Oscar Pistorius has been found guilty of the murder of Reeva Steenkamp, after South Africa's Supreme Court overturned the previous conviction of culpable homicide.
Thoughts?
Oscar Pistorius has been found guilty of the murder of Reeva Steenkamp, after South Africa's Supreme Court overturned the previous conviction of culpable homicide.
Thoughts?
"Hang-em High"
Glad justice will be served but that lady isn't coming back to life any time soon, so does it really matter?
Just keep trying until you get the right verdict. Great justice system.
Yo Tengo Pantalones wrote:
Glad justice will be served but that lady isn't coming back to life any time soon, so does it really matter?
Yes, it's called justice.
This is excellent news.
Justice.
Played Runner is played out.
get the to jail stumpy
I was looking forward to seeing him at a future olympics
Yo Tengo Pantalones wrote:
Glad justice will be served but that lady isn't coming back to life any time soon, so does it really matter?
Yeah, we shouldn't convict murderers because doing so does not bring their victims back to life. Right on.
Mr E wrote:
Yo Tengo Pantalones wrote:Glad justice will be served but that lady isn't coming back to life any time soon, so does it really matter?
Yeah, we shouldn't convict murderers because doing so does not bring their victims back to life. Right on.
Murderers should be convicted. However hanging 'em high (so to speak) won't ever bring back the victims.
Justice vs revenge?
Doesn't make any sense. People who howl for someone else's blood? Pure hatred, revenge, killers themselves.
My rant for the day.
T-Rex, out!!!!
Good.
He deserves the maximum sentence of 15 years, but I highly doubt he gets it.
The judge who made the original ruling is incompetent and should be removed of her duties as well.
My thoughts as well. No double jeopardy, no problem!
Bizarre and frightening legal reasoning however with respect to the concept of self-defense. The opinion appears to state that Pistorius owed a greater duty to anyone behind the door even someone who had broken into his house in the dark of night. He apparently fired too many shots through the door under SA law even if he was reasonable in thinking that an intruder was on the other side.
He is not being convicted of killing his girlfriend; he is convicted of not firing a warning shot, then firing too many shots.
I think most folks would want a law that errors on the side of the understandable adrenal surge of the homeowner, thrust into in a battle situation, esp. if family members are in the house.
In SA I think a prisoner must do 1/3 the minimum before house release so he could go back in for four or they might count time under house arrest as time served giving him about three years inside before he can get back to house confinement
I have no frame of reference in home invasion gun fire or gunning my girlfriend down but when returning fire in gun battles first time shooters tend to fire many more rounds than needed or even just fire away until the weapon runs out of ammo ( plus a good percentage just cower and do not fire at all). I agree given the confined space of the bathroom he was shooting to kill so one shot or many makes no difference in my mind.
As pointed out he was not convicted of killing is girlfriend but a point of law was corrected and found that he 'shot to kill' no matter who he was or thought he was shooting at.
karpopper wrote:
get the to jail stumpy
I understand that you're a troll, but as someone who has a father who lost his lower leg in a workplace accident and continues to run on a prosthetic leg, your comment is hurtful.
Just thought you should know.
If you don't like OP, that is fine, but why do you have to insult people with lost limbs?
Scary wrote:
Bizarre and frightening legal reasoning however with respect to the concept of self-defense. The opinion appears to state that Pistorius owed a greater duty to anyone behind the door even someone who had broken into his house in the dark of night. He apparently fired too many shots through the door under SA law even if he was reasonable in thinking that an intruder was on the other side.
He is not being convicted of killing his girlfriend; he is convicted of not firing a warning shot, then firing too many shots.
I think most folks would want a law that errors on the side of the understandable adrenal surge of the homeowner, thrust into in a battle situation, esp. if family members are in the house.
THIS! A million times this!
Fvcking scary that their legal system allows this.
I mean come ON wrote:
Scary wrote:Bizarre and frightening legal reasoning however with respect to the concept of self-defense. The opinion appears to state that Pistorius owed a greater duty to anyone behind the door even someone who had broken into his house in the dark of night. He apparently fired too many shots through the door under SA law even if he was reasonable in thinking that an intruder was on the other side.
He is not being convicted of killing his girlfriend; he is convicted of not firing a warning shot, then firing too many shots.
I think most folks would want a law that errors on the side of the understandable adrenal surge of the homeowner, thrust into in a battle situation, esp. if family members are in the house.
THIS! A million times this!
Fvcking scary that their legal system allows this.
I agree.
Also strange how he is being tried again.