A defence of what? Murder? I think a history of shooting off guns in restaurants and crashing speedboats display's an excellent previous history of being a dick rather than a murderer.

Are the two mutually exclusive?

Depends. All murderers are dicks however not all dicks are murderers.

Dicks with guns seem to like to use them sooner or later.

.... and for the prosecutions sake, they would want to stay away from a statement like that. Bit like the ex-girlfriend twatting after her day in court.

Nor do all murderous dicks inspire 20 pages of utter bollox, makes ya think doesn't it

Are previous convictions admissable in SA law?


S

Oh I think they do. On random internet discussion boards anyway.

Don't know. If it is it could be a bad thing or good thing for OP. Depending on how the judge looks at it

Killing in self defense; especially in your own home, in places like the US and probably South Africa is often a defense: people have got off in the Uk I believe too. I think it's based on common law.

The reality is that it is at least manslaughter.

If you feel threatened then you can shoot. Then if you feel you have nullified the threat you might want to gain access...
It's your home....

That quote talks about what a reasonable person would have done which is a test used in criminal justice systems, as I have said.

He'll almost certainly either get a form of manslaughter but ludicrously other people in the US and SA have been successful in relying on a castle defence...unlikely in this case. When people have shot in self defence it's normally face to face with an intruder.

Not quite what I meant. If one kills someone, imo obviously, they have, in simple terms, become a murderer regardless of intent. Someone found guilty of manslaughter doesn't get described as a manslaughterer, they get described as a murderer.

You can't shoot someone in SA unless your life is directly threatened - which means you can see the danger and you have no other option but to open fire. Completely against what happened in this case. Even if he knew that there was a murderer behind the door, he isn't allowed to shoot him until he can see him. That's the law, and he absolutely knew it.

He's a world-class athlete. He's used to managing stress, and being in very stressful situations. He's used to guns, and being around and firing them. The reasonable test suggests (but doesn't prove) that he knew exactly what he was doing.

.... and because you are guessing, most legal systems would run with this being reasonable doubt.

Not sure about previous (old) convictions being admissible but the restaurant and other charges are on the same bench sheet as the murder charge so they should all be cross reference-able.

Yep, which is why I think he's going down.

Whether or not he knew it was his girlfriend behind the door is largely a red herring. He went armed, and knew that he was a reasonable distance from a locked door, and therefore safe - shooting through the door was murder no matter what.

Should have gone with the 'roid rage defence - he'd have had more chance of making it stick.