Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2

[trustbutverify]

Not so. But hang em highers win this round. I hope he appeals.

A reasonable sense of justice prevailed, to some degree. Celebrity culture took a hit.

 

[trustbutverify]

Just so:

Rights groups in a country beset by high levels of violent crime against women say Pistorius, 31, received preferential treatment compared to non-whites and those without his wealth or celebrity status.

 

[Samson]

There's an interesting article here by Cybershrink about the weird phenomenon of Oscar Pistorius' fanatical supporters:



Judge Masipa should be demoted, as she is clearly not up to her job.

The evidence at trial supported every aspect of his story. The angle he shot from supports his story. Masipa showed her workings, you don't bother. You are all on the wrong track here.

 

[Samson]

+

No hang-'em-highers here. He was found guilty of murder. Did you miss that?

The minimum sentence for murder in South Africa is 15 years, and exceptions shouldn't be made for people because of their celebrity. Do you disagree with any of that?

Oh, and you may have missed it but that WAS the Court of Appeal, and he has appealed previously. You are obviously ignoring facts and resorting to emotion again, which is fine, but that is the reason why we have courts take charge of these sorts of things rather than some sort of popularity contest.

I am focussing purely on the question of whether the evidence aligns with his testimony. I have no stake at all, and clearly he made a catastrophic error that wrecked several lives. The penalty should be considered according to whether he shot deliberately at a defenceless woman. This is real Schrodinger's cat country.

 

[Samson]

I like "They are not giving him the benefit of the doubt, they’re giving him the benefit of no doubt whatsoever."

I wonder if these people are also clinging blindly to the belief that Pistorius isn't guilty of murder if he didn't know it was Reeva in the room when he shot. But certainly it's been explained often enough that what he actually did is a prima facie case without any need for him to have known it was Reeva.

The relative leniency of the appeal court's sentence, as I said, appears to indicate that he was sentenced on the basis of what he indisputably did, without any assumption that he knew it was Reeva in there. I suspect these rather dim bulbs aren't getting that either, or they just don't want to get it.

He killed someone who wasn't offering an immediate threat to him, ergo he is guilty of murder under the law of South Africa. What is it about this that is so hard for people to understand?

ETA: This (linked from the first) is a good article!
http://www.health24.com/Columnists/Has-Oscar-lost-the-plot-20140411

Somewhere I missed that you are a fanatical devotee of authority Rolfe.

 

[lionking]

The evidence at trial supported every aspect of his story. The angle he shot from supports his story. Masipa showed her workings, you don't bother. You are all on the wrong track here.

Utter nonsense. The evidence shows he is a murderer. Only the star-struck Masipa, along with a bunch of Pistorius groupies (some who grace this thread) see it differently.

 

[Rolfe]

Somewhere I missed that you are a fanatical devotee of authority Rolfe.

He committed murder according to the law of South Africa. One hardly needs to be a fanatical devotee of authority to acknowledge that. He has been given the minimum sentence for the crime, which is in line with the worst that can be proved against him, which is that he recklessly shot at someone he thought was an intruder, who wasn't an immediate threat to him.

I think that's a just and proportionate outcome and your comments are ridiculous and uncalled-for.

 

[Rolfe]

The penalty should be considered according to whether he shot deliberately at a defenceless woman.

He was given the minimum sentence for the crime of murder, which he undoubtedly committed. This suggests that the penalty was determined on the basis that he did not deliberately shoot at a defenceless woman. If the sentencing court had thought that he did, he would have been given a higher sentence.

See how it works now? What you are asking for is what has actually happened, but you don't seem to recognise that.

 

[Rolfe]

Utter nonsense. The evidence shows he is a murderer. Only the star-struck Masipa, along with a bunch of Pistorius groupies (some who grace this thread) see it differently.

To be fair, Lionking, both of you are right. The evidence does support Pistorius's story, and that evidence and indeed his own story demonstrate that he is guilty of murder.

 

[Vixen]

Showing mercy is an essential part of a good justice system. However, Masipa didn't have the jurisdiction to change the minimum sentencing down to five years, given the revised verdict.

 

[Scordatura]

...on the grounds of...?

No idea since he lost his last appeal but it's his legal right. Maybe on the grounds that people are being mean to him.

Pistorius' lawyers have one avenue left open to them if they want to challenge the new sentence, and that is to appeal to the Constitutional Court, the highest court in South Africa.

Pistorius failed with an appeal to the Constitutional Court last year to challenge his murder conviction.

http://abcnews.go.com/International...n-sentence-increased-13-years-months-51357050

Here's the SCA judgment:

http://www.justice.gov.za/sca/judgments/sca_2017/sca2017-158.pdf

 

[cullennz]

Pretty much a deserved sentence really

Took a while

Sent from my SM-J500Y using Tapatalk

 

[MikeG]

....... The penalty should be considered according to whether he shot deliberately at a defenceless woman........

For the 27th time.........that is an irrelevance.

He shot through a door knowing he would kill whoever was on the other side of the door. That's it. That all it needs. That's murder, right there. It is utterly irrelevant who was on the other side of the door, or who Pistorius thought was on the other side of the door.

I am focussing purely on the question of whether the evidence aligns with his testimony........

As you know, I accept Pistorius' story. It appears to me from the evidence presented that it was the most likely explanation of the nights events. The thing is............it's still murder.

 

[Rolfe]

I have no idea what Masipa was thinking of. She was wrong in law about the culpable homicide part and then when that was corrected she trashed the sentencing guidelines.

 

[Agatha]

A just outcome, in my view. He shot at someone who was shut into a tiny space, with no chance for them to escape. That is murder, whether he thought it was Reeva Steenkamp behind the door or an unknown intruder.

My suspicion is that he did know it was Ms Steenkamp but since that can't be proved, it is right that he is sentenced as if he shot at an unknown intruder.

 

[Rolfe]

Agree 100%.

 

[PhantomWolf]

A just outcome, in my view. He shot at someone who was shut into a tiny space, with no chance for them to escape. That is murder, whether he thought it was Reeva Steenkamp behind the door or an unknown intruder.

My suspicion is that he did know it was Ms Steenkamp but since that can't be proved, it is right that he is sentenced as if he shot at an unknown intruder.

+1

ETA: For me he was done when his story changed from "I fired because I thought I was in danger" to "the gun accidently went off" because it was clear that his self-defence against someone locked in a toilet wasn't working so he tried to steer it towards I didn't mean to pull the trigger. Bollocks, the guy is lying through his teeth.

I still doubt his story about not knowing it was her because even if he did somehow fail to notice her getting up, instinctively the first thing to do on hearing what you think is an intruder is to wake the other person in the room and tell them what you think is going on. His story is so fishy that it smells like it's been in the cargo hold of a trawler for a week.

 

[Rolfe]

For the 27th time.........that is an irrelevance.

He shot through a door knowing he would kill whoever was on the other side of the door. That's it. That all it needs. That's murder, right there. It is utterly irrelevant who was on the other side of the door, or who Pistorius thought was on the other side of the door.

It's irrelevant to the verdict of murder. I'm not convinced it's irrelevant to the length of the sentence. He was given the minimum sentence in the end. I think if it had been proved he'd deliberately shot at Reeva knowing it was her, he should have been given a longer sentence.

Blasting recklessly at a supposed burglar is indeed somewhat further down the scale than shooting your girlfriend after she has run away in fear and tried to barricade herself in the toilet. I'd have expected north of 20 years if that latter scenario had been proven.

But it wasn't, so he got 15 years for the crime that was actually proved and which he actually admitted to.

 

[trustbutverify]

+1

ETA: For me he was done when his story changed from "I fired because I thought I was in danger" to "the gun accidently went off" because it was clear that his self-defence against someone locked in a toilet wasn't working so he tried to steer it towards I didn't mean to pull the trigger. Bollocks, the guy is lying through his teeth.

I still doubt his story about not knowing it was her because even if he did somehow fail to notice her getting up, instinctively the first thing to do on hearing what you think is an intruder is to wake the other person in the room and tell them what you think is going on. His story is so fishy that it smells like it's been in the cargo hold of a trawler for a week.

This is the way I see it. Pistorius was in self preservation mode, but almost certainly not from a home invader locked in his bathroom.

 

[Samson]

Frankly the case needs analysis by someone who has time to properly trawl through the evidence. I discount the idea that all data points have ambiguous interpretations, which is what would be a necessary condition for a crime that leads to the present proclaimed uncertainty. Somewhere is a locking piece, the question can be resolved. I would certainly not bet my life that he believed it was an intruder, but it fits the evidence and common sense better.