slingshot2000
|
posted on 11/9/14 at 01:21 PM |
|
|
Blooming Heck, He Got Away With Murder ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29143544
Discuss . . . . . .
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
posted on 11/9/14 at 01:28 PM |
|
|
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]
Mistral Motorsport
|
|
mookaloid
|
posted on 11/9/14 at 01:34 PM |
|
|
Guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.......
"That thing you're thinking - it wont be that."
|
|
Ivan
|
posted on 11/9/14 at 03:00 PM |
|
|
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]
|
|
JoelP
|
posted on 11/9/14 at 03:10 PM |
|
|
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]
Beware! Bourettes is binfectious.
|
|
Fred W B
|
posted on 11/9/14 at 05:07 PM |
|
|
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?
You can do it quickly. You can do it cheap. You can do it right. – Pick any two.
|
|
redturner
|
posted on 11/9/14 at 05:09 PM |
|
|
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.....
|
|
snapper
|
posted on 11/9/14 at 07:13 PM |
|
|
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
I eat to survive
I drink to forget
I breath to pi55 my ex wife off (and now my ex partner)
|
|
02GF74
|
posted on 11/9/14 at 07:55 PM |
|
|
Did he hire the same lawyer as OJ?
IMO he knew exactly who he was shooting and likely done in a fit of rage.
|
|
perksy
|
posted on 11/9/14 at 08:05 PM |
|
|
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
|
|
redturner
|
posted on 11/9/14 at 08:13 PM |
|
|
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....
|
|
mark chandler
|
posted on 11/9/14 at 08:13 PM |
|
|
And why a year? Simple if it had gone the other way then an appeal as the jury are biased.
Money talks, end of.
|
|
slingshot2000
|
posted on 11/9/14 at 10:05 PM |
|
|
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!!
|
|
austin man
|
posted on 11/9/14 at 10:59 PM |
|
|
he shouldnt have a leg to stand on for the next charge
Life is like a bowl of fruit, funny how all the weird looking ones are left alone
|
|
britishtrident
|
posted on 12/9/14 at 10:50 AM |
|
|
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.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
britishtrident
|
posted on 12/9/14 at 10:58 AM |
|
|
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.
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.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
mark chandler
|
posted on 12/9/14 at 11:19 AM |
|
|
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.
|
|
loggyboy
|
posted on 12/9/14 at 11:23 AM |
|
|
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!!
But he's not being tried for murdering 'someone'.
Mistral Motorsport
|
|
britishtrident
|
posted on 12/9/14 at 11:59 AM |
|
|
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.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
Ivan
|
posted on 12/9/14 at 11:59 AM |
|
|
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.
Nope - judge with two assessors - all three must agree. By the way the judge has a history of handing down some pretty harsh sentences.
Edited to say: The assessors are basically lay persons as far as I know so there is an element of a jury here.
[Edited on 12/9/14 by Ivan]
What I say above is wrong - they are legal fundis. See here for role of assessors:
http://www.mediaclubsouthafrica.com/democracy/3759-assessors-can-decide-pistorius-s-fate
So I guess there is a lot less a chance of the judge getting things wrong?
[Edited on 12/9/14 by Ivan]
[Edited on 12/9/14 by Ivan]
|
|
slingshot2000
|
posted on 21/10/14 at 08:46 AM |
|
|
quote: By the way the judge has a history of handing down some pretty harsh sentences.
But she didn't live up to that this time, did she ??????
|
|
Surrey Dave
|
posted on 21/10/14 at 04:37 PM |
|
|
Was 5years long enough?
Dunno, but doesn't feel quite right.
|
|
slingshot2000
|
posted on 21/10/14 at 05:05 PM |
|
|
Was 5years long enough?
Not when every expert reckons he will not serve 1year !
|
|
JoelP
|
posted on 21/10/14 at 05:40 PM |
|
|
It really is a disgrace.
Beware! Bourettes is binfectious.
|
|
britishtrident
|
posted on 21/10/14 at 05:42 PM |
|
|
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.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|