International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Trials and Errors (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=106)
-   -   Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=285175)

Desert Fox 11th December 2015 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11025250)
People's reaction to this case is a litmus test for all cases where the immediate reaction is to trust judgement and authority.
Crap.

I don't trust authority or judgement but the simple fact is that he shot and killed a human being whom did not present a threat to him. Even by his own story, there should not have been any threat to him.

Roger Ramjets 11th December 2015 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11024810)
By the way, if I wished to eliminate the Pistorius right to ordinary and completely flawed human status, and determine he is a character who represents unmitigated evil,

Pistorius isn't unmitigated evil, but he is dangerous. He is the sort of person we have prisons for.

I don't care whether he shot his girlfriend in cold blood (as the evidence suggests) or was only guilty of extremely bad judgement - he still needs to be locked up to keep him from hurting anyone else. I doubt that prison will make him any less dangerous, so the longer he is put away for the better.

Quote:

Seldom is murder achieved through a bathroom door.
I will remember that the next time I want to kill someone.

whoanellie 11th December 2015 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11025250)
People's reaction to this case is a litmus test for all cases where the immediate reaction is to trust judgement and authority.
Crap.

Haven't you argued that OP can't have knowingly killed Reeva because he is rich?

Samson 11th December 2015 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desert Fox (Post 11025257)
I don't trust authority or judgement but the simple fact is that he shot and killed a human being whom did not present a threat to him. Even by his own story, there should not have been any threat to him.

DF you explain it with the indefinite article "a". Unknown to Pistorius. I can't extend this debate as I am more or less repeating a loathed mantra.

lionking 11th December 2015 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11025241)
His own narrative makes sense. That is what I see. I don't care what happens to him, but far more for the deluded masses that can't see the likely truth, and will never analyse a crime scene and aftermath according to logic.

Utter nonsense. Deluded masses? The best legal minds in SA have just corrected a flawed judgement and he's guilty. And your posts ar completely emotional, not logical.

Samson 11th December 2015 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 11025298)
Utter nonsense. Deluded masses? The best legal minds in SA have just corrected a flawed judgement and he's guilty. And your posts ar completely emotional, not logical.

Hang on a minute, I have no interest in guns, and never owned one, so I am totally detached from this. From day one I believed his account of pathetic idiocy and still do. The evidence, phone calls and actions in the aftermath are entirely consistent.
And why are people happier that Reeva died in a conflict zone anyway? Why do people want this all the time? It is insane to suppose.

Lucian 11th December 2015 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TofuFighter
Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 11024546)
Well, Pistorius knew exactly where to shoot. Any shots into that small cubicle would hit their target. Anyone on the inside of that cubicle shooting out would have no idea at all where to point the gun, particularly if they were an intruder entering the flat for the first time, and obviously with no knowledge of the layout. The idea that Pistorius thought his life in danger from shots from within a toilet behind a closed door is not tenable.

Any intruder who would have entered the cubicle would have seen the layout of the bathroom before entering it, having come through the window in the main bathroom area. Granted, someone inside the cubicle wouldn't know exactly where Pistorius was standing, but given that he was apparently almost constantly shouting at both the intruder and towards his bedroom, there would be some clue as to his position.
Pistorius was also on his stumps, so probably not moving too swiftly.

When this hypothetical intruder was taking aim at the person on the other side of the toilet cubicle door, would he or she have known that the person on the other side of the door was an amputee who was not wearing prosthetic legs?

The Atheist 11th December 2015 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desert Fox (Post 11024722)
Edit: Let us take the prosecution's basic case, no frills, where there is an issue between a boyfriend and girlfriend. The girlfriend retreats into a bathroom and locks the door. The boyfriend shoots her through the door. He claims that he though there was a burglar. If that is accepted, is there any ability to prosecute at all.

Nope.

Potential wife-murderers are watching the case with interest. It's going to be a great defence claim in future if it works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11025111)
I would like to see a sentence that reflects a tragedy of killing a loved one in error, ...

Why are you so sure he loved her so much?

Do you think finding texts from an able-bodied Springbok player made him realise how deeply he loved her?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11025111)
...
and I reckon the matter can be proved one way or the other.

Yeah, there's that medium in England - are you in touch with her?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11025111)
I couldn't care less what the law says.

Yeah, we'd got that.

I'm just thankful the laws aren't written by you. We'd be knee-deep in dead bodies of poor women accidentally murdered by their husbands & boyfriends.

Bob001 11th December 2015 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 11025394)
Nope.

Potential wife-murderers are watching the case with interest. It's going to be a great defence claim in future if it works.
....

That's pretty much the same rationale that cops have long used to justify -- and get away with -- killing people: "I was in fear for my life." It's only the advent of cell phone and security cameras that disproves the claim in many cases. Too bad Reeva wasn't wearing a bodycam.

Bob001 11th December 2015 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11025348)
Hang on a minute, I have no interest in guns, and never owned one, so I am totally detached from this. From day one I believed his account of pathetic idiocy and still do. The evidence, phone calls and actions in the aftermath are entirely consistent.
....

Are they? Did P. call police and/or hit his alarm button the instant he suspected an intruder? If he believed an intruder was hiding in the bathroom, did he wake Reeva and hustle her out of the bedroom, or tell her to get out and call the cops? Did he call out "Who's there?" and wait for an answer? Or did he, as he claims, scream "Get out of my house!," which is precisely what an enraged boyfriend might scream at a frightened girlfriend? It is entirely consistent with the evidence to believe that he killed Reeva in a blind rage, and then desperately tried to fix it when he began to understand what he had done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11025348)
....And why are people happier that Reeva died in a conflict zone anyway? Why do people want this all the time? It is insane to suppose.

No one wants Reeva to be dead. But it is entirely within the realm of possibility -- certainly not insane -- to suspect that a crazy, jealous boyfriend killed his girlfriend and lied about it. Happens every day everywhere in the world. And one more time: If his story is true, he fired four bullets into a stranger in a panic without the justification of an immediate threat. That's murder, not an accident.

Desert Fox 11th December 2015 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11025296)
DF you explain it with the indefinite article "a". Unknown to Pistorius. I can't extend this debate as I am more or less repeating a loathed mantra.

It is best to try to not be emotionally involved in a case. We are only human and will trip and fall, still I am trying to divorce myself from it being anything person.

Looking at it personally though, isn't he known for having brandished weapons in a dangerous manner and there are also reports of them fighting?

newyorkguy 11th December 2015 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 11025224)
He wasn't in imminent danger -- and a reasonable person would have known it -- because the person behind the closed door couldn't see P., P. was free to retreat (including leaving the bedroom) or take cover, and P. was armed. There was no immediate requirement that he open fire to save himself.

I also agree with this and think it is well put. There was no immediate threat to justify firing a handgun four times through a door.

I think what gets blurred here is the difference between someone saying, "I could see myself doing that or thinking that" and what the law requires. This is from Business Insider (which I find to be a pretty reliable and dispassionate news source), explaining that in SA culpable homicide is defined as "killing someone but without direct intent either through recklessness or negligence." This was the trial court ruling:
Quote:

[Judge Thokozile Masipa ruled] there was a reasonable possibility that Pistorius really did think Steenkamp was an intruder when he fired four shots through a locked bathroom door the night he killed her. But she also said he "acted too hastily and used excessive force," and that he could have avoided shooting the supposed intruder in the bathroom by calling security or shouting for help. link to Business Insider story

The Atheist 11th December 2015 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desert Fox (Post 11025631)
Looking at it personally though, isn't he known for having brandished weapons in a dangerous manner and there are also reports of them fighting?

Not only known for reckless use of firearms, he had been charged for it.

Samson 11th December 2015 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 11026034)
Not only known for reckless use of firearms, he had been charged for it.

Oh come on, there is no connection to this tragedy. All this stuff is what nailed Knox in the media, rocks thrown in the street at a party and so on.
There was a shot in the air through a sunroof and an accidental discharge in a restaurant. He was a gun nut, his big moment arrived. The result obeyed the law of unintended consequences. But don't be bothered with fiercely pro women Masipa's findings.

lionking 11th December 2015 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11026037)
Oh come on, there is no connection to this tragedy. All this stuff is what nailed Knox in the media, rocks thrown in the street at a party and so on.
There was a shot in the air through a sunroof and an accidental discharge in a restaurant. He was a gun nut, his big moment arrived. The result obeyed the law of unintended consequences. But don't be bothered with fiercely pro women Masipa's findings.

Mapisa was wrong, get over it.

As for Pistorius' priors with guns, it's entirely relevant. It proves he's an impulsive hothead.

Scordatura 11th December 2015 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 11026041)
As for Pistorius' priors with guns, it's entirely relevant. It proves he's an impulsive hothead.

^^^ this. He shot through the sunroof because he was pissed off that a police officer touched his gun. The guy has no impulse control.

The Atheist 11th December 2015 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11026037)
Oh come on, there is no connection to this tragedy.

:dl:

Mate, I can always rely on you to give me a laugh!

A complete gun nut with a record of dangerous use of firearms kills someone with a gun and it's not relevant.

Ok.

(has Tui hired you as their new writer?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11026037)
There was a shot in the air through a sunroof and an accidental discharge in a restaurant. He was a gun nut, his big moment arrived.

Quite right. His beautiful (as you keep insisting) girlfriend was about to throw him over for an able-bodied rugby player and his big moment was killing her and pretending he was scared by a burglar.

In a locked compound.

Who, instead of burgling, had locked himself in the bog....

Maybe Oscar thought the burglar was busting for a piss?

Nice attempt to tie it to Knox, though. Just remember that while Knox got off, it wasn't 100% certain she was responsible for the death, unlike poor old Oscar, without a leg to stand on, who unquestionably killed Reeva. Fortunately, whether or not he intended to is irrelevant in law.

So you want the law changed.

trustbutverify 11th December 2015 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 11026101)
Quite right. His beautiful (as you keep insisting) girlfriend was about to throw him over for an able-bodied rugby player and his big moment was killing her and pretending he was scared by a burglar.

In a locked compound.

Who, instead of burgling, had locked himself in the bog....

That's one eccentric home invader.

Samson 11th December 2015 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trustbutverify (Post 11026112)
That's one eccentric home invader.

There are precedents for home invaders using the bog ;) not so unusual,

Ampulla of Vater 12th December 2015 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11026131)
There are precedents for home invaders using the bog ;) not so unusual,

No, that's burglars. Home invasion is quite a different scenario, as the residents are home at the time. I bet it's rare to find a home invader stoping to use the loo, unless he's tied everyone up and it is an extended hostage situation, like the one in DC recently.

MikeG 13th December 2015 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11025250)
People's reaction to this case is a litmus test...........

Indeed. Everyone else in the recent part of the thread has dealt with the case logically and unemotionally, discussing the facts and the legality. You are the only one whose sole basis for their position is emotion.

Samson 13th December 2015 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater (Post 11027619)
No, that's burglars. Home invasion is quite a different scenario, as the residents are home at the time. I bet it's rare to find a home invader stoping to use the loo, unless he's tied everyone up and it is an extended hostage situation, like the one in DC recently.

I was drawing an imperfect parallel. One man one woman in a house. The woman is killed by the man, and the bathroom becomes a main feature of the criminal case.

In the case of Reeva, all evidence points to a normal nocturnal visit, and her not being pursued there.

whoanellie 13th December 2015 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11028000)
I was drawing an imperfect parallel. One man one woman in a house. The woman is killed by the man, and the bathroom becomes a main feature of the criminal case.

In the case of Reeva, all evidence points to a normal nocturnal visit, and her not being pursued there.

What specific evidence points to a normal nocturnal visit?

Do you think it was part of her normal routine to lock the door?

GlennB 13th December 2015 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whoanellie (Post 11028130)
What specific evidence points to a normal nocturnal visit?

Do you think it was part of her normal routine to lock the door?

Samson attaches great importance to her empty bladder. But for all we know she'd been to the toilet just before OP went berserk and she sought refuge back there and locked the door to keep him out.

Desert Fox 13th December 2015 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11028000)
I was drawing an imperfect parallel. One man one woman in a house. The woman is killed by the man, and the bathroom becomes a main feature of the criminal case.

In the case of Reeva, all evidence points to a normal nocturnal visit, and her not being pursued there.

In general with regards to self defense, there needs to be some legitimate reason why the defendant should actually be fearing for his life. Maybe the person in the bathroom is armed with a bazooka but that is not reasonable.

There are cases in the US where defendants are tried for murder when police officers suddenly barge through somebody's door. I am sympathetic to the defendant in such cases because of the suddenness and why I hate "No Knock" warrants.

newyorkguy 13th December 2015 08:29 AM

It's not quite true that Steenkamp's empty bladder points to a normal nocturnal visit. It's actually quite inconclusive as it was possible she could have relieved herself up to an hour before being shot. That would indicate she had no reason to lock herself in the water closet other than to get away from Pistorius.
Quote:

Prof Gert Saayman, who performed the post mortem on Reeva Steenkamp, said to questioning from prosecutor Gerrie Nel that Steenkampís bladder would have been empty had she gone to the toilet between 30 minutes to an hour before her death. News link
But I get it. Samson has a gut feeling that it was an accidental shooting; facts are not going to sway him away from that. Other people have a gut feeling Pistorius meant to shoot her. The facts, such as they are, can be interpreted either way. I think the most logical explanation is they quarreled and Pistorius shot her in a fit of rage. It happens quite often, there's nothing "unusual" about it. But I'm not locked into that theory. Pistorius' surprising history with handguns suggests someone who might've been eager to finally get a chance to use a handgun against a 'bad guy.' Might've been so eager to finally get the chance to shoot some lowlife that the desire overwhelmed his common sense. That happens too.

whoanellie 13th December 2015 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 11028194)
Samson attaches great importance to her empty bladder. But for all we know she'd been to the toilet just before OP went berserk and she sought refuge back there and locked the door to keep him out.

Agreed. 1 empty bladder does not constitute all of the evidence...

lionking 13th December 2015 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11028000)
I was drawing an imperfect parallel. One man one woman in a house. The woman is killed by the man, and the bathroom becomes a main feature of the criminal case.

In the case of Reeva, all evidence points to a normal nocturnal visit, and her not being pursued there.

What evidence?

Desert Fox 13th December 2015 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 11028284)
I think the most logical explanation is they quarreled and Pistorius shot her in a fit of rage. It happens quite often, there's nothing "unusual" about it. But I'm not locked into that theory. Pistorius' surprising history with handguns suggests someone who might've been eager to finally get a chance to use a handgun against a 'bad guy.' Might've been so eager to finally get the chance to shoot some lowlife that the desire overwhelmed his common sense. That happens too.

This is almost exactly what my thoughts are.

3point14 17th December 2015 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11025241)
His own narrative makes sense. That is what I see. I don't care what happens to him, but far more for the deluded masses that can't see the likely truth, and will never analyse a crime scene and aftermath according to logic.


You have a pretty high opinion of yourself, don't you?

3point14 17th December 2015 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whoanellie (Post 11025277)
Haven't you argued that OP can't have knowingly killed Reeva because he is rich?

Previously he has argued that there's no way OP killed Reva because it wouldn't be logical.

Ironic, really.

Metullus 17th December 2015 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 11035615)
Previously he has argued that there's no way OP killed Reva because it wouldn't be logical.

Ironic, really.

Well, he does have a point: it is impossible to murder someone who has an empty bladder...

Samson 17th December 2015 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 11035614)
You have a pretty high opinion of yourself, don't you?

I have a high opinion of the judge who sat through the trial and saw through the idiotic suggestions of the prosecution.

3point14 17th December 2015 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11035641)
I have a high opinion of the judge who sat through the trial and saw through the idiotic suggestions of the prosecution.

And a high opinion of yourself, as opposed to

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11025241)
the deluded masses that can't see the likely truth, and will never analyse a crime scene and aftermath according to logic.

You clearly consider yourself superior to "the deluded masses".

Metullus 17th December 2015 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11035641)
I have a high opinion of the judge who sat through the trial and saw through the idiotic suggestions of the prosecution.

What "idiotic suggestions"? That even in the best case the story Pistorius himself told meant he was guilty of murder? The idiotic suggestion that there was an argument prior to the shooting? The idiotic suggestion that he fired 4 rounds through the only door into a 4 x 4 foot enclosure? The idiotic suggestion that a person hiding behind a locked door was not an immediate threat to an armed man with a clear line of retreat?

Samson 17th December 2015 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metullus (Post 11035674)
What "idiotic suggestions"? That even in the best case the story Pistorius himself told meant he was guilty of murder? The idiotic suggestion that there was an argument prior to the shooting? The idiotic suggestion that he fired 4 rounds through the only door into a 4 x 4 foot enclosure? The idiotic suggestion that a person hiding behind a locked door was not an immediate threat to an armed man with a clear line of retreat?

The idiotic suggestion OP would deliberately kill his girl friend.

lionking 17th December 2015 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11035725)
The idiotic suggestion OP would deliberately kill his girl friend.

I believe he did, but that wasn't the finding of the court. Your understanding of the case seems very poor.

Metullus 17th December 2015 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11035725)
The idiotic suggestion OP would deliberately kill his girl friend.

How is that idiotic? You are not suggesting, are you, that it is unheard of for men to deliberately hurt or kill their wives or girlfriends? Or that it is unheard of for wealthy or notable men to do so? Or for athletes to do so? Perhaps you are suggesting that it is uncommon for men and women to have arguments, and, even, to lose their tempers?

Samson 17th December 2015 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metullus (Post 11035741)
How is that idiotic? You are not suggesting, are you, that it is unheard of for men to deliberately hurt or kill their wives or girlfriends? Or that it is unheard of for wealthy or notable men to do so? Or for athletes to do so? Perhaps you are suggesting that it is uncommon for men and women to have arguments, and, even, to lose their tempers?

I happen to agree with the judge and what she found, but I know I am in the minority, and my opinion is irrelevant anyway. It is probably true there is no proof either way, but if we had all the trial transcripts and original testimony a deduction could follow.

Metullus 17th December 2015 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11035784)
I happen to agree with the judge and what she found, but I know I am in the minority, and my opinion is irrelevant anyway. It is probably true there is no proof either way, but if we had all the trial transcripts and original testimony a deduction could follow.

I understand that you agree with the judge. What I am interested in is your characterization of the prosecutions assertions as "idiotic". How is it "idiotic" to suggest that he deliberately killed her?

newyorkguy 17th December 2015 02:41 PM

Great importance was placed on the fact Steenkamp's bladder was empty at the time she was shot. The argument seemed to be, her bladder would not have been empty unless she had urinated within moments of being shot. That, however, is not what Prof Gert Saayman, who performed the post mortem on Reeva Steenkamp, testified to. At the trial Saayman testified "that Steenkampís bladder would have been empty had she gone to the toilet between 30 minutes to an hour before her death." We're left with a possible scenario where Steenkamp had used the water closet well before the shooting, strongly suggesting she had gone back and locked herself in to get away from Pistorius.

Now the argument is, the trial judge considered the prosecution's contention it was premeditated, deliberate murder to be idiotic. But the trial judge never said anything remotely like that.
Quote:

[Judge Thokozile Masipa ruled] there was a reasonable possibility that Pistorius really did think Steenkamp was an intruder when he fired four shots through a locked bathroom door the night he killed her.
A reasonable possibility doesn't mean the alternate theory is idiotic. In fact, accepting Pistorius' scenario as "a reasonable possibility" is the bare minimum. It is no ringing endorsement of Oscar Pistorius. Combined with the fact Masipa also characterized Pistorius as an unreliable witness, it seems pretty clear to me that the prosecution was one key piece of evidence away from convincing Masipa that this was a deliberate murder.

The Atheist 17th December 2015 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 11035844)
Great importance was placed on the fact Steenkamp's bladder was empty at the time she was shot.

Only by one person.

Ampulla of Vater 17th December 2015 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 11035653)



You clearly consider yourself superior to "the deluded masses".

Yes, but don't we all?!
;)

Samson 17th December 2015 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 11035844)
Great importance was placed on the fact Steenkamp's bladder was empty at the time she was shot. The argument seemed to be, her bladder would not have been empty unless she had urinated within moments of being shot. That, however, is not what Prof Gert Saayman, who performed the post mortem on Reeva Steenkamp, testified to. At the trial Saayman testified "that Steenkampís bladder would have been empty had she gone to the toilet between 30 minutes to an hour before her death." We're left with a possible scenario where Steenkamp had used the water closet well before the shooting, strongly suggesting she had gone back and locked herself in to get away from Pistorius.

Now the argument is, the trial judge considered the prosecution's contention it was premeditated, deliberate murder to be idiotic. But the trial judge never said anything remotely like that.


A reasonable possibility doesn't mean the alternate theory is idiotic. In fact, accepting Pistorius' scenario as "a reasonable possibility" is the bare minimum. It is no ringing endorsement of Oscar Pistorius. Combined with the fact Masipa also characterized Pistorius as an unreliable witness, it seems pretty clear to me that the prosecution was one key piece of evidence away from convincing Masipa that this was a deliberate murder.

I appreciate your attention to detail.
I have a question as a corollary. Why did Masipa, as a fierce defender of women's rights to be unmolested, deliver a sentence designed to allow very early release, if she thought there was more than a remote chance of intent to kill Reeva? If she had little belief in his story, she was entitled to put him away for a long time, to be on the safe side.

Metullus 17th December 2015 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11035956)
I appreciate your attention to detail.
I have a question as a corollary. Why did Masipa, as a fierce defender of women's rights to be unmolested, deliver a sentence designed to allow very early release, if she thought there was more than a remote chance of intent to kill Reeva? If she had little belief in his story, she was entitled to put him away for a long time, to be on the safe side.

Error in judgement? It happens, you know.

Samson 17th December 2015 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metullus (Post 11036013)
Error in judgement? It happens, you know.

Maybe, but her history suggests she was pretty sure of her thinking when giving him an effective year sentence. After all, if he was known to have deliberately killed her no one would argue any mitigation.

lionking 17th December 2015 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11036137)
Maybe, but her history suggests she was pretty sure of her thinking when giving him an effective year sentence. After all, if he was known to have deliberately killed her no one would argue any mitigation.

No maybe about it. It was by definition an error in judgement.

newyorkguy 17th December 2015 06:19 PM

First of all, the maximum sentence Pistorius could have recieved upon being convicted of culpable homicide was fifteen years. That was the maximum sentence Judge Masipa could have imposed. To her credit, Masipa wasn't judging the case as a woman's rights advocate but as a criminal court judge. That's what you seem to misunderstand. She found there was a reasonable possibility -- under the rules of evidence (not whatever her own private feeling is) -- that Pistorius did fire believing it to be an intruder in his water closet. Why the light sentence? This is how USA Today reported it at the time:
Quote:

JOHANNESBURG ó South African Olympic athlete Oscar Pistorius was sentenced to prison for five years Tuesday for the 2013 killing of his girlfriend, less than half the time he could have received following his manslaughter conviction last month. Judge Thokozile Masipa said a long sentence would show a lack of mercy toward Pistorius, known as the "Blade Runner" for racing on prosthetic legs. She suspended a separate three-year sentence for an unrelated firearms charge. Link to news article

However there was another reason for the lenient sentence, the trial judge ruled Pistoruis had showed no intent to kill. That was where, however, the South African Supreme Court ruled she erred. In its appeal the state asked the Supreme Court to rule on the following:
Quote:

[G]iven he knew someone was behind the door, and he fired four bullets into a tiny room, should he have foreseen that his actions would have killed whoever was in there? They decided unanimously. Yes, he did. And that is murder. News article

Samson 17th December 2015 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 11036152)
No maybe about it. It was by definition an error in judgement.

Well no, by the sentence she clearly agreed with the defence, not the prosecution. There is no middle ground between the two, only one could be correct. I accept you think he deliberately killed Reeva, but I don't agree, and I don't think the judge did either, notwithstanding New York Guy's analysis.

newyorkguy 17th December 2015 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11036183)
I accept you think he deliberately killed Reeva, but I don't agree, and I don't think the judge did either...

Again, your contention was that Judge Masipa considered the prosecution's theory to be "idiotic." By saying it "was reasonably possible" he didn't kill Steenkamp deliberately, doesn't she seem to be indicating she believed the possibility existed that he did?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.