It will be an absolute travesty if he gets off. Comes across as a narcissistic, self serving arrogant **** to me. As Jay says, the man in the street would be twelve months into a life sentence by now.
That's it for me. If I get woken up in the night, or get up for a pee, I know that my wife is there in bed beside me. Conversely, if I'm alone in the bed I instantly know she's not there (and my first thought is that she must have got up to the kids). If I woke in the night and she wasn't in bed, and I heard noises I would probably think 'oh that will be her'. If (unlikely) I woke up and she wasn't there, and I heard noises, and somehow I drew the conclusion that a burglar was in the house, I wouldn't walk through the house shooting a firearm at indiscriminate noises! I'd want to know where my wife and kids were first and I wouldn't be shooting at anyone I couldn't see - whether I had legs or not. It's got bells on.
Guessing he isnt going to get much of a sentence then - If the Judge was thinking of a long prison sentence he may as well start it now so she must be thinking of either quite a short one or even a suspended one - I cant help feeling justice isnt being done here the Reevas family must be feeling even worse now than they did before I am struggling with this reasoning from the Judge extracted from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29162620 Common-law murder She also ruled this out, saying: "The accused had the intention to shoot at the person behind the door, not to kill." He could also have been convicted of a lesser charge of murder, if he had unlawfully intended to kill in the heat of the moment but without "malice aforethought". This could have covered either shooting at the door intending to kill, or knowing someone might be killed and still firing a gun. This would also apply if he had intended to kill an intruder but had instead killed his girlfriend. But judge Masipa also dismissed this, saying: "The evidence failed to prove the accused had intention." "Clearly he did not objectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door." WFT - you shoot 4 times through a door into a small bathroom and cant see you have a good chance of killing whoever is behind the door As said above - if it was John Smith who had done that he would have been already serving a very long prison term
Aye, the thing I can't understand, aswell, is that she mentioned something along the lines of "the reasonable man would have seen that shooting 4 times into a small bathroom could have had these consequences" I guess it's a case of man slaughter they can use the 'reasonable man' whereas murder they have to have evidence, provided by the prosecution(prosecution did a $hite job IMO, they could surely have got a better case together) which they didn't get. They didn't prove indefinitely that he was thinking clearly enough to consider that, however a reasonable person would have, so they can infer that he probably did for the man slaughter charge. I also found it interesting that she said if he had shot reeva when he was laid in bed, after he heard a noise, he could have used the same argument (thought it was an intruder) and been acquitted, because had it been an intruder it would have been a real threat.
My favourite part of the judgement was when the judge stated it was "the unanimous verdict of the court".
It's the unanimous verdict of my house that she's talking ballacks. Current occupants of my house: one, me. Although there'll be a 100% increase some time after 6 this evening.
I will risk the wrath of South Africa by saying now that the judge is bent as there is no other alternative for the verdict and the reasoning makes as much sense as Paul Digby training with England while playing badly for a league one side's reserves and being nowhere near the first team