There must be an appeal. Mapisa is a *********** idiot.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2
- Thread starter Skwinty
- Start date
There must be an appeal. Mapisa is a *********** idiot.
Not only that, he only has to serve 50% of the sentence. For murder.
SA justice is broken. At least when it involves privileged, rich, well represented white people.
outrageous. Time served would be just.
(don't have a go at me please)
I will comment on posts which are irrational rubbish. Which this is.
Not over yet. Mapisa will not get another case and Reeva will get justice. Eventually.
Sorry, but "don't have a go at me" doesn't count for anything. Interesting that you think that murder should have a sentence of a year or so in prison and a year or so staying at a relative's farm. Jeremy Bamber should have been out 20 odd years ago, then.
katy_did
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2010
- Messages
- 2,219
For me, this is a fair sentence, and in line with what people have received for similar crimes.
It's important to remember that the SC ruling didn't change the material circumstances of the crime - he was still being sentenced for shooting someone he believed to be a burglar. The SC only disagreed on which crime those circumstances more properly fell under, not on what actually happened. The murder/manslaughter border was always a fine one, but in the end I think the firing of four shots, in particular, rightly swung it towards murder.
The most similar case I know of is the one where a man shot his wife as she was coming out of the bathroom, and was convicted of manslaughter and given an eight year wholly suspended sentence. The main difference from this case is that the man fired just one shot, so it could conceivably have been a startled reaction (though as with Pistorius, the fact he picked up a gun to confront the hypothetical burglar is rather damning in itself). That Pistorius fired four shots instead of one is a difference strong enough to justify the murder verdict and the heavier (in actual terms) sentence, but not enough, I think, to give him fifteen or twenty years.
It's important to remember that the SC ruling didn't change the material circumstances of the crime - he was still being sentenced for shooting someone he believed to be a burglar. The SC only disagreed on which crime those circumstances more properly fell under, not on what actually happened. The murder/manslaughter border was always a fine one, but in the end I think the firing of four shots, in particular, rightly swung it towards murder.
The most similar case I know of is the one where a man shot his wife as she was coming out of the bathroom, and was convicted of manslaughter and given an eight year wholly suspended sentence. The main difference from this case is that the man fired just one shot, so it could conceivably have been a startled reaction (though as with Pistorius, the fact he picked up a gun to confront the hypothetical burglar is rather damning in itself). That Pistorius fired four shots instead of one is a difference strong enough to justify the murder verdict and the heavier (in actual terms) sentence, but not enough, I think, to give him fifteen or twenty years.
Scordatura
Critical Thinker
Roux said Oscar won't appeal but no word from Nel yet. He had said he'll appeal any sentence less than 8 years. If Masipa's involved in that process then what's the point?
Totally disagree. Any jurisdiction which punishes murderers so lightly are disgraceful.
Rich and white.
katy_did
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2010
- Messages
- 2,219
And yet similar, much less publicised crimes have attracted similar, if not lighter sentences.
Not just in SA either - in the UK, Tony Martin ended up with a five year sentence for manslaughter after he shot a burglar in the back with an illegal gun as he was running away (that Pistorius wasn't shooting at a burglar is irrelevant here, given that the court accepted he believed he was shooting at a burglar).
Last edited:
Manslaughter is not murder.
katy_did
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2010
- Messages
- 2,219
And not all murders are equal. It was clearly always a very fine judgment call as to which crime Pistorius should be sentenced for, and that it was murder rather than manslaughter changed the circumstances of the crime not at all. The same mitigating circumstances applied.
You say Pistorius has been treated differently because he's rich and white. Do you have an example of a similar crime where a non-rich and/or non-white defendant has been treated more harshly?
The change of charge was not a marginal thing. It was absolutely, totally significant. Do you understand the legal system at all?
Manslaughter is not murder. It is far from it.
katy_did
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2010
- Messages
- 2,219
The judge has total discretion to take into account mitigating circumstances and to give the sentence she thinks is appropriate. The factual circumstances she was considering hadn't changed.
I'll ask again: do you have an example of a similar case where a defendant was treated more harshly, given that you think Pistorius was treated more leniently because he's rich and white? Can I assume you have no evidence for that? Because the only cases I can find suggest that, if anything, both conviction and sentence were somewhat harsher than in similar cases.
I did find another case in SA where a man was charged with murder for accidentally shooting his daughter in mistake for an intruder back in 2011, a man called Collin Masilela. I can't find any record of a conviction so I think the charges must have been dropped, but perhaps someone else knows for sure. Incidentally I believe both defendants I've mentioned were black.
Last edited:
Oh for Christ's sake, what Pistorius did was not a mistake, so please don't refer to cases of mistaken shooting. The court (finally) found that he deliberately and recklessly killed Reeva. I also believe he did it deliberately, but the court disagreed.
Tell me, why is the standard sentence for this offence 15 years, and not immediate probation? How can this possibly mitigated back to 6?
Tell me, why is the standard sentence for this offence 15 years, and not immediate probation? How can this possibly mitigated back to 6?
katy_did
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2010
- Messages
- 2,219
Mistaken shootings? Why do you think those cases where people shot at what they thought was an intruder but turned out to be a relative were just "mistakes"?
Still no similar cases then.
ETA: Wait a sec. A man thinks there's an intruder in the house, picks up a gun, goes after said intruder, hears someone in bathroom, shoots the person as they're coming out of the bathroom, only to discover said "intruder" was in fact his pregnant wife - and this to you is a "mistake"?
Please familiarise yourself with this case. This issue has been done to death. OP was found to have recklessly murdered Reeva. Murdered.
And you used the word mistake in your earlier post.
katy_did
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2010
- Messages
- 2,219
Section 51, Criminal Law Amendment Act:
This is why Masipa was entitled to impose a lesser sentence. She spelled out her reasons in her ruling, but presumably the fine line between murder/manslaughter in this particular case was one of the factors.