Oscar Pistorius

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

If I'm of sound mine and I've done it, I'm a murderer, just because it's a crime of passion doesn't make you any less of a murderer, be it strangling, stabbing or shooting. If Oscar Pistorious wasn't who he is, and just some man in the street, does anyone reasonable believe he wouldn't of been guilty of murder? Stinks to me.

[filbertway]

If I'm of sound mine and I've done it, I'm a murderer, just because it's a crime of passion doesn't make you any less of a murderer, be it strangling, stabbing or shooting. If Oscar Pistorious wasn't who he is, and just some man in the street, does anyone reasonable believe he wouldn't of been guilty of murder? Stinks to me.

 

I agree, I think the definitions are off. At the very least there should be something in the middle of Murder and Manslaughter. 

[Merging Cultures]

What if it wasn't planned though and he decided to kill her after the argument, surely no legal definition can still not hold that up as not being murder just because he didn't have time to plan it properly in advance?

 

If I stab someone in a pub after a argument I shouldn't be allowed to play the 'it wasn't murder' card as I didn't plan it, the definition is clearly so fcuked up in South Africa its beyond belief.

 

I am no legal eagle, but I'd imagine there is a difference between killing someone using a legally licensed weapon by a disabled man in a country with a high violent crime rate as opposed to you (I assume you are not disabled) using an illegal weapon following an altercation outside a pub in the UK.

[leicsmac]

If I'm of sound mine and I've done it, I'm a murderer, just because it's a crime of passion doesn't make you any less of a murderer, be it strangling, stabbing or shooting. If Oscar Pistorious wasn't who he is, and just some man in the street, does anyone reasonable believe he wouldn't of been guilty of murder? Stinks to me.

 

The law in practically every first-world country disagrees with you. 

 

There's a reason why there are a plethora of terms for the illegal killing of one human by another, and that's because every set of circumstances surrounding the death are different. Murder isn't just some catch-all term that can be used when someone kills somebody else.

[ADK]

I think the disabled card is being played a bit too much, this is a man who could outrun 99.9% of the able bodied population not a complete cripple. He sought out the "intruder" and fired first. But the story he gives doesn't add up anyway, not enough to convict someone in itself but offers no explanation for his actions.

 

I find it impossible you can wake up and grab a gun without realising the person you share a bedroom with is not there.

 

It's like Ian Huntley saying he didn't kill those two girls in Soham, they both hit their heads and drowned in his bath. Presumably in SA he'd not be guilty of murdering them because we can't "see inside his mind" it's daft.

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

The disability has absolutely no bearing on the verdict, says the judge.

 

Fact is before you pull the trigger or thrust the knife it's going through your head that you might kill them, so it's pre medidated. How many people actually think for a few weeks 'fancy killing that person', and goes to great lengths to plan it, probably less than 1% of murders happen this way I imagine. In certain states in America you can and do get charged for murder just for being at the crime scene and not stopping it from happening. To go from that to shooting someone at point blank range through a bit of wood, knowing full well what you were doing, and not being a murderer is something I'll never get my head around, no matter what law works where.

[Merging Cultures]

Isn't that what manslaughter is?

I always thought murder was premeditated.

Often there are 'degrees of murder'

1. With intent and planned

2. With intent

The question here is whether he intended to kill the person.

As mentioned above, he liked guns, and he was using an expanding bullet. So, it is clear he would have known the effect of shooting someone.

But did carrying the gun to the bedroom mean he had intent to kill? When he shot (out of fear??) did he intend to kill?

Most opinions on here are that he intended to kill whoever was behind the door as soon as he picked up and loaded the gun.

The judge, having reviewed all the evidence, has said that she doesn't believe he got out of bed expecting to change his life forever by killing someone. Nor does she believe he intended to kill when he opened fire. At this stage we are speculating that the judge believes, rightly or wrongly, that he committed culpable homicide and that extenuating circumstances led to him killing his girlfriend.

Intending to kill someone, or something, is a huge life altering event. In my opinion, very few people actually intend to kill anyone, whether they are armed with lethal weapons or not.

[leicsmac]

I definitely agree on the definition of murder being wildly different whereever you may be. But I still think that such cases should be handled individually and as such the definition of murder (as well as all the degrees of) is a good system to have.

 

 

The disability has absolutely no bearing on the verdict, says the judge.

 

Fact is before you pull the trigger or thrust the knife it's going through your head that you might kill them, so it's pre medidated. How many people actually think for a few weeks 'fancy killing that person', and goes to great lengths to plan it, probably less than 1% of murders happen this way I imagine. In certain states in America you can and do get charged for murder just for being at the crime scene and not stopping it from happening. To go from that to shooting someone at point blank range through a bit of wood, knowing full well what you were doing, and not being a murderer is something I'll never get my head around, no matter what law works where.

 

Exactly. Might, not will. That difference is crucial.

 

Often there are 'degrees of murder'

1. With intent and planned
2. With intent

The question here is whether he intended to kill the person.

As mentioned above, he liked guns, and he was using an expanding bullet. So, it is clear he would have known the effect of shooting someone.

But did carrying the gun to the bedroom mean he had intent to kill? When he shot (out of fear??) did he intend to kill?

Most opinions on here are that he intended to kill whoever was behind the door as soon as he picked up and loaded the gun.

The judge, having reviewed all the evidence, has said that she doesn't believe he got out of bed expecting to change his life forever by killing someone. Nor does she believe he intended to kill when he opened fire. At this stage we are speculating that the judge believes, rightly or wrongly, that he committed culpable homicide and that extenuating circumstances led to him killing his girlfriend.

Intending to kill someone, or something, is a huge life altering event. In my opinion, very few people actually intend to kill anyone, whether they are armed with lethal weapons or not.

 

This.

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

Often there are 'degrees of murder'

1. With intent and planned

2. With intent

The question here is whether he intended to kill the person.

As mentioned above, he liked guns, and he was using an expanding bullet. So, it is clear he would have known the effect of shooting someone.

But did carrying the gun to the bedroom mean he had intent to kill? When he shot (out of fear??) did he intend to kill?

Most opinions on here are that he intended to kill whoever was behind the door as soon as he picked up and loaded the gun.

The judge, having reviewed all the evidence, has said that she doesn't believe he got out of bed expecting to change his life forever by killing someone. Nor does she believe he intended to kill when he opened fire. At this stage we are speculating that the judge believes, rightly or wrongly, that he committed culpable homicide and that extenuating circumstances led to him killing his girlfriend.

Intending to kill someone, or something, is a huge life altering event. In my opinion, very few people actually intend to kill anyone, whether they are armed with lethal weapons or not.

 

Pretty sure she said the exact opposite of that, which is what makes the verdict hard to understand.

[Merging Cultures]

Pretty sure she said the exact opposite of that, which is what makes the verdict hard to understand.

 

Read below.

 

"The state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder," she said. "There are just not enough facts to support such a finding."

The judge added that the accused believed his life was in danger and therefore could not be found guilty of a lesser charge of murder.

"How could the accused reasonably have foreseen that the shot he fired would kill the deceased?" she said.

"Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility, that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time."

But Judge Masipa then adjourned for lunch before moving on to the charge of culpable homicide which suggests negligence without intention to kill and which could still mean a jail sentence.

"The accused knew there was a person behind the toilet door, he chose to use a firearm. Would a reasonable person in the same circumstances as the accused have foreseen the possibility that if he fired four shots whoever was behind the toilet might be struck and die as a result?

She said the answer was yes.

"I am of the view that the accused acted too hastily and used excessive force. In the circumstances, it is clear that his conduct was negligent," she said, before abruptly adjourning for the day.

 

So... because he acted in defense, it is not murder, but he acted negligently and not reasonably and therefore it is culpable homicide.

[Merging Cultures]

The funny thing is, having lived in Baltimore and had guns fired in my back garden, I am usually against the shooter.

 

Maybe it is because he has a disability and living in a high crime country that I am feeling more inclined to believe his story.

 

But it is also just the legal standpoint that the prosecutors were not able to prove intent to kill, beyond self-defense, in which case I agree there were other courses of action he should have taken first.

[filbertway]

Often there are 'degrees of murder'

1. With intent and planned

2. With intent

The question here is whether he intended to kill the person.

As mentioned above, he liked guns, and he was using an expanding bullet. So, it is clear he would have known the effect of shooting someone.

But did carrying the gun to the bedroom mean he had intent to kill? When he shot (out of fear??) did he intend to kill?

Most opinions on here are that he intended to kill whoever was behind the door as soon as he picked up and loaded the gun.

The judge, having reviewed all the evidence, has said that she doesn't believe he got out of bed expecting to change his life forever by killing someone. Nor does she believe he intended to kill when he opened fire. At this stage we are speculating that the judge believes, rightly or wrongly, that he committed culpable homicide and that extenuating circumstances led to him killing his girlfriend.

Intending to kill someone, or something, is a huge life altering event. In my opinion, very few people actually intend to kill anyone, whether they are armed with lethal weapons or not.

 

I majored in bird law, so I'm not au fait with this particular area. I've been slacking on the good wife as well.

 

Maybe he only intended to ruffle her feathers and fire some bullets around her. 

[Merging Cultures]

I majored in bird law, so I'm not au fait with this particular area. I've been slacking on the good wife as well.

 

Maybe he only intended to ruffle her feathers and fire some bullets around her. 

 

Sure.

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/10273905370619751/

[Buzzell]

So he shoots into a door, intending to hurt someone, kills his wife and still gets away with it?

Lucky bastard.

[ScouseFox]

So he shoots into a door, intending to hurt someone, kills his wife and still gets away with it?

Lucky bastard.

 

pretty unlucky tho cos he killed his wife so now his wife's dead and he definitely didn't mean to  

[Buzzell]

pretty unlucky tho cos he killed his wife so now his wife's dead and he definitely didn't mean to

Surely he would realise that his wife wasn't by his side once he woke up? Any normal human being would suspect there partner would be in the toilet or even pissing around the house. You wouldn't suspect a burglar at that point.

He's a murdering scumbag. Gets away with it because of his social status and probably because he's also classed as disabled.

Disgusting.

[leicsmac]

Surely he would realise that his wife wasn't by his side once he woke up? Any normal human being would suspect there partner would be in the toilet or even pissing around the house. You wouldn't suspect a burglar at that point.

He's a murdering scumbag. Gets away with it because of his social status and probably because he's also classed as disabled.

Disgusting.

 

Yup,because not only did he get up and load his gun with the full and specific intent of killing his girlfriend right at that time, he also fired through the door knowing exactly where she was to such a degree of accuracy that he'd score hits guaranteed to look exactly like he'd just blind-fired through the door and hit her, thus guaranteeing 10 years inside rather than 25. Devious bastard.

 

Apologies for the sarcasm, but the lack of respect shown on here for due process, the idea of the burden of proof and indeed the definition of murder itself is unreal. 

 

If a jury in a trial in the UK is made of people like most FTers, remind me never to commit a crime that needs a jury trial. 

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

The bathroom was the size of a phonebox! How can you fire/spray 4 shots in to it and not expect to kill somebody?

[Buzzell]

Yup,because not only did he get up and load his gun with the full and specific intent of killing his girlfriend right at that time, he also fired through the door knowing exactly where she was to such a degree of accuracy that he'd score hits guaranteed to look exactly like he'd just blind-fired through the door and hit her, thus guaranteeing 10 years inside rather than 25. Devious bastard.

Apologies for the sarcasm, but the lack of respect shown on here for due process, the idea of the burden of proof and indeed the definition of murder itself is unreal.

If a jury in a trial in the UK is made of people like most FTers, remind me never to commit a crime that needs a jury trial.

Answer these two simple questions.

1) Did he intend to hurt somebody by shooting them, whether it being his wife or a burglar?

2) Did he take somebody's life?

So it's fine to shoot at somebody through a door and kill them? It's not classed as murder because I didn't know where my target is and better yet didn't know who I was shooting at!

Stop defending him. He's a murderer. He deserves to do time.

[Kitchandro]

Surely he would realise that his wife wasn't by his side once he woke up? Any normal human being would suspect there partner would be in the toilet or even pissing around the house. You wouldn't suspect a burglar at that point.

He's a murdering scumbag. Gets away with it because of his social status and probably because he's also classed as disabled.

Disgusting.

 

Yep. Sorry but whilst in a court of law he was cleared, in common sense terms he has absolutely no defence. Anyone with a brain between their ears can see that his story does not add up or make any sense to a reasonable person. Sadly, common sense doesn't really count for an awful lot in court, even if it is the biggest piece of evidence. The known facts are looked at more and obviously these don't always tell the full story.

 

I think what people need to realise is it's not really important whether 'due process' was followed or whether there was sufficient evidence yadda yadda yadda. I think what we need to ask ourselves is why a man who is clearly a murderer has been cleared of murder. To me, it's almost as if the judge has just guessed. Maybe she fell for his crocodile tears in the booth.

 

There's no real excuse for shooting your unarmed girlfriend while she's in the toilet. There just isn't. Since he's admitted doing that, he should be sent down for life, it's as simple as that.

 

We need to accept that the system has failed the people on this occasion. That's not really ok.

[Kitchandro]

Yup,because not only did he get up and load his gun with the full and specific intent of killing his girlfriend right at that time, he also fired through the door knowing exactly where she was to such a degree of accuracy that he'd score hits guaranteed to look exactly like he'd just blind-fired through the door and hit her, thus guaranteeing 10 years inside rather than 25. Devious bastard.

 

Apologies for the sarcasm, but the lack of respect shown on here for due process, the idea of the burden of proof and indeed the definition of murder itself is unreal. 

 

If a jury in a trial in the UK is made of people like most FTers, remind me never to commit a crime that needs a jury trial. 

 

Erm, well yeh. Have you seen the size of the toilet? Michael J Fox could have made that shot.

 

Besides, what most likely happened is he killed her in a fit of rage (she probably locked herself in the toilet out of fear). THEN he came up with his story.

 

Not really as farfetched as you're making out, is it? Not neally as farfetched as 'my gf was sleeping next to me, I woke up and she wasn't next to me, but someone was in the toilet. Putting 2 and 2 together I naturally assumed a burglar was in the toilet with a machine gun so I shot bullets wildly into the toilet. Then it turned out it wasn't a burglar with a bazooka, but my girlfriend having a piss. Go figure'.

[ScouseFox]

can a blind man ever be a murderer? 

[Buzzell]

So shooting somebody through a door and killing them is not classed as a criminal offence?

Cool.

[The Horse's Mouth]

can a blind man ever be a murderer? 

deep