I thought the case against Pistorius was strong until:

Even in the US, you can't just shoot through the door at what MIGHT be a burgler. He'd be going to jail even in Florida.

Correction Officer wrote:

poor pathetic oscar wrote:

His burglar defense is an even bigger joke than O.J.'s fight to find the real killer. I just hope that the jury members in South Africa aren't as mentally defective as O.J.'s jury.

There's no jury in South Africa's law system, it's all down to a judge.

Did not know that. While I can see some merit in such a system, I would think that it would be much easier to bribe a single judge, in a situation such as this, rather than cajole an entire jury into the verdict you're looking for. Hopefully the trial doesn't wind up with a corrupt judge as we know that Oscar has plenty of money, as well as powerful corporations, such as Nike, invested in the outcome of his trial.

I feel strongly that if you break into someone's house, for any reason, they should be able to shoot you.

yes, I understand that there are situations where this might seem unfair, but you cannot go barging into other people's homes. Never.

If you have a buddy or a mother who lives alone and might shoot you, ring the damned bell and make sure they know it is you.

"Oh no! There's a burglar in my house! I'm gonna get my gun and shoot that person. Aha! I got my gun. Now I'm gonna sneak over to where the burglar is. Sneak ... sneak. Now I'm gonna shoot the burglar dead. BANG! BANG! Oh good, I got them. Yay me!"

GUILTY of PREMEDITATED MURDER. *

* Except possibly in a tiny minority of states with a castle law.

Look it up or go to law school.

Noobs.

I'll say this for you; you don't mind hanging your stupidity out there for everyone to see.

Let me walk you through the story: Pistorius hears a noise and gets out of bed to investigate, he realizes that someone is in the bathroom, GOES BACK INTO THE BEDROOM TO GET HIS GUN, returns to the bathroom door and FIRES THROUGH THE DOOR hitting and killing his girlfriend.

Look at the two parts of that sentence in caps. Lets discuss them in reverse order: if you intentionally kill someone who is not posing an immediate and inescapable threat to you, and about whom you cannot reasonably hold the mistaken belief that they pose an immediate and inescapable threat to you, then that is murder. For the first part, premeditation is defined as "planning, plotting OR deliberating before doing something" (notice the OR).

Now lets apply them to the facts as we know them Pistorius hears a noise, investigates then GOES BACK INTO THE BEDROOM TO GET HIS GUN - this constitutes two types of premeditation - he DELIBERATED and decided to return to the bedroom, PLANNING to arm himself with a lethal weapon. He then shoots through the door at his supposed burglar - shooting at someone is well established as an intention to kill that person. The fact that he fired through a closed door indicates that he could not reasonably hold the opinion that his life was in immediate danger.

So I'm not sure what it is about the case that would be laughed out of court?

In the US it is very difficult to get prosecuted for shooting an intruder. A number of states have very liberal laws on standing your ground and self defense. All you have to do is tell the cops that you were in fear for your life and were certain you would be killed if you did not shoot.

This case will come down to ballistics. Oscar claims to have been w/o his blades when he shot. The police say that the angle of the bullets was downward through the door. Oscar was on his blades and made up the story about being off his blades to make it sound like he was justified in opening fire because he cannot get around quickly w/o the blades. Of course, it is pretty well known that he can move quite well on the blades.

My guess is that this was certainly a pre-medicated killing.

Wow. I think with the first one he shot it seems he's ok, but with the second one, he shot her, then dragged her over to a tarp where the first body was and then put his gun under her chin and fired a "finishing shot". Damn.I'm all for protecting your house and person, but he had clearly disabled her to the point that he had the time and mindset to drag her to another location, and then, (maybe she was savable at this point or not, I guess we might not ever know) he shot her through the head? That's too much.Get attacked at night, and empty your gun into someone if you must, but to shoot and disable and then drag the person to another location and then shoot them through the head as a "finishing shot"...man, that's over the line.

Fat Boy wrote:

There's a guy in Minnesota being charged right now with murdering two burglars that broke into his home.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/minnesota-man-shot-burglars-fired-shots-needed/story?id=17813093

Pisto wrote:

Killing a burglar, who broke into your house in the dead of night, is the EXACT OPPOSITE of premeditated murder. I am not sure of the laws in SA, but in the US, if a prosecutor tried to argue premeditated murder for killing a burglar who broke into a family residence in the dead of night, they would be laughed out of court.

OK so-called lawyers and doubters of my statements, show me a case, anywhere in the world practicing English Law, where a prosecution has SUCCESSFULLY secured a PREMEDITATED MURDER charge against a homeowner for shooting a burglar in his/her house.

All you have to do is tell the cops that you were in fear for your life and were certain you would be killed if you did not shoot.

That's simply not true on any level.

Couldn't you maybe acknowledge that you don't know South African law as well as the prosecutors of the Pistorius case? It's not really that big a deal--there's no reason that you should know their law better than they do.

Pisto wrote:

OK so-called lawyers and doubters of my statements, show me a case, anywhere in the world practicing English Law, where a prosecution has SUCCESSFULLY secured a PREMEDITATED MURDER charge against a homeowner for shooting a burglar in his/her house.

People, people, people, don't you know any amputees? Quit saying that Oscar was on his blades. You can't walk around in those things. He would have been in his regular walking prosthetic legs. The blades add some good height to him, his regular legs are noticeably shorter than his blades, which means that it would have made it much, much harder for ballistics to tell whether or not he was on his stumps or in his prosthetics. His limbs are quite long, so the difference is maybe 6 inches between stumps and legs. Not sure if ballistics can really tell 6 inches of angle difference, especially if she was standing up, sitting down,and moving around while he was shooting at her

Tony Martin, as linked to earlier in the thread.

I have made my statement, and I stand by it. Asking me to back down for it is rather feeble. Why not refute my statement with facts supporting your stance?

As I said, show me a case, in any country practicing English Law, where a prosecution has secured a charge of PREMEDITATED MURDER against a homeowner for killing a burglar in his/her home.

especially if she was standing up, sitting down,and moving around while he was shooting at her

Unless the door that he shot through was also "standing up, sitting down,and moving around while he was shooting at her" I'm guessing they'll have a pretty good idea of the angle.

Precious Roy wrote:

In the US it is very difficult to get prosecuted for shooting an intruder. A number of states have very liberal laws on standing your ground and self defense. All you have to do is tell the cops that you were in fear for your life and were certain you would be killed if you did not shoot.

This case will come down to ballistics. Oscar claims to have been w/o his blades when he shot. The police say that the angle of the bullets was downward through the door. Oscar was on his blades and made up the story about being off his blades to make it sound like he was justified in opening fire because he cannot get around quickly w/o the blades. Of course, it is pretty well known that he can move quite well on the blades.

Don't be dense, the blades are sports equipment; he has normal prosthetic legs for day to day stuff. He probably wears the latter around the house (though the bat is a piece of sports equipment that was nearby).

The final ruling in the Martin case was manslaughter, not murder - a huge difference.

The final ruling in the Martin case was manslaughter DUE TO DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY, which means that it was murder, but the defendant wasn't in his right mind.

Your stupidity was kind of fun initially, but you are becoming wearisome now.

What does it matter? He didn't shoot a burglar, he shot his girlfriend, and I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why OP thought there was a burglar in his bathroom, and not his girlfriend. According to his story, the only plausible reason she could have been in the bathroom was to use the toilet. So she gets up to relieve herself, and he claims she made noises so loud that he could hear them through a closed door from the far side of his bedroom. Loud enough that it caused him to think a burglar had entered his home? Who believes she was being that noisy? Unless you are ill, usually going to the bathroom is a quiet experience, especially for ladies.

Er... wrote:

Couldn't you maybe acknowledge that you don't know South African law as well as the prosecutors of the Pistorius case? It's not really that big a deal--there's no reason that you should know their law better than they do.

Pisto wrote:

OK so-called lawyers and doubters of my statements, show me a case, anywhere in the world practicing English Law, where a prosecution has SUCCESSFULLY secured a PREMEDITATED MURDER charge against a homeowner for shooting a burglar in his/her house.