@deamonza you are missing vital parts of how the law works. In any case, and this one is no exception, evidence of "facts" are introduced by both sides. For example (and I don't know if these are all accurate in the OP trial, this is just an example). 4 shots were fired. At least one of those shots killed the victim. All shots were fired by the same gun. Ergo, whoever fired the gun killed the victim. The role of the judge (and the legal system in general) is to set up a framework whereby those facts can be verified to a "reasonable" degree of certainty. Depending on the jurisprudence in play, "reasonable" has different meanings, but in general the burden of proof is set deliberately high.

Once you have a set of facts you then apply them to the charge, in this case, murder. Murder usually requires intent. I am not a lawyer but I think that holds true in South Africa too. Intent can be very tricky to prove one way or another. One of the myriad tools at the judge's disposal is the notion of an "average man". This is a mental concept of what a typical member of society would do. Someone not too rich, not too poor, not mentally ill, etc. In other words, your typical man in the street. So if the judge can conclude that a normal person would not fire 4 shots through a closed door knowing they could kill someone, then they can legally conclude that OP must have had intent, to some degree, to do exactly as he did.

It is not perfect. Nothing in this entire universe (except entropy) ever is. However, it is the best mankind has come up with so far and I for one am *glad* that our laws are based on exactly this type of approach to dealing with uncertainty.

On 2015-12-04 22:32:50 deamonza said:

Just some food for thought.

No thanks !

I shall now betake myself to a perusal of Mr Richard Hooker's holy and learned treatise on the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity and his divine pulpit oratory for my bedtime reading, whereafter, with a yawn and a stretch, I shall compose myself to be rocked into the arms of Morpheus.

@ Ben O nooooo please don't go! *downcast eyes *

Thought provoking thread and beautiful choice of words being used throughout.

I'm loving it!

"Deflect and discredit", an age old diversionary strategy used to avoid the true issues and veer away from the root or the problem.
"No, it's the media hype", "it's political interference", "there was no presumption of innocence", "there was mass hysteria that Oscar must be punished", "there is a blood lust for Oscar's head", "the NPA is incompetent", "it's the crime situation", now we even have attempts to deamonize Reeva's mother, accusing her of profiting from her daughter's death.
Let's not forget, the victim here is Reeva and her family, and not Oscar..
Our Highest Court has convicted him of the murder of an innocent, young woman, and I, for one, accept and respect the decision taken by these Judges was made in an impartial, deliberate fashion, having taken all the facts and evidence into account.
And while we don't forget Oscar's achievements against adversity prior to this tragedy, my thoughts are primarily with Reeva's family who had their daughter's life taken away so prematurely at the hands of her boyfriend.

"I'm loving it!"

Jirre Clau, jy't weer laat-nag gepeuter met die Mac ne?
;-)

On 2015-12-05 09:19:57 honeybear said:
..., now we even have attempts to deamonize Reeva's mother, accusing her of profiting from her daughter's death.

How tender is a mother's love!
Unimaginable how deep is her parents' grief.

Personally I see it as an injustice that OP walks ....