I saw it on the news today, shocking!
I saw it on the news today, shocking!
今日は
meh i was going to say he was hot, then realised he has no legs...
unfortuante advert timing
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.
LEFT
FOM & FOW
If you need me, feel free to PM me here for contact details.
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.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.
Obviously he has the actus reus as the woman is dead due to his actions, whether it be through intent or recklessness.
Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!