.html
So not too bad for him, I suppose.
It's been fun DD, but I really think you're struggling now. Come on, I've played your game, why won't you play mine? It's very easy.