I thought the case against Pistorius was strong until:

Yep. He's gonna walk.

I think you missed the point. Even if he thought it was a burglar in the bathroom, his actions still would have been premeditated. It wasn't a split second decision kind of shooting.

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.

You should have started with the statement below, realized you had nothing to add, then stopped.

Pisto wrote:

I am not sure of the laws in SA...

Er, do know that laws in the English speaking world all derive from the same place.

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.

Pisto wrote:

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.

Is this so? I seem to recall a few cases when a burglar was shot in the back inside a home and was able to successfully sue the shooter claiming he was attempting to flee. I'm not being a dick, I am genuinely curious.

Pisto wrote:

Er, do know that laws in the English speaking world all derive from the same place.

I understand that some components of South African law derive from English law. There are Dutch and African influences, too, apparently. Yes, I'm getting this from Wiki. It appears from articles on the Pistorius case, however, that what constitutes "pre-meditation" may be very different in SA than in the US. And surely you would agree that there can be a gulf between "derive from" and application, yes?

Pisto wrote:

Er, do know that laws in the English speaking world all derive from the same place.

Yes, my point exactly. In all of the examples provided, none were charged with PREMEDITATED murder. That's why the prosecution are out of their mind trying to claim PREMEDITATED murder of a "defenseless burglar."

in very few places in the US would killing a burglar not be considered murder. Some states, like Florida have what is known as a castle law which allows you to kill a burglar, ie shoot first and ask questions later. However, in Florida if you fail to kill them, you will be in a heap of legal trouble according to said law.

It's moot anyhow, as nobody's going to be dumb enough to believe that he put multiple shots through the door without ascertaining that the person behind it wasn't his girlfriend or roommate... especially in a high-security gated community... especially when he got the gun from under his bed so he could have easily checked to see if his girlfriend was there... especially considering the fact that the police have been called to their residence on numerous occasions, including that very evening for domestic disputes.

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.

60,000 whites murdered by blacks since 1994 in SA. Zero media coverage.

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.

It seems fairly certain that the problem lies in your poor reading comprehension, but I'm not clear exactly what you're reading that's causing you difficulties. Could you please link to the article you appear to be trying to quote in your original post?The prosecution is not going to charge him with premeditated murder of a burglar. Their arugument--the way that it's laid out so far--is that he is lying about the burglar claim, that he knew it was his girlfriend behind the door, and he shot her through the locked bathroom door. He planned to do it and so it was premeditated.

Pisto wrote:

Yes, my point exactly. In all of the examples provided, none were charged with PREMEDITATED murder. That's why the prosecution are out of their mind trying to claim PREMEDITATED murder of a "defenseless burglar."

There is a huge legal difference between murder and PREMEDITATED murder. You fail to see my point due to your lack of knowledge about these legal differences.

It's posted on the letsrun.com homepage.

Maybe this will help. This comes from an ABC news report:

Prosecutors said, "There is no possible explanation to support his report that he thought that it was a burglar. Even [in] his own version, he readied himself, walked to the bathroom with the clear intention and plan to kill the 'burglar' and did so whilst the burglar was harmless and contained in a toilet. This in itself also constitutes premeditated murder of a 'defenseless burglar.''

So, it appears that to a prosecutor in South Africa, the claim is that even if it were a burglar, his actions constitute premeditation in South African law. Seems reasonable, given that this person's job is to prosecute people under South African law. Why are you claiming to know better?

So, when someone whose job it is to prosecute people under South African law says that actions constitute premeditation, do you still know South African law better?

Pisto wrote:

There is a huge legal difference between murder and PREMEDITATED murder. You fail to see my point due to your lack of knowledge about these legal differences.