Continuing from the post below

Notice, as bad choice as that would also be, this is not like the guy suddenly found the house on fire and he did not check on the other person before trying to deal with that fire. There checking on the other person is part of the solution while here it is also part of seeing the problem itself. That is because only if the noise came from someone else it would have been a problem.

The status of continued confidence or lack of suspicion in that his girlfriend did not leave the bed conflicts with the status of being surprised by the sound. As much as that alleged hearing of a sound was surprising as much as there was more reason to establish or eliminate the other person being its source by checking his existence in his place. The defendant's alleged behaviour seems far from being natural especially if turning the head toward the person would have sufficiently check the existence of that other person, let alone when one also walks all that distance near the bed from the balcony according to the defendant's allegation. And what called for such level of confidence that his girlfriend was still in the bed? It seems that there are reasons for her to be awakened starting from his move from the bed beside her then going to the balcony and doing all what he alleged doing. I don't think that I also need to point out how very often people go to the bathroom when their sleep gets interrupted.     

Continuing with the post below

It is not like there were 10 persons living in that house and he mistakenly accounted for only 9 of them or even two persons sleeping in separate rooms. It was two persons sleeping in the same bed of the same room.

In addition entering a house through a bathroom makes the intruder more susceptible to being surprised unlike entering it through other rooms where it is less probable for an unoccupied room to become suddenly occupied.

I was also thinking that bathroom windows are often not large enough for a convenient entry by a human like regular windows especially when they are for a separate area like the one for the toilet in the bathroom here . I searched a little bit and found as shown in the windows picture from outside HERE in addition to that, the bathroom windows were not even on the first floor. On the other hand it seems that there are windows that are easier for breaking in below.

Back to the issue of size, if we assume it is the other big one, why would an intruder choose to trap himself in the toilet area and close the door? 

Remember, all that in a house described in the caption below the picture in #5 HERE as being in a "gated community with high walls and 24-hour guards".   

Also, moving without the prosthetic legs fits better with expecting being the shooting attacker than the one being attacked or shot at. One could think that the first thing a person with such disability especially if it was also a reason behind his fear would try in such situation is to handle the issue of his mobility. Instead what we see here is sacrificing mobility in order to reach the target faster. In other words we see here sacrificing faster reaction later because of lower mobility capability for the sake of faster action at the beginning which fits less with expecting to be attacked by the target. On the other hand, it seems to fit much better with him trying to reach the victim, knowing it is his girlfriend, fast because of anger and/or intentionally trying to reach the victim while she is still in the toilet section of the bathroom.   

Also,why did not that sense of danger and urgency make the suspect try to awake his girlfriend fast by physically moving or shaking her? In addition to better preparation, she could in the mean time call for local security or the police and the like.  

Continuing with the post below

How could it be possible that he couldn't see it could be his girlfriend in that bathroom? It seems to come naturally that when you have someone else with you home his existence would be something you account for everywhere you go in that house and especially for a place like a bathroom. Are we talking about an adult here or someone acting like an infant enjoying watching a person appear and disappear from behind an object because it forgets about what it cant see even if it is still in the same place with it?

And assuming it did not occur to him that it could be his girlfriend from the onset, how is it possible that such possibility was not revived after firing the first shot and make him think what have I done before continuing to fire the rest of the bullets? That seems to make the continuing with the shooting like the starting of the shooting both fit good with trying to take advantage from the inability to see what is behind the door. In addition to that we should also assume that no sound came from the victim until he finished shooting. 

Look at the "INTERACTIVE" part HERE.What person having another person with him in the house, let alone someone like him living in a gated housing complex with security, hears a sound in the bathroom and not only the first thing but also the only thing that comes to his mind is that it must be an intruder (#2) not the other person with him in the house? Moreover, isn't the action of opining a window fits with that of bringing the two fans in that both related to the need for cooling? Notice also that it seems he had to pass on the bed while going to from #1 to fire on the bathroom?

Anyway, aside from all that, even if we assume that the intruder defence which seems to be like a joke is true a question still remains about endangering the society by a person who lacks the capability to make a correct judgment to this level. If you fail like this in making the correct judgment here how can you be trusted on the life of others with, for example, driving a car?  Shouldn't it be that the same lack of correct judgment that gave you an excuse here also take the same level of your rights like a normal person to be trusted on things that could affect the safety of other people? So even if we assume honest intention, imagine how much that claim could take from other rights? If you make judgments like this then is it safe for people to allow you to even just walk among them or neighbor them? 

  

    

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

That trial in South Africa, somebody shoots a girlfriend,  who was apparently spending the night with him, from behind the bathroom door claiming he thought she was an intruder, are you kidding me? From the beginning this claim sounded like a joke and one could have a hard time avoiding thoughts about a corrupt trial. Now, after a year in prison according to news reports, he was moved to continue his maximum five years sentence in a South African style of house arrest that makes one wonder about extending the privileges to conducting concert tours. This clearly strengthens the suspicion in the honesty of the trial of that claim. 

Is it possible that if I know more about the case like those dealing with  it I would change my view? I actually think about how if I know more details about that claim I could make a stronger argument. Still however the answer to that question is yes although from my position here I do not see a significant probability for that.

The level of shedding of blood and coming back with any week excuses to cover for it we see in the world these days seems to be making a joke of the concept of real self defense.