Exactly, it just doesn't make sense.
Oscar Pistorius Trial
- Thread starter Rednotdead
- Start date
Especially as it was a small toilet and not a large living room or bedroom where there was a possibility of not hitting the occupant.
That's crazy. The necessary mens rea for murder is an intent to kill. You do not need to have intended to kill the actual victim. That's a very, very basic principle the "judge" has gotten wrong.
According to a SA law expert, she interpreted the law in such a way that nobody would ever be convicted of anything but "direct" murder.
That really doesn't make sense to me. What should it matter if he didn't intend to kill his gf. He clearly intended to kill whoever was in the toilet, the fact it turned out to be his gf shouldn't matter.
Indeed, that's why the verdict is bizarre. It's going to go to appeal if it doesn't i fear money may have switched hands.
Unfortunately, "making sense" seems to be a concept that gets lost in the legal system sometimes, with judges being far too concerned with technical issues.
Some of them seem unable to stand back, empty their minds of the technicalities and look at what makes sense.
And going by the judge's comments I get the impression Pistorius will get sympathy from her at sentencing. She certainly seems to have swallowed his story hook, line and sinker. I'd be surprised if she gives him more than a suspended sentence.
Yep, I said in an earlier post that a SA Lawyer said that her tone suggested that he was going to get a large fine, especially after granting him bale for a second time.
All he had to do was say "Who's in the bathrooom?" or "Riva, is that you?"
This is what most of the planet would have done in a similar circumstance, and why I think he's guilty. Nobody fires 4 shots into the bathroom and doesn't expect to kill whoever's on the other side of the door. Especially somebody who has a lot of gun experience!
The Judge has cocked this up from what I've read and seen of the case.
This is what most of the planet would have done in a similar circumstance, and why I think he's guilty. Nobody fires 4 shots into the bathroom and doesn't expect to kill whoever's on the other side of the door. Especially somebody who has a lot of gun experience!
The Judge has cocked this up from what I've read and seen of the case.
And he did scream for her which is what makes his version so very weird.
I can't believe the judge has bought his whole "I shot FOUR times as REFLEX PANIC REACTION due to A DOOR MOVEMENT" story.
Christ what a clanger. This will certainly be appealed.
This whole trial is a joke. The judge completely bought his story.
I remember the judge saying he didn't intend to kill whoever was in the toilet and found it quite bizarre.
About to be sentenced
Verdict by Friday.
Really, why not today?
My understanding is that there is now basically a mini trial again, with defence and prosecution arguing for different sentences, after which the judge will probably 'summarise' for a few days before giving her decision, with several breaks in between.
What's the maximum he can still get?
Maybe there's a statute of limitations she's trying to pass!
He will probably be to old to go to jail by the time this trial is over.
15 years but that almost certainly won't happen.
Nuts. Judge seems bought.
Don't think statute of limitation would apply against criminal matters.
They do in some jurisdictions, but I was only joking.
That's quite surprising to learn. I understand that criminal jurisprudence would work differently in different jurisdictions but that would be more to do with the procedure; the basic rights like to have a counsel, not to be tried twice for the same offence, states right to prosecute not constrained by time, would be the same, at least across all common law based legal systems.
Should have had a jury trial, we wouldn't be pissing about with 3 years community service.
This isn't confirmed, is it?
While I agree. I remember seeing a documentary about the legal process(The it was a murder case) in the deep south of the US and the jury were so easily swayed(Religion seem to play a massive part in their thinking).
Very scary.
This is descending into farce, the clear narrative is that SA prisons aren't very nice so it wouldn't be right to send poor Ossie to one. Judge should cut through this nonsense and get on with sentencing. De minimis non curat lex.
Last edited:
Mandy Wiener from Twitter1m
#OscarTrial Likely that Judge Masipa will reserve her decision today. Consensus is Tuesday next week - unconfirmed.
#OscarTrial Likely that Judge Masipa will reserve her decision today. Consensus is Tuesday next week - unconfirmed.
They'll end up paying poor little Pistorius a compensation at this rate.
No it hasn't, both parties have the right to put across their points and Judge will decide after that. I have no idea what get on with the sentencing even means in the real world
If means to give him his sentence and stop pissing about.
Sentencing has begun.
Should find out next week then.
what is she on about? Just sentence him already
Did I just imagine that she waffled on for ages about a different case altogether?
She's knows she's going to let him walk (lol never gets old) so she's relaying it as much as she can to keep him in for as long as possible.
The judge has talked about mercy. He'll get a suspended sentence with community service.