Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend

[Guvernator]

OpulentBob said:

It just reinforces me view that the place is a backward, lawless sthole. I am happy to go pretty much anywhere else, but I would rather suck a dripping, rancid cock than go "on holiday" to SA.

Oh I don't know, if ever I had a proper falling out with the missus, it sounds like the ideal place to take her on holiday.

[Pints]

Guvernator said:

Oh I don't know, if ever I had a proper falling out with the missus, it sounds like the ideal place to take her on holiday.

Does the name Shrien Dewani ring any bells?

Or the ongoing trial of Christopher Panayiotou?

[epom]

I assume no one is surprised ? Hopefully karma will come to bite him on his low slung weasels ass.

[FlyingMeeces]

epom said:

I assume no one is surprised ? Hopefully karma will come to bite him on his low slung weasels ass.

I'm a little bit surprised that it wasn't longer. Even with the levels of bias/pity-party/laying it on with a trowel I thought an actual convicted murderer would be doing longer than that.

[Pints]

FlyingMeeces said:

I'm a little bit surprised that it wasn't longer. Even with the levels of bias/pity-party/laying it on with a trowel I thought an actual convicted murderer would be doing longer than that.

I think if the prosecution had been able to prove that he knew it was Reeva behind the door, he'd be looking at 15 years at a minimum. However, despite what seems to be accepted as the bleeding obvious around here, it was still accepted by the court that he was shooting at what he believed to be an intruder.

It's been suggested several times in this thread that if he'd shot an actual intruder he'd have been hailed a hero in South Africa.

So it's almost as though he's been given a midway sentence. 15 years for knowingly shooting your girlfriend, zero years for shooting an actual intruder, or 6 years for shooting your girlfriend who you thought was an intruder.

[Vaud]

Pints said:

I think if the prosecution had been able to prove that he knew it was Reeva behind the door, he'd be looking at 15 years at a minimum. However, despite what seems to be accepted as the bleeding obvious around here, it was still accepted by the court that he was shooting at what he believed to be an intruder.

It's been suggested several times in this thread that if he'd shot an actual intruder he'd have been hailed a hero in South Africa.

So it's almost as though he's been given a midway sentence. 15 years for knowingly shooting your girlfriend, zero years for shooting an actual intruder, or 6 years for shooting your girlfriend who you thought was an intruder.

Stop being reasonable and balanced, it doesn't fit in to NP&E threads...

[so called]

Coolbanana said:

OpulentBob said:

It just reinforces me view that the place is a backward, lawless sthole. I am happy to go pretty much anywhere else, but I would rather suck a dripping, rancid cock than go "on holiday" to SA.

It isn't though, it really isn't and is far, far better than the dirty Mud Isle we call Britain (no longer 'Great' following the idiotic Brexit result perpetuated by morons and egoistic self-serving Politicians happy to take advantage of the cerebrally-challenged and throw their own Country under the Bus to achieve their personal career goals)

In my experience, the UK has a huge number of 'backward' folks too

SA has its problems and they are indeed significant but on the whole, the country is a thriving, beautiful place with a diverse and wonderful population.

But your view is very much valid and relevant to you and your own experience, of course. I simply do not share it and call it rubbish.

I know first-hand what violence can be like in SA - I've had to defend my own Family and know the experience of taking a Life. But SA is not all about violence. There is much beauty there too and as a Tourist, violence can be avoided. I don't feel 'safer' in the UK than I do when I go to SA. It might be different if I lived there and had to frequent known violent areas for work again - but that's not indicative of how much of the population live. I'd go back but for my wife wanting to be closer to her kids - so we've agreed to relocate to a warmer European country as a compromise.

Oscar did seem to get off lightly in my opinion given he knew someone would likely die when he fired and perhaps Nel and Co. will seek to correct that.

Had it not been Reeva in the toilet and had it been an intruder, I cannot help but think the sentence would actually have been greater due to no evidence of physical threat being directed towards Oscar. However, the fact it was his girlfriend I think has clouded the basic issue surrounding the taking of a life - remorseful or not.

At the same time, Nel's preference for Murder with intent following an argument was not presented with evidence so the Judge can only work with what is shown to her. She has always found Oscar to be largely believable despite what we all think and hence her sentence; she clearly finds him a victim of sorts too and wants to rehabilitate rather than punish.

There is merit in her thinking too - to rehabilitate - so I do not entirely disagree with her thought process - and far from 'backward' it is in the interest of dealing with a tough situation without adopting an 'eye for an eye' attitude that many 'backward' and 'lawless' Courts might seek - you, know, from the Middle Ages.

Sorry, I'm with OpulentBob on this.

Coolbanana, your post reminds me of one late winter evening arriving into Dulless Airport for DC.
I picked up my rental, set the GPS for my downtown hotel and headed in through the dark and pouring rain.
For some reason I had not found a music channel but some debate on law and order in the US.
On an easier stretch of freeway, I was able to focus on the radio just in time to hear the great line, "If you don't include the murders, Washington DC has the lowest crime rate of any major US city".
Cheered me up no end as I rolled into town hoping my GPS knew the safe route.

Comparing Brexit to having to take a life to defend your family kind of doesn't work for me.

[Zod]

A six year sentence in a cushy prison for murder is so lenient as to be almost an encouragement to some to take the risk of such a sentence in order to get rid of somebody they'd really rather not have around.

It's a disgrace.

[Sam All]

Zod said:

A six year sentence in a cushy prison for murder is so lenient as to be almost an encouragement to some to take the risk of such a sentence in order to get rid of somebody they'd really rather not have around.

It's a disgrace.

Excellent summary. The Judge should be retired.

[CloaK]

Pints said:

I think if the prosecution had been able to prove that he knew it was Reeva behind the door, he'd be looking at 15 years at a minimum. However, despite what seems to be accepted as the bleeding obvious around here, it was still accepted by the court that he was shooting at what he believed to be an intruder.

So it's almost as though he's been given a midway sentence. 15 years for knowingly shooting your girlfriend, zero years for shooting an actual intruder, or 6 years for shooting your girlfriend who you thought was an intruder.

This is not true.

The SA Supreme Court found him guilty of murder (dolus eventualis).

In this instance it was irrelevant who was in the toilet. They concluded he knew that by shooting through the door into such a confined space, whoever was in there was going to die. Hence the murder conviction.

[Pints]

CloaK said:

This is not true.

The SA Supreme Court found him guilty of murder (dolus eventualis).

In this instance it was irrelevant who was in the toilet. They concluded he knew that by shooting through the door into such a confined space, whoever was in there was going to die. Hence the murder conviction.

I appreciate that, but the intent to kill an intruder vs. the intent to kill his girlfriend (which was not proven) has led to the lower than expected sentence.

I have no doubt that the killing of an actual intruder would have led to a much lower sentence, if he'd been convicted at all.

Here's a quote which supports the idea that killing an intruder in South Africa will not necessarily result in a conviction of murder.

Telegraph said:

If somebody breaks into your house, you are entitled to kill that person under certain circumstances. If the burglar runs away and you kill that person anyway, you could be exceeding the bounds of self-defence. If, however, you are faced with a situation where you fear for your life or safety, you would be entitled to kill the intruder.

Source

[battered]

Murder in the UK is not the same as murder in SA.

In English & Scottish law it is very clear that if you intend to shoot person A but miss and kill Person B then you have committed murder. Bad shooting is no defence. This was cited in a case where some drug dealer shot at another one and killed a poor passing kid on his bike who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This would have done for OP in England. However because in SA you can defend your house with force so shooting an intruder through a door may be acceptable if you think your life is threatened. This was OP's defence. He said that he thought the person on the other side of the door intended to kill him so he killed them, only realising that it was RS after the event. This wouldn't work in England because while someone is on the other side of the door they can't be threatening you unless you have good reason to believe that they are armed and prepared to use the weapon. Not just "might" but actual evidence that they are out to get you. Without this it is murder (in England) regardless of who ends up dead.

[Zod]

battered said:

Murder in the UK is not the same as murder in SA.

In English & Scottish law it is very clear that if you intend to shoot person A but miss and kill Person B then you have committed murder. Bad shooting is no defence. This was cited in a case where some drug dealer shot at another one and killed a poor passing kid on his bike who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This would have done for OP in England. However because in SA you can defend your house with force so shooting an intruder through a door may be acceptable if you think your life is threatened. This was OP's defence. He said that he thought the person on the other side of the door intended to kill him so he killed them, only realising that it was RS after the event. This wouldn't work in England because while someone is on the other side of the door they can't be threatening you unless you have good reason to believe that they are armed and prepared to use the weapon. Not just "might" but actual evidence that they are out to get you. Without this it is murder (in England) regardless of who ends up dead.

The doctrine of Transfer of Malice.

[hornetrider]

Prosecutors are appealing his 'shockingly lenient' sentence.

http://news.sky.com/story/oscar-pistorius-jail-sen...

Sky said:

"The sentence of six years imprisonment, in all the circumstances, is disproportionate to the crime of murder committed (and) shockingly too lenient," the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) said in a strongly worded statement.

The NPA said the sentence was "an injustice and has the potential to bring the administration of justice into disrepute", adding that it would file papers to apply for leave to appeal on Thursday.

Poor old #JudgeMasipa, she's certainly copping it

[anonymous-user]

hornetrider said:

Poor old #JudgeMasipa, she's certainly copping it

And quite rightly so.

[Vocal Minority]

CloaK said:

Pints said:

I think if the prosecution had been able to prove that he knew it was Reeva behind the door, he'd be looking at 15 years at a minimum. However, despite what seems to be accepted as the bleeding obvious around here, it was still accepted by the court that he was shooting at what he believed to be an intruder.

So it's almost as though he's been given a midway sentence. 15 years for knowingly shooting your girlfriend, zero years for shooting an actual intruder, or 6 years for shooting your girlfriend who you thought was an intruder.

This is not true.

The SA Supreme Court found him guilty of murder (dolus eventualis).

In this instance it was irrelevant who was in the toilet. They concluded he knew that by shooting through the door into such a confined space, whoever was in there was going to die. Hence the murder conviction.

It is relevant to a certain extent though.

The motivation or armed intruder v unarmed girlfriend is a window into motivation and IMHO is relevant to sentencing. There are mitigating and provocational factors to take into account.

[Sam All]

garyhun said:

hornetrider said:

Poor old #JudgeMasipa, she's certainly copping it

And quite rightly so.

She needs a lifetime of retirement, forthwith.

[Pints]

Extract from the state's appeal:

Appeal Papers said:

2.2 The following mitigating and aggravating factors were identified by the court:

2.2.1 Aggravating factors:
i. The accused used a lethal weapon, ie. a high calibre firearm, and ammunition.
ii. The accused fired not one but four shots into the toilet door.
iii. The accused fired the four shots knowing full well that there was someone behind the door.
iv. The toilet was a small cubicle and there was no room for escape.
v. The accused was trained in the use and handling of firearms.
vi. The accused never fired a warning shot.

2.2.2 Mitigating factors:
i. The accused approached the bathroom in the belief that an intruder had entered his house.
ii. The accused was without his prosthesis and felt vulnerable.
iii. The accused immediately took steps to save the deceased's life.
iv. The accused was distraught and kept on asking God to save the deceased's life.
v. At the commencement of the trial the accused apologised to the family of the deceased.
vi. The accused is genuinely remorseful.

Source

[Sam All]

Pints said:

Extract from the state's appeal:

Appeal Papers said:

2.2 The following mitigating and aggravating factors were identified by the court:

2.2.1 Aggravating factors:
i. The accused used a lethal weapon, ie. a high calibre firearm, and ammunition.
ii. The accused fired not one but four shots into the toilet door.
iii. The accused fired the four shots knowing full well that there was someone behind the door.
iv. The toilet was a small cubicle and there was no room for escape.
v. The accused was trained in the use and handling of firearms.
vi. The accused never fired a warning shot.

2.2.2 Mitigating factors:
i. The accused approached the bathroom in the belief that an intruder had entered his house.
ii. The accused was without his prosthesis and felt vulnerable.
iii. The accused immediately took steps to save the deceased's life.
iv. The accused was distraught and kept on asking God to save the deceased's life.
v. At the commencement of the trial the accused apologised to the family of the deceased.
vi. The accused is genuinely remorseful.

Source

Pure comedy

[KTF]

Pints said:

Extract from the state's appeal:

Appeal Papers said:

iv. The accused was distraught and kept on asking God to save the deceased's life.

Source

What? That got him time off the sentence? Why does this have any relevance?