Pistorious (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
LastGarrison
Well-Known Member
Utter shite......
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Think all she has said so far is that he didn't plan it and wont call it murder
"It follows that the accused's erroneous belief that his life was in danger excludes dolus. The accused therefore cannot be found guilty of murder, dolus eventualis. That however is not the end of the matter, as culpable homicide is a competent verdict," said Judge Masipa
The final judgement could take a while to come out yet. He hasn't been found not guilty as yet
"It follows that the accused's erroneous belief that his life was in danger excludes dolus. The accused therefore cannot be found guilty of murder, dolus eventualis. That however is not the end of the matter, as culpable homicide is a competent verdict," said Judge Masipa
The final judgement could take a while to come out yet. He hasn't been found not guilty as yet
SlowerThanPlatt
Well-Known Member
It's absolutely crazy to me to suggest that upon firing 4 shots through a door you did not foresee that the person on the other side would be killed.
Joe King
Fairly well known member from Malvern
I said he was guilty from the start. The bloke is a loose cannon. A nutter where guns are concerned. They had an arguement, he threatened her, she ran to the bathroom to lock herself away from his temper. He picked up his gun, went to the bathroom and shot through the door at her. Case closed M'Lud!
LastGarrison
Well-Known Member
Not a chance he'll do any jail now I don't think......
dutchman
Well-Known Member
And yet the three men who "accidentally" shot Sabrina Moss to death in London were sentenced to 37 years each for 'murder'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...7-years-street-gun-death-innocent-mother.html
How was Pistorious any less guilty than they were?
lewys33
Well-Known Member
......... Are you serious?
lewys33
Well-Known Member
Of course he will. He can still get up to 15 years.
Joe King
Fairly well known member from Malvern
He has said in his defence that "it was my first offence". Yeah, right. It was Hitlers first offence, it was the Yorkshire Rippers first offence, it was Idi Amin's first offence. Now don't get me wrong, but this was murder/manslaughter - not nicking a Mars bar from a shop!
sw88
Chief Commentator!
:laugh:
sw88
Chief Commentator!
He had one intention; to kill that person behind the door, whom ever it may have been. Wife, intruder, it doesn't matter; the intention was there. Why else would he have gone with that weapon otherwise, and why fire it so many times? Was always going to do more than just scare them off!
Grendel
Well-Known Member
There is every possibility that it will be significantly less than that.
Its a case I'm afraid of a white celebrity receiving significantly favourable treatment in South Africa. Hopefully if the sentence is low then the prosecutors will lodge an appeal.
dutchman
Well-Known Member
Totally.
Sabrina was not the gang's "intended" victim in the same way that Pistorious claims* that Reeva was not his intended victim.
*Not that i believe him.
Last edited:
stupot07
Well-Known Member
It's difficult for us in the UK to be objective, we don't understand their culture or gun laws, which like America are very different to ours. They way they think when someone breaks into their house if different to us.
For us owning a gun is alien, let alone firing one in your own home.
Whether he had intensions to kill her or not, it's down to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did. His version of events were feasible, even though he was found to be an unreliable witness, it cast doubt. It didn't help that the prosecution witness were equally unreliable and inconsistent.
We will never know the real truth.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
For us owning a gun is alien, let alone firing one in your own home.
Whether he had intensions to kill her or not, it's down to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did. His version of events were feasible, even though he was found to be an unreliable witness, it cast doubt. It didn't help that the prosecution witness were equally unreliable and inconsistent.
We will never know the real truth.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
I don't understand all the accusations on here after he was found not guilty of murder ??
There is nothing wrong at all with firing off a few at a bathroom door ?
It's was just a terrible accident that his gf was holding it closed behind her.not expecting ol stubsy to be playing bam Bam with his toys
There is nothing wrong at all with firing off a few at a bathroom door ?
It's was just a terrible accident that his gf was holding it closed behind her.not expecting ol stubsy to be playing bam Bam with his toys
dutchman
Well-Known Member
Except there were no signs of any break in.
So it's 'reasonable' to assume that - when sharing a house with someone else - if woken by someone using the bathroom in the middle of the night they must be an intruder who is armed and likely to inflict immediate serious injury on its occupants?
lewys33
Well-Known Member
I know, hence why I said up to. Although it is ridiculous that he has been bailed. Hopefully that is the last of his freedom! Unfortunately I think you may be right about favourable treatment though.
lewys33
Well-Known Member
Yes but they DID plan on murdering the intended victim. It has not been proven that Pistorious planned to murder the so called "intruder". The 2 stories have no similarities what so ever.