Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2

[Garrison]

The South African legal system works!

As it turns out not so much:

Oscar Pistorius parole bid collapses in South Africa

...But instead of giving a decision afterwards, embarrassed officials admitted their timings had been wrong.

Earlier this week, they had received, but ignored, a letter from South Africa's top appeals court, which explained that Pistorius needed to spend another year and a half in prison before he could be considered for parole.

So they didn't reject his request for parole, they just shouldn't have been considering it in the first place.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

As it turns out not so much:

Oscar Pistorius parole bid collapses in South Africa



So they didn't reject his request for parole, they just shouldn't have been considering it in the first place.

Well. It sorta worked. At least they did not set him free and then have to chase after him.

 

[Samson]

Let us imagine he shot wildly from the bathroom door thinking it was an intruder.
Should he stay in jail?
How does this benefit society?

 

[lionking]

Let us imagine he shot wildly from the bathroom door thinking it was an intruder.
Should he stay in jail?
How does this benefit society?

Sigh. This has been done to death. His appeals failed. He is guilty as sin, and was very lucky to get the short sentence he did.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Let us imagine he shot wildly from the bathroom door thinking it was an intruder.
Should he stay in jail?
How does this benefit society?

As we discussed at the time of the trial, and you continually ignored, it does not matter whether he believed there was an intruder behind the door. He was still not justified in firing as he did, and is still guilty of murder.
.

 

[Bob001]

Let us imagine he shot wildly from the bathroom door thinking it was an intruder.
Should he stay in jail?
How does this benefit society?

One purpose of judicial punishment is to discourage others from committing the same crime. Perhaps this will cause others to think twice before pumping multiple bullets at an unidentified sound through a closed door.

And of course, there remains the big question of whether he really thought he was shooting an intruder.

 

[trustbutverify]

Let us imagine he shot wildly from the bathroom door thinking it was an intruder.
Should he stay in jail?
How does this benefit society?

Why do I need to imagine something that isn't true?

 

[Samson]

Why do I need to imagine something that isn't true?

The trial judge found as fact it was true.
That should be enough to stimulate your imagination.

 

[Samson]

One purpose of judicial punishment is to discourage others from committing the same crime. Perhaps this will cause others to think twice before pumping multiple bullets at an unidentified sound through a closed door.

And of course, there remains the big question of whether he really thought he was shooting an intruder.

Yes but an extra 16 months is hardly likely to add to the message is my thinking.

 

[lionking]

Yes but an extra 16 months is hardly likely to add to the message is my thinking.

What you should be thinking about is Reeva’s parents.

 

[Bob001]

Yes but an extra 16 months is hardly likely to add to the message is my thinking.

Does he get out in 16 months? Or just get considered for release?

 

[The Atheist]

I thought I'd come in and say "bravo" to the Saffer system for failing to allow the murderous piece of crap an early release.

Then I saw this gem:

This thread should get to the heart of the matter, and determine whether a cripple would stand at an oblique angle and fire randomly at his girl friend through a bathroom door.
I do not believe it, but set against that is her apparel and the phones in the cubicle.

Has there ever been a murderer incarcerated who actually did the murder?

You remind me of a character from one of Stephen King's novels, described by his wife as someone who "thought every inside straight was a good buy".

Once a topic of great interest. And now . . . ?

It's good that it's still in the news - hopefully that will ensure no other woman falls for him.

 

[trustbutverify]

The trial judge found as fact it was true.
That should be enough to stimulate your imagination.

Sorry, but the unfortunate fact that celebrity worship can infect a SA trial judge isn't enough for me to start playing make believe.

 

[Samson]

Sorry, but the unfortunate fact that celebrity worship can infect a SA trial judge isn't enough for me to start playing make believe.

I just assume she has heard the most evidence, so is in the best position to er judge.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I just assume she has heard the most evidence, so is in the best position to er judge.

You assume that because it suits your preconceptions about the case. However, the evidence is overwhelming that the judge either didn't understand the law or let her own biases cloud her judgment (or both), which necessarily calls into question her findings of fact. Further, as you continue to ignore, it is irrelevant. Pistorius is still guilty of murder no matter who he thought was behind the door.

 

[trustbutverify]

I just assume she has heard the most evidence, so is in the best position to er judge.

Sadly, access to information does not preclude bias. Masipa's objectivity was corrupted by her admiration for a glamorous, jet-setting sports hero.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

One purpose of judicial punishment is to discourage others from committing the same crime. Perhaps this will cause others to think twice before pumping multiple bullets at an unidentified sound through a closed door.

And of course, there remains the big question of whether he really thought he was shooting an intruder.

Given that a) he was physically and emotionally abusing Ms Steenkamp and b) he had a violent temper with a propensity for using guns when angry, I'd bet that Pistorious knew exactly what he was doing.

 

[Samson]

Given that a) he was physically and emotionally abusing Ms Steenkamp and b) he had a violent temper with a propensity for using guns when angry, I'd bet that Pistorious knew exactly what he was doing.

There is one narrative, the truth is not beyond reach, but it is a case that confounds.
I would not die in a ditch defending one or other, but I am persuaded it was a tragic misidentification. Typically in cases like this, the evidence can allow only one narrative from a binary possibility.
The phones in the cubicle suggest flight, except many people take devices to these private spaces to catch up as it were.
The notion that he would fire randomly from the door to the general area to avenge her infidelity makes no sense.
The valentine letter shows a love beyond reproach as the evening began.
The phone calls and timing after the tragedy are completely consistent with his narrative. Masipa was a "hanging judge" where injury to women was concerned, yet she found as fact this was not his intent.
Let you all see otherwise, but remember there is one narrative in all crime.

 

[Bob001]

....
I would not die in a ditch defending one or other, but I am persuaded it was a tragic misidentification.
....

So what if it was? He still doesn't get to open fire on an unidentified stranger behind a closed door. And nobody has claimed that he called out the obvious warning: "Who's there? Come out!" And did he call the cops when he thought an intruder was in his bathroom? This is a dangerous, impulsive guy.

 

[IsThisTheLife]

There is one narrative, the truth is not beyond reach, but it is a case that confounds.
I would not die in a ditch defending one or other, but I am persuaded it was a tragic misidentification. ...

All the evidence is that it was a 'rage killing', as in blind rage, not even a 'crime of passion' - he was oblivious to the consequences. Pistorius had shown on plenty of occasions that he was unstable and dangerous, but was indulged because he was so "inspirational" on his carbon-fibre springs.