I Didn't Think He Had A Leg To Stand On

[cavanami]

Wake up at night...think someone has broken into the house...grab a gun...hear something in the bathroom...

 

Don't you say...who's in there...I've got a gun....open the door...WTF

 

You don't start blazing the door don't without getting some answers or confirmation of the conditions...

 

Something stinks here...

[Flashermac]

Pistorius murder verdicts unsettle some South Africans

 

Two courts in South Africa are now debating Judge Thokozile Masipa's verdict so far in the Oscar Pistorius trial - the court of public opinion and that of legal experts.

 

Legal experts say she followed the law impeccably, by looking at the evidence before her and then evaluating whether the state had proven its case.

 

But others have been unsettled by her ruling that Mr Pistorius was not guilty of murder, though she has yet to reveal her verdict on the lesser charge of culpable homicide.

 

While the law makes provisions for how criminal matters should be handled, judges, as custodians of the law, ultimately use their discretion.

 

Judge Masipa took the view that the state had failed to prove Mr Pistorius had intended to kill someone, so he could not be convicted of murder.

 

"The evidence failed to prove the accused had intention [to kill]," she said. "The accused had the intention to shoot at the person behind the door, not to kill."

 

Respected veteran judge Willem Heath says Judge Masipa could only base her verdict on the evidence before her and the facts of the case.

 

"She went to the crux of the evidence. On the evidence presented, I am in agreement with her there is just not evidence that he had intention to kill," he says. "She had to analyse the evidence and apply the law to that."

 

Lawyer Mannie Witz agrees, saying: "The minute you knock out intention, it can't be murder."

 

But Mr Witz says prosecutors may have grounds to appeal over how the judge interpreted the law with regard to the lesser murder charge of dolus eventualis, of which the athlete was cleared.

 

In South African law, this charge - also known as common-law murder, as distinct from premeditated murder - applies if the accused knew they might kill someone but still went ahead with their course of action.

 

The judge's critics argue that dolus eventualis includes the possibility of meaning to kill one person and ending up killing another. But Judge Masipa dismissed this possibility: "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," she said.

 

That prompted legal expert professor Pierre de Vos to tweet: "Not sure rejection of dolus eventualis is correct here.

 

"Surely if you shoot into a door of a small toilet and know somebody behind door you foresee and accept possibility of killing?"

 

Mr de Vos thinks this should be enough for a conviction for murder.

 

But as Mr Witz points out "the onus is on the state to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, while Mr Pistorius' version only needed to be reasonably or possibly true".

 

On social networking sites and among the crowds outside court, many say they feel Mr Pistorius got off lightly.

 

"I think he should have been found guilty of murder. Killing is killing," says Lindokuhle Mohale, who was watching proceedings on a screen outside court.

 

But Ms Mohale's friend, Julia Ntseki, disagrees.

 

"I believe that is was an honest mistake. Yes it was wrong but it was a mistake. He didn't mean to kill - that can't be murder," she says.

 

Nearby, women carrying "Stop killing us" placards sang mournful songs in support of Reeva Steenkamp and her family.

 

"Women are being killed and nothing is happening. Our daughters are being killed. What he did was wrong," said one of the protesters.

 

"The law has double-standards, women seem to always lose."

 

Another protester said: "South Africa has a big problem with violence against women. What message is this sending? Won't men think they can kill us and simply say it was a mistake?"

 

On Friday, the Steenkamps and those close to Reeva will find out the rest of Judge Masipa's verdicts - and will decide for themselves whether they believe justice has been served.

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29167712

[cavanami]

OK, here's what *** really *** happened, IMO...

 

Girlfriend steps out to play a little hide the weenie with her new boyfriend...

 

She comes back "home"...

 

Argument starts up....

 

She flees to the bathroom...

 

Mr. P fires thru the door...

 

Girlfriend dead...

[Guest]

Yes, they had an argument she ran into the bathroom he lost the plot and shot her through the door.

 

Just assume he did not know it was her, shooting 4 shots through a small bathroom door with someone on the other side is going to kill anybody.

[bust]

So guilty of culpable homicide. He may not ever serve a single day behind bars. But the prosecution are considering appealing the murder dismissal.

[Coss]

If he was in a panic and squealing like a little girl piglet, it could be hard to 'prove' that he had intent to kill, rather than firing blindly like a porcine girlie...

[Dexi]

Max sentance for manslaughter is about 15 yrs so he might still do some substantial time behind bars.

[baa99]

Not with this judge. She believed all of Pistorius testimony, which didn't make any sense.

[Coss]

"hard to 'prove' that he had intent to kill"

 

That's the key, you don't have to believe that he had intent, to deliver a murder verdict, you have to show, definitively, that he had intent to cause death, before he fired the shots.

 

Having said that, my personal view is that he is/was a subject of Roid Rage and should be shot like a dog in the back paddock.

[BelgianBoy]

"hard to 'prove' that he had intent to kill"

 

Having said that, my personal view is that he is/was a subject of Roid Rage and should be shot like a dog in the back paddock.

through a door ?