Off Topic Bill Nicholson Arms

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Sounds like he's ****ed. A reasonable person would not have acted in the manner he did, according to the judge.
The entire courtroom may be in danger of flooding now, if his tears at other points of the trial are anything to go by.

Edit: Court adjourns for the day?! W. T. F ?!
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
Sounds like he's ****ed. A reasonable person would not have acted in the manner he did, according to the judge.
The entire courtroom may be in danger of flooding now, if his tears at other points of the trial are anything to go by.

Edit: Court adjourns for the day?! W. T. F ?!
Click to expand...

Last night of freedom I think. He'll get 10-15 years tomorrow.
 
Culpable homicide (manslaughter)
No intention to kill. Takes into account disability, but actions negligent and not in keeping with a reasonable person
Maximum of 15 years, possibly between seven and 10 years
Click to expand...

or

Common-law murder
Unlawfully intended to kill in the heat of the moment but without "malice aforethought". Either: Shot door intending to kill, or knew someone might be killed and still fired gun
Minimum of 15 years up to 20 years, at judge's discretion
Click to expand...
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
Sounds like he's ****ed. A reasonable person would not have acted in the manner he did, according to the judge.
The entire courtroom may be in danger of flooding now, if his tears at other points of the trial are anything to go by.

Edit: Court adjourns for the day?! W. T. F ?!
Click to expand...

Is it against their laws to be unreasonable though? If it's anything like what I've learnt about the laws in US states, so long as they claim they were fearful they have a good case even if the fear was unreasonable.

It's absolutely mad that those that are best trained to handle guns, make the correct and quick decisions in high stress situations are made to account for every bullet they fire and every action they take during a lethal engagement, whilst untrained Joe Public is allowed the same guns with none of the training and far less of the responsibility. Bonkers the lot of them(no offence RWAEB :D ).
 
First, lock him up. He's a gun freak who loves his guns too much. A paranoid mess who shouldn't even be in charge of a butter knife.

Second, my old boss was white South African. The stories he told me were a complete culture shock. Upon getting home from work, he'd get his gun out of the safe and it wouldn't leave his side until he placed it back in the safe and went to work the following day. The risk to his family was very real. He would have shot anyone entering his property and asked questions later. Other stories about driving home drunk, and not stopping at red lights, stick with me for being so against the norm in the UK.
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
That's a pretty massive mistake to make, especially when she's the only person involved in coming to a verdict.
Months and months of a trial and the judge doesn't even understand the possible conclusions? <doh> South African justice system, just <doh>
Click to expand...

Given the crap that ours has managed to churn out this year, namely an entire jury decided that not only was Rebekah Brooks not guilty of phone hacking but also did not pervert the course of justice - despite the jury seeing a ****ing video of her perverting the course of justice - it's not like our justice system is worth crowing about.
 
Yid Vicious said:
Is it against their laws to be unreasonable though?
Click to expand...

Yes. Part of any manslaughter or culpable homicide charge would be that he acted in a manner that wouldn't be deemed reasonable for most people in the same circumstances.
I think that the judge will go for the latter charge, which her comments today seem to have indicated.

humanbeingincroydon said:
Given the crap that ours has managed to churn out this year, namely an entire jury decided that not only was Rebekah Brooks not guilty of phone hacking but also did not pervert the course of justice - despite the jury seeing a ****ing video of her perverting the course of justice - it's not like our justice system is worth crowing about.
Click to expand...

I completely agree, but it's easy to understand why a jury can be mislead or confused by extremely expensive lawyers.
A professional judge shouldn't be making slip ups like that, though you have to give her credit for managing to stay awake.
 
Yid Vicious said:
Is it against their laws to be unreasonable though? If it's anything like what I've learnt about the laws in US states, so long as they claim they were fearful they have a good case even if the fear was unreasonable.

It's absolutely mad that those that are best trained to handle guns, make the correct and quick decisions in high stress situations are made to account for every bullet they fire and every action they take during a lethal engagement, whilst untrained Joe Public is allowed the same guns with none of the training and far less of the responsibility. Bonkers the lot of them(no offence RWAEB :D ).
Click to expand...

You're right. When I lived in the states there was a shooting of that kind a couple of streets from where I lived. Some kid had come home in the middle of the night completely stoned out of his box. In his stupor, he mistakenly forced his way into the wrong house. The owner shot and killed him. It was deemed to be basically self defence. He was not even charged.
 
"Given the crap that ours has managed to churn out this year, namely an entire jury decided that not only was
Rebekah Brooks not guilty of phone hacking but also did not pervert the course of justice -
despite the jury seeing a f**ing video of her perverting the course of justice - it's not like our justice system is worth crowing about."

Which is precisely why she should have been tried for the crime of Witchcraft.
 
Mixed feelings about the Pistorius verdict. Seems to be a bit random and I'm sure that both sides will be considering an appeal.
Guilty of culpable homicide and one count of discharging a firearm in public, but not guilty of another identical charge or of possessing illegal ammunition, despite... er, possessing illegal ammunition. :huh:
Claimed that it was his dad's, who could legally own it, yet his dad refused to back him up by testifying to it.

He really shouldn't be out on bail after such serious convictions. He has plenty of motivation to do a bunk now and virtually none to stay.
Fleeing to a country without an extradition treaty would be pretty tempting in his position.
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
Mixed feelings about the Pistorius verdict. Seems to be a bit random and I'm sure that both sides will be considering an appeal.
Guilty of culpable homicide and one count of discharging a firearm in public, but not guilty of another identical charge or of possessing illegal ammunition, despite... er, possessing illegal ammunition. :huh:
Claimed that it was his dad's, who could legally own it, yet his dad refused to back him up by testifying to it.

He really shouldn't be out on bail after such serious convictions. He has plenty of motivation to do a bunk now and virtually none to stay.
Fleeing to a country without an extradition treaty would be pretty tempting in his position.
Click to expand...

Maybe I shouldn't say this, but Pistorius do a runner? How, exactly? :biggrin:
 
NowsufferinginSpain said:
Maybe I shouldn't say this, but Pistorius do a runner? How, exactly? :biggrin:
Click to expand...

It's literally what he's famous for! <laugh>
Well, now it's one of the things that he's famous for, anyway.

The International Paralympic Committeee have said that they'll let him race again in the future, if that's what he wants.
They're not keen on allowing him to shoot again though, for some reason...
 
Well, I suppose there is a simple answer to stop him doing a runner! Mind you, he can only go 200-400 metres, so no problem catching him.

Yes, I can see their dilemma. He does seem to have a problem with that particular discipline, doesn't he. Anyway, he deserves locking up for shooting top class totty like that
 
I don't suppose he has got much money left after paying his legal team and you would think the Government would have confiscated his passport. Add to that almost everyone in SA knows who he is and at least 50% would turn him in I doubt he is in a position to do a runner.
 
he can't exactly sneak through the scanners at the airport either assuming they have them in SA with his particular disability, its somewhat hard to hide.
 
How hard would it be to sneak out of South Africa and into a neighbouring country, though?
A quick drive into Zimbabwe and then a plane trip to South America doesn't sound that difficult to arrange, assuming that he's still got a fair bit of cash available.
 
Yid Vicious said:
Is it against their laws to be unreasonable though? If it's anything like what I've learnt about the laws in US states, so long as they claim they were fearful they have a good case even if the fear was unreasonable.

It's absolutely mad that those that are best trained to handle guns, make the correct and quick decisions in high stress situations are made to account for every bullet they fire and every action they take during a lethal engagement, whilst untrained Joe Public is allowed the same guns with none of the training and far less of the responsibility. Bonkers the lot of them(no offence RWAEB :D ).
Click to expand...

None taken. I've felt for a long time that I'm surrounded by 300 million lunatics, most of them gun toting.

I think people have simply failed to sufficiently enjoy the fact that a sitting US Vice President filled his lawyer with lead while attempting to shoot a bird while drunk. And that shortly afterwards we acted as if Clinton showing off his french bread was a big deal. It wasn't like he shot somebody. If he had, that would have been okay.

[video=youtube_share;xIpLd0WQKCY]http://youtu.be/xIpLd0WQKCY?t=6s[/video]
 
redwhiteandermblue said:
None taken. I've felt for a long time that I'm surrounded by 300 million lunatics, most of them gun toting.

I think people have simply failed to sufficiently enjoy the fact that a sitting US Vice President filled his lawyer with lead while attempting to shoot a bird while drunk. And that shortly afterwards we acted as if Clinton showing off his french bread was a big deal. It wasn't like he shot somebody. If he had, that would have been okay.

[video=youtube_share;xIpLd0WQKCY]http://youtu.be/xIpLd0WQKCY?t=6s[/video]
Click to expand...

Shot his lawyer! Are we sure that was purely unintentional?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back