801 users online (114 members and 687 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 54 of 54 FirstFirst ... 4 44 52 53 54
Results 796 to 800 of 800
  1. #796
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    AU
    Posts
    4,317
    Quote Originally Posted by Estelle View Post
    Oscar Pistorius Case Draws Attention To Judge's Background
    October 15, 2014 4:22 PM ET

    Listen to the Story here:

    http://www.npr.org/2014/10/15/356451...ges-background
    IMO it is to Masipa's credit that she overcame adversity and achieved in her ambition, succeeded at university to graduate in social work, then journalism and eventually with a Law Degree. All of that history is worthy of acknowledgement as being an outstanding achievement, BUT if as alleged in SA Legal circles, she has made an error interpreting the Law in this case, then her verdict needs to be challenged legally in the interests of justice being seen to be done. I hope that the NPA can appeal if they believe there has been an error interpreting the SA law.

  2. #797
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,375
    Quote Originally Posted by lithgow1 View Post
    The PT did enough to convince me when you look at the evidence in totality (earwitnesses, stomach contents and other pathology aspects, ballistics, crime scene photos, defendent's lies) but I guess if you pick those apart one by one (or in the judge's case seemingly ignore the 'tricky' ones) and add to that the 'beyond reasonable doubt' aspect then maybe they didn't. Most legal analysts seemed to think they hadn't for premeditated but had done way enough for dolus eventualis. So I cannot understand a ruling that says an experienced gun owner who knew all the laws relating to his gun use and still fired four black talons bullets into a tiny space could not have known he would likely kill the person in that space, making him guilty of shooting with intent to kill. All three of the four that hit her could have been fatal and IMO there is no doubt whatsoever that he knew that would be the result.
    I agree entirely with the suggestion that OP's knowledge of firearms should have made it absolutely clear that he was likely to kill whoever was behind the toilet door. I'd also expect this to be apparent to those inexperienced with firearms.

    We can accept that there was intent to kill, but we have to balance this with the prosecution charge that OP intended to kill an innocent person. This was deemed to be incorrect by the court, therefore it's imperative that the punishment fits the crime. We can't simply classify the act of unintentionally shooting a partner (in the belief that you were defending yourself and your partner) with the same criminality as somebody intentionally murdering a person. Would you honestly want a justice system that operates like this? If so, then this would be a system that totally ignores the emotive issues between families, partners and loved ones etc.

  3. #798
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by steveml View Post

    We can accept that there was intent to kill, but we have to balance this with the prosecution charge that OP intended to kill an innocent person. This was deemed to be incorrect by the court, therefore it's imperative that the punishment fits the crime. We can't simply classify the act of unintentionally shooting a partner (in the belief that you were defending yourself and your partner) with the same criminality as somebody intentionally murdering a person. Would you honestly want a justice system that operates like this? If so, then this would be a system that totally ignores the emotive issues between families, partners and loved ones etc.
    He was convicted of intentionally killing a person though wasn't he?

  4. #799
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,278
    Quote Originally Posted by steveml View Post
    I agree entirely with the suggestion that OP's knowledge of firearms should have made it absolutely clear that he was likely to kill whoever was behind the toilet door. I'd also expect this to be apparent to those inexperienced with firearms.

    We can accept that there was intent to kill, but we have to balance this with the prosecution charge that OP intended to kill an innocent person. This was deemed to be incorrect by the court, therefore it's imperative that the punishment fits the crime. We can't simply classify the act of unintentionally shooting a partner (in the belief that you were defending yourself and your partner) with the same criminality as somebody intentionally murdering a person. Would you honestly want a justice system that operates like this? If so, then this would be a system that totally ignores the emotive issues between families, partners and loved ones etc.
    I'm trying to understand what you're saying, but it doesn't make sense to me.

    On the night in February 2013, OP made himself judge, jury and executioner when he retrieved his gun from its holster, cocked it, made his way to the bathroom, gave no warning to the perceived intruder, gave no warning shot for the perceived intruder and fired 4 bullets to kill the perceived intruder, not one, but four bullets. Interestingly, he halted for a brief moment after the first shot, then proceeded to pump out the next 3 shots to kill. This is all on the proviso that OP's story is true.

    Imo, the punishment should fit the crime. OP deserves to serve time. What do you believe is adequate punishment?

  5. #800
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by steveml View Post
    I agree entirely with the suggestion that OP's knowledge of firearms should have made it absolutely clear that he was likely to kill whoever was behind the toilet door. I'd also expect this to be apparent to those inexperienced with firearms.

    We can accept that there was intent to kill, but we have to balance this with the prosecution charge that OP intended to kill an innocent person. This was deemed to be incorrect by the court, therefore it's imperative that the punishment fits the crime. We can't simply classify the act of unintentionally shooting a partner (in the belief that you were defending yourself and your partner) with the same criminality as somebody intentionally murdering a person. Would you honestly want a justice system that operates like this? If so, then this would be a system that totally ignores the emotive issues between families, partners and loved ones etc.
    No idea what you are saying. What is "We can accept that there was intent to kill, but we have to balance this with the prosecution charge that OP intended to kill an innocent person."??

Page 54 of 54 FirstFirst ... 4 44 52 53 54


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1503
    Last Post: 10-23-2014, 08:26 AM
  2. Replies: 1080
    Last Post: 10-21-2014, 02:18 AM
  3. Replies: 836
    Last Post: 10-17-2014, 03:14 AM
  4. Replies: 662
    Last Post: 10-15-2014, 07:52 AM
  5. Replies: 794
    Last Post: 10-14-2014, 03:51 AM

Tags for this Thread