Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins 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
/Zeuhl, we know all four shots he fired hit her./
Not so LB
Three hit her; one in the elbow, one on the hip, one in the head.
If the third had not hit her head she would have lived.
So the death of a person in that toilet was was far from predictable.
/I wouldn't expect the person inside to not be dead. It was foreseeable. /
Based on the 1:4 fatal wound ratio it wouldn't be the best bet anyone could make.
Not so LB
Three hit her; one in the elbow, one on the hip, one in the head.
If the third had not hit her head she would have lived.
So the death of a person in that toilet was was far from predictable.
/I wouldn't expect the person inside to not be dead. It was foreseeable. /
Based on the 1:4 fatal wound ratio it wouldn't be the best bet anyone could make.
he knew fine well it was Reeva in there..she would have screamed after first shot anyway..and why was she dressed and in there with 2 mobiles if not in the process of trying to flee ?
one rule for white affluent divas with considerable self pity and acting skills and another for rest of the country.25 years at least !!
one rule for white affluent divas with considerable self pity and acting skills and another for rest of the country.25 years at least !!
LB
I think it's an interesting comparison with UK/USA juror systems.
We can all (jurors included) imagine what we like about what happened that night; and we might be right and we might be wrong.
The South African judge has made a ruling based on the evidence.
OP might have deliberately killed her, but there is no evidence that he did that gets anywhere close to 'reasonable doubt'.
So I think the verdict is 'right' according to the Law. A jury might have decided differently but that would have been due to their imagining things about the people involved (who they don't know) and the events of that night (which no one witnessed)
Personally, I think more of the 15 years available for Culpable Homicide should have been levied, but i never expected it with precedents in SA of sympathetic sentencing of people killing others thru negligent use of guns and the general gun culture there.
I thought getting him any 'jail time' (rather than just house arrest) was a result
Did RS get justice?
That is a philosophical question not a legal one.
The Law was applied between the State and OP; that's what the system required
I think it's an interesting comparison with UK/USA juror systems.
We can all (jurors included) imagine what we like about what happened that night; and we might be right and we might be wrong.
The South African judge has made a ruling based on the evidence.
OP might have deliberately killed her, but there is no evidence that he did that gets anywhere close to 'reasonable doubt'.
So I think the verdict is 'right' according to the Law. A jury might have decided differently but that would have been due to their imagining things about the people involved (who they don't know) and the events of that night (which no one witnessed)
Personally, I think more of the 15 years available for Culpable Homicide should have been levied, but i never expected it with precedents in SA of sympathetic sentencing of people killing others thru negligent use of guns and the general gun culture there.
I thought getting him any 'jail time' (rather than just house arrest) was a result
Did RS get justice?
That is a philosophical question not a legal one.
The Law was applied between the State and OP; that's what the system required
murray illustrates the problems with jurors perfectly:
/He knew fine well it was Reeva in there/
You have no way of knowing that
/she would have screamed after first shot anyway/
You have no way of knowing that
/and why was she dressed and in there with 2 mobiles if not in the process of trying to flee ?/
who knows? (apart from RS) checking her messages and emails? going home early?
murray's imaginings may be correct but they are not the same as evidence
/He knew fine well it was Reeva in there/
You have no way of knowing that
/she would have screamed after first shot anyway/
You have no way of knowing that
/and why was she dressed and in there with 2 mobiles if not in the process of trying to flee ?/
who knows? (apart from RS) checking her messages and emails? going home early?
murray's imaginings may be correct but they are not the same as evidence
I think it could be fairly described as a 'Crime Passionel'.
A crime of passion, or crime passionnel, in popular usage, refers to a violent crime, especially murder, in which the perpetrator commits the act against someone because of sudden strong impulse such as sudden rage rather than as a premeditated crime.
Crime of passion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_passion
It certainly wasn't premeditated or 'first degree murder'. It makes little difference to the deceased or her family though.
A crime of passion, or crime passionnel, in popular usage, refers to a violent crime, especially murder, in which the perpetrator commits the act against someone because of sudden strong impulse such as sudden rage rather than as a premeditated crime.
Crime of passion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_passion
It certainly wasn't premeditated or 'first degree murder'. It makes little difference to the deceased or her family though.
LB
it's an interesting question
if it's any comfort, the judge declared OP an 'unreliable witness' and his 'remorse' seems to have had little effect. The judge simply assessed the evidence and applied the Law.
It is in a UK/US system where the acting abilities of people can influence juries one way or the other and sometimes produce decisions that seem to fly in the face of the evidence.
it's an interesting question
if it's any comfort, the judge declared OP an 'unreliable witness' and his 'remorse' seems to have had little effect. The judge simply assessed the evidence and applied the Law.
It is in a UK/US system where the acting abilities of people can influence juries one way or the other and sometimes produce decisions that seem to fly in the face of the evidence.
Yes he didn't fool her at all did he but when she said 5 years (I thought 7 was the very least he should get) I didn't realise he would only spend 10 months of that 5 years in prison.
I wonder about the jury system. I don't know of course but I imagine that subjectivity rules too often, where it should be objectivity.
Thank you to everyone who has contributed, whether you agree with me or not. We'll see what happens ........................eventually:-)
I wonder about the jury system. I don't know of course but I imagine that subjectivity rules too often, where it should be objectivity.
Thank you to everyone who has contributed, whether you agree with me or not. We'll see what happens ........................eventually:-)
