Pistorius Trial - How can 4 shots fired into a toilet not mean to kill

1. 53

   janderson99posted 10 years ago

   The first day of the verdict in the Oscar Pistorius trial had some interesting legal interpretations. How can someone who fired 4 shots into a toilet, not be deemed to be intending to kill the victim. But this is what the judge said in dismissing the charge of murder.
   
   "How could the accused reasonably have foreseen that the shot he fired would kill the deceased?" she said.
   
   "Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility, that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time."
   
   Does not make a lot of sense to me, especially when the victim died and Pistorius is facing illegal firearm offences.

   replyreport
   1. 63

      bgamallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      My personal opinion is that it was premeditated. He dodged justice. He could be convicted of manslaughter and probably will be.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Isn't your personal opinion based on news media information? Or do you have some insight the trail didn't present?
         
         I would venture that you don'tknow any more facts or shadings of circumstances than those presented by the media. As is true for the majority for the rest of us.
         
         So, because you disagree with the judge's decision,  aren't you really saying you know better because the media told you so?
         
         Admittedly I don't know. If the media portrayed circumstances are correct then manslaughter seems a sensible conclusion. But I have long since abandoned faith in "news media" facts.
         
         Coming from a 9/11 truther , I guess I should not be surprised at your disagreement.
         
         
         Oh well....
         
         GA

         replyreport
2. 53

   janderson99posted 10 years ago

   More from the trial
   Common-law murder
   He could also have been convicted of a lesser charge of murder, if he had unlawfully intended to kill in the heat of the moment but without "malice aforethought".
   
   This could have covered either shooting at the door intending to kill, or knowing someone might be killed and still firing a gun.
   
   But judge Masipa also dismissed this, saying: "The evidence failed to prove the accused had intention."
   
   "Clearly he did not objectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door."
   
   REALLY, firing 4 shots - What was his intention??

   replyreport
   1. 87

      Jean Bakulaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I think gun violence is getting out of control in the U.S. So is police brutality against people of color. If a black cop shot an unarmed white person, he would be suspended and arrested immediately. I'm sick of hearing about white cops shooting unarmed black teens and getting away scot free, not even suspended, their guns aren't taken away, nada. This country has a long way to go in Civil Rights matters.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         "If a black cop shot an unarmed white person, he would be suspended and arrested immediately."
         
         Can you back up such a statement with statistics and hard numbers or is it just an unjustified rant?

         replyreport
         1. 87

            Jean Bakulaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Oh wilderness,
            I guess it's a rant. But I don't think it's unjustified. There have been so many cases in the past year or so where young black men not doing anything wrong are being killed by white cops. I know in police investigations where the cops shoot, there is a long investigation, during which the cop will be suspended, and the gun will be taken away as evidence. My Father was a cop. And I know the cops must protect themselves as well, it's a dangerous job, to say the least. They are trained to shoot to kill. But if the young black man has his arms in the air, and it's clear he is not holding a gun, why do the cops have to shoot so many times?
            
            I didn't see the shooter arrested or have his gun taken away in Ferguson, or with Travon Martin in the hoodie who was shot by the self proclaimed community watchdog who took MMA classes. My son is a third degree black belt certified in Okinawa, and was taught to use it ONLY as a self protection art, never to just bully someone.

            replyreport
            1. 89

               wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               "where young black men not doing anything wrong are being killed by white cops"
               
               I haven't heard of any such cases.
               
               "I know in police investigations where the cops shoot, there is a long investigation, during which the cop will be suspended, and the gun will be taken away as evidence. My Father was a cop."
               
               This would seem to contradict your statement that a white cop shooting a black man suffers no consequences.
               
               "And I know the cops must protect themselves as well, it's a dangerous job, to say the least."
               
               72 cops were killed in the line of duty in 2012;  I'd have to say they aren't shooting quick enough.  Cops have an exceedingly dangerous job and it behooves us to at LEAST wait until evidence is in and the courts have made the call instead of hanging them in effigy when they protect themselves.
               
               "with Travon Martin in the hoodie"
               
               As you point out, Martin was not shot by a cop at all, but by a citizen in self defense.  It has zero to do with your statements except that you appear to wish to take the law into your own hands instead of the courts.  A hanging mob is seldom the way to go.
               
               "My son is a third degree black belt certified in Okinawa, and was taught to use it ONLY as a self protection art, never to just bully someone."
               
               If you feel that cops are "bullying someone" with their guns, I feel sorry for you.  While there are undoubtedly some bad cops out there, the vast majority do not "bully" people with their weapons.  They are, instead, the last resort to protect themselves and the public and the simple fact that every shooting is thoroughly investigated bears this out.
               
               "why do the cops have to shoot so many times?"
               
               You answer your own question: "They are trained to shoot to kill.".  And it is MHO that any cop that shoots to scare or wound should be immediately fired.  A gun is not a toy, it IS the last resort, and that means shoot to kill.

               replyreport
               1. 87

                  Jean Bakulaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  The case in Ferguson was a specific example of a young black man with no weapon shot 6 times by a cop, and witnesses, both black and white, testify to the fact that his hands were in the air, and it was obvious he had no weapon. There was no reason for the cop to shoot him 6 times, several in the head. Once the person is dead, the court cannot bring he or she back to their families, the lives are ruined.
                  
                  There are investigations in states that are less prejudiced about people of color, or where the population is younger and has more people used to diversity. My Father never shot anyone, and I don't recall him ever discussing a case or mentality where white cops were bullying black young people by shooting them, and he worked in Paterson, NJ, which was predominately black at that time.
                  
                  Wilderness, I know we disagree about gun control. I have no wish to take the law into my hands. But too many innocent people are being shot because there is easy access to guns, and police brutality is on the rise. What about the video of the mentally unstable woman who had no weapon, who got the crap beat out of her by the cop? That is bullying, and a cop like that should be fired. Certain people love power and abuse it, and don't get jobs like that because they want to protect and serve.
                  
                  You should only shoot to kill if you are relatively sure the person is going to do the same to you. In Ferguson, the young man had his empty hands in the air. It was not necessary to kill him.
                  
                  We agree that shooting should be the last resort, not the first one. I don't want to keep arguing this, you can have the last word.

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     I don't need the last word.  We differ primarily in gun control of course, but also in finding facts and evidence before conviction.  I will wait for the court system, poor and pathetic as it is, before placing blame; you will take the word of the sensation seeking media and prejudiced witnesses.  That's the way life is.

                     replyreport
                  2. 82

                     GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Gee... and all that is related to this thread, "Pistorius Trial - How can 4 shots fired into a toilet not mean to kill" how?
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
               2. 82

                  GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Stop helping hijack the thread!
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
      2. 0

         calculus-geometryposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         It's a case in South Africa, not the US.  Pistorius is a famous athlete there, so the issue is whether he is getting undue leniency because of his fame.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            His national infamy is a valid consideration, but doesn't that consideration naturally lead the the conclusion that the judge was a "bought" participant? What are the judge's credentials? Should we jump on that wagon without any further facts?
            
            Just saytin'
            
            GA

            replyreport
      3. 82

         GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Oops... were you intending to address the point of another thread, or did you intend to purposely hijack this one to make an unrelated point?
         
         GA

         replyreport
   2. 82

      GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Really?  You have an insight into his thoughts at the moment?
      
      GA

      replyreport