Ah, no, here's where you're flawed. You said that the prosecution were foolish because of the charges that they've levelled against him. You've then argued that nobody has been found guilty of premeditated murder for killing a burglar in their home. You're committing a fairly simple logical fallacy: the fact the nobody has been found guilty of premeditated murder for killing a burglar in his or her home does not necessarily mean that it is foolish to charge someone with this crime. In fact, many of the cases mentioned in this thread indicate that defendants were subsequently found guilty of lesser charges. It might, therefore, be a tactical procedure to charge someone with a crime, knowing that magistrates and their assistants in SA, or juries in England or American, have the option to find the defendant guilty of a lesser charge. In other words, aim high.This might suggest that a trained prosecutor in South Africe knows better than a random poster on Letsrun about how to proceed with a criminal case.
Pisto wrote:
You guys are the idiots, failing to come up with any proof to the contrary:
No prosecutor, practicing English Law, has succeeded in having a murder conviction upheld against a homeowner for killing a burglar in their home.
Why are you so stubborn to accept that this is true?
If you present a case where a murder conviction was upheld, you win the argument. Until then, you lose the argument, no matter what excuses/distractions you make.