|
Post by The Quito Diet on Sept 12, 2014 11:14:08 GMT
Impossible to prove that he knew it wasn't a burglar inside, and quite logical given the open window and the locked bathroom door that he thought there was someone in there who might have a weapon.
|
|
Stu
Talisman
#SparkysOnFire
Posts: 16,084
Likes: 4,598
Team: Southampton
|
Post by Stu on Sept 12, 2014 11:43:02 GMT
He's still knowingly shot through a door and killed someone. He made the decision to shoot and that's murder. You don't fire a gun without intention to kill.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2014 11:46:17 GMT
Well you can. It's not murder without the mens rea. Where about was she shot also? For example if you shoot low and hit a leg, there's a good chance that they go down. Continue shooting and you could be hitting any part of them. There's no conclusive evidence to prove that he murdered her with aforethought malice, so you can't convict him of murder. I imagine culpable homicide is as close to it as can be defined, he's killed and recognises that hes done so without actually intending to kill.
|
|
|
Post by The Quito Diet on Sept 12, 2014 11:47:44 GMT
There's a monumental leap between firing a gun and being guilty of murder.
Yes. Yes you do. Kneecaps, feet, warning shots, there are a plethora of different scenarios in which firing a gun isn't meant to kill.
|
|
Бенне
Key Player
Posts: 8,744
Likes: 1,799
Team: Nottingham Forest
|
Post by Бенне on Sept 12, 2014 11:59:07 GMT
Stu look up "guilty mind" in any criminal case and you'll see how complicated it is, it's not just as simple as what it's being made out to be, regardless of whether you believe his story or not.
|
|
Kesh
Regular
Posts: 1,575
Likes: 635
|
Post by Kesh on Sept 12, 2014 12:19:06 GMT
see guys the law is fun
|
|
Stu
Talisman
#SparkysOnFire
Posts: 16,084
Likes: 4,598
Team: Southampton
|
Post by Stu on Sept 12, 2014 12:20:15 GMT
All the holes in the door were aiming up, cos he didnt have his mong legs on. He was shooting higher than aiming at someones leg to hurt them.
Just dont see how you can fire through a door, guessing theres someone behind it and it not be murder.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2014 12:24:21 GMT
Might not seem logical here but the way murder is worded and the prerequisites for a murder verdict mean that a lot of people have been given just sentencing, rather than a sentence for murder which they didn't commit. In the uk a least.
|
|
|
Post by The Quito Diet on Sept 12, 2014 12:27:23 GMT
Emphasis on malice aforethought, and premeditated.
Nowhere near enough proof that it was pre-meditated and enough evidence to support that it was a rash reaction to a situation where he felt he was in danger. Hence why it's deemed as excessive (and thus manslaughter) and not pre-meditated.
|
|
Kesh
Regular
Posts: 1,575
Likes: 635
|
Post by Kesh on Sept 12, 2014 12:34:04 GMT
Emphasis on malice aforethought, and premeditated. Nowhere near enough proof that it was pre-meditated and enough evidence to support that it was a rash reaction to a situation where he felt he was in danger. Hence why it's deemed as excessive (and thus manslaughter) and not pre-meditated. Malice aforethought can be met with intention to cause GBH which could be argued to have happened
|
|
|
Post by The Quito Diet on Sept 12, 2014 12:41:30 GMT
Emphasis on malice aforethought, and premeditated. Nowhere near enough proof that it was pre-meditated and enough evidence to support that it was a rash reaction to a situation where he felt he was in danger. Hence why it's deemed as excessive (and thus manslaughter) and not pre-meditated. Malice aforethought can be met with intention to cause GBH which could be argued to have happened I don't know what that means I just copied it from Wikipedia.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2014 12:51:57 GMT
Think it was mnolan (most likely) who mentioned section 18 yesterday, when there was intent to cause GBH that ended in a death? I think that's what that meant, but surely that was the only thing they could otherwise convict him of, and even then you can't prove that a gun is always going to cause GBH. It's assumed as much but it's not a foregone conclusion.
Nah just has a look, they don't need to be killed. But that still mentions malicious, which can't be proved.
|
|
Kesh
Regular
Posts: 1,575
Likes: 635
|
Post by Kesh on Sept 12, 2014 13:09:39 GMT
You can't shoot through a door 4 times at a person and say you didn't intend to cause at least GBH.
S.18 only states intent; not malice.
|
|
|
Post by Germany's Top Scorer on Sept 12, 2014 18:39:20 GMT
I think the key thing that you're missing is that you're banging on about English law. This trial isn't under English law.
It's similar but not the same. We only have one murder charge - South Africa have two, much like USA's 1st degree and 2nd degree murder. First degree/premeditated (dolus directus) murder is more serious and needs malice aforethought (ie prior preparation). Second degree/common law (dolus eventualis) murder is heat of the moment (which was the more likely of the two) and encompasses the subjective test of whether the perp thought there was a foreseeable chance of the victim dying as a result of their action(s) (as first degree requires intent, this is not needed to be tested)
Which is different to our GBH thing. For example, someone burns down a (what they thought was empty) building over here and someone died as a result. For arguments sake let's say the court has found that he held that belief (but did not make sure) and only did it to (let's say) run an insurance scam.
They would not get found guilty of murder - only manslaughter - as they had no intent to kill or seriously harm anyone. iirc there is a landmark case for this.
In South Africa, they would get found guilty of second degree murder because, as they didn't know it was definitely empty, they would know there was a foreseeable possibility that someone could die as a result (this is where the example falls down as the scenario is a bit farfetched).
The issue in this case (which I imagine many will take umbrage with) is that the court found that the prosecution did not adequately prove that OP thought it was foreseeable that someone would be killed in his act of blindly shooting into a locked door 4 times. I'm not sure how seeing as they've dismissed any sort of mental issues (temporary insanity? Or something of that ilk) and private defense was dismissed (lol I missed that yesterday when I was smug about being right so far) as it was found he had alternative reasonable actions to take.
It's also irrelevant as to who he thought was in the bathroom as I believe transfer of malice is part of South African law.
Here ends the lecture that is possibly inaccurate but hopefully isn't too far off. Next week: The intricacies of flight.
|
|
Kesh
Regular
Posts: 1,575
Likes: 635
|
Post by Kesh on Sept 12, 2014 20:42:34 GMT
Is that for me? I'm fully aware we're not talking about English law. I only bought it up when s.18, an English statute was bought up.
|
|