Crosswords0 min ago
South African State Prosecutors Say They Will Appeal Oscar Pistorius' Verdict And ...
30 Answers
Sentence for the manslaughter of Reeva Steenkamp. I'm pleased to hear this as I think the verdict should have been murder, not pre-meditated, but murder. You don't fire 4 bullets through a door into a very small space and not know there is a major chance you will kill that person.
I can hear Mikey groaning from here.
But it is the right decision don't you think?
I can hear Mikey groaning from here.
But it is the right decision don't you think?
Answers
On the plus side, they haven't charged Reeva with negligently getting in the way of the bullets.
16:28 Mon 27th Oct 2014
/You don't fire 4 bullets through a door into a very small space and not know there is a major chance you will kill that person./
You have hit on the exact reason for the judgement; a 'major chance' is not a certainty of killing whoever is on the other side.
If the claim 'I didn't mean to kill them' is sustainable with the fact of the 4 rounds fired (within the realms of Reasonable Doubt) then murder is not proven. Firing 4 random shots through a closed door, one of which hits someone in the head could be considered different to say, taking aim at someone's chest and firing 4 times.
You have hit on the exact reason for the judgement; a 'major chance' is not a certainty of killing whoever is on the other side.
If the claim 'I didn't mean to kill them' is sustainable with the fact of the 4 rounds fired (within the realms of Reasonable Doubt) then murder is not proven. Firing 4 random shots through a closed door, one of which hits someone in the head could be considered different to say, taking aim at someone's chest and firing 4 times.
To be honest, I am up to here with Pistorius. If this appeal is allowed, he could be out free before any result is forthcoming, given the glacial speed that SA law seems to work. I agree with agchristie here.....whether we agree with My Lady Judge or not, nobody can say that she wasn't thorough in her job.
ladybirder it was never possible for there to be a 'murder' verdict . It was culpable homicide (manslaughter) or accidental killing (or a similar charge)
He had pleaded guilty to causing her death before the trial started.
A murder charge would have been thrown out of court and he would have walked free. There was never evidence of 'intent to kill' so a murder charge was not a possibility.
He had pleaded guilty to causing her death before the trial started.
A murder charge would have been thrown out of court and he would have walked free. There was never evidence of 'intent to kill' so a murder charge was not a possibility.
Eddie, as I understood it, these were the charges he faced (copied from the DT website).
Verdict What it means Sentence
Premeditated murder: Intended and planned to unlawfully kill Reeva Steenkamp, or an intruder
Mandatory life term - 25 years before parole
Common-law murder
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)
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
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
In possession of .38 bullets for which he has no licence
A fine or up to 15 years
Sorry it hasn't copied very well, lost the structure, but you get the gist.
Verdict What it means Sentence
Premeditated murder: Intended and planned to unlawfully kill Reeva Steenkamp, or an intruder
Mandatory life term - 25 years before parole
Common-law murder
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)
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
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
In possession of .38 bullets for which he has no licence
A fine or up to 15 years
Sorry it hasn't copied very well, lost the structure, but you get the gist.
Gerrie Nel said OP's gross negligence bordered on 'intent' and I'm inclined to agree.
South African criminal lawyers have expressed shock that Masipa found Pistorius could not have foreseen that someone would die when he fired the shots and the verdict should have been Common Law Murder, which I guess is what they'll go for at the appeal.
Brilliant article in the DT at the weekend on how the verdict and sentence would have been so different if it had been Reeva who had shot Oscar under the same circumstances.
South African criminal lawyers have expressed shock that Masipa found Pistorius could not have foreseen that someone would die when he fired the shots and the verdict should have been Common Law Murder, which I guess is what they'll go for at the appeal.
Brilliant article in the DT at the weekend on how the verdict and sentence would have been so different if it had been Reeva who had shot Oscar under the same circumstances.
LB
all very dubious
'bordered on 'intent' - so NOT intent then, just bordering on it LOL
/ shock that Masipa found Pistorius could not have foreseen that someone would die when he fired the shots /
that's only OK if you can argue that it is impossible to fire 4 rounds through that toilet door and NOT kill someone inside
i think it is very likely to do that and either wound or miss them completely
unless there was a witness who could state OP 'took careful aim' at the part of the door he knew Reeva was behind.
or a witness who heard him shout 'i'm going to kill you' immediately before firing
all very dubious
'bordered on 'intent' - so NOT intent then, just bordering on it LOL
/ shock that Masipa found Pistorius could not have foreseen that someone would die when he fired the shots /
that's only OK if you can argue that it is impossible to fire 4 rounds through that toilet door and NOT kill someone inside
i think it is very likely to do that and either wound or miss them completely
unless there was a witness who could state OP 'took careful aim' at the part of the door he knew Reeva was behind.
or a witness who heard him shout 'i'm going to kill you' immediately before firing
Zeuhl, we know all four shots he fired hit her. He knew the layout of that room. If I fired four shots through a door into a tiny room at such close range I wouldn't expect the person inside to not be dead. It was foreseeable.
Mikey I'm not saying she wasn't thorough, she was, but Judge Masipa's decision drew criticism from some legal experts who said she had made an error in her interpretation of a legal concept that holds a person accountable for the foreseeable consequences of their actions.
So we'll see what happens at the Appeal. I wonder what her family feels at the thought of having to go through it all again.
Mikey I'm not saying she wasn't thorough, she was, but Judge Masipa's decision drew criticism from some legal experts who said she had made an error in her interpretation of a legal concept that holds a person accountable for the foreseeable consequences of their actions.
So we'll see what happens at the Appeal. I wonder what her family feels at the thought of having to go through it all again.
Latest Posts
Shopping & Style5 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Editor's Blog16 mins ago
