Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
voldermort

Oscar Pistorius

Recommended Posts

MacMuffin    0
MacMuffin

I hope Oscar has a good defense, otherwise he won't have a leg to stand on....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnBenn    10
JohnBenn

What a shock when I opened my latest headlines.

 

Well one can't comment until one knows what really happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
voldermort    10
voldermort
Well one can't comment until one knows what really happened.

 

what happened is she got shot......4 times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
catzcan    10
catzcan

Trevor Noah: "And the Oscar goes to... JAIL!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RISadler    10
RISadler

I think the cause lies in a difference between USA law (as seen on TV) and South African law. Over there the tale told is viewed as self-defence, but over here it is always murder. (cf. the Columbo episode entitled "Lady in Waiting")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just Beachin    10
Just Beachin

Hell of a valentine gift! What some guys won't do to join "the Gender Based Violence Club"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnBenn    10
JohnBenn
what happened is she got shot......4 times

 

Yes but if I thought it was a burglar, I would have shot him 8 times and probably myself in the leg or foot.....I will wait for the evidence before I make any judgements. There are too many he said that and she said that going around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MacMuffin    0
MacMuffin

Well, people like Oscar live in high security estates were criminal activities are non-existant within the estate. People have no burglar bars and sleep with their windows/doors open - quite surprising that he then decided to shoot someone....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
voldermort    10
voldermort

you do know that the court holds that in the case of an intruder you need to fire a warning shot before aiming a fatal shot (now I am sure I will get all the Rambo's saying to hell with that, they will just shoot to kill) however be that as it may that is the law which not too long ago was broken by a gentleman who did not fire a warning shot & instead pelted the intruder full of bullets. For his efforts he was charged with culpable homicide & received a 15 year sentence. I think if you fire a warning shot or at least shout out who's there before going Rambo, you will probably get some kind of response if the person is your spouse/partner/child whatever.......incidentally to get a head shot at somebody I'm sure you should at least recognise that person....

Edited by voldermort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RISadler    10
RISadler
[..] if I thought it was a burglar [..]

 

Murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RISadler    10
RISadler
[..]

 

It all hinges on the requirements for self-defence, or more specifically that of private defence ("noodweer") or necessity ("noodtoestand"). Also a warning shot is not required, as it can be extremely dangerous; only a warning of some kind (e.g. verbal) if it will not escalate the situation or endanger any person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnBenn    10
JohnBenn

See this is exactly the problem.Everyone thinks it's do this then and do that then wait for the police and move on.

BUT about 6 years ago two buggers tried to break open the kitchen door, I still do not own a gun, so I yelled at them and the fled. In that moment you are in such a state of shock that you are not thinking at all. Even hours later you are still checking if they came back.

 

I even heard a lady say just now that the ambulance was there before the police (welcome to SA), and that it must be some type of conspiracy. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
voldermort    10
voldermort
It all hinges on the requirements for self-defence, or more specifically that of private defence ("noodweer") or necessity ("noodtoestand"). Also a warning shot is not required, as it can be extremely dangerous; only a warning of some kind (e.g. verbal) if it will not escalate the situation or endanger any person.

 

Rest assured it is indeed a warning shot that is required (that is of course assuming you are armed)......however even if one gave a verbal warning I find it highly unlikely that a female voice answering back would not be recognised or construed as the voice of a big & ugly intruder, especially if the voice were that of a girlfriend?

Bringing me back to that head shot........is it logical to assume one can blow off somebody's head without recognising that particular head first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
voldermort    10
voldermort
It all hinges on the requirements for self-defence, or more specifically that of private defence ("noodweer") or necessity ("noodtoestand").

 

I find it impossible to see how he could plead necessity (which is the lesser of the two, hence my dealing with it) because your response to the "attack" (which needs to be imminent, by the way, unlike the facts of this case) has to be reasonably proportionate. What this means is, if you start slapping me silly through the face, I cannot ram my javelin through your heart - I have acted unreasonably in "defending myself" from your "attack". Oscar acted unreasonably in his "defense", and there was no imminent attack on his person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RISadler    10
RISadler
Rest assured it is indeed a warning shot that is required [..]

 

Does not seem logic ... For instance, where does the bullet (from the warning shot) end? Also, it creates the crime of "discharging a firearm" and possibly one of personslaughter (see for example S v De Oliveira). Maybe safest would be to load the first chamber in the revolver with a blank cartridge. (Don't know what the pistol-toters are going to do, though.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RISadler    10
RISadler
I find it impossible to see how he could plead necessity [..]

 

My point is that you cannot willy-nilly shoot at burglars simply because they are on your premises, ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RISadler    10
RISadler
[..] "the Gender Based Violence Club"

 

In terms of section 9(4) of the Constitution 1996 such a club or association is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RISadler    10
RISadler
[..] your response to the "attack" [..] has to be reasonably proportionate. What this means is, if you start slapping me silly through the face, I cannot ram my javelin through your heart - I have acted unreasonably in "defending myself" from your "attack".

 

Not entirely correct. The method used for defence need not be "reasonably proportionate" to the method of attack, e.g. if you attack me with a knobkierie, I am fully entitled to mow you down with my AK-47. What needs to be "reasonable" is the extent (of violence) used in the defence, which may not exceed the minimum, reasonable force necessary to end the attack.

 

So, if shish-kebabbing me with your javelin is the only way in which you can stop me from slapping you (repeatedly) through the face, then it is justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
voldermort    10
voldermort
Not entirely correct. The method used for defence need not be "reasonably proportionate" to the method of attack, e.g. if you attack me with a knobkierie, I am fully entitled to mow you down with my AK-47. What needs to be "reasonable" is the extent (of violence) used in the defence, which may not exceed the minimum, reasonable force necessary to end the attack.

 

So, if shish-kebabbing me with your javelin is the only way in which you can stop me from slapping you (repeatedly) through the face, then it is justified.

 

1) i am going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't think any person in their right mind would consider a javelin in the heart to be a reasonable response to a slap in the face, therefore I fervently hope you were joking.

 

 

2) The AD/SCA has ruled that killing to protect property is unconstitutional. There was nothing to suggest that the "intruder" was out to harm Oscar himself. So killing the "intruder" to stop him from stealing his stuff is unconstitutional.

 

 

3) The force used (which is obviously intimately linked to the means used) is not reasonably proportionate. As I said, shooting the intruder once in, say, the foot, would have been enough to avoid the attack (which was not imminent, but let's again bypass this tiny matter shall we). Shooting four times, and in the head, is not reasonable. His "defense" was disproportionate to the "attack".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnBenn    10
JohnBenn
1) i am going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't think any person in their right mind would consider a javelin in the heart to be a reasonable response to a slap in the face, therefore I fervently hope you were joking.

 

 

2) The AD/SCA has ruled that killing to protect property is unconstitutional. There was nothing to suggest that the "intruder" was out to harm Oscar himself. So killing the "intruder" to stop him from stealing his stuff is unconstitutional.

 

(This is not about Oscar.)

 

Sounds like Zim law and it should be checked into, if this government doesn't want to p$#@ off people more. It's unconstitutional if it's justified for someone to come onto my property without my consent, that breaches many other of my constitutional rights.

So basically I can walk into your home, say "Hey, I'm not here to hurt you...relax.I just want help myself to some of your stuff, which you've worked so hard to obtain."

 

Voldertjie where do you live?:blink1:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrmouse    11
mrmouse

2) The AD/SCA has ruled that killing to protect property is unconstitutional. There was nothing to suggest that the "intruder" was out to harm Oscar himself. So killing the "intruder" to stop him from stealing his stuff is unconstitutional.

 

 

3) The force used (which is obviously intimately linked to the means used) is not reasonably proportionate. As I said, shooting the intruder once in, say, the foot, would have been enough to avoid the attack (which was not imminent, but let's again bypass this tiny matter shall we). Shooting four times, and in the head, is not reasonable. His "defense" was disproportionate to the "attack".

 

I load my sidearm only with :snake shot : if you cant stop someone with that , then you need to run like hell , at least you wont be up for murder , ( it does a lot of damage to a plastic 2 litre cooldrink bottle at 2 metres ) not many burglars will hang around if you let loose with it .With solid rounds wouldnt even think about it unless shot at first .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JANDS    10
JANDS

I wrote and wrote and wrote and backspaced more times than I can count. ........'tis a far better thing you do to leave me and mine in peace.......is all I have to say about that.

 

Re Pistorius, let the man and his judges be judged by their conscience.....an unenviable task at best. I was not there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wayjen    10
wayjen

Where does it say 4 shots because reports say there were 2 shots?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×