AshVilla Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) Completely got off by the sounds of it, wow But there is no evidence he intended to kill when he fired. Of course i totally agree with her he only meant to warn the so called "intruder" by firing 4 dum dum rounds into a door... The intention was to kill why else would he possess illegal ammunition in the first place to cause maximum damage and why would he not fire warning shots in the air first? He's a celebrity so will get judged accordingly if it were any joe bloggs member of the public he'd be done for murder and it would have not taken 6 months to come to a verdict either Edited September 11, 2014 by AshVilla 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 he is allowed to kill an intruder if he feels threatened to me there are 2 elements to this, with the evidence provided - can they prove that he knew it was Reeva can they prove that he wasnt under threat good luck with both Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Without looking it up, I think it's more than just feeling threatened, something about it being reasonable to be in immediate fear of being attacked or something like that. Seeking out an intruder by approaching where you think they are hiding doesn't seem to fit the bill. Guradnia has explained an aspect of SA law which distinguishes between whether he did foresee that shooting through the door would kill, and whether he should have foreseen it. It says that if a reasonable person should have foreseen that, then culpable homicide may be the verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted September 11, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted September 11, 2014 Completely got off by the sounds of it, wow But there is no evidence he intended to kill when he fired. Of course i totally agree with her he only meant to warn the so called "intruder" by firing 4 dum dum rounds into a door... The intention was to kill why else would he possess illegal ammunition in the first place to cause maximum damage and why would he not fire warning shots in the air first? He's a celebrity so will get judged accordingly if it were any joe bloggs member of the public he'd be done for murder and it would have not taken 6 months to come to a verdict either As has been said a million times, it doesn't matter if we all "know" he's guilty. They can't prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 I think his money gave him a leg up from the start Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 I think his money gave him a leg up from the start 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 the guy on skynews just said there is no length of time that can be given for manslaughter in south african law, so he could be told he has to serve a year or not have a suspended sentence if he gets off with no sentence it is a complete mockery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 if he gets off with no sentence it is a complete mockery And a signal to the South African people that it's fine to discharge your firearm and kill people which is why i cannot see him getting away scot free Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) the guy on skynews just said there is no length of time that can be given for manslaughter in south african law, so he could be told he has to serve a year or not have a suspended sentence if he gets off with no sentence it is a complete mockery yet the BBC state its a maximum of 15 years and suggest he will get between 7 and 10. Can the charge being in possession of illegal firearms be added on to this sentence? He's not going to get off with just a suspended sentence. Edited September 11, 2014 by PaulC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest av1 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 the guy on skynews just said there is no length of time that can be given for manslaughter in south african law, so he could be told he has to serve a year or not have a suspended sentence if he gets off with no sentence it is a complete mockery yet the BBC state its a maximum of 15 years and suggest he will get between 7 and 10. Can the charge being in possession of illegal firearms be added on to this sentence? He's not going to get off with just a suspended sentence. I believe you are both correct. The maximum sentence is 15yrs, but there is no minimum sentence. So it is conceivable that he just gets a smack on the wrists, but (for the reason ashvilla gives above) I'm going to guess at about 5yrs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 5 years would be a joke sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baselayers Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 He will probably get less than 5 years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 At the start of the case, I thought he didn't have a leg to stand on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 No doubt if he does get off scot free the first thing he will do is get legless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baselayers Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 A big scentence might leave him feeling stumped? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Yes, he must feel like legging it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCDAN Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 I said 18 months right at the start of the trial. I'm sticking by that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villarule123 Posted September 12, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted September 12, 2014 My Dad is friends with the judge, he told me it will be 3 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straggler Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Guilty of culpable homicide. To be fair to the judge her reasoning behind he judgements seem totally sound. The difference between what we suspect probably happened and what has actually been proven is pretty huge. The big debating point will be around how long he should be in prison for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwpzxjor1 Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Been quite impressed with the judge throughout actually. I think the prosecution probably shouldn't have focussed so much on the argument aspect. A couple of dodgy neighbours who thought they heard some yelling and screaming.. as soon as that was thrown out the case was quiet a bit weaker. As far as I'm concerned if you point a gun at where you believe someone is standing, and pull the trigger, it shouldn't matter whether it's a burglar, your girlfriend or the pope - you are intending to kill them. I don't believe it was pre-meditated murder, but I think manslaughter (or culpable homicide as it seems to be called) is actually quite kind to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts