Oscar Pistorius Trial

[broccoli]

I remember reading some of his lines post-murder and it seemed he was giving petty excuses on his defence. Baffling how he got only 13 years that eventually will be reduced to 8 or 9. I recall him saying like "i got up and heard some noises in the bathroom, thought it was a thief so i shot through the door to make sure he was dead".

 

[Javi]

This case in essence only depends on intention which being a subjective matter is by nature impossible to determine precisely. Whether it's murder or anything down to negligent homicide in self defense (with error in objecto) solely depends on the intention. How to judge it? His word, the context of the action etc. but since it was in his private home there is not much info to be gathered from independant sources. I don't know much of these details, but how to treat a case like this I find hard to decide on.

 

[Stretch]

I remember reading some of his lines post-murder and it seemed he was giving petty excuses on his defence. Baffling how he got only 13 years that eventually will be reduced to 8 or 9. I recall him saying like "i got up and heard some noises in the bathroom, thought it was a thief so i shot through the door to make sure he was dead".

He got 15 years which is the minimum sentence for murder in SA. He got 13 years as he's already served 2 years. So in total it would be 15 years. Also, he never said the bolded part at all. I think the sentence is now appropriate for the crime committed with the relevant facts kept in mind. Note facts, not what we think. He would have gotten 25 to life if the court found the murder to be pre-planned which it did not so it cannot impose such a sentence.

 

[Stretch]

This case in essence only depends on intention which being a subjective matter is by nature impossible to determine precisely. Whether it's murder or anything down to negligent homicide in self defense (with error in objecto) solely depends on the intention. How to judge it? His word, the context of the action etc. but since it was in his private home there is not much info to be gathered from independant sources. I don't know much of these details, but how to treat a case like this I find hard to decide on.

Sure but the 'easy' part for us is that he fired 4 shots into an enclosed space when he had other options and his life was not imminent danger (even if we take his version of events). And that's the one thing the Supreme Court of Appeal noted several times when they overturned his verdict from culpable homicide to murder. His intent on killing the person on the other side of the door, whomever that might have been.

 

[Javi]

Sure but the 'easy' part for us is that he fired 4 shots into an enclosed space when he had other options and his life was not imminent danger (even if we take his version of events). And that's the one thing the Supreme Court of Appeal noted several times when they overturned his verdict from culpable homicide to murder. His intent on killing the person on the other side of the door, whomever that might have been.

The intent on killing someone is undeniable but that's not the relevant part. Murder is when he killed someone with malice aforethought, e.g. when he killed out of greed. If he thought his home is getting invaded, and criminal justice tries to judge the case as it happened in the mind of the defendant, then his legal sphere was intruded. That allows for self defence.

Now normally I'd say to shoot someone 4 times in these circumstances is a bit over the top but still self defence allows for a lot, because the righteous man doesn't need to bear someone else invading his legal sphere. Self defense would mean he walks. Obviously it wasn't an intruder and then you'd have to ask if this wrong idea of what was taking place in the head of the defendant is something he is to blame for. And imo it is, therefore you end up with culpable homicide.

That's just showing both ends of the spectrum. Where exactly you place the guilt is with the details. How plausible is it for someone to break in his home through the bathroom? Where did he think was his wife? etc.

 

[WackyWengerWorld]

The intent on killing someone is undeniable but that's not the relevant part. Murder is when he killed someone with malice aforethought, e.g. when he killed out of greed. If he thought his home is getting invaded, and criminal justice tries to judge the case as it happened in the mind of the defendant, then his legal sphere was intruded. That allows for self defence.

Now normally I'd say to shoot someone 4 times in these circumstances is a bit over the top but still self defence allows for a lot, because the righteous man doesn't need to bear someone else invading his legal sphere. Self defense would mean he walks. Obviously it wasn't an intruder and then you'd have to ask if this wrong idea of what was taking place in the head of the defendant is something he is to blame for. And imo it is, therefore you end up with culpable homicide.

That's just showing both ends of the spectrum. Where exactly you place the guilt is with the details. How plausible is it for someone to break in his home through the bathroom? Where did he think was his wife? etc.

In Britain you have to prove self defense and his story seems completely implausable. There's no reason for him to believe that the person in the bathroom is a burglar and not his girlfriend. A 'reasonable person' would not assume what he assumed.

During the trial Postorius was shown to lie so his testimony becomes unreliable as he is an unreliable witness.

Then you have the other evidence of domestic abuse.

He was also shown to have a history of reckless gun offenses.

It's pretty obviously a case of using the self defense excuse after the fact. Whether that's acceptable under SA Law or it's a miscaridge of justice I'm unsure.

 

[Javi]

In Britain you have to prove self defense and his story seems completely implausable. There's no reason for him to believe that the person in the bathroom is a burglar and not his girlfriend. A 'reasonable person' would not assume what he assumed.

During the trial Postorius was shown to lie so his testimony becomes unreliable as he is an unreliable witness.

Then you have the other evidence of domestic abuse.

He was also shown to have a history of reckless gun offenses.

It's pretty obviously a case of using the self defense excuse after the fact. Whether that's acceptable under SA Law or it's a miscaridge of justice I'm unsure.

Then that's probably why they overturned it to murder.

 

[Stretch]

Oscar has now appealed to the highest court in SA, the Constitutional Court. However, for him to be heard there he would need to supply reasons as to why he thinks his constitutional rights have been violated. If they find his application flimsy then he won't even get a hearing for it. I doubt he has enough of a legal argument to go for him.

 

[Stretch]

The intent on killing someone is undeniable but that's not the relevant part. Murder is when he killed someone with malice aforethought, e.g. when he killed out of greed. If he thought his home is getting invaded, and criminal justice tries to judge the case as it happened in the mind of the defendant, then his legal sphere was intruded. That allows for self defence.

Now normally I'd say to shoot someone 4 times in these circumstances is a bit over the top but still self defence allows for a lot, because the righteous man doesn't need to bear someone else invading his legal sphere. Self defense would mean he walks. Obviously it wasn't an intruder and then you'd have to ask if this wrong idea of what was taking place in the head of the defendant is something he is to blame for. And imo it is, therefore you end up with culpable homicide.

That's just showing both ends of the spectrum. Where exactly you place the guilt is with the details. How plausible is it for someone to break in his home through the bathroom? Where did he think was his wife? etc.

If you study the judgements of the SCA then you will find that was the crux of the matter, his intention to kill whomever was behind the door and that his defence argument having been thrown out (he claimed private or aka putative self defence) since it didn't meet the requirements. There was no imminent danger on his life (on either version of events).

 

[K2K]

Case has final ended as he exhausted all appeals available to him after his extended sentence

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Damien]

Good. I still feel angry over the original sentencing by Masipa.

 

[Cheesy]

Case has final ended as he exhausted all appeals available to him after his extended sentence

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Looks like he's visibly aged there. Thank feck this can hopefully be laid to rest.

 

[Heardy]

Has won in his bid for freedom and is scheduled to be released in January, 10 years after the shooting.

 

[Samid]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Wtf! Should’ve been in for life.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Brophs]

And as soon as he stepped outside and the gate closed, he turned and took one last look at the prison, took out a military grade machine gun and began to spray bullets indiscriminately at the door and walls of the prison, for he no longer could be sure who was inside.

 

[Adisa]

Ridiculous. You can't say he is guilty and let him serve fecking six years for murder.

 

[4bars]

He was a star. The idea of a long stay in prison didnt have legs

 

[André Dominguez]

He was a star. The idea of a long stay in prison didnt have legs

Not sure that joke works in english.

 

[Mike Smalling]

It never really seemed plausible to me that he felt so threatened by an intruder, who was behind a locked door, that he had to fire four rounds through the door. And that he did it before confirming where his girlfriend was. Even in a state of panic, surely you would have the wits to just keep the gun pointed at the door and call for help.

In any case, it seems like standard procedure in South Africa to release prisoners on parole after having served half their sentence with good behavior. Right or wrong, it doesn't seem like he is getting special treatment given the sentence he is serving.

Also, he should never have been allowed to race in the Olympics with those rocket ships on his legs.

 

[André Dominguez]

It never really seemed plausible to me that he felt so threatened by an intruder, who was behind a locked door, that he had to fire four rounds through the door. And that he did it before confirming where his girlfriend was. Even in a state of panic, surely you would have the wits to just keep the gun pointed at the door and call for help.

In any case, it seems like standard procedure in South Africa to release prisoners on parole after having served half their sentence with good behavior. Right or wrong, it doesn't seem like he is getting special treatment given the sentence he is serving.

Also, he should never have been allowed to race in the Olympics with those rocket ships on his legs.

Gave him an advantadge against the good racers, but not at elite level. But yes, the IAAF later forbid use of equipment with things that can give the athlete a leverage, like springs, etc.
Apparently no one remembered this could be used as an advantadge: surprised no Olympic athlete used engineered shoes with springs before Pistorius to give them a boost, since it was not forbidden.

 

[Wilt]

Fecking ridiculouly short sentence. Can only hope one day he‘ll get his.

 

[ShinjiNinja26]

Got off very lightly, was hoping the numbers gang would’ve taken care of this prick.

 

[adexkola]

Ridiculous. You can't say he is guilty and let him serve fecking six years for murder.

It's plausible if your definition of murder includes negligent homicide as well as manslaughter

 

[Tarrou]

can’t imagine how painful this is for his family

If this happened to someone I loved I don’t know if I could stop myself from hurting him

 

[golden_blunder]

Ridiculous. You can't say he is guilty and let him serve fecking six years for murder.

Let’s hope he doesn’t do a runner