I don't understand...

ghoti said:
Well, I'll accept that it's not the most precise and comprehensive definition.
But I'm not talking about all manslaughter. I was talking about voluntary manslaughter, which, in most cases, requires someone to not be in their right mind in one way or another (diminished responsibility or loss of control).
Click to expand...

Yes...that's the part that's wrong.
 
My apologies Ghoti; I'm getting my wires crossed.
 
I repeat - I have absolutely no problem with what Tony Martin did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

Please read this, the entire piece.
The police tried to cover up on this case, their ineptitude dealing with the previous intrusions and thefts, and they then tried to deny that previous intrusions took place.
In my own experience with the traveller community and burglary/violence, the police simply do not wish to get involved, and will in fact warn off ordinary people from taking action.
Click to expand...

It matters not what you think, he was found guilty, and that verdict stood test at appeal.

Irrespective of the usual blame someone else issue you raise, shooting someone in the back, while they are leaving is not, under any circumstances by any reasonable measure self defence. Martin did not have any basis for that defence and therefore the Jury were absolutely correct in their finding.
Any previous incidents are irrelevant to what he was charged with, it's not even mitigation.

As for putting other people off doing something he wasn't, ie defending their property, no, I don't see why. It's not my experience.
 
Last edited:
This is straying a bit from the original topic, but I can't help thinking that all this talk about the differences between murder and manslaughter remind me of the Oscar Pistorius trial which is currently in progress.

As I understand it, Pistorius admits shooting his girlfriend, but denies murdering her. Obviously he's being tried under South African law which might be different to ours, and few if any people here would know enough about the legal subtleties out there. But putting that aside for a moment, I think it's an interesting case. It would seem that, by shooting several times at the person who was in the bathroom without being able to see them, it could be argued that he did intend to kill. So is it still murder if your victim isn't the person you thought was there? Very messy.
 
This is straying a bit from the original topic, but I can't help thinking that all this talk about the differences between murder and manslaughter remind me of the Oscar Pistorius trial which is currently in progress.
Click to expand...

The basis of SA criminal law is the English Criminal system, so many of the principles apply there. But there was obviously a divergence from the point where SA became independent.

Leaving that aside, it is difficult to see how any defence of self defence can be successful when the Burglar is shut in a room with no way out apart from the door, and showing no signs of using it. So in those circumstances would shooting through the door, no matter who was behind it reasonable and proportionate? No, it isn't. There was no direct threat at that point, so would a reasonable person have time and to measure that a potential threat, and take other steps? Shout to his girlfriend who he believed to be in bed, and ask her to call police while indicating from cover he was armed and the 'intruder' in the loo to stay there perhaps?

In my opinion in the UK he would be convicted, and it wouldn't surprise me if he was found guilty in under SA law. Apart from that the prosecution case is very strong, and his defence is really pants.
 
I seem to recall from reading about the case that SA law has an approach to self defence more akin to the southern states of the US than to Britain. So he may be on solid ground with his defence. I could be wrong though.

The things that seem to speak in his favour are the fact that he appears to have been on his stumps rather than his prosthetics when the shooting occurred and the fact that Steenkamp was shot through the closed bathroom door. Both of which seem to suggest more of a panic situation than a cold blooded murder.

I don't think anyone outside the trial can really have any idea what actually happened, though.
 
ghoti said:
I seem to recall from reading about the case that SA law has an approach to self defence more akin to the southern states of the US than to Britain. So he may be on solid ground with his defence. I could be wrong though.

The things that seem to speak in his favour are the fact that he appears to have been on his stumps rather than his prosthetics when the shooting occurred and the fact that Steenkamp was shot through the closed bathroom door. Both of which seem to suggest more of a panic situation than a cold blooded murder.

I don't think anyone outside the trial can really have any idea what actually happened, though.
Click to expand...

This......together with the fact that in his statement he said he was on his blades.
Also, rather than panic on his part, the closed bathroom door suggests to me that she was hiding from him.

EDIT.......Other way around. The evidence suggests that given the damage to the loo door, Pistorius was on his blades, but he denies this.
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
Also, rather than panic on his part, the closed bathroom door suggests to me that she was hiding from him.
Click to expand...
A lot of people do choose to close the door when they go plop plop you know :confused:
 
ghoti said:
I seem to recall from reading about the case that SA law has an approach to self defence more akin to the southern states of the US than to Britain. So he may be on solid ground with his defence. I could be wrong though.

The things that seem to speak in his favour are the fact that he appears to have been on his stumps rather than his prosthetics when the shooting occurred and the fact that Steenkamp was shot through the closed bathroom door. Both of which seem to suggest more of a panic situation than a cold blooded murder.

I don't think anyone outside the trial can really have any idea what actually happened, though.
Click to expand...

All seems perfecty plausable to me.... SA burglary is way more dangerous than most of us know.

Eleven
 
In the UK firing through a closed door when there was no overt threat wouldn't be legitimate self defence even if there was a burgular on the otherside. That said it would probably be manslaughter rather than murder asthe closed door would make it difficult to argue that they were aimed shots intended to kill.

In SA they do have a more flexible approach to self defence because a home invader is far more likely to be armed , so had he shot a burgular under those circumstances he'd probasbly have got off.

However as he actually killed his girlfreind the case is likely to turn on whether its reasonable that he thought it was a burgular - my suspicion is that the court will find that it isnt , but that he'll be not guilty of murder but guilty of mansalughter as again firing through a closed door isnt a clear demonstration of intent to kill -
 
new2me said:
A lot of people do choose to close the door when they go plop plop you know :confused:
Click to expand...

Yes, and they also tend to try to find safety behind a locked door when fleeing a gunman.:rolleyes:
 
No, if that happened in the UK it would be murder.

Sadly, young Oscar's defence is a bit undermined, no actually it is shattered and thrown into the ocean by witnesses saying they heard a woman screaming followed by the shots. Nothing in his defence evidence has so far refuted that, apart from him denying it happened. Trouble is it's a number of witnesses who said it, all independent of each other which lends a great deal of credence to what they say. None of them has a reason to be dishonest about it, and having a number of people say pretty much the same thing is very good evidence.

Ghoti, I had a look at the SA law on Slef defence. It's departed from ours in some ways (in the same way the US's has, which again is based on the English system), but not drastically. In any case, there's nothing there that supports his contention that it was self defence, as I said, like it or not, at no point was whoever was in the bog a threat to him. If it had been a burglar (and why a burglar would go into a loo anyway!), then he was cornered. Oscar had nothing to suggest that the person was armed, or trying to bust out so his actions were a massive over reaction. No matter how much he thought it was a burglary, he
 
Bernie174 said:
No, if that happened in the UK it would be murder.

Sadly, young Oscar's defence is a bit undermined, no actually it is shattered and thrown into the ocean by witnesses saying they heard a woman screaming followed by the shots. Nothing in his defence evidence has so far refuted that, apart from him denying it happened. Trouble is it's a number of witnesses who said it, all independent of each other which lends a great deal of credence to what they say. None of them has a reason to be dishonest about it, and having a number of people say pretty much the same thing is very good evidence.

Ghoti, I had a look at the SA law on Slef defence. It's departed from ours in some ways (in the same way the US's has, which again is based on the English system), but not drastically. In any case, there's nothing there that supports his contention that it was self defence, as I said, like it or not, at no point was whoever was in the bog a threat to him. If it had been a burglar (and why a burglar would go into a loo anyway!), then he was cornered. Oscar had nothing to suggest that the person was armed, or trying to bust out so his actions were a massive over reaction. No matter how much he thought it was a burglary, he
Click to expand...

But is going to get of for who he is ? :(
 
But is going to get of for who he is ?
Click to expand...

If it was a Jury, I'd agree with you.

But, it's a single Judge sitting alone, as SA apparently have never adopted the Jury System.
For her to acquit without very good reasons would be the end of her as a Judge, the world is watching it too closely, which I guess says something about the rest of the world too!
 
Bernie174 said:
If it was a Jury, I'd agree with you.

But, it's a single Judge sitting alone, as SA apparently have never adopted the Jury System.
Click to expand...

I think that if I was charged with something serious, I would much have a single judge (or two) than a jury.


Steve.
 
A single judge sits but is also advised by two further judges for the verdict.
 
Pookeyhead said:
You'd find it very hard to prosecute someone for murder without proving it was their intention. You'd be far more likely to get manslaughter or unlawful killing.
Click to expand...

Different country obviously, but there is an episode of Sin City Law (terrible title, but it's actually quite a good documentary series on criminal trials in LA) where the person was found guilty of murder in the first degree (and three other charges) for killing a child who was hit by crossfire in a gang related shooting (the person who was the actual target of the gunfire was not even hit). Clearly he did not intend to hit the girl who was killed, although he did intend to injure or kill someone else.

He initially got the death penalty but this was changed on appeal to life with the possibility of parole. Interestingly during the appeal, the sister of his victim said that she recognised it was an accident and that the death penalty would only result in another family suffering from the death of a family member. (The sentence was decided by the jury).
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
Sounds perfect to me. Much better than a jury of twelve untrained people in my opinion.
Steve.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced TBH.
I'm sure the law would be up-held, in the literal sense, but how many times have we w
ondered if Judges live in the "real world with some of the convictions / sentances handed down?
Sometimes too leanient, sometimes too harsh.

But of course that's just an observation from Joe public.
With no inside knowledge of the case(s)

I think I know I would be preferred to be tried by a jury of my peers.
 
Cobra said:
I think I know I would be preferred to be tried by a jury of my peers.
Click to expand...

I think it's too variable. You might get a jury of twelve Daily Mail readers who take an instant dislike to you and decide you're guilty just by looking at you.

I think a jury would be o.k. if a judge can over rule their decision if it is obviously misplaced. I don't know if judges have that option but I would hope so.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
I think a jury would be o.k. if a judge can over rule their decision if it is obviously misplaced. I don't know if judges have that option but I would hope so.


Steve.
Click to expand...
I think they have the option to "direct" a verdict?
But as to how far thay can go, with that, I don't know.
I doubt that they are allowed to over rule a jury though?

But then again we have the appeal system for that :D
 
Steve Smith said:
Only if you're allowed to appeal.

And in that case, you start off as being guilty until proven innocent!
Steve.
Click to expand...
I'll take your word for that Steve, I don't really know much about the legal system TBH.

But it also appears that you are guilty before being proved innocent,
in trial by media anyway :D
 
Judges here can can direct a jury to find one way or the other, and if the jury refuse he/she will simply order a retrial. I have sat on a jury where this was the case.
 
viv1969 said:
Judges here can can direct a jury to find one way or the other, and if the jury refuse he/she will simply order a retrial. I have sat on a jury where this was the case.
Click to expand...
That answered my question then (y)
 
I don't think a Judge can order a finding of Guilty, only direct a Jury to acquit. No a Judge cannot overrule a Jury. He can allow an appeal, but that is heard by a higher court, and not by him (or her).

As for a Jury, personally, I'd rather be tried by them if I were guilty, and a Judge if I wasn't.
 
Bernie174 said:
As for a Jury, personally, I'd rather be tried by them if I were guilty, and a Judge if I wasn't.
Click to expand...

A few years ago I was told that (for lesser crimes) you are better of being tried by a magistrate if guilty and a crown court if innocent.


Steve.
 
Bernie174 said:
I don't think a Judge can order a finding of Guilty, only direct a Jury to acquit. No a Judge cannot overrule a Jury. He can allow an appeal, but that is heard by a higher court, and not by him (or her).

As for a Jury, personally, I'd rather be tried by them if I were guilty, and a Judge if I wasn't.
Click to expand...

We were directed to return a guilty verdict.
We did not.
 
viv1969 said:
Lol. Yes we went all "12 angry men" on his a $$ :)
Click to expand...
LOL Don't tell me you were the fore person and convinced the other 11 :p

(wouldn't surprise me in the slightest :D)
 
Cobra said:
LOL Don't tell me you were the fore person and convinced the other 11 :p

(wouldn't surprise me in the slightest :D)
Click to expand...

I wasn't allowed :-(
 
Pookeyhead said:
He did give up his rights, yes. His rights to freedom and liberty that we enjoy. What do you suggest we do with him Gramps? Waterboard him? Torture him? What? He's banged up and won't see freedom... that's what we do with criminals, no matter the severity of the crime, because we're a civilised society, not a barbaric, biblical, reactionary one.
Click to expand...

Hanging would be a good start.

No one convicted of a crime for which they are serving a sentence should actually receive any compensation awarded, it should go straight to they're victims.
 
simon ess said:
It tells me to read the rest of the document I cut and paste from.

The next paragraph states:
It is very difficult to say how much the abolition of capital punishment has been responsible for this increase. In 1952 the murder rate was higher than in the years immediately following the abolition of the death penalty.
Click to expand...

If you mean the abolition in 1964 - That wasn't abolition, that was when the moratorium started, so though death penalties were still handed out they were commuted to life sentences, thus felons still faced the death penalty and didn't know for sure that it would be abolished.
Abolition came 5 years later in 1969
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top