As you say, crime is so bad there; that this was developed to counteract the Car jacking problem, at one stage.

---

@**caution**opinion_ahead wrote:

Why would we be demanding a tougher sentence for someone who shot an actual armed intruder?  How is this comparable to shooting an unarmed bystander where no intruder is involved, never mind worse?

 

Had Pistorius shot an armed intruder, he probably would not have stood trial at all.  He did stand trial because there was no intruder and whether his explanation was justified needed to be examined. 

 

 

 

 

---

Again you are missing the point - OP thought it was an intruder behind that door - that was the verdict of the court and why it was not murder.

On that basis it didn't matter who was actually behind the door - the court decided he acted recklessly causing the death of another.  It would have been the same offence if it had have been an intruder in the bathroom.

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

---

Again you are missing the point - OP thought it was an intruder behind that door - that was the verdict of the court and why it was not murder.

 

On that basis it didn't matter who was actually behind the door - the court decided he acted recklessly causing the death of another.  It would have been the same offence if it had have been an intruder in the bathroom.

---

I'm not missing the point.  I don't agree that it is the same offence.

Here we go again:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29895786