Accidents are evident to happen and they happen often. Some can be self-inflicted accident and some can affect others can affect others. There is usually a fine line between what is an accident and what is on purpose, but where does murder fit in? This question can be asked when you look at the Oscar Pistorius trail. Oscar Pistorius is a famous blade runner who had ran in the Paralympics. Oscar Pistorius was put on trial for the murder of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp. After a sum of time, he was found guilty and was sentenced to 5 years in prison. A question that is raised because of this trial (And about every trial in history) is the person on trial guilty or innocent? The Jury made the right decision in finding Oscar Pistorius guilty, but they did not make a good decision with his punishment.
The jury had had done the followed affirmative action because he has a history of using weaponry. Pistorius is experienced with many weapons and has fired his guns in public. One of Pistorius’s friends is explains a situation involving firearms when the article says, …show more content…
Pistorius’s version of the story might not be true due to the fact that it is not possible. Oscar admits that he had “no reason” to fire at Steenkamp, but the prosecutor points out that his original explanation of the situation is impossible. The Prosecutor argues this when the article says, “He admitted that he had ‘no reason’ to fire the shots that killed Steenkamp, as Nel told him: ‘Your version is so improbable, that nobody would ever think it’s reasonably, possibly true, it’s so impossible … Your version is a lie’” (Phillips). Nel’s argument obviously got through to the jury due to their decision. The sequence of events that Pistorius first says cannot be true. He could not have just shot his girlfriend out of self-defense. The jury probably had this as a reason to say that he is
The jury had had done the followed affirmative action because he has a history of using weaponry. Pistorius is experienced with many weapons and has fired his guns in public. One of Pistorius’s friends is explains a situation involving firearms when the article says, …show more content…
Pistorius’s version of the story might not be true due to the fact that it is not possible. Oscar admits that he had “no reason” to fire at Steenkamp, but the prosecutor points out that his original explanation of the situation is impossible. The Prosecutor argues this when the article says, “He admitted that he had ‘no reason’ to fire the shots that killed Steenkamp, as Nel told him: ‘Your version is so improbable, that nobody would ever think it’s reasonably, possibly true, it’s so impossible … Your version is a lie’” (Phillips). Nel’s argument obviously got through to the jury due to their decision. The sequence of events that Pistorius first says cannot be true. He could not have just shot his girlfriend out of self-defense. The jury probably had this as a reason to say that he is