Jump to content
IGNORED

Oscar Pistorius (Merged)


westred1

Recommended Posts

A friend of mine reckons that in SA a conviction for culpable homicide or manslaughter can result in a financial penalty in the form of compensation to the family, rather than jail. Anyone know if that's true? If it is, that's where this is going IMO

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/oscar-pistorius-murder-trial-potential-verdicts

 

"There is no prescribed sentence for culpable homicide in South African law and the sentence can be decided at the discretion of the judge based on the weight of evidence and circumstances surrounding the incident."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/oscar-pistorius-murder-trial-potential-verdicts

"There is no prescribed sentence for culpable homicide in South African law and the sentence can be decided at the discretion of the judge based on the weight of evidence and circumstances surrounding the incident."

Translation: anything could happen!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pistoriuos is guilty IMO.

They rowed, not for the first time, she ran off into the toilet and shut the door. He lost it completely and knowing she was in the bog shot her through the door. He has a history of having a short fuse especially with women along with an obsession with firearms.

If this was a British court he'd be serving life by now.

Ever since he's trying to get off of what is cold blooded murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

What I don't get is how can you categorically prove he shot her on purpose, when only the 2 of them there.

Doesn't that mean basically you couldn't prove hundreds of people were shot on purpose, if its only one persons word against the state.

 

Guess they have to prove it was pre-meditated - interesting how they would

 

Where is everyone watching this?

BBC news site won't upload, can see my second screen being diverted from work for this afternoon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess they have to prove it was pre-meditated - interesting how they would

 

Where is everyone watching this?

BBC news site won't upload, can see my second screen being diverted from work for this afternoon

 

Sky News.

 

Just finished for the day. Looks like it's culpable homicide (manslaughter) then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sky News.

 

Just finished for the day. Looks like it's culpable homicide (manslaughter) then.

Yup, I've been listening to updates on the radio, the judge certainly left them hanging.

It doesn't seem to matter if it was his girlfriend he shot, or the state of their relationship. The Judge says he knew that there was a person in there (possibly an intruder) and he acted too quickly. She said if he was awakened from sleeping and saw a shadowy figure standing over him, even it was Reeva, that was different. He had time to act reasonably, call security etc and didn't. He was negligent.

Looks like as I thought he would be facing manslaughter, there is a max 15 years or he could be acquitted. There is no minimum sentence so could be anything. I think she intends giving him the highest tarrif knowing he will win an appeal so will face 7/8 years after appeal, which is what she wants to give anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, I've been listening to updates on the radio, the judge certainly left them hanging.

It doesn't seem to matter if it was his girlfriend he shot, or the state of their relationship. The Judge says he knew that there was a person in there (possibly an intruder) and he acted too quickly. She said if he was awakened from sleeping and saw a shadowy figure standing over him, even it was Reeva, that was different. He had time to act reasonably, call security etc and didn't. He was negligent.

Looks like as I thought he would be facing manslaughter, there is a max 15 years or he could be acquitted. There is no minimum sentence so could be anything. I think she intends giving him the highest tarrif knowing he will win an appeal so will face 7/8 years after appeal, which is what she wants to give anyway.

All very strange. To basically say that it would be okay to shoot your girlfriend if she was standing over you in the middle of the night is very odd (I know she didn't say it in exactly those words but did imply)

Also, she breaks for lunch and then adjourns half an hour after coming back, just as she is about to give a verdict. How can she be allowed to do that? A cynic would say she is enjoying the attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All very strange. To basically say that it would be okay to shoot your girlfriend if she was standing over you in the middle of the night is very odd (I know she didn't say it in exactly those words but did imply)

Also, she breaks for lunch and then adjourns half an hour after coming back, just as she is about to give a verdict. How can she be allowed to do that? A cynic would say she is enjoying the attention.

 

It was very much like that, wasn't it?

 

A little bit like the end of Eastenders. "I'm building up to it, I'm building up to it, here it comes..." end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think i've changed my mind. She's painting the case as flawed here.

Yeah, and there was me thinking he didn't have a leg to stand on.

(predicting guilty culpable homicide now but fearing an all too lenient sentence... Personally I think he should do ten years minimum preferably more.)

I also worry, if he does go down, that at some point he'll spring himself, escape & do a runner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back live again, talking about the gun charges he faces. This seems to be a backwards step from yesterday when I thought a verdict was imminent, they are now going over old evidence?

Edit: been acquitted of firing gun through car sunroof, lack of or contradicting evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back live again, talking about the gun charges he faces. This seems to be a backwards step from yesterday when I thought a verdict was imminent, they are now going over old evidence?

Edit: been acquitted of firing gun through car sunroof, lack of or contradicting evidence.

what we have to remember is that it really is that dangerous in south africa, you are told to shoot first ask questions later out there,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judge found him guilty of firing a gun in a restaurant. He fired the gun but persuaded a friend to take the blame fearing bad publicity.

Edit: cleared of illegal possession of ammunition. Basically he said it was his Dad's and the state couldn't prove otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...