A Tale Of Two Oscars

Akirasho

.. de la Renta is dead and Pistorius may serve less than a year according to some analysts.

pdstsp

Gosh did Pistorius kill him too?

VTech

The fact that he got any jail sentance is shocking.
Forget the hype and hysteria surrounding the case, he should never have been sentenced to a jail term.

Ill explain before eeejits jump in.

1) he is guilty of murder
2) he is guilty of accidentally killing

He wasn't found guilty for murder so in the eyes of the law he isn't a murdered.

He was found guilty of culpable homicide (an act which results in the death of another)

He wasn't found guilty of purposefully shooting his girlfriend, nor was he found guilty of a premeditated act.
The verdict was that he believed there to be an intruder and shot and killed his girlfriend "accidentally"

Now I find this odd, if he did try and kill her then he should have got life.
If he didn't try and kill her, why sentence him at all ?

His only truly unlawful act was a firearm offence which he got a 3 year suspended order for.

RideOnTime

As you say he was found guilty of culpable homicide so that's why he's got bird.
Only he hasn't got a bird cos he shot her.

For culpable read blameworthy.

seanoconn

RideOnTime wrote:

As you say he was found guilty of culpable homicide so that's why he's got bird.
Only he hasn't got a bird cos he shot her.

For culpable read blameworthy.

pdstsp

RideOnTime wrote:

As you say he was found guilty of culpable homicide so that's why he's got bird.
Only he hasn't got a bird cos he shot her.

For culpable read blameworthy.

In a nutshell.

veronese68

Isn't culpable homicide like manslaughter? You didn't set out to kill that person but through your unlawful actions they died, so you are guilty. Hence the sentencing. If he was innocent he would have walked, well kind of.
I don't see how you can be guilty of accidentally killing. If it's a true accident there is no guilt because it's an accident.

RideOnTime

Its like driving at 55mph in a 30mph zone.

You didn't intend to run that kid with the maroon beret and wonky smile down but you were going too fast and texting the builders merchant to get you bricks delivered - you were blameworthy - yes it was an accident - but your actions were blameworthy.

A question of degree.

VTech

This is what I find odd though because as you suggest, if you knock someone over whilst texting and speeding of course you are not guilty of murder but rightly it is manslaughter as your actions caused the death, but more than that, it was negligent on your part that the death happened.

In Oscars case he was found innocent of murder, in that they believe he didn't mean to kill her and believed his story that he thought it was an intruder breaking in.
Now in his part of the world you can have a gun and you can shoot a burglar if you fear for your life so given the fact that they believed his story, why send him to jail for culpable killing ?

In my eyes it should have been murder of set him free ?

crumbschief

They named him after a hot dog,poor man.

pdstsp

VTech wrote:

This is what I find odd though because as you suggest, if you knock someone over whilst texting and speeding of course you are not guilty of murder but rightly it is manslaughter as your actions caused the death, but more than that, it was negligent on your part that the death happened.

In Oscars case he was found innocent of murder, in that they believe he didn't mean to kill her and believed his story that he thought it was an intruder breaking in.
Now in his part of the world you can have a gun and you can shoot a burglar if you fear for your life so given the fact that they believed his story, why send him to jail for culpable killing ?

In my eyes it should have been murder of set him free ?

But is it reasonable to fear for your life when you think the person on the other side of the door is a burglar, (without checking whether it's a household member), you don't know if the burglar is armed and you shoot several times through the door. I think that's the bit that makes him culpable. In your driver analogy you refer to someone texting and say that "your actions caused the death, but more than that, it was negligent on your part that the death happened". Well to most people, I believe, what Pistorius did was just that.

Velonutter

My wife mentioned this last night and I have to agree to the logic, it would probably have been OK to have fired one shot and argued it out as a warning one, but his intent was to obviously kill someone whether it be his G/F or a burglar as he fired four shots.

If I had been hiding in someones home behind a door, one shot would have been enough to warn me and for me to come out with my hands up.

Nah, I think he had every intention to make sure that the claimed intruder would be dead, I think the sentence that he got was reasonable given the circumstances, especially since he had been proved to be a bit of a fruit cake with guns!

veronese68

If I thought there was someone in the house and the Mrs was in bed next to me I'd wake and tell her what was going on so that she could call the police if necessary. That way if the intruder got the better of me the police have been called and hopefully will be on their way.
Waking the Mrs up by firing a gun 4 times is just plain rude, admittedly not as rude as shooting her dead though.

socrates

Did he not think it strange that his girlfriend was not in bed beside him so he heads over to the bathroom and instead of shouting Reeva, are you in there he blasts 4 rounds through the door at someone but he does not know who. A bit odd methinks.

pblakeney

socrates wrote:

Did he not think it strange that his girlfriend was not in bed beside him so he heads over to the bathroom and instead of shouting Reeva, are you in there he blasts 4 rounds through the door at someone but he does not know who. A bit odd methinks.

This is what I cannot comprehend.

The natural assumption would be that the person in the bathroom was their partner as they were not in bed.

No one will ever convince me that he did not know what he was doing. He could have at least checked.
IMHO the court made the wrong judgement in the first place.

VTech

PBlakeney wrote:

socrates wrote:

Did he not think it strange that his girlfriend was not in bed beside him so he heads over to the bathroom and instead of shouting Reeva, are you in there he blasts 4 rounds through the door at someone but he does not know who. A bit odd methinks.

This is what I cannot comprehend.

The natural assumption would be that the person in the bathroom was their partner as they were not in bed.

No one will ever convince me that he did not know what he was doing. He could have at least checked.
IMHO the court made the wrong judgement in the first place.

Thats my issue.
I didn't actually think he would be found guilty of murder, the problem was with the lies told by the prosecutors whitnesses whom if had not been found to be lies would of assisted with the guilty verdict.

pdstsp

Yes, but once he had been found not guilty of murder, then the legal process moves on to whether he was guilty of culpable homicide. This offence is specifically to cover killings where the intent may not be to kill, but the person is either reckless or stupid. He was found guilty of this offence - so, Vtech, when you argue that because he didn't try to kill her he should not be punished, you are ignoring that what he did is seen by society as so far wrong that it deserves punishment.

debeli

This thread seems to be all about one Oscar and not the other...

On the one it is about, this is my take:

The relationship was (I'm told) only three months old. Thinking back to similar periods of time into a new relationship in the past, this seems like little more than the blinking of an eye to me... yet it was long enough for OP's aggressive verbal outbursts to frighten the victim. Their email exchanges revealed in court smelt slightly of a relationship that she was unlikely to continue with.

For all that RSA is a (sometimes very) violent society in some respects, it seems extraordinary to me that OP had twice let off a fire arm in public, once injuring a friend... He seems to have a bit of a gun 'thing'.

I thought the reports from neighbours that they'd heard screaming and shouting were not adequately explained by the defence.

Four shots aimed pretty squarely at an invisible target and all either hitting or going very close suggests (even though the bathroom was small) that sound made by the target gave away their position. This may have been stumbling or similar.... but may have been dialogue.

But for me the biggest inconsistency is that OP didn't check where the victim was. Many of us have been woken by suspicious noises. The first response is to check that one's partner is OK. It is hard to believe it can be otherwise. Then (in my case) the children's rooms. Not 'grab a gun, go to the locked bathroom door and fire four times through it'. Why on Earth would an intruder lock himself (or herself) in a bathroom? A frightened girlfriend might....

To my mind, OP is a murderer, just as I thought OJ guilty and the coppers who beat Rodney King. He is a remarkable athlete and has an extraordinary strength of will, but I believe he fired that night meaning to harm RS. Only he knows the truth. I may be wrong, but I thought the defence ludicrously manufactured.

Frank the tank

Veronese68 wrote:

If I thought there was someone in the house and the Mrs was in bed next to me I'd wake and tell her what was going on so that she could call the police if necessary. That way if the intruder got the better of me the police have been called and hopefully will be on their way.
Waking the Mrs up by firing a gun 4 times is just plain rude, admittedly not as rude as shooting her dead though.

Exactly, the first thing I would do is check the Mrs was in bed beside me if I heard movement in my home in the dead of night. A perfectly natural/instinctive reaction. What OP did was not, and that is why I believe he should have faced a murder charge.

VTech

pdstsp wrote:

Yes, but once he had been found not guilty of murder, then the legal process moves on to whether he was guilty of culpable homicide. This offence is specifically to cover killings where the intent may not be to kill, but the person is either reckless or stupid. He was found guilty of this offence - so, Vtech, when you argue that because he didn't try to kill her he should not be punished, you are ignoring that what he did is seen by society as so far wrong that it deserves punishment.

Please re-read my posts.

city_boy

Let's just say, hypothetically, he did in fact shoot and kill an intruder. Given that the intruder would have been behind a closed/locked door, there was no obvious immediate danger to OP and he had no way of knowing whether the intruder was armed and posed a threat, so I'm guessing it would have been difficult to prove he fired in self defence (anyone remember farmer Tony Martin?).

He may not have known who was behind the door but his actions (firing 4 shots) would suggest he intended to kill them, whoever it was!

On this basis he deserved to go to jail IMO.

pdstsp

VTech wrote:

pdstsp wrote:

Yes, but once he had been found not guilty of murder, then the legal process moves on to whether he was guilty of culpable homicide. This offence is specifically to cover killings where the intent may not be to kill, but the person is either reckless or stupid. He was found guilty of this offence - so, Vtech, when you argue that because he didn't try to kill her he should not be punished, you are ignoring that what he did is seen by society as so far wrong that it deserves punishment.

Please re-read my posts.

I have and you clearly state "It should have been murder of (sic) set him free". I am saying that even if it isn't murder it can still be an action requiring punishment. Which post of yours am I meant to re-read?

mamba80

Frank the tank wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

If I thought there was someone in the house and the Mrs was in bed next to me I'd wake and tell her what was going on so that she could call the police if necessary. That way if the intruder got the better of me the police have been called and hopefully will be on their way.
Waking the Mrs up by firing a gun 4 times is just plain rude, admittedly not as rude as shooting her dead though.

Exactly, the first thing I would do is check the Mrs was in bed beside me if I heard movement in my home in the dead of night. A perfectly natural/instinctive reaction. What OP did was not, and that is why I believe he should have faced a murder charge.

eh? he did face a murder charge and was found not guilty of murder ALL the evidence was circumstantial, and peoples opinions of what they would have done.

But turn this around, what would have happened had he gunned down an actual burglar (a black) in similar circumstances - hailed a hero? lucrative magazine and newspaper articles, maybe a film on his athleticism and bravery? I doubt he would now be languishing in prison.

As to the other Oscar, designed some very nice dresses, perhaps did own a firearm or maybe not.

Frank the tank

mamba80 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

If I thought there was someone in the house and the Mrs was in bed next to me I'd wake and tell her what was going on so that she could call the police if necessary. That way if the intruder got the better of me the police have been called and hopefully will be on their way.
Waking the Mrs up by firing a gun 4 times is just plain rude, admittedly not as rude as shooting her dead though.

Exactly, the first thing I would do is check the Mrs was in bed beside me if I heard movement in my home in the dead of night. A perfectly natural/instinctive reaction. What OP did was not, and that is why I believe he should have faced a murder charge.

eh? he did face a murder charge and was found not guilty of murder ALL the evidence was circumstantial, and peoples opinions of what they would have done.

But turn this around, what would have happened had he gunned down an actual burglar (a black) in similar circumstances - hailed a hero? lucrative magazine and newspaper articles, maybe a film on his athleticism and bravery? I doubt he would now be languishing in prison.

As to the other Oscar, designed some very nice dresses, perhaps did own a firearm or maybe not.

I stand by my opinion.

Why would you not check to see your partner was in bed at your side, rather than fire four rounds into a shut door and hope it's an intruder. My opinion is, he is a murderer and he's got away with it, It's history now though.

VTech

Your right frank. He is definitely guilty of murder it's just that he got away with it.
Also mamba80 is right, he would have been classed a hero had he killed an intruder. On some countries it doesn't matter where you shoot someone as long as they are on your property you have a right to kill wether that's an unarmed man in the back or an armed guy stood in front of you, it really doesn't matter.

I still can't fathom the sentance though because on one hand they say they believed he thought it was an intruder and on the other they believed he acted wrongly in shooting what they agree to be "a burglar" but he had every right to shoot a burglar so you either believe he thought the person locked behind the door was a burglar or you don't. It's that simple.

Garry H

Because it wasn't actually a burglar and he didn't take any steps at all to identify who it was?

I also think he got away with murder.

Happened on the day my son was born as well. Guess what we called him

pblakeney

VTech wrote:

Your right frank. He is definitely guilty of murder it's just that he got away with it.
Also mamba80 is right, he would have been classed a hero had he killed an intruder. On some countries it doesn't matter where you shoot someone as long as they are on your property you have a right to kill wether that's an unarmed man in the back or an armed guy stood in front of you, it really doesn't matter.

This has apparently been extended to partners.

Garry - Valentino?

Garry H

PBlakeney wrote:

VTech wrote:

Your right frank. He is definitely guilty of murder it's just that he got away with it.
Also mamba80 is right, he would have been classed a hero had he killed an intruder. On some countries it doesn't matter where you shoot someone as long as they are on your property you have a right to kill wether that's an unarmed man in the back or an armed guy stood in front of you, it really doesn't matter.

This has apparently been extended to partners.

Garry - Valentino?

No, Alex!

Incidentally,my daughter was born on the day that Wouter Weylandt died in the Giro. We're not having any more kids.

tangled_metal

Would a simple "who's there?" shout through the bedroom door after you've checked and found out your gf wasn't in bed?

Wake up to a noise, think intruder, check partner who was in bed next to you before you woke then get your gun and challenge the person behind the bedroom door in case it's your partner. If you do anything else in the UK you could be in trouble with at least manslaughter. Culpable homicide is manslaughter or at least the closest thing to it in S.A. Basically it's when your actions led to.someone's death due to negligence but there is insufficient evidence to prove that you intended to kill them with premeditation. For murder I think they needed to prove intent, usual guff about means opportunity and motive. Not proven so they moved to their manslaughter. I don't see anything wrong with that. Sentence is probably similar to manslaughter in UK under similar.circumstances say with a legal shotgun instead of handgun.

If it was murder but that high level of evidence to prove intent to take the life then you need to still prosecute to get any kind of justice. Culpable homicide is the next level and they got a guilty decision.based on that lower standard of evidence/proof needed. In my mind there's nothing wrong with getting the next best option to murder.

Great being amateur legal eagles isn't it!? Different country, different laws, different system and different society. They have a totally different legal system without a jury. Many countries do things without juries but S.A. supposedly has a pretty good system, reliable and one of the best in Africa. The judge sits with two others. IIRC one is a legal expert and another is either another judge / lawyer or legal administrator I can't remember. Anyway I think the judge decides but has legal advice/support. It sounds reasonable to me. I personally think it's come out to the best/right outcome. Doubt we'd do much better in the court room side of things. We would probably do better with the investigation if it was our police and perhaps that would allow for a more effective prosecution. That could have meant murder not manslaughter being the charge found to be guilty of, but S.A. got what they got and that's a guilty sentence carrying 5 years sentence.

bompington

Having just spent a fortnight in SA (and Lesotho) I can safely say that most posters here are badly underestimating the fear of crime there - and the corollary is that if you suspect that you are under attack, it is widely assumed that rapid and overwhelming counter-attack is the only solution, because the bad guys will kill you if you don't kill them. Life is considered cheap, both by the criminals (who will frequently kill just to ensure there are no witnesses) and those who regard the criminals as scum who only deserve a bullet.
This may be entirely unreasonable, but people who sit here in the nice, safe UK pontificating from behind their keyboards about what you would or wouldn't do in the circumstances are showing a great lack of insight into SA culture and mindset, at the very least.

pblakeney

bompington wrote:

Having just spent a fortnight in SA (and Lesotho) I can safely say that most posters here are badly underestimating the fear of crime there - and the corollary is that if you suspect that you are under attack, it is widely assumed that rapid and overwhelming counter-attack is the only solution, because the bad guys will kill you if you don't kill them. Life is considered cheap, both by the criminals (who will frequently kill just to ensure there are no witnesses) and those who regard the criminals as scum who only deserve a bullet.
This may be entirely unreasonable, but people who sit here in the nice, safe UK pontificating from behind their keyboards about what you would or wouldn't do in the circumstances are showing a great lack of insight into SA culture and mindset, at the very least.

None of that mitigates that he should have checked that Reeva was safe before blasting.