Oscar Pistorius charged with Murder

[Explorator]

I saw it on the news today, shocking!

[Catchy]

meh i was going to say he was hot, then realised he has no legs...

[xxMATTGxx]

meh i was going to say he was hot, then realised he has no legs...

Wow... :/

[Catchy]

Wow... :/

WHAT

[xxMATTGxx]

WHAT

Just you've changed your views on him because he has no legs isn't really a nice thing to do

[Catchy]

Just you've changed your views on him because he has no legs isn't really a nice thing to do

Fine... I still would...

[FlyingJesus]

Bet he's still taller than you without legs

[sex]

unfortuante advert timing

[GommeInc]

No - Loss of control can cover this. It doesn't have to be an accident to be loss of control. The qualifying trigger was them arguing etc, then he could have snapped and shot.

Not necessarily. It depends entirely on the actus reus or the events leading up to it. If he was holding a gun at the time of the argument, and "loss control" in a rage and shot but immediately regretted it - then loss of control would be considered. However, from the information that seems to be circulating, loss of control would not be an option because:

- He snapped and shot more than once hinting that he intended to injure or kill. If he snapped at the heat of the argument, he wouldn't shoot more than once because surely you would immediately panic the moment you pull the trigger (and why was his finger(s) on the trigger? Seems awfully dodgy). This is assuming it's not a semi-/automatic weapon.
- He actually killed the person. Had he used it as a threat or didn't fatally hit the victim then loss of control would be a consideration.
- He was holding a firearm inside the premises (a place he would unlikely use it). Why is this? It seems strange to randomly be handling a weapon during an argument inside your own home, unless you like firing randomly inside your own house for the sake of a spur of the moment DIY

Loss of control only makes sense if you're handling a potentially dangerous weapon in a place you're likely to use it. For example, accidentally shooting someone while outside pheasant hunting. Either by accidentally forgetting to put the safety on or by not seeing the other person.

The other thing is - why wasn't the safety on? If he did lose control he shouldn't own a weapon under South African Law if he doesn't know to how to use the safety catch AND remove ammunition when not in use.

[Cerys]

Not necessarily. It depends entirely on the actus reus or the events leading up to it. If he was holding a gun at the time of the argument, and "loss control" in a rage and shot but immediately regretted it - then loss of control would be considered. However, from the information that seems to be circulating, loss of control would not be an option because:

- He snapped and shot more than once hinting that he intended to injure or kill. If he snapped at the heat of the argument, he wouldn't shoot more than once because surely you would immediately panic the moment you pull the trigger (and why was his finger(s) on the trigger? Seems awfully dodgy). This is assuming it's not a semi-/automatic weapon.
- He actually killed the person. Had he used it as a threat or didn't fatally hit the victim then loss of control would be a consideration.
- He was holding a firearm inside the premises (a place he would unlikely use it). Why is this? It seems strange to randomly be handling a weapon during an argument inside your own home, unless you like firing randomly inside your own house for the sake of a spur of the moment DIY

Loss of control only makes sense if you're handling a potentially dangerous weapon in a place you're likely to use it. For example, accidentally shooting someone while outside pheasant hunting. Either by accidentally forgetting to put the safety on or by not seeing the other person.

The other thing is - why wasn't the safety on? If he did lose control he shouldn't own a weapon under South African Law if he doesn't know to how to use the safety catch AND remove ammunition when not in use.

Well, don't blame me for getting it wrong. Blame my teacher who got great grades in law at uni! If I'm going on what I've ben taught, loss of control could be used, but as I said earlier its unlikely that it would be allowed.

Obviously he has the actus reus as the woman is dead due to his actions, whether it be through intent or recklessness.