Dubstepforum.com

djredi2step wrote:its not acceptable to shoot someone just because you don't know who they are and think they are a threat, thats what the police are for lol

Can't decide if intentionally or unintentionally funny.

You really don't miss an opportunity do you? Do you actually ever sleep noways?

nowaysj is omniscient

garethom wrote:Do you actually ever sleep noways?

They say you can sleep when you're dead. If this keeps up, I'm going to be getting a lot of sleep.

nowaysj wrote:

djredi2step wrote:its not acceptable to shoot someone just because you don't know who they are and think they are a threat, thats what the police are for lol

Can't decide if intentionally or unintentionally funny.

haha thats why i put the 'lol' at the end
but thanks for the benefit of the doubt

Electric_Head wrote:FYI guys, it was his girlfriend.

Chances are it will be manslaughter because we don't have 2nd degree murder here and I don't think he'll be convicted of murder.
Basically this seems to be a case of Pistorius being trigger happy and having major anger issues based on historical evidence.

It would seem he did not plan to kill her so it can't be seen as premeditated.
He's guilty of murder but not in the judicial sense.

called it

ultraspatial wrote:it's still voluntary manslaughter

they should take away his prosthetic legs and super glue a pair of crocks in place

wich wasteman pagan said innocent

I'm 'Stumped' over this case. Da Dum Tsh!

he knew exactly what the fuck he was doing.

OGLemon wrote:they should take away his prosthetic legs and super glue a pair of crocks in place

dont chat shit about crocks

Are you expanding your shoe persona?

??????

[+] Spoiler

OGLemon wrote:??????

[+] Spoiler

these puppies, never wear em out of the house tho

[+] Spoiler

just like zimmerman seems like a lot of "reasonable" doubt in this case

does that mean i dont think hes a murderer? no

does that mean he'll be charged with murder? idk might not be

happy valentines day!

wait a minute ehbs u actually own a pair of crocs?

magma wrote:Manslaughter / whatever-the-SA-equivalent-is probably. You can't go around shooting guns at people you haven't properly identified pose a threat, but I think it would be difficult to frame it as pre-meditated murder.

Bear in mind premeditated is another category entirely, in Belgium it's assassination, in the US it's First-degree murder etc. For a murder to be pre-meditated it needs to have been prepared for a certain length of time (think poisoning and murders that require long material preparation, or if you can prove a gun was bought solely for committing a particular murder)

AFAIK the (Second degree I assume) murder charges are mostly standing on a testimony from an old woman who lives more than 100m from their appartment and heard a dispute (somebody correct me if im wrong). I'm pretty sure there's more to the prosecution's case but the media made that testimony out to be decisive and that's bullshit. The principles "innocent till proven guilty" and "reasonable doubt" apply when innocence is claimed, but also when an infraction lower than the one of the charges is claimed. And proving intent is pretty damn difficult, you need a solid positive proof (Which means that simply saying "it couldn't have been any other way" doesn't stand). That's how it goes in Belgium anyway and it's fine by me, because I'd have someone go to jail 5 years rather than 30 if the intent isn't perfectly clear, while knowing it still makes him liable to the parents of the victim.

I don't know to what extent SA juridictions believe in that principle though...

m8son wrote:wait a minute ehbs u actually own a pair of crocs?

Yeah why