Guest ttfn Posted 11 September 2014 Posted 11 September 2014 So shooting somebody through a door and killing them is not classed as a criminal offence? Cool. No, it is a criminal offence, but in South Africa it's not murder.
Buzzell Posted 11 September 2014 Posted 11 September 2014 No, it is a criminal offence, but in South Africa it's not murder. Even worse then. Cool.
ScouseFox Posted 11 September 2014 Posted 11 September 2014 deep haha yeah thought that when i typed it. just wondering though cos they can never seen their target, so surely can't ever be precise. sure they could know pretty much where their target is, in bed let's say, and they could fire numerous bullets at what they are 99% sure is the target and hope that they all hit the target and said target dies, but they couldn't see it. so just a slap on the wrist yeah? or am i reading this whole thread wrong?
Buzzell Posted 11 September 2014 Posted 11 September 2014 haha yeah thought that when i typed it. just wondering though cos they can never seen their target, so surely can't ever be precise. sure they could know pretty much where their target is, in bed let's say, and they could fire numerous bullets at what they are 99% sure is the target and hope that they all hit the target and said target dies, but they couldn't see it. so just a slap on the wrist yeah? or am i reading this whole thread wrong? Nope, you're reading it right my friend.
leicsmac Posted 12 September 2014 Posted 12 September 2014 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. 1.) He intended to shoot someone. Did he intend to kill them? We don't know. 2.) Yup, he took a life. And kindly stop puttng words in my mouth regarding this. Nowhere have I said it's OK for him to do what he did - he killed a human being, and he deserves to do a lot of time. I believe I have said THAT multiple times. The disagreement is on how long, and the nature of the crime.
leicsmac Posted 12 September 2014 Posted 12 September 2014 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'. I agree that the burglar story is all likelihood bullshit made up to try and get some mitigating circumstances. I also think it's perfectly possible that they were having an argument and he fired into the bathroom door. But neither of those things adds up to proving that he deliberately set out to kill her in, particularly in a way that could be passed off as manslaughter. People are acting like he's going to get away scot-free, but it seems highly likely a verdict of culpable homicide will be reached and he'll be doing 10-15 years in jail. That doesn't sound like getting away with it to me. The legal system is a convoluted mess - no disagreement there, but there's a reason why the burden of proof for murder cases is set as high as it is. You're dealing with peoples lives - and in some cases punishments that are absolute - and so you really, really need certainty in such things. Perhaps the judiciary should start adopting more 'common sense' in their judgements, but personally I prefer laws that aren't open to different interpretations like that - there's enough prejudice in the judicial system already, having laws set in stone helps defend against that. haha yeah thought that when i typed it. just wondering though cos they can never seen their target, so surely can't ever be precise. sure they could know pretty much where their target is, in bed let's say, and they could fire numerous bullets at what they are 99% sure is the target and hope that they all hit the target and said target dies, but they couldn't see it. so just a slap on the wrist yeah? or am i reading this whole thread wrong? Yup, 10 years getting bent over in jail sure sounds like a slap on the wrist to me. Still, it could have been worse - he could have published classified information in the US that was in the public interest. That would have got him a fair bit longer.
Merging Cultures Posted 12 September 2014 Posted 12 September 2014 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. Answer one simple question: 1. Was he married? Case dismissed.
Buzzell Posted 12 September 2014 Posted 12 September 2014 Answer one simple question: 1. Was he married? Case dismissed. Yeah but he killed his wife, even if he meant it or not he still killed her.
Buzzell Posted 12 September 2014 Posted 12 September 2014 1.) He intended to shoot someone. Did he intend to kill them? We don't know. 2.) Yup, he took a life. And kindly stop puttng words in my mouth regarding this. Nowhere have I said it's OK for him to do what he did - he killed a human being, and he deserves to do a lot of time. I believe I have said THAT multiple times. The disagreement is on how long, and the nature of the crime. Its murder. Killing a person? Guilty.
Guest ttfn Posted 12 September 2014 Posted 12 September 2014 Its murder. Killing a person? Guilty. I really hope you don't accidentally knock somebody off their bike whilst driving
leicsmac Posted 12 September 2014 Posted 12 September 2014 Its murder. Killing a person? Guilty. Yup, because every circumstance where a person dies and another person is involved are exactly the same.
filbertway Posted 12 September 2014 Posted 12 September 2014 Have I missed an inside joke in here, why do people keep saying they were married?
Merging Cultures Posted 12 September 2014 Posted 12 September 2014 Have I missed an inside joke in here, why do people keep saying they were married? I don't know. I assumed they haven't really followed the case and thought they were married. Which doesn't help their arguments.
David Guiza Posted 12 September 2014 Posted 12 September 2014 Guilty of count 3 - firing the gun in the restaraunt and not guilty of count 2 - firing gun through sunroof of his car. Understandable, regardless of the situation, handling a loaded gun in a packed restaraunt is just idiotic and could have caused serious or even fatal injuries, it also seems there was next to no evidence regarding the sunroof shot so that's an understandable aquital. Onto count 4 - possession of illegal ammunition without licence, this may take some time! Judging by the replies to Sky News etc, 70% of people didn't even know there were any other incidents
Merging Cultures Posted 12 September 2014 Posted 12 September 2014 Guilty of discharging a weapon in a public place. I think that is up to 5 years? One thing I don't get is why these other charges are included in this case. Was he arrested at the time? If so, why wasn't he tried then? It seems to muddy the waters a bit. Maybe that is the point?
Merging Cultures Posted 12 September 2014 Posted 12 September 2014 Judging by the replies to Sky News etc, 70% of people didn't even know there were any other incidents Same people who think he was married and all unlawful killing is murder. (But as I said above, I don't get why he wasn't tried at the time of the previous incidents.)
David Guiza Posted 12 September 2014 Posted 12 September 2014 Same people who think he was married and all unlawful killing is murder. (But as I said above, I don't get why he wasn't tried at the time of the previous incidents.) I thought that too, the same happens with a lot of these high profile trials it seems. If he never killed Reeva, would that mean he never faced trial for the other incidents? Ridiculous.
Merging Cultures Posted 12 September 2014 Posted 12 September 2014 I thought that too, the same happens with a lot of these high profile trials it seems. If he never killed Reeva, would that mean he never faced trial for the other incidents? Ridiculous. And if they had tried him for the restaurant shooting, they might have revoked his license and Reeva would still be alive. (lots of assumptions there).
David Guiza Posted 12 September 2014 Posted 12 September 2014 Guilty of culpable homicide. Had to happen. Interesting to see the sentence now..
leicsmac Posted 12 September 2014 Posted 12 September 2014 Culpable homicide it is then. He's going down for a while, I would think.
Bobby Hundreds Posted 12 September 2014 Posted 12 September 2014 From the actual minutiae of this case, I'd find it hard to believe that Oscar doesn't warrant the maximum sentence for this verdict. 7-10 years has been touted for the culpable homicide charge but the Judge isn't one for women ending up dead, so may sling the full 15 at him.
Merging Cultures Posted 12 September 2014 Posted 12 September 2014 I don't think he should continue on bail, especially as he has been convicted now. He could run away and end up in Lesotho.
Bobby Hundreds Posted 12 September 2014 Posted 12 September 2014 Have they really just read his address out?
Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot Posted 12 September 2014 Posted 12 September 2014 Everyone knows where it is anyway.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.