Once I read that statement by the prosecutors, that Pistorius was guilty of premeditated murder of a defenseless burglar, I knew they were idiots. Their performance in court proved me right. Since no prosecutor, practicing English Law, has ever been able to achieve such a result ever before, it is as outlandish as a runner stating they are going to run a sub two hour marathon.
Re. Martin case:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/oct/30/tonymartin.ukcrime
Tony Martin's murder conviction quashed
· Conviction reduced to manslaughter
· Martin eligible for parole in a year
· Successful appeal after new evidence
Why don't you tell us what you do for a living and reveal some of your daily important decisions that could be scrutinized? Then we can sit back in our comfy chairs and point to your own idiocy since, as you so clearly argue, all that is required to demonstrate superior thinking in any matter is access to the internet and a keyboard.
Oh and read some Browning while you're at it.
Spoken like someone with no logical rebuttal to original topic, akin to sulking and taking your ball home while on the losing side of pick-up game.
Not at all. I think if you take time to review burlgary cases you'll see that prosecutors regularly lay initial charges of murder against homeowners who kills burglars. Even if the homeowner isn't subsequently found guilty of murder, presumably the prosecutors have a reason for laying that initial charge? But then again, all they did was go to law school and then practice law for years and years before dediciding how to charge an individual given a certain set of statistics. You and Google apparently know the law in their country better than they do. Have you emailed them detailed advice about what they're doing wrong? Isn't it your civic duty to do so, given your prescient analysis of their errors?
I thought the case against Pistorius was strong until:
I learned that the lead detective in the case is facing attempted murder charges.
|main5|dl7|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D273194
Give it up mate, idiots like him aren't worth the time.
You guys are the idiots, failing to come up with any proof to the contrary:
No prosecutor, practicing English Law, has succeeded in having a murder conviction upheld against a homeowner for killing a burglar in their home.
Why are you so stubborn to accept that this is true?
If you present a case where a murder conviction was upheld, you win the argument. Until then, you lose the argument, no matter what excuses/distractions you make.
Ah, no, here's where you're flawed. You said that the prosecution were foolish because of the charges that they've levelled against him. You've then argued that nobody has been found guilty of premeditated murder for killing a burglar in their home. You're committing a fairly simple logical fallacy: the fact the nobody has been found guilty of premeditated murder for killing a burglar in his or her home does not necessarily mean that it is foolish to charge someone with this crime. In fact, many of the cases mentioned in this thread indicate that defendants were subsequently found guilty of lesser charges. It might, therefore, be a tactical procedure to charge someone with a crime, knowing that magistrates and their assistants in SA, or juries in England or American, have the option to find the defendant guilty of a lesser charge. In other words, aim high.This might suggest that a trained prosecutor in South Africe knows better than a random poster on Letsrun about how to proceed with a criminal case.
Pisto wrote:
You guys are the idiots, failing to come up with any proof to the contrary:
No prosecutor, practicing English Law, has succeeded in having a murder conviction upheld against a homeowner for killing a burglar in their home.
Why are you so stubborn to accept that this is true?
If you present a case where a murder conviction was upheld, you win the argument. Until then, you lose the argument, no matter what excuses/distractions you make.
this
Er... wrote:
Ah, no, here's where you're flawed. You said that the prosecution were foolish because of the charges that they've levelled against him. You've then argued that nobody has been found guilty of premeditated murder for killing a burglar in their home.
You're committing a fairly simple logical fallacy: the fact the nobody has been found guilty of premeditated murder for killing a burglar in his or her home does not necessarily mean that it is foolish to charge someone with this crime. In fact, many of the cases mentioned in this thread indicate that defendants were subsequently found guilty of lesser charges. It might, therefore, be a tactical procedure to charge someone with a crime, knowing that magistrates and their assistants in SA, or juries in England or American, have the option to find the defendant guilty of a lesser charge. In other words, aim high.
This might suggest that a trained prosecutor in South Africe knows better than a random poster on Letsrun about how to proceed with a criminal case.
Pisto wrote:You guys are the idiots, failing to come up with any proof to the contrary:
No prosecutor, practicing English Law, has succeeded in having a murder conviction upheld against a homeowner for killing a burglar in their home.
Why are you so stubborn to accept that this is true?
If you present a case where a murder conviction was upheld, you win the argument. Until then, you lose the argument, no matter what excuses/distractions you make.
Are you taking about the genius prosecutors who allowed a man with seven pending charges of attempted murder to lay out their case in court?
That, I agree, was a stupid move on somebody's part, letting Hilton Botha take the case with those charges against him having been reinstated earlier this month.How is this relevant to the nature of the charges against Pistorius?
Pisto wrote:
Are you taking about the genius prosecutors who allowed a man with seven pending charges of attempted murder to lay out their case in court?
maggie moo wrote:
I'm no lawyer (which will be fairly obvious from my post), but I can see how "premeditated murder" might be applied in this case.
Oscar's life wasn't in danger. He was never personally threatened, he had no idea if the intruder was armed, and
If Oscar's story is to be believed, it's obvious he had already determined, "If someone breaks into my house, I will kill them," regardless of personal threat. To me, that shows premeditation.
Again, I don't know the SA laws regarding tresspassing and defense of property. He may have been well within his rights.
Right. The law in South Africa doesn't consider it reasonable to shoot someone four times with the intent of killing them because you thought they were stealing your TV. In the US, doing that is frequently considered heroic, or noble. This is obviously a tremendous different between the US and South Africa. The "burglar" never fired at Pistorius, never brandished a weapon, and was never even visible to Pistorius. That's not cause for fatally shooting someone in South Africa.
The very same South African system, presiding over one of the highest murder rates in the world, has a dismal record of securing murder convictions. Still, the prosecutors boast of securing never-before-achieved verdicts.
"It might, therefore, be a tactical procedure to charge someone with a crime, knowing that magistrates and their assistants in SA, or juries in England or American, have the option to find the defendant guilty of a lesser charge."
You make a good point. However, in making it, you concede that a murder conviction has never been upheld, in a country practicing English Law, against a homeowner killing a burglar.
Looking at the presentation by the prosecution so far, it's no wonder these guys don't get more than a 10% conviction rate in first degree murder trials in South Africa.
There is always a big disparity in pay between good defense lawyers and prosecutors in just about every country, hence the better legal minds being in private practice. It seems South Africa is probably worse in that regards. For a minute, I thought with a supposedly good prosecutor who put a past police chief in jail, there was a chance, but obviously, I was wrong.
No question in my mind, Oscar killed her in a rage. After all, they were arguing all night. Prosecutors have to stop trying to make a name for themselves and do the people's work. Going for murder one, is trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
those quotation marks wrote:
The way it's quoted as "defenseless burglar" makes me wonder if it should have been written as "defenseless 'burglar'" (meaning that "burglar" should be in quotation marks separately, to imply it's not really a "burglar" and that they are being sarcastic about the "burglar" claim). Hence the premeditated murder accusation. That is to say, premeditated murder of the "burglar" (i.e., the girlfriend).
You may have a point here. In essence, the SA journalists are about as impressive as their legal system and prosecutors. That said, I do not conclude Pistorius is innocent. Too many unexplained facts.
Does Pisto have a J.D. or does he just like pretending like he does on the internet?
No, I do not. However, I was a cop, and I recognize idiot prosecutors and lawyers who think they know everything instantly.
Pisto wrote:
No, I do not. However, I was a cop, and I recognize idiot prosecutors and lawyers who think they know everything instantly.
That's funny. You want us to believe that (1) you are an adult and (2) you do not have autism.