The slimy git gets less than a year before being released to serve the remainder of his sentence in the harsh environs of his Onkels mansion .
Even if you acceptr his nonsense story that he thought he was shooting someone else all it means is he deliberately killed what he thought was another person IE:MURDER .
The poor wee little man...
Well.... to the average layman, shooting that many bullets through a door is not normally done just to scare someone off
He lost it.........
As a layman, the most damning thing for me was that the first bullet didn't kill her and apparently hit her in the arm.
Anyone would think that she would have instinctively screamed with pain.....are we to believe he didn't recognize her voice?
I distinctly remember that race
He copped a lot of criticism for the way he behaved
Here it is
Best leave it to the professionals then.......for all that layman stuff sounds great but carries stuff all weight.....they had to prove he intended to murder her, motive and all that......there was no evidence to support any of that......hence the verdict.
You cant convict someone of murder when there is no material evidence to prove it......getting all emotional about when, why and what for......stands for nothing
When someone fires 4 hollow point bullets through a wooden toilet door, despite the fact that they are not checking who is behind that door in the first place, their intention is to kill whoever is behind that door.... period.
I cannot fathom any other reason for any individual to do that, and not expect to find a dead person behind that door.
This, as it stands is now as defined in South African law
Culpable homicide:
Is a specific offence in various jurisdictions within the Commonwealth of Nations which involves the illegal killing of a person either with or without an intention to kill depending upon how a particular jurisdiction has defined the offence.
They got the penalty technically correct, I believe it should have been murder, but my issue is not with the penalty, it is with the time imposed on him to go with that penalty.
DA, wake up....what part of proving his intention to kill his girlfriend do you not get......and how do you prove that by shooting blindly through a door you intend to kill the person behind that door?
You can only prove intention to kill someone with a gun if you aim at that person and shoot them to kill them......not possible when shooting through a door.
Hope that helps?
No it should NOT have been MURDER as there is NO evidence to prove intention to kill his girlfriend
Spot on Shark and Vlag - given the facts of the case there was no way of proving intention, without which then can be no murder.
The fact that he had no legs and the incident happened in a crime ridden country are factors which would have contributed to the actions he took. He is obviously more vulnerable than a person with legs.
I am not defending his actions, merely stating the facts
Interesting post Vlag. As far as the verdict is concerned this case is about on a par with the OJ Simpson case....a miscarriage of justice. Perhaps it isn't a provable murder, but the truth is there to see.
So one reluctantly accepts the manslaughter verdict, but to then bend over backwards to release the murderer from jail into house arrest because of "good behaviour" is sicken ing.
DA, wake up....what part of proving his intention to kill his girlfriend do you not get......and how do you prove that by shooting blindly through a door you intend to kill the person behind that door?
You can only prove intention to kill someone with a gun if you aim at that person and shoot them to kill them......not possible when shooting through a door.
Hope that helps?
No it should NOT have been MURDER as there is NO evidence to prove intention to kill his girlfriend
Don't be a moron about it Dave
I said they "technically" got the penalty correct, even though "I" believe it was murder, which I do. I did not say it could be proven as murder, I said what "I" believe it was, as I suspect many people believe, even if it cannot be proven.
When I look over the facts of the case, along with his history of diabolical actions, that is genuinely what "I" believe, as I am entitled to. Irrespective of what can be proven in a court of law.
I stated above that my issue is not with the penalty, but with the time they imposed with that penalty, meaning the pathetic 10 months, and now he gets to relax in his uncle's mansion.
Read what I said carefully before passing comments
