Originally Posted by ededed (Post 11233984)

Exactly. On all counts. I am convinced he did it deliberately - but I am not convinced it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt[/B]. But - letting guns off in a café and in a car, plus shooting through a door when not under a direct threat (even if you know a machine-gun wielding murderer is waiting there) are all illegal here, and they have been pretty well proven. So 7 years should be the minimum he is facing.

Originally Posted by paulry (Post 11233914)

Depends if she believes him or not. What's your opinion?

Originally Posted by ededed (Post 11233984)

Exactly. On all counts. I am convinced he did it deliberately - but I am not convinced it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. But - letting guns off in a café and in a car, plus shooting through a door when not under a direct threat (even if you know a machine-gun wielding murderer is waiting there) are all illegal here, and they have been pretty well proven. So 7 years should be the minimum he is facing.

Originally Posted by Beoz (Post 11234702)

I believe he will be done for culpable homicide with a lot of neglect. There's too much reasonable doubt to go with murder.

That's the point I've been making all along and it seems like you now agree. You have as much evidence as the judge so if your gut feels he committed murder but your head says manslaughter then run with the big organ at the top of your body.

Originally Posted by Sally Redux (Post 11234706)

But if someone asks you if you think someone is guilty, that's a gut reaction based on media evidence.

Not the same as saying, "What do you think the outcome of the trial will be?"

Originally Posted by Beoz (Post 11234743)

True, but isn't it better to rule with your head rather than your gut especially when such lengthy sentences are involved?

Originally Posted by Sally Redux (Post 11234750)

Yes, but I was referring to the thread title.

If I were actually involved in judging him in a court of law of course I would take everything on board.

Originally Posted by Beoz (Post 11234756)

But you would rather think with you gut, where you don't take everything on board? Is that what you are saying?

Originally Posted by Beoz (Post 11234756)

But you would rather think with you gut, where you don't take everything on board? Is that what you are saying?

Originally Posted by Sally Redux (Post 11234772)

What I meant was that there are two different approaches here:

1. The actual court case. What a bunch of people on the internet think has no bearing on it. It should of course be judged on the evidence.

2. If someone in a bar, or on BE, says, "Do you think Pistorius is guilty or not guilty of murder?", that's just a talking shop for 'gut feelings'.

Originally Posted by Beoz (Post 11234838)

Right. Gotcha. I'll take No. 1.

Originally Posted by paulry (Post 11234839)

:lol:

Originally Posted by Beoz (Post 11234862)

OK Paurly. Just for you I'll take your bar room guidance :)

Originally Posted by paulry (Post 11234919)

:D Only if the beers are on you! :drinkingbeer: