I thought the case against Pistorius was strong until:

It appears Pisto is correct that a homeowner will definitely avoid a murder one conviction for killing an intruder in their humble abode. However, I am shocked at some of the severe convictions brought against homeowners for protecting their home and family against scumbag home invaders.

Pisto

It is like you are fighting your way out of a paper bag.

At first I thought you just don't get it, but now I see you want to add

'premeditated FIRST DEGREE murder".

Kinda unfair to ask for 1 thing, then when I provide it, you change your definition huh? I'm not gonna chase your moving target. But your fixation on "BURGLAR" is hard to grasp: "Maye killed a cop, not a BURGLAR". The defense was he thought it was an intruder! And he was convicted.

I thought the legal standard is what you were interested in. Although I do not agree, I will concede that no one in the history of the world, including OP has or will ever be convicted of premeditated FIRST DEGREE murder of a BURGLAR. In exchange, perhaps you could concede: Reeva was not a BURGLAR.

You fixate on "premeditated murder" now "premeditated first degree murder" as though it has some universal gold standard of meaning. But that definition varies between SA, the US, UK, and even from state to state in US, and in some instances is not part of the definition of murder. My take is that there really can be no argument that OP has committed SA's negligent homicide. Can SA prove its case against OP for something more?

Concede OP shot her 4 times, he already has.

Concede the SA Magistrate has not thrown the charges out as filed, you should.

Concede that OP is going to trial to defend the SA premed charge, its true.

C'mon concede Reeva was not a BURGLAR, you know you want to .

All that is left is to catch OP in 1 lie, just 1, and he goes down. That affidavit ain't coming in at trial by the way unless OP takes the stand. So will he survive cross??Or if he wants to avoid that he has to let the evidence show he shot his girl on the toilet 4 times without any explanation or provocation (if he exercises his right not to speak), how good is that gonna go? Crying in June ain't gonna hack it.

Hobbling free wrote:

He's been granted bail

Will he be controlled by an ankle monitor?

First Degree Murder inherently means premeditated murder.

and yes I agree with all the other stuff you mention. I really thought he was going to jail for a long time until I realized that the prosecution team are servilely inept.

severely

I better correct that before J.D. Hack swoops in for the kill.

dentes ingleses wrote:

To in the UK, you are leaving about the biggest piece of the puzzle. What if it was Mo Farah who did the killing?

The Crown Prosecution Service have been heavily criticised recently for the way they have dealt with celebrity cases (see Jimmy Savile).

In the current climate, if Mo was charged with this, the bias would actually be AGAINST him from a prosecution point of view. He would get no favours, quite the contrary in fact.

Something of an aside, but where we're the bullet holes in the door? It seems to me as though he may have been trying to shoot the lock open and accidentally shot her in the process. If they were fighting and she locked herself in the bathroom, he probably got enraged at his lack of control over the situation and decided to take matters back into his own hands, Hollywood style. After he realized he accidently shot her, he used the cricket bat to enter the still locked door to try to resuscitate her. In the process of trying to save her / cover up his mistake, he began fabricating the bulgar story, panicking and calling other people that weren't the paramedics... I just don't think he shot the door with intent to kill.

Let's say he did want to shoot through a door and assume he was going to incapacitate his target immediately, how could he start shooting at a bulgar without attempting some sort of verbal confirmation that someone was in there first (especially knowing that it could have been his girlfriend)? And why would his girlfriend not respond? The tone in his voice would have certainly caused her to not ignore him, even if they had been fighting. And if he quietly snuck up on a door having heard a noise behind it and just started shooting, that seems to be negligence beyond reason - there's no excuse for that. If he's only protecting himself, he could have fled. If he's protecting his gf, how could he be doing that while ignoring the fact that it could be her in the bathroom... ? I just have every confidence that the truth will come out and he will go to jail.

Pisto wrote:

Freeman Lazor appeals pro se from the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his murder conviction. He alleges that his rights under the fifth, sixth and fourteenth amendments were violated by errors in the state court jury trial in which he was convicted of second degree murder with the use of a handgun.

Lazor was not convicted of PREMEDITATED FIRST DEGREE MURDER.

Maye killed a cop, not a BURGLAR.

A homeowner has never been convicted of premeditated murder of a burglar inside his/her home.

You're an idiot. First you ask for a murder conviction. Which people found. So you said it couldn't be overturned, even though those prosecutors got a conviction. Then it has to be premeditated first degree murder. You just keep moving the ball You must be a troll. If I wanted to waste money on west law, I bet I could find what you're looking for, but you're not worth it.

I also don't think you know what premeditated really means under the law. I'd explained but you're not worth time when I could bill a client a few hundred an hour instead.

Also, the prosecutor didn't say "first degree murder."

Pisto wrote:

First Degree Murder inherently means premeditated murder.

Even if that's true, premeditated doesn't necessarily mean first degree murder. Also, the definition of "first degree murder" varies by jurisdiction.

First Degree Murder inherently means premeditated murder.

No it doesn't.

You are utterly clueless. Whenever you are proven wrong you move the target, then to top it off you make incorrect statements like the above.

You've been proven wrong on here, and you've been proven wrong in South Africa because the case HASN'T been thrown out of court as you predicted.

The only person who is "servilely" inept is you.

To those familiar with the law in South Africa: what would the proper charge be if Pistorious had no intention of killing her prior to that evening but became increasingly agitated in the context of their argument, then went into a "blind rage" when she locked herself in the bathroom and refused to open the door?

First Degree Murder absolutely infers premeditation:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/first-degree-murder/

"First degree murder is defined by federal and state laws, which vary by state, but generally define it as a killing which is deliberate and premeditated. Many states define first degree murder as a killing committed in connection with felonies such as rape, burglary, arson, or involving multiple deaths, the killing of certain types of people (such as a child or a police officer), or certain weapons, particularly a gun. It is distinguished from second degree murder, which usually does not require premeditation, and from manslaughter, which lacks premeditation and suggests that at most there was intent to harm rather than to kill.

Under federal law, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the defendant unlawfully killed [victim];

Second, the defendant killed [victim] with malice aforethought;

Third, the killing was premeditated; and

Fourth, the killing occurred at [location stated in indictment].

To kill with malice aforethought means to kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life.

Premeditation means with planning or deliberation. The amount of time needed for premeditation of a killing depends on the person and the circumstances. It must be long enough, after forming the intent to kill, for the killer to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the killing."

And vice versa, accusations of premeditated murder infer first degree murder.

The whole argument has been centered around premeditated murder. It goes without saying that have been talking about Murder One.

That's the problem with most lawyers. They spend their time on exceptions and rare instances, losing sight of what is really taking place.

Cops are concerned about about criminals.

Prosecuting attorneys are concerned about the law.

Defense attorneys are concerned about concern themselves.

Lazor was not convicted of PREMEDITATED FIRST DEGREE MURDER.

Maye killed a cop, not a BURGLAR.

A homeowner has never been convicted of premeditated murder of a burglar inside his/her home'

And OP killed his girlfriend not a burglar

Er... wrote:

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.]

How so? What if the random poster on here was some renowned prosecutor from any part of the country? Hence, the anonymous board.