[MrWong]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I don't know, for dolus eventualis it has to be established that the consequences were a known possibility at the time of the incident, even if that's a tiny possibility, what's important is that it was "known"... i.e. when he shot at the apparent intruder he would have KNOWN that it was possibly an innocent victim. Based on his version of events, he was 100% convinced that it was a home invasion... he didn't think "it might not be but I'll shoot anyway"... which would be the important factor.

An example often used is if someone was to try to burn down their home to make an insurance claim, and their neighbour's house was then to catch fire and cause a death. The fire-starter didn't intend to kill anyone, but would definitely have known that death or injury was a possibility when they struck the match, and therefore dolus eventualis would apply.

I suppose it depends on SA's self/home defense laws? Is it "legal" to kill an intruder?

I've been reading a number of comments on twitter saying that say the judge has made an error in law by the way she restricted dolus eventualis to Reeva only, when it's irrelevant who was behind the door.

Can't find a more detailed explanation though. Do you know if there's any truth to it?

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by NovoBaratheon

Well the Judge has spoken and in the eyes of the law he isn't a murderer and I guess that's all that matters for now

It does indeed,I do however feel there is more likely than not a guilty verdict coming for the similar to manslaughter charge from her tomorrow.
Not certain by any means as I felt she would have had little hesitation saying so to that today.

I actually thought the Judge had really looked into everything really carefully.

For me,I prefer a jury system of law for those pleading not guilty but I do think this Judge has done a really good job.

[CaudleHalbard]

He could still get up to 15 years in the slammer apparently.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by MrWong

I've been reading a number of comments on twitter saying that say the judge has made an error in law by the way she restricted dolus eventualis to Reeva only, when it's irrelevant who was behind the door.

Can't find a more detailed explanation though. Do you know if there's any truth to it?

Only if it's illegal to shoot and kill an intruder, otherwise IF there's a convincing enough argument that he, personally, had no doubt that it was an intruder then it technically wouldn't apply. The key in it is not there being an objective risk of hurting an innocent bystander - but that the person themselves KNEW what they were doing risked harm to an innocent bystander.

It sounds like he is going to be charged in some way or other, though. At the very least, he has a history of being reckless with firearms AND of being paranoid about home invasion, so having those weapons around at all was somewhat negligent in my opinion. Let alone the way he actually used one.

Like I said earlier I think the prosecution got it totally wrong in going for premeditated / deliberate murder. I fully believe that he knew it was her in the bathroom, but I think he was just angry in the heat of an argument and lost it when she locked him out of the bathroom. I don't think he actually meant to kill her, and that fits with the witness' description of how distressed he was (he probably snapped out of the anger as soon as he realised what he had done).


I'm completely unsurprised that any justice here has been on the extremely soft side, though. Their methods of trial are questionable at best and he's a very high profile celebrity over there.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

For me,I prefer a jury system of law for those pleading not guilty but I do think this Judge has done a really good job.

Yes, the whole thing is a little bit too Judge Dredd for me.

I would prefer a jury made up of experts, personally; psychologists, doctors, criminologists, forensic scientists etc.

A jury of peers is something that would terrify me if I was on trial for something I hadn't done. A random sample of the general public is, unfortunately, by definition likely to have a very "average" average intelligence level and frankly... average intelligence falls somewhere between "a bit slow" and "moderately retarded". Average Mr Public is very easily lead and reactionary. You also have the (huge) problem of people changing their stance to go with the majority simply so that everyone gets to go home / can get back to their jobs.

So yeah, I'd have a similar system with a large pool of potential jurors but with people only being signed up to that pool once they've achieved certain qualifications... and it would just be an expected part of the job for people going into those fields.

[Angelika]

[QUOTE=joeysteele;7260676I prefer a jury system of law for those pleading not guilty but I do think this Judge has done a really good job.[/QUOTE]

South African law is a very sophisticated modern system derived from Roman-Dutch, Westminster and Customs connected to the population. Its fair and relies on leading legal experts, Judges, to examine and decide the case. The Judge is able to chose Accessors to hear the evidence and give opinions. The Accessors are sometimes other judges or experts in fields relating to the type of evidence the case may provide.

I would rather have my fate was determined by experts rather than random individuals drawn from our society.

The Judge and two Accessors in the Pistorious case have done a sterling job applying the law and sifting through the hours of evidence.

[Angelika]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yes, the whole thing is a little bit too Judge Dredd for me.

I would prefer a jury made up of experts, personally; psychologists, doctors, criminologists, forensic scientists etc.

A jury of peers is something that would terrify me if I was on trial for something I hadn't done. A random sample of the general public is, unfortunately, by definition likely to have a very "average" average intelligence level and frankly... average intelligence falls somewhere between "a bit slow" and "moderately retarded". Average Mr Public is very easily lead and reactionary. You also have the (huge) problem of people changing their stance to go with the majority simply so that everyone gets to go home / can get back to their jobs.

.

We should start pushing for judicial reforms and abolish jury of peers in GB. It's very risky.

Just imagine a jury made up of Pauline from BB, James Jordan, Dee, Jo Essex, Ryland etc. They can't be better than experts with proven track records.

[Angelika]

Originally Posted by LiamPRW

Any normal person would check on their partner if they thought they heard someone breaking in, if not at least to see if they were okay, to tell them to call the police, to make sure they stayed where they were.. they wouldn't roll out of bed straight away, grab a gun and fire it through a door, no knowing who or what is on the other side, it just doesn't make sense at all.

It's people like you that make the jury system in the UK very dangerous!

Speculating, coming to false conclusions, pre-judging and projecting your own prejudices onto the accused. You simply have no idea about the circumstances, the culture or the people concerned to be able to make any judgement.

The Judge in the Case has in fact got insight and all the facts and has heard the evidence so why don't you just leave the judgement to her. The judge is an expert.

[GypsyGoth]

He is a short tempered scumbag who got away with murder.

[andybigbro]

I think it's shocking

[Angelika]

Originally Posted by icecakes

If your famous and rich, you can get away with murder,oops looks like he has

Your prejudice is showing!

It's not thoughtful or clever to make a remark like that..........it reveals more about you than anyone else.

You might be easy to pay off, but you are insinuating the Honorable Judge in the case is on your level. I don't think so!

Think about this very carefully : We can only judge others by what we would do
in the same situation. When you make a suggetion as you have above - it's not because you know they did something but because that is what you would do in those circumstances.

[Kizzy]

It's OJ all over again....

[Brother Leon]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It's OJ all over again....

Maybe if he actually walked free......

[GypsyGoth]

I think if he is let off people with no legs will get beaten up all over the world.

[Marc]

ridiculous tbh

[Marc]

Originally Posted by GypsyGoth

I think if he is let off people with no legs will get beaten up all over the world.

lets get them!!!!

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Only if it's illegal to shoot and kill an intruder, otherwise IF there's a convincing enough argument that he, personally, had no doubt that it was an intruder then it technically wouldn't apply. The key in it is not there being an objective risk of hurting an innocent bystander - but that the person themselves KNEW what they were doing risked harm to an innocent bystander.

It sounds like he is going to be charged in some way or other, though. At the very least, he has a history of being reckless with firearms AND of being paranoid about home invasion, so having those weapons around at all was somewhat negligent in my opinion. Let alone the way he actually used one.

Like I said earlier I think the prosecution got it totally wrong in going for premeditated / deliberate murder. I fully believe that he knew it was her in the bathroom, but I think he was just angry in the heat of an argument and lost it when she locked him out of the bathroom. I don't think he actually meant to kill her, and that fits with the witness' description of how distressed he was (he probably snapped out of the anger as soon as he realised what he had done).


I'm completely unsurprised that any justice here has been on the extremely soft side, though. Their methods of trial are questionable at best and he's a very high profile celebrity over there.

Yeah, to me, this sounds like the most logical explanation for what happened.

I don't mean to sound condescending when I ask this but I wonder if any of the people who believe his version of events actually share a bed with a full time partner? Just because for me it seems so bizarre that you wouldn't instinctively turn to them in the bed first thing if you thought you heard an intruder or if you thought you heard someone in your bathroom that your first thought wouldn't be that it's your partner in there? So you'd atleast make sure that they were lying next to you before you unload a gun through the locked door

[lostalex]

it depends what you mean by premeditated murder. I think he has a long history of abuse, and he definitely intended to hurt women over and over and over again. Do i think he planned to kill her a week in advance? no, but i do think based on his actions he planned on shooting her at least 10 minutes in advance. is 10 minutes long enough to be considered premeditated?

how long exactly is "premeditated"?

[lostalex]

I think abusive straight men like him should have similar restrictions put on them just like child molesters do. He shouldn't be allowed within 50 yards of any women and should be totally isolated. He obviously has a problem with abusing women, and no women are safe around him unsupervised. he's clearly a misogynist piece of ****.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

it depends what you mean by premeditated murder. I think he has a long history of abuse, and he definitely intended to hurt women over and over and over again. Do i think he planned to kill her a week in advance? no, but i do think based on his actions he planned on shooting her at least 10 minutes in advance. is 10 minutes long enough to be considered premeditated?

how long exactly is "premeditated"?

I guess the difference is doing it in the heat of the moment while in the middle of a rage or calmly planning it in advance? I don't know, either way dead is dead for that woman

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I guess the difference is doing it in the heat of the moment while in the middle of a rage or calmly planning it in advance? I don't know, either way dead is dead for that woman

exactly, it doesn't matter if it was premeditated or not, the fact is he is a danger to the public (especially women) and a killer either way.

how can he ever be trusted to be alone with a woman ever again? even if it is a psychological disorder, he could snap at any moment. we know this about him, and he has a long history of it.

[Z]

I hope with all my heart he's not given some reduced sentence because of his disability and his nature as a high profile celebrity and all that... just watch it happen now.

[Northern Monkey]

His defense councellor is a dumbass.He just gave his address out live on TV!

[lostalex]

I hope all women in abusive relationships are paying attention. He will kill you.

[Niamh.]

Back on topic please