Oscar Pistorius

[Pavilionaire]

This is a black day for the South African Tourist Board.

 

[kevo]

A good explanation of the various charges and what they mean from the BBC site. Quite unbelievable that he wasn't found guilty of at least common law murder. Whatever way you look at it, to attest he didn't shoot at the door either intending to kill, or knowing someone might be killed, is plainly nonsense.


Premeditated murder - acquitted

Intended and planned to unlawfully kill Reeva Steenkamp, or an intruder

Mandatory life term - 25 years before parole

Common-law murder - acquitted

Unlawfully intended to kill in the heat of the moment but without "malice aforethought". Either: Shot door intending to kill, or knew someone might be killed and still fired gun

Minimum of 15 years up to 20 years, at judge's discretion

Culpable homicide (manslaughter) - guilty

No intention to kill. Takes into account disability, but actions negligent and not in keeping with a reasonable person

Maximum of 15 years, possibly between seven and 10 years

Discharging a firearm in public - guilty of restaurant charge, acquitted over sunroof incident

Two counts for allegedly firing a gun through a car sunroof and discharging a gun at a restaurant

A fine or up to five years - for each charge

Illegal possession of ammunition - acquitted

In possession of .38 bullets for which he has no licence

A fine or up to 15 year

 

[Easy 10]

As stated on a number of occasions it is up to the prosecution to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt - it is not up to the defendant to prove lack of intent. In this case the prosecution have failed to do this.

Well from what I've read on the case, I think the prosection did enough, but of course it all boils down to interpretation and opinion. To me it looks like a horribly flawed decision. Had I been on a jury for that, I'd have been convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to kill whoever it was behind that door.

 

[Bold Seagull]

That is an objective view in the cold light of day.

Subjectively, in a panic, in the dark - the intent may well not have been to kill.

In murder that intent doesn't have to be to kill, if you intended to harm. Subjectively, in the dark, firing four times at a door you thought someone was behind - are you saying you agree that you couldn't foresee that the person behind the door might die?

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

It is a shameful day for the South African legal system. The decision beggars belief. I am sure in a jury of 12 , 1 maybe none would have come to her decision. He has got off with murder pure and simple. Today the Judge made Pistorious look like the victim and is paving the way for a very light prison sentence or quite possibly a fine and community service. Reeva has been very badly let down today and the fact a young woman in her prime has lost her life to some hothead, deranged murderer has almost been forgotten it seems. Shame on you Judge

 

[clippedgull]

There is no way this judge is going to send OP to prison when he returns for sentencing.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

He's been given bail until sentencing therefore I can't see him getting a jail sentence for the actual convictions.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

There is no way this judge is going to send OP to prison when he returns for sentencing.

I agree. A fine and community service picking up litter or something

 

[Pavilionaire]

This judge is Oscar's bitch.

 

[Creaky]

Well from what I've read on the case, I think the prosection did enough, but of course it all boils down to interpretation and opinion. To me it looks like a horribly flawed decision. Had I been on a jury for that, I'd have been convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to kill whoever it was behind that door.

In the Tony Martin case he was only convicted on a 10-2 majority and in that case the prosecution proved forensically that he had lain in wait for the burglars before shooting one of them in the back as they climbed out of a window.

 

[Hugo Rune]

There is no way this judge is going to send OP to prison when he returns for sentencing.

Spot on. She will say something along the lines of 'Oscar has suffered greatly from this tragedy and will carry the consequences of actions with him for the rest of his life, this is punishment enough.'

He'll be back blade running and pursuing his firearms hobby in no time.

 

[severnside gull]

I agree. A fine and community service picking up litter or something

That severe........?

 

[Bold Seagull]

I'm thinking Oscar is looking tired because within his household, pretty much everyone must wake him up to let him know they're going to the toilet!

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Did any of the defence team investigate the potency of Reevas number 2's?

If there was no air freshener , opening the window was the only way to get rid of the stench.

 

[Surf's Up]

Hang on a minute, didn't he admit under cross examination that he could've killed whoever was in the toilet when he fired 4 shots through the door

 

[KZNSeagull]

This is a black day for the South African Tourist Board.

Thankfully, tourists will not be required to pee in Oscar's toilet.

 

[Dorset Seagull]

As stated on a number of occasions it is up to the prosecution to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt - it is not up to the defendant to prove lack of intent. In this case the prosecution have failed to do this.

How can you possibly prove what someone's intention was as they could just keep saying that they never intended to kill anyone. I cant imagine any circumstances that would be a stronger case than this so that just about lets everyone else off who finds themselves in a similar or comparable situation

 

[Mackenzie]

Got to feel for Reeva's family. This isn't justice.

Shit.

 

[Creaky]

How can you possibly prove what someone's intention was as they could just keep saying that they never intended to kill anyone. I cant imagine any circumstances that would be a stronger case than this so that just about lets everyone else off who finds themselves in a similar or comparable situation

One of the most common ways of proving intent is to prove that there is a strong motive for the defendants actions - this wasn't done in this case byond suggesting OP may have lost his temper.

The second way is to show premeditation - provide evidence to show that the defendants actions had been planned. Again not shown in this case.

Knowing that a certain action is likely to cause death and then carrying out does not prove murder - the difference between murder and manslaughter is that in the former you intend to cause the death of someone and in the latter you just don't care if it does, (reckless disregard for the consequences).

So the constant harping on about OP must have known that four bullets into a door would kill someone proves it is murder is wrong - he just didn't care if it did, i.e. manslaughter.

 

[kevo]

One of the most common ways of proving intent is to prove that there is a strong motive for the defendants actions - this wasn't done in this case byond suggesting OP may have lost his temper.

The second way is to show premeditation - provide evidence to show that the defendants actions had been planned. Again not shown in this case.

Knowing that a certain action is likely to cause death and then carrying out does not prove murder - the difference between murder and manslaughter is that in the former you intend to cause the death of someone and in the latter you just don't care if it does, (reckless disregard for the consequences).

So the constant harping on about OP must have known that four bullets into a door would kill someone proves it is murder is wrong - he just didn't care if it did, i.e. manslaughter.

You've said a lot on this thread but are apparently completely unaware that South African law contains the offence of Common Law murder.

If OP fired his gun at the door (which he admits) in the knowledge that anyone in the toilet (whether he thought it was an intruder or his girlfriend) might be killed, he should have been found guilty of common law murder.

This is the difference between the three charges:

Premeditated murder - acquitted

Intended and planned to unlawfully kill Reeva Steenkamp, or an intruder

Common-law murder - acquitted

Unlawfully intended to kill in the heat of the moment but without "malice aforethought". Either: Shot door intending to kill, or knew someone might be killed and still fired gun

Culpable homicide (manslaughter) - guilty

No intention to kill. Takes into account disability, but actions negligent and not in keeping with a reasonable person