Blackadder rules!!!!!!! Wow......one of my all time favorites!

You mean so people in China or Azerbaijan can understand? ;-)

Someone needs to start a Change.org petition. It is sickening to reward this family for their 17th century life-style of oppression, denial, and irresponsible baby factory behavior. It’s no wonder that Josh Duggar has turned out to be a total pervert. And if I see one more photo of Michelle Duggar worshipfully (is…

Not sure if anyone answered this, but South Africa did away with jury trials in 1969 because all-white juries usually meant that non-white defendants couldn’t get a fair trial by jury. Apartheid lasted a long time after that, which meant there was no way they were going to do away with white only juries - so, jury by…

It was pretty ridiculous that even in his closing “heads of argument” that his own attorney gave a defense and then basically said - if you don’t believe THAT defense, then HERE’S a second option for you. But let’s not stop there - just in case you don’t buy either of the first two defenses, here is yet a THIRD…

Somehow I have a feeling it will. I watched the videos of this trial after work each night (it was actually pretty interesting) and I do have the opinion that his trial judge was completely “taken” by him. She clearly ignored any evidence that tended to find him guilty and misapplied a law that I feel certain she must…

Dolus eventualis is the equivalent of second degree murder. The first judge said he can’t be guilty of it because he thought “Reeva” was in bed. That was a misapplication of the law. It didn’t matter WHO was in the bathroom under dolus eventualis. That is a legal principle that does not require you to know the…

You basically have nailed what the law says in South Africa. You have an obligation to confirm that a person is a potential danger to you before you shoot them. AND....you can’t even buy a gun in South Africa without first taking a test where you prove that you understand your obligation under the law. So, yes, he…

He had due process. The first judge misapplied the law to her finding of the facts. The appeals court neither heard new testimony nor changed her finding of the facts - they simply applied the law correctly to the facts that she found. An appeal cannot find different facts, even if they don’t agree with the original…

They didn’t “keep going after him”. The judge misapplied the law in his trial and, in South Africa, both the prosecutor and the defense have the ability to have a higher court look at the application of the law and correct if it was wrong. They are not allowed to introduce new evidence, nor are they allowed to even…

yes, you are correct. In South Africa he had a legal obligation to determine that his “assailant” actually had the capacity to do harm. It isn’t enough to just THINK that there could be danger behind the door, you have an obligation to know that they can harm you. So, yes, you hit the nail on the head as to why the…

In South Africa you cannot shoot someone unless you know that they have the ability to harm you. You can’t just “think” that they “might” have a gun even though you don’t see it. Not only does the law require you to make a determination that you are actually in danger, but, you have to take a test before you can even…

Actually, he’s on the hook (according to SA law) for not making a determination that the person was actually a threat. In SA you must determine that the person DOES have the ability to harm you before you shoot, not just that you think there could possibly be someone behind a locked door that might come out and shoot…

South Africa has very specific laws under which you are legally allowed to shoot someone. You can’t buy a gun in South Africa without taking a test to prove that you understand when you can, and when you can’t, fire at someone. Pistorus took and passed that test, so he knew full well that under South African law you…

If his head was being pounded into the pavement like he says it was, he would have had serious injuries. One of the women on his jury is married to a lawyer - it was all over the papers down here about how she was going to write a book about the case, but the would-be publisher backed out. Funny thing - since a jury…

I live about 5 miles from where Zimmerman killed Martin. When I first moved here about a year before the killing, a couple in their 30’s followed me to turn in my moving truck. After I put the keys in the night drop box and walked over to the couple’s car a POC who had pulled up in his car rolled down his window and…

You are so much smarter than me. I kept it going all the way to 1:12. Not sure what that says about me, but it can’t be good.

She reminds me of that sick-o 19 and counting wife who, in every photo, is looking at her husband as though he is her very savior. Yuck.

You are so right about different juries doing wildly different things You might remember the Dunn case - the so-called “loud music case” in Florida. The first jury had several members that wanted to find him not guilty on all counts because they believed his bullshit story about the kid in the back seat threatening…

He was found guilty for charges regarding 8 of the women, so his lawyers were successful in getting the jury to not believe several of the women. I’m glad, relieved actually, that he was found guilty on at least several of the charges. I feel bad for the women who came to court and had to go through the humiliation of…