Valerie
Only one 23
- Messages
- 35,248
- Reaction score
- 22,174
My thoughts exactly. Those subjective triggers are used to try and make the crime or event worse somehow than for instance the murder of a downcast ugly old man.
Oscar Pistorius Trial
- Thread starter JM7
- Start date
- Status
15mholland
New Signing
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
It's a joke how he can get out in 10 months though.
Uno
An Untouchable
- Messages
- 9,944
- Reaction score
- 1,024
I wasnt saying that its even more of a shame because she was pretty. It really was just something I typed without any deeper meaning behind it.
Anyway the uglies need loving too. Lucky for them I wasnt too fussy where I dipped my wick in my younger days!
Anyway the uglies need loving too. Lucky for them I wasnt too fussy where I dipped my wick in my younger days!
undertow
BLUE Nights
- Messages
- 4,368
- Reaction score
- 1,057
It's basic human nature. Especially when it comes to age. A murder of a child will always make us (well, most of us anyway) angrier than a murder of someone who had already one foot in the grave.
Jezz
KINGS OF EUROPE
- Messages
- 7,365
- Reaction score
- 6,187
Not really shocked by the sentencing. In reality he's guilty of manslaughter (culpable homicide to be specific) and not murder so the sentencing imposed to him wouldn't have been extremely high.
It doesn't seem like a satisfactory outcome to many but that's the nature of the offence that Pistorius has been convicted of. The lack of mens rea (guilty mind) was what allowed him to avoid a more serious conviction for his crimes and thankfully the system worked effectively rather than being distorted by media attention and the obvious emotions from the general public that would come with the case.
It's sad that at the end of the day a young woman has lost her life in shocking circumstances. It's a tragedy all round for her family and friends.
It doesn't seem like a satisfactory outcome to many but that's the nature of the offence that Pistorius has been convicted of. The lack of mens rea (guilty mind) was what allowed him to avoid a more serious conviction for his crimes and thankfully the system worked effectively rather than being distorted by media attention and the obvious emotions from the general public that would come with the case.
It's sad that at the end of the day a young woman has lost her life in shocking circumstances. It's a tragedy all round for her family and friends.
Lofty.
Don't You Just Know it?
- Messages
- 2,730
- Reaction score
- 610
Unless by "too lenient" she was referring the non-custodial suggestion that had been mentioned as a possibility, if not a probablity.
Thinking about it, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the rumours that he was to be given a non-custodial sentence actually originated from the Pistorius' camp. From that point on, even a comparatively short prison sentence can be referred to in terms of not getting away with it, not being too lenient.
Gerrie Nel has requested Professor James Grant be part of the appeal team. Smart move. On the dolus eventualis appeal issue, I'll just repeat (from post # 116 above) Grant's words & underline the important bit:
An accused who foresees the possibility that one or more of the requirements of private defence may not be satisfied, who reconciles to that risk and persists despite the risk, will be held to have intention in our law. Not only would such an accused have acted unlawfully, but s/he will have intended to act unlawfully – merely by the foresight of a possibility that one of the requirements of self/private defence may not be satisfied, and to have persisted despite this risk. For Pistorius, this means that, having conceded that he acted unlawfully, if the state can show that he foresaw the possibility (and reconciled himself to the risk) that he was not under attack, that any supposed attack had not actually commenced and was not imminent, or that no legally protected interest was truly under threat, he may be regarded as having intended to act unlawfully and can be convicted of murder. Alternatively, even if Pistorius was genuinely mistaken in respect of all of the requirements of the attack, he may also be convicted of murder if he foresaw the possibility that one of the requirements of the response may not have been satisfied. He can be convicted of murder if the state can show that he foresaw the possibility (and reconciled himself to that risk) that he was not acting against the supposed attacker, that force was not necessary, or that the extent of force used was not necessary and reasonable.
Now during the sentencing, the Judge made reference to a SA case where an accused fired a lethal shot at a door but only after (so the accused testified in that case) the door opened. I'll have to read the transcript to get the case name. That's not the same here however. Pistorius never claimed that the person behind the toilet door tried to open it or did open it - how could he when it was locked from inside & Pistorius had to bash through it in order to get his hand through so as to unlock it. Anyway, that - the locked door - together with the lack of a warning shot or any words spoken by the accused to the deceased (ie. I'm armed - stay where you are - if you attempt to exit etc. I'll shoot) & the fact that he then went ahead & fired 4 shots may just be enough to secure the murder conviction. If so, then poor young Oscar will rue the fact that she locked the door.
An accused who foresees the possibility that one or more of the requirements of private defence may not be satisfied, who reconciles to that risk and persists despite the risk, will be held to have intention in our law. Not only would such an accused have acted unlawfully, but s/he will have intended to act unlawfully – merely by the foresight of a possibility that one of the requirements of self/private defence may not be satisfied, and to have persisted despite this risk. For Pistorius, this means that, having conceded that he acted unlawfully, if the state can show that he foresaw the possibility (and reconciled himself to the risk) that he was not under attack, that any supposed attack had not actually commenced and was not imminent, or that no legally protected interest was truly under threat, he may be regarded as having intended to act unlawfully and can be convicted of murder. Alternatively, even if Pistorius was genuinely mistaken in respect of all of the requirements of the attack, he may also be convicted of murder if he foresaw the possibility that one of the requirements of the response may not have been satisfied. He can be convicted of murder if the state can show that he foresaw the possibility (and reconciled himself to that risk) that he was not acting against the supposed attacker, that force was not necessary, or that the extent of force used was not necessary and reasonable.
Now during the sentencing, the Judge made reference to a SA case where an accused fired a lethal shot at a door but only after (so the accused testified in that case) the door opened. I'll have to read the transcript to get the case name. That's not the same here however. Pistorius never claimed that the person behind the toilet door tried to open it or did open it - how could he when it was locked from inside & Pistorius had to bash through it in order to get his hand through so as to unlock it. Anyway, that - the locked door - together with the lack of a warning shot or any words spoken by the accused to the deceased (ie. I'm armed - stay where you are - if you attempt to exit etc. I'll shoot) & the fact that he then went ahead & fired 4 shots may just be enough to secure the murder conviction. If so, then poor young Oscar will rue the fact that she locked the door.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status