A Tale Of Two Oscars
Comments
-
Truth is, he killed her.
They could never prove it as there were no witnesses and as with almost all similar murder cases, its self incrimination that seals the verdict.
nevertheless, he was tried for murder which was a waste of time/money/effort and was found innocent, not only that, they believed his version of events that he was in fear for his life.
This brings about the guilty charge of culpable which given the fact that they believed he was in fear of his life means he should not have been found guilty of that either because when in fear of your life you make rash choices and act otherwise in accordance with character.
I too have worked in Africa and found it to be a wonderful place although to be fair, I didnt frequent the slums.Living MY dream.0 -
You don't say!0
-
VTech wrote:Truth is, he killed her.
They could never prove it as there were no witnesses and as with almost all similar murder cases, its self incrimination that seals the verdict.
nevertheless, he was tried for murder which was a waste of time/money/effort and was found innocent, not only that, they believed his version of events that he was in fear for his life.
This brings about the guilty charge of culpable which given the fact that they believed he was in fear of his life means he should not have been found guilty of that either because when in fear of your life you make rash choices and act otherwise in accordance with character.
I too have worked in Africa and found it to be a wonderful place although to be fair, I didnt frequent the slums.
No. They could not prove that he killed her with intention, but they did believe that his negligent actions lead to her death. He made no effort to actually identify who it was. That's different to justbelieving his version of the events.0 -
Garry H wrote:VTech wrote:Truth is, he killed her.
They could never prove it as there were no witnesses and as with almost all similar murder cases, its self incrimination that seals the verdict.
nevertheless, he was tried for murder which was a waste of time/money/effort and was found innocent, not only that, they believed his version of events that he was in fear for his life.
This brings about the guilty charge of culpable which given the fact that they believed he was in fear of his life means he should not have been found guilty of that either because when in fear of your life you make rash choices and act otherwise in accordance with character.
I too have worked in Africa and found it to be a wonderful place although to be fair, I didnt frequent the slums.
No. They could not prove that he killed her with intention, but they did believe that his negligent actions lead to her death. He made no effort to actually identify who it was. That's different to justbelieving his version of the events.
Ahh, now I understand, people didn't watch the rulings.
Ill try and explain better for those that didn't.
The judge accepted that he feared for his life due to believing he was being robbed, and due to this belief he shot several bullets into a closed door, killing his girlfriend sat behind that door.
This clearly meant that it was believed that he had no intention to kill which we all accept as the ruling but given the fact that it is deemed that he thought it was a burglar, this surely would counteract the then sentence of him being negligent towards his girlfriend for whom the court ruled he was trying to in fact protect from the said robber !!
Also, in this part of the world you can shoot a burglar although the only guideline is that you must fire a warning round first.Living MY dream.0 -
Yes, I read the judge's ruling. My point was that they may have been convinced that OP thought that it was a burglar, but they can also think that his next actions were negligent (to say the least), because, for example, he did nothing to identify who it actually was.0
-
Garry H wrote:Yes, I read the judge's ruling. My point was that they may have been convinced that OP thought that it was a burglar, but they can also think that his next actions were negligent (to say the least), because, for example, he did nothing to identify who it actually was.
Yes, agreed but going by SA law he was entitled to shoot a burglar if he could convince the police the both he and the people in the house were in fear of their life.
The ruling was that this was the case hence the innocent of murder verdict.
They then used the very same point to convict of the other case which IMO was to appease the people of SA after not being able to find a guilty man guilty.
In SA law he need only convince a fear of safety/life and be legally allowed to fire. There isn't a wording in this rule to go around the house and check each person you know to be in the house is safe and sound prior to firing the shot. If this was the case he could have been guilty of negligence but that would counteract the ruling that he was truly in fear for his life.Living MY dream.0 -
If what the BBC reports that Reeva Steenkamp's mother says is true ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29777703 ), then I don't understand how these facts would not be aired in open court during the trial, i.e.:
1) Reeva's clothes were packed, and she was going to leave him that night
2) She was in the toilet with two mobile phones.
If I was on the jury, and that information was presented as fact, I know what my decision would be.0
