AshVilla Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 So is he going to get away with possessing illegal ammunition as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted September 12, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted September 12, 2014 Been quite impressed with the judge throughout actually. I think the prosecution probably shouldn't have focussed so much on the argument aspect. A couple of dodgy neighbours who thought they heard some yelling and screaming.. as soon as that was thrown out the case was quiet a bit weaker. As far as I'm concerned if you point a gun at where you believe someone is standing, and pull the trigger, it shouldn't matter whether it's a burglar, your girlfriend or the pope - you are intending to kill them. I don't believe it was pre-meditated murder, but I think manslaughter (or culpable homicide as it seems to be called) is actually quite kind to him. The news were saying that if he doesn't get ,murder (which he hasn't) then the prosecution will probably appeal along these grounds. In that fair enough he didn't intend to kill HER. But he did intend to kill. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 As soon as you pull the trigger of a loaded gun, particularly if it's aimed straight, rather than towards the sky, you're taking liberties civilians just don't have doe. Stevo's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 I don't believe it was pre-meditated murder, but I think manslaughter (or culpable homicide as it seems to be called) is actually quite kind to him. There's another option, though, I think. Premeditation hasn't been proven, but the commentary this morning is about if you choose to shoot into as confined a space as that, then it's reasonable to suppose you have a fair chance of killing someone (regardless of who you think is there). In which case, it sounds as if murder, but not premediated murder, would be a more approppriate finding than culpable homicide. The radio reports are saying that a lot of legal commentators in SA are saying this (no idea whether that's so), and it sounds like a reasonable conclusion from a common sense point of view. Though often, if you drew a Venn diagram of common sense and the law, not only would the circles not overlap, they would be on separate pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djdabush Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 So is he going to get away with possessing illegal ammunition as well? Found not guilty of that and firing a gun out of his sunroof although he was found guilty of firing a gun in a public place, I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 How could he be found not guilty for that wtf the bullets were used on reeva or did they magically dissapear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djdabush Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 How could he be found not guilty for that wtf the bullets were used on reeva or did they magically dissapear Not sure, I only know that he defence was that he was keeping it for his father and somehow he must have got away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samjp26 Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 I think it's quite sickening that he could get off with a mere fine. He's a danger to society, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brommy Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 I think it's quite sickening that he could get off with a mere fine. He's a danger to society, IMO. I'd certainly be avoiding restaurants and ensuites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Most people with a criminal record find it hard to find work No doubt within 5 years he will be releasing books making him millions Crime doesn't pay unless your a celebrity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Just seen the verdicts. Not surprised she's acquitted on the firarms and ammo possession charges, they are not really relevent given the culpable homicide conviction. I haven't seen the full trial or heard all of the evidence but my perception is that the judge (who has been excellent IMO) has arrived at the only verdict available to her. Only Oscar knows, and will ever know what really happened that night but if his story is true, I can see how a man on his stumps, fire arm in hand, when confronted with an "intruder" in his home shoots first and asks questions later. Its massively easy to moralise about what he should have done or what he shouldn't have done when we are (I assume) healthy able bodied individuals who (predominantly) live in a country where violent burglary is extremely rare. Any "reasonable" person knows that if you fire 4 bullets into what is essentially a toilet cubicle, you are going at best seriously injure the person behind the door - OP knew that when he opened fire, especially given the ammo he was using. He IS responsible for Reeva's death and it absolutely could have been avoided so the verdict IMO is correct. As for a sentence, I can well imagine a massive fine and a significant suspended prison sentence. I'm not an SA legal expert in anyway shape or form but I'm a little surprised he has been bailed pending sentence, so I can see a prison sentence is far from guaranteed - and actually, for a certain point of view the better outcome is to relieve him of several million and make use of it to benefit society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 His histrionics in the courtroom have made me really despise him, as if the crime itself wasn't abhorrent enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 12, 2014 Moderator Share Posted September 12, 2014 I'm a little surprised he has been bailed pending sentenceThey were speculating on the radio this morning that this may happen, as they are yet to work out which prison can accommodate a man with OP's disabilities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwpzxjor1 Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Premeditated was never on the cards here. For it to be premeditated your actions would have been ones which solely led to the purpose of killing i.e.. getting in your car and driving to someone's house with the aim of killing them. In your own home, whether it was an argument which got out of control, or a shot at a burglar, there's no level of premeditation there. But that gun was fired with the intention of killing someone, I think whoever it was is almost irrelevant, in a strange way. The prosecution made too much of trying to make it premeditated; focusing their case on the argument and Pistorius's history with guns and anger issues, etc.. the judge has been left with no choice but to dismiss that because the case was too weak. I'm guessing there's legal loopholes in that you can't prosecute for murder of 'whoever happened to be in the way of the bullets', and that's how he's only got manslaughter, IM(NAALT)O (in my not at all legally trained opinion) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwpzxjor1 Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 I'm a little surprised he has been bailed pending sentence They were speculating on the radio this morning that this may happen, as they are yet to work out which prison can accommodate a man with OP's disabilities If he can run in the Olympics I'm pretty sure he'll be able to make his way around some concrete hallways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Just seen the verdicts. Not surprised she's acquitted on the firarms and ammo possession charges, they are not really relevent given the culpable homicide conviction. I haven't seen the full trial or heard all of the evidence but my perception is that the judge (who has been excellent IMO) has arrived at the only verdict available to her. Only Oscar knows, and will ever know what really happened that night but if his story is true, I can see how a man on his stumps, fire arm in hand, when confronted with an "intruder" in his home shoots first and asks questions later. Its massively easy to moralise about what he should have done or what he shouldn't have done when we are (I assume) healthy able bodied individuals who (predominantly) live in a country where violent burglary is extremely rare. Any "reasonable" person knows that if you fire 4 bullets into what is essentially a toilet cubicle, you are going at best seriously injure the person behind the door - OP knew that when he opened fire, especially given the ammo he was using. He IS responsible for Reeva's death and it absolutely could have been avoided so the verdict IMO is correct. As for a sentence, I can well imagine a massive fine and a significant suspended prison sentence. I'm not an SA legal expert in anyway shape or form but I'm a little surprised he has been bailed pending sentence, so I can see a prison sentence is far from guaranteed - and actually, for a certain point of view the better outcome is to relieve him of several million and make use of it to benefit society. I think you needed to have followed the case all the way through to come up with those conclusions. The bail is no surprise either as he had bail up until the verdict anyway so not much has changed apart from him selling his property since he was originally given bail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted September 13, 2014 Share Posted September 13, 2014 Like most people I was surprised to find that they do not use juries in South Africa. Without a jury, all the emotive and manipulative stuff, which makes up the art of advocacy becomes irrelevant but for reasons I can't understand, the SAs still persist with it. Does anyone think that trial by jury should be scrapped in this country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted September 13, 2014 Share Posted September 13, 2014 The verdict in this case is a great advert for trial by jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted September 13, 2014 Share Posted September 13, 2014 Is it? I'd say it's a great advert for not having a jury. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted September 13, 2014 Share Posted September 13, 2014 Is it? I'd say it's a great advert for not having a jury. ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts