Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2

[katy_did]

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.

In mistake for a burglar. If you think that means the shooting was "mistaken", then presumably you think Pistorius' shooting was also a "mistake". Yet you tried to claim those cases I mentioned were different from his, because they were "mistaken shootings" while his wasn't.

The law provides for the judge to impose a lesser sentence, as I say above.

 

[lionking]

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.

And her reasoning was rubbish. Just as her original judgement which was overturned. As this one will be.

Tell me what is the relevance of OP being a "fallen hero"? What utter ********. Marpisa seems star struck by Oscar. Get rid of her.

 

[lionking]

In mistake for a burglar. If you think that means the shooting was "mistaken", then presumably you think Pistorius' shooting was also a "mistake". Yet you tried to claim those cases I mentioned were different from his, because they were "mistaken shootings" while his wasn't.

The law provides for the judge to impose a lesser sentence, as I say above.

Where have I said OP's murder of Reeva was a mistake? You are putting words into my mouth. The court (eventually) found his actions were no mistake. This is now beyond argument.

 

[katy_did]

And her reasoning was rubbish. Just as her original judgement which was overturned. As this one will be.

Tell me what is the relevance of OP being a "fallen hero"? What utter ********. Marpisa seems star struck by Oscar. Get rid of her.

Presumably it's to do with the fact he's lost his career, his status and reputation, regardless of whether he serves more time in jail.

As regards an appeal, I think that may be it now. But I've thought that before, so who knows.

 

[katy_did]

Where have I said OP's murder of Reeva was a mistake? You are putting words into my mouth. The court (eventually) found his actions were no mistake. This is now beyond argument.

You said the cases I mentioned were different from his because they were "mistaken shootings". But they weren't, in all of them people thought they were shooting at an intruder, but it turned out to be someone else. So not different in that respect.

 

[lionking]

Presumably it's to do with the fact he's lost his career, his status and reputation, regardless of whether he serves more time in jail.

As regards an appeal, I think that may be it now. But I've thought that before, so who knows.

News at 6. A murderer loses his career, status and reputation.

Do you think this is a good reason for reducing a sentence?

 

[katy_did]

News at 6. A murderer loses his career, status and reputation.

Do you think this is a good reason for reducing a sentence?

It's presumably something a court takes into account. I doubt Pistorius is any sort of exception in that respect.

 

[lionking]

You said the cases I mentioned were different from his because they were "mistaken shootings". But they weren't, in all of them people thought they were shooting at an intruder, but it turned out to be someone else. So not different in that respect.

Please familiarise yourself with this case. OP was not found to have behaved mistakenly. Far different from people who mistakenly fired off a shot. He fired several.

I think he intended to murder Reeva because he was an angry, over-privileged hothead with history. I found his testimony that he didn't realise she wasn't in bed unconvincing. The bed he searched under to get his hand cannon. The court didn't go that far, but he was found guilty of murder. No mistake involved at all.

 

[katy_did]

Please familiarise yourself with this case. OP was not found to have behaved mistakenly. Far different from people who mistakenly fired off a shot. He fired several.

I think he intended to murder Reeva because he was an angry, over-privileged hothead with history. I found his testimony that he didn't realise she wasn't in bed unconvincing. The bed he searched under to get his hand cannon. The court didn't go that far, but he was found guilty of murder. No mistake involved at all.

*sigh*

He mistakenly thought she was an intruder, he didn't mistakenly shoot. You were the one talking about "mistaken shootings".

ETA: And again, you really think those people just "mistakenly fired off a shot"? So grabbing a gun, going after an intruder, and shooting your pregnant wife as she comes out of the bathroom; or shooting your daughter as she drives away in your car, as in the rugby player's case; or as she comes home, as in the other guy's case; or shooting a burglar in the back as he's running away, as with Tony Martin - those are all just "mistaken shootings"?

You're not being consistent.

 

[lionking]

*sigh*

He mistakenly thought she was an intruder, he didn't mistakenly shoot. You were the one talking about "mistaken shootings".

Er, you raised this first:

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.

 

[katy_did]

Er, you raised this first:

IN MISTAKE FOR AN INTRUDER.

The court also found that Pistorius shot Reeva mistaking her for an intruder.

I can't believe this is so difficult to understand.

 

[lionking]

*sigh*

He mistakenly thought she was an intruder, he didn't mistakenly shoot. You were the one talking about "mistaken shootings".

ETA: And again, you really think those people just "mistakenly fired off a shot"? So grabbing a gun, going after an intruder, and shooting your pregnant wife as she comes out of the bathroom; or shooting your daughter as she drives away in your car, as in the rugby player's case; or as she comes home, as in the other guy's case; or shooting a burglar in the back as he's running away, as with Tony Martin - those are all just "mistaken shootings"?

You're not being consistent.

Sigh away. You seem to have trouble accepting OP is a murderer. That his actions were not a mistake. I don't. The court doesn't.

But this is not the main issue. A star struck judge has given a murderer a slap over the wrist because he is a "fallen hero" and may do his time hard. Give me a break.

 

[lionking]

IN MISTAKE FOR AN INTRUDER.

The court also found that Pistorius shot Reeva mistaking her for an intruder.

I can't believe this is so difficult to understand.

No I understand the issues clearly.

An honest answer from you please. Do you consider OP a murderer?

 

[katy_did]

Sigh away. You seem to have trouble accepting OP is a murderer. That his actions were not a mistake. I don't. The court doesn't.

But this is not the main issue. A star struck judge has given a murderer a slap over the wrist because he is a "fallen hero" and may do his time hard. Give me a break.

He's guilty of murder, and he didn't mistakenly shoot. However despite what you surprisingly said, none of the other men "mistakenly shot" either. All four men did, however, mistakenly think the person they were shooting at was an intruder.

No similar cases where defendants were treated more harshly have emerged yet, then?

 

[katy_did]

No I understand the issues clearly.

An honest answer from you please. Do you consider OP a murderer?

This was a question I answered in my very first post. Yes of course, he's guilty of murder.

 

[lionking]

This was a question I answered in my very first post. Yes of course, he's guilty of murder.

Okay. Where we differ is that I believe people guilty of murder warrant a longer sentence that those guilty of manslaughter. And far longer than 6 years. Can you cite cases of similar murders being threated so leniently?

 

[katy_did]

Okay. Where we differ is that I believe people guilty of murder warrant a longer sentence that those guilty of manslaughter. And far longer than 6 years. Can you cite cases of similar murders being threated so leniently?

I can't actually find any examples of defendants in similar cases being convicted of murder at all. It seems the usual verdict is one of manslaughter, often with a suspended sentence, or else no charges are brought.

I can give you cases of dissimilar murders where defendants got light sentences (e.g. Teen who stabbed sister to death guilty of first degree murder and given six years in juvie) but they hardly seem relevant.

The fact defendants in similar cases tend to either not be charged, or to be found guilty of manslaughter, doesn't exactly support your theory that Pistorius was treated favourably.

 

[lionking]

I can't actually find any examples of defendants in similar cases being convicted of murder at all. It seems the usual verdict is one of manslaughter, often with a suspended sentence, or else no charges are brought.

I can give you cases of dissimilar murders where defendants got light sentences (e.g. Teen who stabbed sister to death guilty of first degree murder and given six years in juvie) but they hardly seem relevant.

The fact defendants in similar cases tend to either not be charged, or to be found guilty of manslaughter, doesn't exactly support your theory that Pistorius was treated favourably.

Well I don't share that view. What we have here is murder. Forget cases where people haven't been charged or been charged with a lesser offence. 6 (actually 3) years for murder is a joke.

 

[katy_did]

Well I don't share that view. What we have here is murder. Forget cases where people haven't been charged or been charged with a lesser offence. 6 (actually 3) years for murder is a joke.

Ok, well we just disagree on the sentence I guess. It's a tough one. I'd argue that what Rudie Visagie did, for example, is worse than what Pistorius did - he was under no possible threat at the time, and mostly seem concerned with his car being stolen. The facts accepted by the court surrounding Pistorius' case (I know you don't agree with them, but they were still the basis on which he was sentenced) at least allow for the probability he felt scared and threatened himself, as most people would be if they thought a burglar was in the house.

Still, I don't know that Visagie should've been charged, given the tragedy that he lost his daughter. There could be an argument that you give people very harsh sentences for these sorts of crimes as a deterrent. Personally I think the stronger argument is for tighter gun control, as there's always a likelihood that scared, irrational people are going to do stupid things with guns.

Pistorius' sentence seems more or less in line with the sentence for similar crimes; I don't necessarily disagree with you that the sentence given for such crimes in general should be harsher (shocked but not surprised to discover that charges seem to be rarely brought for this type of crime in the States, for example).

 

[katy_did]

Well I don't share that view. What we have here is murder. Forget cases where people haven't been charged or been charged with a lesser offence. 6 (actually 3) years for murder is a joke.

Just to add, I know you're making a strong distinction between murder and manslaughter here, but the truth is the distinction in this particular case is very fine. Even the fact Pistorius was initially found guilty of manslaughter shows that.

I don't agree that Pistorius should be given 25 years where people who've done substantially similar get suspended sentences, regardless of whether a court determined it to be murder or manslaughter. Whether people who've done what he did should in general get longer sentences is of course another question.

The judge obviously has discretion to give a lower sentence if she feels it's warranted, so saying "it's murder so he should've got a longer sentence" doesn't make sense to me.