Oscar Pistorius - Paralypic Gold Medalist, Shoots and Kills Girlfriend

[SelimNiai]

Nope.

In South Africa there is no prescribed form and ways to deal with Pre-meditated murder. In SA, it's just classed as murder, with aggrevated circumstances.

Judge just stated that the shooting of the person behind the door is seen as an error in personam (which means Oscar mistaken the identity of the person behind the door) and that it doesn't coincide with dolus eventualis (which means that you shoot at an object like a door or window, with bearing in mind that there could be a person or thing such as an animal behind the door but not visible to you, you make the decision to shoot anyway and made peace that the shot could hit the person or thing behind the door.

To me the Judge has basically ruled out Premeditated murder. And will now focus on Manslaugher vs. Murder. Which IMHO is already a small victory for Oscar.

My personal thoughts are that the judge will find him guilty on Manslaughter.

Ah. I understand...I think.

Based on what I've heard of this today I think Manslaughter will be the verdict aswell.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Ah. I understand...I think.

Based on what I've heard of this today I think Manslaughter will be the verdict aswell.

There are 3 degrees for murder in SA. And I highly doubt that the harshest one will be looked at here, which will be a sentence of life imprisonment without the chance of parole. The second degree of murder is less harsh and has a minimum sentence of 25 years with or without parole (depending on the case). The third degree of murder, which is a very rare case, is purely on the evidence at hand, and there is no prescribed sentencing for it either.

Being found guilty on manslaughter could result in no jailtime for Oscar...

 

[LittleGuy]

What kind of sentence is he looking at if convicted of the I'll call it "manslaughter" charges Heineken? In Canada I think the sentence for it has an absurd range of length that could be chosen but would likely fall into the three-ten year range in actuality.

 

[TRF_heineken]

What kind of sentence is he looking at if convicted of the I'll call it "manslaughter" charges Heineken? In Canada I think the sentence for it has an absurd range of length that could be chosen but would likely fall into the three-ten year range in actuality.

Well. here it is also a wide range. In Oscar's case they will take his disability into contention and will most probably give him a suspended sentence of 5 years. Which basically mean he's a free man, but if he commits another crime in the same scope as this, within 5 years from now, this sentence will be carried out along with the other crime's sentence.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

He is sure to be guilty of manslaughter. He aimed and fired the pistol at the w/c without being in eminant danger. Not too sure what kind of jail term one would be looking at though. If he wasn't high profile and white probably only 2 years. As is I'd assume 5 years minimum.

EDIT; Hein, you serious that he could effectively walk away (no pun intended) scott free?

 

[TRF_heineken]

He is sure to be guilty of manslaughter. He aimed and fired the pistol at the w/c without being in eminant danger. Not too sure what kind of jail term one would be looking at though. If he wasn't high profile and white probably only 2 years. As is I'd assume 5 years minimum.

EDIT; Hein, you serious that he could effectively walk away (no pun intended) scott free?

Well the judge has now basically ruled out any form of murder.

All that is left is the charge of manslaughter. Plus the other lesser gun charges.

I honestly think that he will walk away without any jailtime.

He might be slapped with Community Service and a huge fine plus the suspended sentence...

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I find it mind boggling to think that you could end someone's life and not get jailed.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I find it mind boggling to think that you could end someone's life and not get jailed.

Yeah well. I had to study a case about this, and the case was basically to train you in thinking at it from different perspectives.

for instance:

Would you jail a father who accidentally reversed his car over his 5 year old daugther? (and this actually happened about 5 years ago).

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Yeah well. I had to study a case about this, and the case was basically to train you in thinking at it from different perspectives.

for instance:

Would you jail a father who accidentally reversed his car over his 5 year old daugther? (and this actually happened about 5 years ago).

Well, I suppose that is a fair enough comparison. I'd imagine the fact that you killed your child would be more punishment than anything the state could through at you in any case.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Well, I suppose that is a fair enough comparison. I'd imagine the fact that you killed your child would be more punishment than anything the state could through at you in any case.

Yeah well, I think in this case the judge gave Oscar also the benefit of the doubt.

While many may think he was acting on the stand, I saw it as genuine remorse. I am yet to see someone "act" throwing up.

The judgement continues today, and my guess is it will be finished around lunch time.

I see there has been a lot of outrage and queries surrounding her judgment so far, but I for one feel that she has come to the correct conclusion. And this more so in the fact that the Judge, and one of the Assessors are female.

What I so far don't agree on with the judge is her explanation that Oscar didn't act as a reasonable man. The thing is, and very few South Africans can be judged on this, is the fact that Oscar shouldn't be compared to every reasonable normal man, he should be compared to any other reasonable man without legs. There is a major difference, and if the Judge were to give Oscar a worse sentence, I think there may be grounds for Appeal by his defence team.

So far, I don't think the state have any clear thing or item to appeal on. Since the start of the hearing, the defence made the statement that most of the state's evidence are circumstantial, and the judge has come to the same conclusion. I'm looking forward to how today turns out...

 

[SelimNiai]

So its guilty of Culpable Homicide and firing a gun in a restaurant.

What bits of the process are the SA media picking holes in?

 

[TRF_heineken]

So its guilty of Culpable Homicide and firing a gun in a restaurant.

What bits of the process are the SA media picking holes in?

Anything they can find basically.

Don't know what the point is though. Journalists are not legal practitioners, so the merits in their holes they are trying to pick won't hold a lot of weight.

 

[SelimNiai]

Anything they can find basically.

Don't know what the point is though. Journalists are not legal practitioners, so the merits in their holes they are trying to pick won't hold a lot of weight.

Its amazing just how many legal experts there are all of a sudden. Its a bit like a vegan poking holes in a Michelin Starred Chefs cooking of a Steak

 

[TRF_heineken]

Its amazing just how many legal experts there are all of a sudden. Its a bit like a vegan poking holes in a Michelin Starred Chefs cooking of a Steak

Yeah. I find it hilarious how people are all of a sudden clued up on the law and legal terms. I saw that Joey Barton has been tweeting about Oscar. He's another kind of moron.

What's even worse is people who I actually thought to clever, the things they say is just idiotic. My own cousin is one of them, until my dad shut her up rather quickly last night. Especially when she started to "quote" the Bible, and then didn't even do that right...

 

[ruggabee]

Not too happy with the decision. I have zero knowledge on legal matters but the whole bathroom shooting doesn't make sense to me. He fired 4 shots through a door knowing someone was in there. I would've thought that would be enough for a murder conviction considering he didn't shoot under self defence. Even if it wasn't the girlfriend in the bathroom, wouldn't that be murder? No one attacked him.

Those nut cases who hate their wives so much can wait for her to enter a bathroom and BAM BAM BAM. Oops I thought it was an intruder. Manslaughter conviction, not a murder conviction. It really makes no sense to me. He shot a gun 4 times through a door. What does he expect is going to happen? Regardless of who it was, he was pulling the trigger to put A PERSON down.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Not too happy with the decision. I have zero knowledge on legal matters but the whole bathroom shooting doesn't make sense to me. He fired 4 shots through a door knowing someone was in there. I would've thought that would be enough for a murder conviction considering he didn't shoot under self defence. Even if it wasn't the girlfriend in the bathroom, wouldn't that be murder? No one attacked him.

Those nut cases who hate their wives so much can wait for her to enter a bathroom and BAM BAM BAM. Oops I thought it was an intruder. Manslaughter conviction, not a murder conviction. It really makes no sense to me. He shot a gun 4 times through a door. What does he expect is going to happen? Regardless of who it was, he was pulling the trigger to put A PERSON down.

Oscar's defence was pre-emptive self defence. Our law states that a person may use self defence in the event that there is a threat, or that a situation is in the process of becoming a threat. He was found guilty of manslaughter, because his negligence is not how a reasonable man would have reacted. But the judge didn't find that he was guilty of dolus eventualis, meaning he didn't have the intent to murder Reeva, instead it shows that he had the intention to protect himself.

It makes perfect sense to me.

EDIT: The National Prosecuting Authority has just announced that they won't appeal the judge's decision.

 

[ruggabee]

Oscar's defence was pre-emptive self defence. Our law states that a person may use self defence in the event that there is a threat, or that a situation is in the process of becoming a threat. He was found guilty of manslaughter, because his negligence is not how a reasonable man would have reacted. But the judge didn't find that he was guilty of dolus eventualis, meaning he didn't have the intent to murder Reeva, instead it shows that he had the intention to protect himself.

It makes perfect sense to me.

EDIT: The National Prosecuting Authority has just announced that they won't appeal the judge's decision.

Ok but on behalf of himself, did he not want to check that his girlfriend was safe, and not in the bathroom? I've read he thought she was in the bed next to him? So he picks up his gun, and shoots at the bathroom door, a bathroom door that was locked. Why would an intruder lock himself/herself in a bathroom? Of course I'm coming from a pov that isn't considering the legal intricacies but I find there is so much negligence on his behalf. Like did he think at all throughout that whole situation?

edit. I suppose at this point I'm not debating the case verdict but the law set. He isn't guilty based on the facts that were taken into consideration by the court, but I feel it leaves open a loophole (not a great one considering there's still the manslaughter conviction) regarding crimes committed domestically.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Ok but on behalf of himself, did he not want to check that his girlfriend was safe, and not in the bathroom? I've read he thought she was in the bed next to him? So he picks up his gun, and shoots at the bathroom door, a bathroom door that was locked. Why would an intruder lock himself/herself in a bathroom? Of course I'm coming from a pov that isn't considering the legal intricacies but I find there is so much negligence on his behalf. Like did he think at all throughout that whole situation?

edit. I suppose at this point I'm not debating the case verdict but the law set. He isn't guilty based on the facts that were taken into consideration by the court, but I feel it leaves open a loophole (not a great one considering there's still the manslaughter conviction) regarding crimes committed domestically.

Yes there were negligence. But did you follow the case at all? It might not make sense to you or me, but we are able bodied persons (unless you are disabled, in which case, my apologies). We will never understand the vulnerability he had, especially because of his disability and because of the country we live in where murder, rape and break-ins are a daily occurance.

It's sad that people judge our system, when they have never lived in South Africa. even with all the corruption and crime and other crap going on in SA, our justice system is still one of the most effective systems.

 

[ruggabee]

Yes there were negligence. But did you follow the case at all? It might not make sense to you or me, but we are able bodied persons (unless you are disabled, in which case, my apologies). We will never understand the vulnerability he had, especially because of his disability and because of the country we live in where murder, rape and break-ins are a daily occurance.

It's sad that people judge our system, when they have never lived in South Africa. even with all the corruption and crime and other crap going on in SA, our justice system is still one of the most effective systems.

Honestly, I've only followed the case intermittently. I appreciate your clarification especially what you said about the pre-emptive defence. I'm sorry if I come across as judging SA law but I was actually just seeing it as "law" in general. After I had made my last post I was speaking to someone about the case, especially about the part where you said a person can use self-defence even when it's just in the process of being a threat. I couldn't understand how that could be allowed until I realised we were talking about a country where crime, especially break ins, are so prevalent. I definitely understand the situation a lot more now, but if his situation were to occur in a safer country I don't think I'd change my perspective so quickly.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Honestly, I've only followed the case intermittently. I appreciate your clarification especially what you said about the pre-emptive defence. I'm sorry if I come across as judging SA law but I was actually just seeing it as "law" in general. After I had made my last post I was speaking to someone about the case, especially about the part where you said a person can use self-defence even when it's just in the process of being a threat. I couldn't understand how that could be allowed until I realised we were talking about a country where crime, especially break ins, are so prevalent. I definitely understand the situation a lot more now, but if his situation were to occur in a safer country I don't think I'd change my perspective so quickly.

No problem. Pre-emptive self defence could be used in the same context if we look at terrorism. The noise Oscar heard in the bathroom was enough to invoke a sense that there might be a threat. In my own view (as I have been a victim of a break-in) if someone got so far as to be in your house, then he usually has a weapon with him too, and he won't hesitate to hurt/kill you.

The biggest problem in this case was actually the closed door. If the door was open and Oscar had actually been able to see into the bathroom and it was an intruder and he did shoot him, then this case would have been done and dusted within a week.