Judge is summing-up Ref: Pistorius

VTech

jordan_217 wrote:

SecretSam wrote:

jordan_217 wrote:

VTech wrote:

Looks like he is going to walk free.

Oh FFS

Lighten up. He's gotten away lightly.

Whats going on here ?
I AM NOT HAPPY A MURDERER HAS GOT AWAY WITH IT !!!!!!

Its bad, as Mikey23 correctly stated, money and a smart lawyer.

Paulie W

VTech wrote:

jordan_217 wrote:

SecretSam wrote:

jordan_217 wrote:

VTech wrote:

Looks like he is going to walk free.

Oh FFS

Lighten up. He's gotten away lightly.

Whats going on here ?
I AM NOT HAPPY A MURDERER HAS GOT AWAY WITH IT !!!!!!

Its bad, as Mikey23 correctly stated, money and a smart lawyer.

VTech, try not to assume evertyhing is about you. Each of those responses was to the later poster not you.

slowbike

VTech wrote:

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.

Oh, I could think of a few circumstances where destroying someone with a gun may just about be an acceptable response.

I was surprised at the "clearly he did not intend to kill" statement read out by the judge, she must have reasons for coming to that conclusion though and TBH I've not followed the case so am in no position to declare her judgement incorrect.

The lawyer for the prosecution sounds annoying though ...

pesky_jones

Paulie W wrote:

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.

I think the Oh FFS was in regard to the bad joke, intentional or not

airbag

bianchimoon 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.

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

There's nothing wrong with using dum dums for self-defense - you've already made the decision to kill, you may as well do so effectively.

But that does reinforce the strangeness of the judge's remark. Possibly the most basic lesson you can be taught in gun safety is: guns kill (no matter what the NRA says*). You don't even point a gun at someone, let alone fire, EVER, unless you're completely prepared to accept the consequences of killing them. If they survive, that's a bonus, but absolutely no more than that.

*what they can't do, of course, is commit murder. I am far too pedantic to write a good slogan.

Paulie W

When it first happened it seemed to me most likely that Pistorius shot Riva Steenkamp following an argument in a fit of anger. The prosecution witnesses suggesting they overheard an argument were, however, poor and the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the two were in an abusive relationship to the satisfaction of the judge. There were not enough facts to support a guilty verdict for premediated murder of Steenkamp. I see that even though I cant help feelings that it remains the most likely explanation.

Pistorius' own explanation was improbable but not beyond reasonable doubt. There was a possibility that his story, inconsistent and muddled as it was during his testimony, was true. He was acting in self defence and in fear of his life but the judge thinks he went too far - hence culpable homicide. I still dont get how that is compatible that he clearly didnt know he could kill someone by firing 4 shots into the door.

ddraver

Think you need a massive "In my opinion" in big letters and flashing lights in front of that post Paul...

secretsam

Pesky Jones wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

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.

I think the Oh FFS was in regard to the bad joke, intentional or not

Sorry - I thought there was a joke in the "Walk free" comment, hence my response. Hope that's clear!

laurentian

I think the judgement is that he knew (or should have known) that he could kill someone by firing in the way he did and that, in that respect he was negligent (the "Reasonable Person" test). The judgement is that he did not set out with the premeditated intent to kill. There was no premeditation. Fear for his life, anger on the spur of the moment perhaps, but no premeditation. He had not planned it.

As awful as the situation is, in my opinion that ruling was correct.

Paulie W

ddraver wrote:

Think you need a massive "In my opinion" in big letters and flashing lights in front of that post Paul...

Edit: You're right it is my opinion and I have edited the previous post to reflect that more fully. I did use the term probability though and in any case where a woman is found dead in her own home and her partner had admitted to killing her the most likely explanation is that the partner did it in a fit of rage.

VTech

The judge and here colleagues have clearly done plenty of reference work as each point was referenced against a trial previous to this so that rulings could be made. The one about the armed bank robbers struck me as odd, pestorious' didn't have a permit to carry that gun or ammo but this ruling was in reference to 3 guys out to rob a bank and one guy said he didn't know the others had illegal weapons or something along those lines. He got away with the firearms offences on that basis.

On the whole however I think the judge has been both clever and fulfilling in her verdict. She has done the best job possible given the circumstances.

bernithebiker

IMO, he is guilty as sin and I cannot believe he got away with it.

They argued, he got angry, she ran and hid in the toilet, he shot her in a fit of rage, then broke down when he realized what he'd done.

VTech

bernithebiker wrote:

IMO, he is guilty as sin and I cannot believe he got away with it.

They argued, he got angry, she ran and hid in the toilet, he shot her in a fit of rage, then broke down when he realized what he'd done.

I am sure this is exactly what the judge felt as well as everyone else in the courtroom. The problem is there is no evidence to confirm that course of events.
Ive been with my wife for 25 years and me or her have never locked the toilet door whilst using the bathroom. We shut the door but why lock it ?
He could walk with a very small fine but after the final summing up I reckon he will actually do some time. The issue now is character and he has lots of good character due to his work and placement in the athletics world and his only conviction is to "accidentally shoot and kill" what he 'believed' was an intruder. This is something you would never be sentenced for in the UK and we have some of the strongest gun laws on earth.
Ok, you couldn't shoot and kill with a handgun and dumdum bullets but with a shotgun !
If I was at home with my wife and/or kids and an intruder broke in and I had a shotgun license and shot and killed the intruder and then told the police I feared for my life of me and the family they could not charge me with murder or manslaughter. I would almost certainly not be charged or if I were I would be found innocent.

What I don't understand is how there can only ever be one true course of events yet parts have been believed from both sides that do actually contradict. I realise that the African laws differ and there are various charges relating to death but if you are in fear of your life then manslaughter shouldn't be the ruling surely ?

jordan_217

bernithebiker wrote:

IMO, he is guilty as sin and I cannot believe he got away with it.

They argued, he got angry, she ran and hid in the toilet, he shot her in a fit of rage, then broke down when he realized what he'd done.

I concur

verylonglegs

It all smells very wrong to me. I can't believe anyone would discharge a firearm in the house without first laying eyes on everyone else who they shared the house with and confirming it had to be an intruder. Panic as he claimed wouldn't make you not do that, it would be an instinctive thing to look at the bed as soon as you heard a noise elsewhere in the house.

ddraver

Except vll and Vtech that it happens all the time!

It's so common in America for someone to wake up with a jolt convinced that they re being robbed. In Britain the missus sends her husband down there in his y-fronts to find out that his daughter has got up to get a drink. I the US, SA etc etc the husbad goes down in his y-fronts with a gun!

It is so common it does nt even count as tragic anymore. What the trail has shown is that Oscar is hardly the brightest tool in the box, is ridiculously paranoid and has easy access to Big F**king guns!

Michel Moore did this all aotu 10 years ago....

Paulie W

As a point of reference, women being killed by their partners happens all the time. 3 a day in South Africa.

pblakeney

verylonglegs wrote:

It all smells very wrong to me. I can't believe anyone would discharge a firearm in the house without first laying eyes on everyone else who they shared the house with and confirming it had to be an intruder. Panic as he claimed wouldn't make you not do that, it would be an instinctive thing to look at the bed as soon as you heard a noise elsewhere in the house.

I concur.
If I wake up to find that my wife is not in bed and I hear a noise in the bathroom, then I conclude that my wife is in the bathroom.
Why on earth would anyone panic and start shooting in these very common circumstances?

ddraver

Paulie W wrote:

As a point of reference, women being killed by their partners happens all the time. 3 a day in South Africa.

Oscar is not even the first SA Sports Star to do it. An ex Springbok (I shamefully forget his name) shot and killed his daughter because he thought he was a thief stealing the car. Actually she'd told him the time for her flight rather than the time she has to leave for the airport and was leaving 2hrs earlier.

bianchimoon

ddraver wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

As a point of reference, women being killed by their partners happens all the time. 3 a day in South Africa.

Oscar is not even the first SA Sports Star to do it. An ex Springbok (I shamefully forget his name) shot and killed his daughter because he thought he was a thief stealing the car. Actually she'd told him the time for her flight rather than the time she has to leave for the airport and was leaving 2hrs earlier.

Jeez, How bad must it be to live in such fear, that you A) have to own a gun and shoot at shadows in blind panic

Paulie W

ddraver wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

As a point of reference, women being killed by their partners happens all the time. 3 a day in South Africa.

Oscar is not even the first SA Sports Star to do it. An ex Springbok (I shamefully forget his name) shot and killed his daughter because he thought he was a thief stealing the car. Actually she'd told him the time for her flight rather than the time she has to leave for the airport and was leaving 2hrs earlier.

I wonder how many intruders (or believed to be intruders) are shot dead in SA on a daily basis? Wonder if it's as many as 3 a day?

simonhead

I know of a lady whose husband was killed by intruders:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-artist-shot-dead-in-south-africa-protecting-his-family-from-gunmen-in-raid-during-wedding-anniversary-9043089.html

Sadly its relatively common

mamba80

bianchimoon wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

As a point of reference, women being killed by their partners happens all the time. 3 a day in South Africa.

Oscar is not even the first SA Sports Star to do it. An ex Springbok (I shamefully forget his name) shot and killed his daughter because he thought he was a thief stealing the car. Actually she'd told him the time for her flight rather than the time she has to leave for the airport and was leaving 2hrs earlier.

Jeez, How bad must it be to live in such fear, that you A) have to own a gun and shoot at shadows in blind panic

I lived over in jo burg in the 90's and a woman in our office fired through the door of her car, killing a guy trying to open the locked the door, as she pulled up to a set of robots, it was just the done thing.

We would go out on "plot watch" armed to the teeth and the orders were "shoot first ask questions later"

Over here, if you disturb a robber, chances are he will run, over there, he ll/they kill you, rape your wife/daughters and burn your house down or at least that's the perception.
I can well imagine OP going into blind panic, did he execute (sorry everyone) due care and diligence? no. which why he is on the lesser charge.