Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
How would you go about shooting them when they're not present?
|
Not sure about shooting them but O.J. Simpson could probably lead you in the right direction.
I have little knowledge on SA law by the way. All of the above was based on our law and well a bit of common sense really.
---------- Post added at 18:56 ---------- Previous post was at 18:49 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
I don't know, this is South African law we're talking about here. Do you have particular knowledge of what the available defence arguments are?
|
With little knowledge of SA law I'd say shooting through a door without first calling out for a response from the person he knew was present would be murder. Manslaughter or completely being let off if SA law allows you to shoot intruders without reasonable evidence.
Again we have little information on what SA counts as evidence towards an intruder being present. If you're allowed to shoot people without even making a call out then this case will go on forever. It'll likely be guesswork by the Jury, you either believe him or you don't.
Defence can argue, Stress, the intruder story if SA law says it's perfectly normal to blast through doors without having a good reason to do so. With his defence actually arguing that case it seems certain they're hopeful of Manslaughter or nothing at all.
Quote:
The attacker does not necessarily have to be carrying a weapon: if you fear injury or death, you can use the most extreme means, including killing the assailant.
There is no balancing of weapons. If, for example, the attacker is carrying a knife and his target happens to have a firearm, the intended victim would be entitled to shoot that person dead.
South African law also states that you can defend somebody else if there is a possibility of serious injury or death. You are entitled to intervene and even kill the attacker. You do not have to be in a family or any other kind of relationship to the victim.
If somebody breaks into your house, you are entitled to kill that person under certain circumstances. If the burglar runs away and you kill that person anyway, you could be exceeding the bounds of self-defence. If, however, you are faced with a situation where you fear for your life or safety, you would be entitled to kill the intruder.
South African courts understand that these scenarios happen very quickly, usually at night. A householder cannot sit down and decide objectively exactly what should be done. You could reasonably expect any intruder to be armed and capable of doing you harm. The courts tend to accept a broad definition of self-defence.
|
Naturally there's only the major bits that link to this case but little on actually identifying an intruder. It's clear now the courts must decide if he could even have shot an actual intruder in the manner he did. Basically I believe he exceeded the bounds of self defence. He was under no harm at any time. He had no reasonable proof of an intruder in his home and he knew his partner was present. He made no attempt to distinguish the identity of the alleged intruder in this case when another person he knew was present.
This part of the case will be the bit that separates him from going free or serving for the very least a sentence for manslaughter.
Based on my posts, what are all your views on it? Murder, Manslaughter or getting let off scot free?