http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29143544
Discuss . . . . . .
Doesn't look like he'll get away with culpable homicide tho.
Before adjourning the trial, Judge Masipa said she was "not persuaded" that a reasonable person with Mr Pistorius' abilities would
have fired the shots that killed Reeva Steenkamp.
.....
Judge Thokozile Masipa has ruled out the charges of premeditated murder and murder in the Oscar Pistorius trial. However, she says that it is clear
his conduct was "negligent".
[Edited on 11-9-14 by loggyboy]
Guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.......
Right from the start I felt that murder was an unlikely verdict - but yes culpable homicide with mitigating circumstances is reasonable to my mind but
then I am not a legal mind or Judge. Tomorrow might tell.
I do however feel it is very harsh to say he got away with murder.
Those of you in the Northern hemisphere must remember the extent of violence that can be perpetrated in even routine crime here as many criminals are
armed and only too willing to use their weapons. I believe he had a right to take pre-emptive action given his disabilities - however I must wonder
why he didn't get himself and his victim out of the vicinity or seek outside help as soon as he suspected a break-in. He was armed after all and
could have covered their retreat and locked the bedroom door behind him as they left.
Also he never appeared to fire a warning shot.
To be fair I didn't follow the case closely so don't know all the details and wasn't in his shoes or mind at the time - above is just
my ill informed opinion and I am sad for all concerned.
I believe whatever the verdict, the case was given a fair trial and a well considered verdict will be arrived at.
[Edited on 11/9/14 by Ivan]
It was alleged during the trial that he wasn't in his shoes either, Ivan. Or indeed his legs!
Bad jokes aside, I'm not convinced he knew it was his missus and intentionally killed her, which is what it would have to be for a murder charge.
Manslaughter is a much more appropriate charge and one id level even had it been a burglar.
[Edited on 11/9/14 by JoelP]
The telling point for me was that the girlfriend had locked herself into the toilet, with her cellphone, in the early hours of the morning. Who does that unless they are trying to protect themself?
It was said during the trial that he intended killing some one, either his girl friend or an intruder and that is murder no matter what way you interpret it.....
If I thought someone had broken in to my place I would make sure my loved ones were safe first before firing a gun
His girlfriend was not in his bed when he picked up his gun
SO WHERE WAS SHE
Guilty, it's your justice system that's s4it
Did he hire the same lawyer as OJ?
IMO he knew exactly who he was shooting and likely done in a fit of rage.
I Seem to remember that the layout of the room in question showed that he could have merely left the room and made an exit as the bathroom was on the
opposite side of the room than the exit door.
He chose not to do this, He also did not check the bed to see if his girlfriend was still in bed.
There was evidence that he had shot road signs and carried a gun in public etc in the past.
My money would be on that they've had a row, He's lost it and the rest if history.
He may have just been trying to frighten her, but i think he fired too many shots for that....
He's famous a multi medal winner and he's a money spinner for the country, but i'm sure there was
reasonably doubt me lord 
It would appear that any of the other options will get him 15 years and even the gun toting charges will get him 5 years....
And why a year? Simple if it had gone the other way then an appeal as the jury are biased.
Money talks, end of.
quote:
Originally posted by redturner
It was said during the trial that he intended killing some one, either his girl friend or an intruder and that is murder no matter what way you interpret it.....
he shouldnt have a leg to stand on for the next charge
The judge has cleverly closed off every avenue that could give the slightest grounds for an appeal against the culpable homicide verdict, but the fact
a murder charge did not stick is points major flaws in South African law.
From the direction and angle of the shots which would have hit anybody using the john most people would draw the conclusion he was aiming to kill
without warning.
quote:
Originally posted by mark chandler
And why a year? Simple if it had gone the other way then an appeal as the jury are biased.
Money talks, end of.
I watched it this morning on the news, load of pap setting up for letting him off.
Brief summary that I heard from the judge.
I shoot someone in my house, then panic, call people and cry for help while trying to resuscitate them, by these actions I am now innocent as you
cannot prove I am guilty of not making a mistake?
"If the hat does not fit you must acquit", I like to think if this was tried in the UK it would have had a different outcome.
quote:
Originally posted by slingshot2000
quote:
Originally posted by redturner
It was said during the trial that he intended killing some one, either his girl friend or an intruder and that is murder no matter what way you interpret it.....
^^^^^^^^^^My thoughts, exactly!!
That murder is more difficult to prove in most countries is a left over from the days of the death penalty.
Having said that in the days of hanging they were less particular about evidence and procedure also didn't muck about and did it pretty soon
after the trial to avoid appeals.
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
No jury just a black female judge sitting alone , but South Africa is more like wild west than Europe. In SA the laws are still biased to protect a rich (usually white) man defending his property on the principal fire to kill first and ask questions later, even in the USA where the NRA appears to able to override any common sense move towards gun control a murder verdict would have been more likely.
quote:
By the way the judge has a history of handing down some pretty harsh sentences.
Dunno, but doesn't feel quite right.
Was 5years long enough?
Not when every expert reckons he will not serve 1year !
It really is a disgrace.
I am willing to bet the prosecution will appeal.
I am surprised the issue of perfomancing enhancing drugs was not raised in trial it would explain a lot.