Crosswords2 mins ago
Pistorius Cleared!
19 Answers
Just heard on the news.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by MargoTester. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.i have friends who built a house in south africa and while under construction the police advised them to have panic alarm buttons fitted,which they duly did,i have often wondered if his house had them fitted [and according to him he was very scared of intruders and so i imagine they would have been fitted], why he did not press one which would have alerted the police that there was an intruder before he pulled the trigger 4 times...just a thought....
My opinion, firing a gun several times into an enclosed space where you correctly suspect somebody to be is undeniably evidence of trying to shoot that person and you should know that you had a good chance of killing them.
I had it down as murder, no matter who he thought was in the bathroom. I think he's very lucky.
I had it down as murder, no matter who he thought was in the bathroom. I think he's very lucky.
More seriously, Masipa still can whack him with a very heavy sentence, there is no min or max term in South Africa for this. It's worth understanding the nuances here.
Culpable homicide, like murder One is a form of unlawful killing in the country.
The crucial difference, however, is that if a person kills intentionally it is murder, whereas if he or she kills negligently it is culpable homicide.
Previously, South African case law took the view that a person who kills intentionally, but in mitigating circumstances, is guilty of culpable homicide rather than murder. For example, where a man uses excessive force to defend himself from attack and kills his assailant, this would be culpable homicide. However, later decisions by the Appellate Division strongly support the trend towards excluding a verdict of culpable homicide where intent to kill is proved.
The essential element of the crime is negligence, but before any court can make a finding of culpable homicide it must be proved by the prosecution that a reasonable man' in the position of the accused would have foreseen that death could result from his actions.
The test for negligence is an objective one, as opposed to the test for intention in murder, which is subjective. For example, if it is shown that a man ought to have foreseen the possibility of killing someone when he fired a gun, negligence is present and he is guilty of culpable homicide. If it is shown that he must have foreseen the possibility of death resulting from his actions or that he intended to kill, intention is proved and he is guilty of murder.
The question of whether he ought to have foreseen the possible consequences of his actions is decided by reference to the 'reasonable man' the diligens paterfamilias or average prudent family man. The behaviour of the man accused of causing the death is objectively tested against what a reasonable man' would do in the same circumstances.
It's that on which the verdict will hang, to borrow a pun.
Culpable homicide, like murder One is a form of unlawful killing in the country.
The crucial difference, however, is that if a person kills intentionally it is murder, whereas if he or she kills negligently it is culpable homicide.
Previously, South African case law took the view that a person who kills intentionally, but in mitigating circumstances, is guilty of culpable homicide rather than murder. For example, where a man uses excessive force to defend himself from attack and kills his assailant, this would be culpable homicide. However, later decisions by the Appellate Division strongly support the trend towards excluding a verdict of culpable homicide where intent to kill is proved.
The essential element of the crime is negligence, but before any court can make a finding of culpable homicide it must be proved by the prosecution that a reasonable man' in the position of the accused would have foreseen that death could result from his actions.
The test for negligence is an objective one, as opposed to the test for intention in murder, which is subjective. For example, if it is shown that a man ought to have foreseen the possibility of killing someone when he fired a gun, negligence is present and he is guilty of culpable homicide. If it is shown that he must have foreseen the possibility of death resulting from his actions or that he intended to kill, intention is proved and he is guilty of murder.
The question of whether he ought to have foreseen the possible consequences of his actions is decided by reference to the 'reasonable man' the diligens paterfamilias or average prudent family man. The behaviour of the man accused of causing the death is objectively tested against what a reasonable man' would do in the same circumstances.
It's that on which the verdict will hang, to borrow a pun.
DTC
Thanks for that informative explanation of culpable homicide in S.A. law.
Given his previous track record of negligently discharging firearms (twice I believe) then I believe there is not much doubt about him knowingly and negligently firing that handgun with intent to kill or seriously harm any person.
I believe his load was a round called Black Talon which is a particularly lethal(deliberately) bullet. Not quite a dum dum but powerful and it disintegrates on impact. Firing those through a door into a small room where someone is known to be strikes me as more intentional than negligent.If he is given a term of imprisonment I hope it is long and hard.If I was that poor woman's father I would be waiting outside the gaol on his release date with a magazine full of Black Talon and my actions would be deliberate with fore thought.
Thanks for that informative explanation of culpable homicide in S.A. law.
Given his previous track record of negligently discharging firearms (twice I believe) then I believe there is not much doubt about him knowingly and negligently firing that handgun with intent to kill or seriously harm any person.
I believe his load was a round called Black Talon which is a particularly lethal(deliberately) bullet. Not quite a dum dum but powerful and it disintegrates on impact. Firing those through a door into a small room where someone is known to be strikes me as more intentional than negligent.If he is given a term of imprisonment I hope it is long and hard.If I was that poor woman's father I would be waiting outside the gaol on his release date with a magazine full of Black Talon and my actions would be deliberate with fore thought.