I thought the case against Pistorius was strong until:

The topic of this thread is premeditated murder, the charge Pistorious is facing, and the ridiculousness of the prosecutors claiming that he could also be proven guilty of premeditated murder of a defenseless burglar.

If murder laws in the UK don't include premeditation, what is the point bring it up in this conversation?

And please specifically state what I have been wrong about?

Well, for a start, how do you even know that the charge of premeditated murder even exists in South Africa? Where, on the court documents not in some newspaper story, have you seen a charge of premeditated murder?

Have you never heard of a rhetorical device?

You haven't demonstrated that such a charge exists even in the US (as you pointed out yourself, premeditation is a component of first-degree murder - so you wouldn't be charged with premeditated murder, the official charge is first-degree murder).

As to what you've been wrong about; Tony Martin was found guilty of the murder of a burglar who had entered his residence, end of story. Just because you don't accept a fact doesn't make that fact less factual.

You can gibber on about idiot prosecutors, but the only proven idiot around here is you.

GenericID wrote:

Well, for a start, how do you even know that the charge of premeditated murder even exists in South Africa? Where, on the court documents not in some newspaper story, have you seen a charge of premeditated murder?

Have you never heard of a rhetorical device?

You haven't demonstrated that such a charge exists even in the US (as you pointed out yourself, premeditation is a component of first-degree murder - so you wouldn't be charged with premeditated murder, the official charge is first-degree murder).

As to what you've been wrong about; Tony Martin was found guilty of the murder of a burglar who had entered his residence, end of story. Just because you don't accept a fact doesn't make that fact less factual.

You can gibber on about idiot prosecutors, but the only proven idiot around here is you.

why are you arguing with him? this is a "pearls before swine" situation.

you are right that he has not even shown such a crime even exists here in the usa. there is no such crime as "premeditated murder" in my state and "premeditated" is not even a word used in the statutes. unless premeditated is interpreted to mean "intentional" (which has a very specific meaning beyond what one might think it means in common conversation), premeditated is not even an element of the offense of any degree of "murder" in my state. and on another note, "murder" is not even a word used in my state.

a prosecutor, or judge or defense atty may use that word, but its shorthand for something else. the same way a prosecutor may say "car theft" and that is almost never charged - instead "operating a motor vehicle without owners consent" is charged.

pisto does not even really disagree with you. he cant be that foolish so he is just acting to get a rise out of others. kind of sad actually.

It appears that you are the "gibbering" "idiot." Plus, you have never once attempted to back up anything you say with support.

You stated, "Tony Martin was found guilty of the murder of a burglar who had entered his residence, end of story."

That was not "the end of the story." Martin appealed the murder conviction and it was reduced to manslaughter.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1627540.stm

If you don't agree with the BBC report regarding the Martin final verdict, you should contact the BBC.

The world press have reported the Pistorious case prosecutors as saying Pistorius could also be guilty of "premeditated murder of a defenseless burglar," and he is facing a premeditated murder charge of his girlfirend.

If you don't agree with this BBC report that Pistorius is facing a premeditated murder charge, you can include that in your letter doubting the report on the Martin final verdict to the BBC.

"Details of the prosecution's case against Mr Pistorius, accused of the premeditated murder of Reeva Steenkamp, emerged at a bail hearing in Pretoria."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21502541

US Federal Law

"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."

"Third, the killing was premeditated."

Are you that narrow minded to only know your state laws and not federal laws?

It absolutely is the end of the story. Instead of providing links to news items, why don't you link to the appeal report? Is that because you know the law reports won't back you up?

Martin was tried and convicted of murder by a jury of his peers. The verdict was substituted because of a defect in the defendant, not in the case, which was proven to be murder. Your inability to counter this fact with any facts of your own proves my point about you.

I see that you have failed to provide any evidence of the actual charges faced by Pistorius, why is that?

Never mind the BBC, link to real court documents.

Pisto wrote:

US Federal Law

"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."

That's US law lil' dude, show us where any of that applies in South Africa?

I posted the US Federal Law in response to the guy claiming premeditation does not apply to First Degree Murder in the US.

I'm going with the BBC report on the final result of the Martin case rather than some anonymous internet poster who can't back up anything he says with proof.

Also, if you have a problem with the Guardian's, the Telegraph's, and the BBC's interpretation of the final results of the Martin case, you should take it up with them rather than on this website.

To summarize all the contribution on this thread, human life is very cheap. To think that someone can say, "but oh, I thought it was burglar!", and get sympathy is ridiculous.

Pisto wrote:

US Federal Law

"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."

School is in session:

let's assume Op is tried under US federal law to appease Pisto:

First OP unlawfully killed R (unlawfully = without legal defense)

Second OP killed R with malice aforethought (deliberately and intentionally can be inferred from the use of deadly force, 4 shots at close range, and OP's affidavit saying he intentionally fired and advanced towards the danger)

Third the killing was premeditated (OP did not return fire, he took enough time to retrieve his firearm, walk around 2 corners, and discharge 4 shots knowingly and intentionally = he meant his actions and knew firing would kill whoever was on the other side of the toilet door)

Fourth the killing occurred at the location (jurisdiction)

So OP gets convicted in USA.

Pisto, you may not like the answer, but it is the answer, remember R was not a burglar, the prosecutor is saying OP's alleged mistake does not get him off legally and that a conviction could be obtained legally even if it was a burglar, but because it was not the alleged mistake not only fails legally but morally and pragmatically. Don't miss the forest for the trees. It really really is bad for OP, and I predict over time that as the shock and initial desire of people to want to believe in the good of their fellow man (OP) dissipates and subsides that public opinion to OP will get far worse.

School is out. Enjoy your summer.

I posted the US Federal Law in response to the guy claiming premeditation does not apply to First Degree Murder in the US.

So you CAN'T prove the offence exists in South Africa then? Why not just say so?

Have you never heard of a rhetorical device?

I'm going with the BBC report on the final result of the Martin case rather than some anonymous internet poster who can't back up anything he says with proof.

What, this one:

Farmer guilty of murdering burglar

Well OK, but I think it is more favorable to my sude than yours.

Pisto wrote:

Also, if you have a problem with the Guardian's, the Telegraph's, and the BBC's interpretation of the final results of the Martin case, you should take it up with them rather than on this website.

I don't have a problem with them, but I recognize the difference between journalism and law reports.

Don't you think that using law reports might be a better option for a debate about the merits of a particular issue of law than using media reports, which are simply a journalist's interpretation of that complex legal issue?

It is unlikely that the journalists writing for the BBC, or the Guardian or the Telegraph (the last two sources are particularly politically engaged, and have definitely put their own slant on the reports) are even lawyers, but either way the media stories are designed to explain things to people without any legal background.

Since you claim to have a legal background, and I definitely have a legal background, why don't we act like adults and use the law reports, instead of the uneducated and dumbed-down interpretations of some hack journos? Are you unwilling to do so because you know they won't support your side?

Pisto wrote:

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

You don't understand basic logic. Take the statement "All baseball players wear hats." this means the being a baseball players means you wear a hat. But, it doesn't mean "if you wear a hat you are necessarily a baseball player." Lots of other people also wear hats.

So, even if 1st degree murder = premeditated, premeditated =\= 1st degree murder.

I get it now. You, an anonymous internet poster with aluminum foil wrapped around your head, are right, and the world media, including the BBC, are wrong.

Your baseball analogy is incorrect because premeditation only applies to first degree murder. Your analogy should begin with: Only baseball players wear hats.

That's an interesting claim; are you honestly asserting that only murderers are capable of thinking forward?