Judge is summing-up Ref: Pistorius

VTech

Looks like he is going to walk free.
So far everything she is summing up confirms his version of events were right and the witnesses were wrong.

bdu98252

I was under the impression that she had two options. The lesser charge of killing accidentally which is still a heavy jail penalty and the full boona of murder which looks even worse. I did not think that either option got you off to get blade running again.

VTech

It seems that the judge has ruled the majority of the whiteness statements as being a lie.
In general it was said that they heard 4 shots then a woman screaming for a short time when in fact the shots would have rendered her unable to scream.
Almost all of these statements were not to be relied upon with the ruling that they were either "wrong or confused".

Anonymous

But also ruled that Oscar was lying, saying his account of the shooting is inconsistent with someone who shot without thinking. Wonder what happens.

Anonymous

"The judge in the Pistorius trial rules out premeditated murder, but says that he did deliberately fire the shots which killed his girlfriend."

slowbike

"How could the accused have reasonably foreseen the shot he fired would have killed the deceased? Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this, that he would have killed the person behind the door, let alone the deceased," says Judge Masipa.

WTF? You fire a gun at a closed door behind which you suspect there to be a person (no matter who that is) and you don't forsee that you'll kill them .. ok, first hit may be off, but 4 shots - that's more than an intention to scare - and if you did intend to scare the "intruder" then wouldn't you be firing into the ceiling or floor? Surely any other act must be intending at least to injure them, if not kill.
I'm not saying that the intention to hit them with a bullet is wrong - if you genuinely believed your life was in danger then a natural act is to eliminate the danger.

Another thing - Pistorious believed his GF was in bed ... was he not in bed too? So a quick check that she was still there would've been sensible or indeed - a natural thing to do before going to deal with whatever was in the bathroom? Does rather assume they were in the same bed ... if they were in different rooms then that could be different.

ddraver

You re forgetting one thing Slowbike - Pistorious was insanely paranoid in a country where the reality is that sports stars get violently - though not commonly - and was nt really able to move about with out strapping things on to the end of his legs

Put all that in a split second thought then put a gun under his pillow and...

slowbike

ddraver wrote:

You re forgetting one thing Slowbike - Pistorious was insanely paranoid in a country where the reality is that sports stars get violently - though not commonly - and was nt really able to move about with out strapping things on to the end of his legs

Put all that in a split second thought then put a gun under his pillow and...

Having had family live out in SA I know about the paranoia - it's not entirely unjustified.
My astonishment was that the judge said that he didn't reasonably foresee that the shots he fired were going to kill the person behind the door. I would argue that that's exactly what he intended - and not entirely unreasonably if you believed his assumption that the person behind the door was an intruder.

VTech

I think the fact that he shot 4 times is good for him being found not guilty.
It adds to his theory of panicking as he felt his life in danger.

ddraver

Has he though? I get all my info by following Barry Batemen on twitter, but he said that the judge pointed out that The accused couldnt claim self defence as he shot 4 shots through the door - which is not self defence!

slowbike

ddraver wrote:

Has he though? I get all my info by following Barry Batemen on twitter, but he said that the judge pointed out that The accused couldnt claim self defence as he shot 4 shots through the door - which is not self defence!

Feck, If I thought there was someone behind a closed door that was going to kill me then they'd have the whole magazine, gun and anything else I could grab, thrown at them until I was sure they couldn't kill me ... just as well I live in a country in which the general population doesn't rely on gun ownership for protection then!

Pross

It's odd. I was thinking this morning how we were less likely to get an OJ Simpson style verdict with there being no jury. I guess she's heard all the evidence and understands the law better than me but it does seem an odd decision if she's saying someone could shoot through a door without a reasonable idea that it could result in a fatality.

bianchimoon

not over yet, culpable homicide, probably 10 years, he's got off very very lightly if so, feels sorry for Reevas family, so sad.

Anonymous

Apparently he is also negotiating with her family to stop them bringing a civil case against him as well.

bianchimoon

Is that judge incontinent, she has more breaks than barry sheene? Talk about spreading the agony for the poor family

tangled_metal

I haven't been following the judge's comments but I would take her comments as saying that shooting through the door would not allow you to know conclusively that those shots would provide a killing shot. The intruder could be anywhere in the bathroom and out of the line of your shooting. It is IMHO a case that he would have been firing with a view to killing or incapacitating the intruder but it is still the prosecution's role to prove that it was with the intent to kill and it was reasonable to expect that the shots would kill. I don't know enough about hand guns to know if the type of gun he used is capable of firing straight through that door without it's trajectory being changed. If it was then it is possible for OP to fire through at a noise and be reasonably confident that one of those shots hits what created that noise. Then, if proven, it could be murder.

Might be a very thin line here but i suspect under the law the Judge is showing good judgement. it surprises me to say but but perhaps SA does have a reasonable justice system. just perhaps though.

I tried to find a youtube clip from a documentary on Oscar back when he was the golden boy of paralympics who had gained the right to race in the Olympics. Back then the UK channel showed a clip from his family home movies. he was a young child running on the beach with his siblings. A lovely video clip of family life where everything is nice and safe. only he was running without any prosthesis on. They documentary and the words of Oscar made it clear he was capable of running on his stumps, indeed IIRC Oscar's own words stated having just those stumps did not affect his childhood. he could move around just as well as he needed on his stumps. Paraphrased it but that was the clear meanibng of his words. I wonder how they could say he can't move well now on his stumps. IIRC they said the operation to remove his lower legs involved keeping the pad under his heel and re-attaching it under his stump. This was done so he grew up with a kind of stump/heel. This meant moving around on his stumps was possible. Unlike us with our full foot getting in the way his stump looked like it was easier to move around without the front of the foot.

bianchimoon

Tangled Metal wrote:

Might be a very thin line here but i suspect under the law the Judge is showing good judgement. it surprises me to say but but perhaps SA does have a reasonable justice system. just perhaps though.

It does seem a reasonable system, I think a jury of 12 ordinary citizens might just vote with emotional and racial prejudice in a case like this. The eyes of the legal world are on that judge, she has to get it perfect to the letter of the SA law, which according to legal commentators she's doing

barrowmatt

I haven't followed this in great detail but did watch an hour this morning of the verdicts. Seems to be that the fact it was a closed door makes it hard to prove the intention was to definitely kill, also there was a comment about the location of the bullet holes in the lower half of the door rather than chest/head height of an approaching intruder. No idea if she was sat on the pan at the time.

Looks like he will get culparable homicide (manslaughter) and a reasonable stretch inside.

The prosecution were basing this on an act of anger following an argument, as it did cross my mind if he wanted her dead (premeditated) then he wouldn't have to be stupid enough to shoot her himself.

Anonymous

From the commentators it actually appears that the judge is closely following the letter of the law and from those who understand is doing a remarkably good job of it.

jordan_217

VTech wrote:

Looks like he is going to walk free.

secretsam

jordan_217 wrote:

VTech wrote:

Looks like he is going to walk free.

Oh FFS

bianchimoon

latest pistorius denies having two prosthetic limbs and because it wasn't clear whether the prosecution meant arms or legs he's got off that charge on a technicality :roll:

Paulie W

This is the bit I dont understand: the judge said of Pistorius firing four shots into the door, "Clearly he did not objectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door." I cant see how this is clear.

bianchimoon

Paulie W wrote:

This is the bit I dont understand: the judge said of Pistorius firing four shots into the door, "Clearly he did not objectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door." I cant see how this is clear.

and the fact he was using dum dum bullets, not exactly designed and used to cause minimal injury

VTech

Paulie W wrote:

This is the bit I dont understand: the judge said of Pistorius firing four shots into the door, "Clearly he did not objectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door." I cant see how this is clear.

From what I gather, the judge has ruled exactly in accordance with law and used other case laws to rule on all aspects so because someone had previously got off with a similar offence she ruled in his favour.

I think she has ruled well, fine or jail ?

bianchimoon

VTech wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

This is the bit I dont understand: the judge said of Pistorius firing four shots into the door, "Clearly he did not objectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door." I cant see how this is clear.

From what I gather, the judge has ruled exactly in accordance with law and used other case laws to rule on all aspects so because someone had previously got off with a similar offence she ruled in his favour.

I think she has ruled well, fine or jail ?

I don't think fining you will have any effect as you seem to be quiet flush, 30 days - mods take him down

bianchimoon

definately time, ten years

VTech

SecretSam wrote:

jordan_217 wrote:

VTech wrote:

Looks like he is going to walk free.

Oh FFS

Am I misunderstanding your point ?
It does look like he will walk free. My smiley face was not for him getting away with it, he should go to jail but its just odd how law works when you can destroy someone with a gun and not go to jail whatever the circumstances.

Mikey23

Smart lawyer and loads of dosh is whats needed...

Paulie W

VTech wrote:

SecretSam wrote:

jordan_217 wrote:

VTech wrote:

Looks like he is going to walk free.

Oh FFS

Am I misunderstanding your point ?
It does look like he will walk free. My smiley face was not for him getting away with it, he should go to jail but its just odd how law works when you can destroy someone with a gun and not go to jail whatever the circumstances.

I think it is the 'walk free' bit that elicited the response.

jordan_217

SecretSam wrote:

jordan_217 wrote:

VTech wrote:

Looks like he is going to walk free.

Oh FFS

Lighten up. He's gotten away lightly.