His mistake was he didn't fire a warning shot 1st (or second, whatever suits, , as long as there's 2 or more shots), so combined with the documented knowledge of their imminent arrival it was deemed this showed premeditated intent to kill.
Then surely everyone in the armed services should be charged with conspiracy to murder ? I guess it all hinges on the word " intent"..... its the wrong word ,being PREPARED to DEFEND does not show intent to murder , in fact ,I bet he was hoping like fuck they didn't turn up , its never the police's fault and who else was there to blame . A bit of intervention by the cops would have gone a long way to ( lets be honest ) postponing this altercation
Well, that's assuming he's not telling porkies. It could be that he never thought there was an intruder in the khazi and that he knowingly shot his girlfriend. That is rather what the whole trial is about. In which case, he wouldn't have been phoning for the Bill.
Oh Im sure Oscar is guilty as all hell . Seems to me that some of these hi profile sports stars develop the opinion that they can do whateverthefuck they like without consequence , Armstrong had an army of lackeys covering his every transgression ..... until it just got to big...........murder is big. I think this guy Pestorius is so used to getting his own way that when lesser ( in his mind ) person thwarts him he looses the plot , and we are at the stage now where he still thinks he can get away with this . I wanna see his face when the judge says " guilty " and he goes down ................ ha ha , just had a thought , hes got no shoelaces to hang himself with
Whenever there is a pending criminal trial, some people seem to find an irresistible temptation to post public messages presuming the defendant's guilt, in advance of any verdict. Why do they do this? What purpose does it serve?
cos you never speculate on anything do you Pete ......you know without any fact or evidence to back it up.....:Angelic:
You seem to be talking about "anything". I'm talking about pending criminal trials. Two different discussions, it seems.
or are we talking about you criticising some people speculating a decision or verdict about a situation before its happened..........you never do that do you......
Quite right, I NEVER presume a defendant's guilt in advance of a verdict, and that is the matter under discussion. I am prepared to venture speculative predictions of other matters, such as sentences to be imposed or the outcome of appeals - but that is an entirely different situation, obviously.
Presume - presume doesnt come into it I think these days most judges never think anyones guilty. Thats how theres so many feckin burgling twats still walking the streets. The stupidity of some judges never failed to amaze me on how gullable they were. We had a seat belt scenario years ago at a magistrates court where the level of stupidity displayed bybthe judge is now in police folklore
Well, judges aren't meant to presume people's guilt, thankfully. They are meant to keep an open mind until the charges have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. This system will tend to favour the criminal, as they will often be guilty of crimes which cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and they will go free. But it also safeguards the innocent. After all, if you didn't do the crime, it should be pretty difficult to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that you did. Still, in the UK, there is a trial by jury, so it's not really meant to be the judge's job to decide if someone is guilty or not (although no doubt they can throw out cases on legal bases). In RSA, of course, it's all rather different. From what I've seen of the Pistorius case so far, it seems tricky to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he knowingly shot his girlfriend (though as I say, I haven't been following it very closely). It seems so difficult, that for the moment, no one really seems to know what happened apart from Pistorius himself.
maybe they should ask him, where exactly was his girlfriend or where did he think she was when he took a gun to shoot the intruder?
Is it illegal to have an opinion these days? Participate in a discussion, with a viewpoint? What a strange world that would be......
Of course you can have opinions, and express them robustly by participating in discussions. Feel free to comment on police investigations, arrests, allegations, charges brought, evidence and arguments put forward, the conduct of trials, sentencing issues, and the state of the law generally. But there is a line to be drawn. In the UK it is not permitted to publish a statement that a defendant is "guilty" when they have not been found (or pleaded) guilty. Some other countries are less scrupulous.
He'll just say, if he hasn't already, that he thought she was in bed. Maybe he has a boat-sized bed, I don't know.
