Jump to content
IGNORED

Pistorius released on House arrest


Major Isewater

Recommended Posts

  • Admin

Rightly or wrongly he was never charged with murder, just culpable homicide - sadly in South African law, that is how it goes

Thought it was sneaky how he was released a day earlier than announced - clearly in an attempt to catch the waiting press out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He won't be tagged, has to stay in his uncles luxury house and will be encouraged to seek employment. He will be free to go to this employment, perhaps athletic training and be able to go to church too. He won't be allowed out in the evenings. Punishment fit the crime, even culpable homicide?

There are still moves to get the case looked at again and increase the sentence to murder, tv says he could be back inside very soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I now realise I was being a bit naive but I assumed that house arrest meant he had to live in a house full time and could only stay in the grounds of that house.  Amazing that you can kill someone and effectively be free after one year. 

I am all for rehabilitation but this all seems a bit too soft even for a liberal like myself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of his conditions of his release into house arrest is indeed that he has to meet with her family, at a time when they are ready, to enable him to address what he has done. Apparently also the terms and conditions applicable to him can be changed at any time if deemed necessary.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He won't be tagged, has to stay in his uncles luxury house and will be encouraged to seek employment. He will be free to go to this employment, perhaps athletic training and be able to go to church too. He won't be allowed out in the evenings. Punishment fit the crime, even culpable homicide?

There are still moves to get the case looked at again and increase the sentence to murder, tv says he could be back inside very soon.

Let's hope so. I haven't seen a shred of evidence that suggests he didn't deliberately fire through the door at her because they'd had a row and he was enraged that she'd locked herself in the bathroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's hope so. I haven't seen a shred of evidence that suggests he didn't deliberately fire through the door at her because they'd had a row and he was enraged that she'd locked herself in the bathroom.

 That's not really the right way to be looking at it though to be fair. It should be a case of proving that it was genuine murder and not manslaughter, which the prosecution, ultimately, were unable to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 That's not really the right way to be looking at it though to be fair. It should be a case of proving that it was genuine murder and not manslaughter, which the prosecution, ultimately, were unable to do.

The evidence stacks up to murder. if you thought you'd accidentally shot someone you loved you wouldn't deny to an enquirer that there had been any disturbance, and you wouldn't spend the next 40 minutes making phone calls to friends. To my mind it was proved and I doubt an English jury would've accepted an alternative charge of manslaughter.

Unfortunately it didn't go to a jury, but was before a judge with rather dubious qualifications but red hot political connections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The evidence stacks up to murder. if you thought you'd accidentally shot someone you loved you wouldn't deny to an enquirer that there had been any disturbance, and you wouldn't spend the next 40 minutes making phone calls to friends. To my mind it was proved and I doubt an English jury would've accepted an alternative charge of manslaughter.

Unfortunately it didn't go to a jury, but was before a judge with rather dubious qualifications but red hot political connections.

Didn't know about the denial, is this true? The phone calls to friends could well be explainable mind, in a panicky way you'd want someone close to you to be with you at that sort of time. 

But yeah, on the one hand the prosecution were unable to ultimately prove murder, that is a fact. On the other hand, South Africa isn't the most reliable country in terms of corruption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't know about the denial, is this true? The phone calls to friends could well be explainable mind, in a panicky way you'd want someone close to you to be with you at that sort of time. 

But yeah, on the one hand the prosecution were unable to ultimately prove murder, that is a fact. On the other hand, South Africa isn't the most reliable country in terms of corruption.

Pistorius lived in a gated community with an armed guard on 24-hour patrol. Another householder phoned the guard and reported hearing shots from Pistorius's home. Yet when the guard rang the athlete he was told 'it's ok, nothing has happened'.

Had you accidentally shot your girlfriend through a locked door, getting help would be anyone's first response. 

That's just a micron of the evidence against the man which all builds up to a compelling case for murder that, if it was put before the courts in this country, I don't think even the CPS could stuff up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎24‎/‎10‎/‎2015‎ ‎13‎:‎37‎:‎27, Red-Robbo said:

Pistorius lived in a gated community with an armed guard on 24-hour patrol. Another householder phoned the guard and reported hearing shots from Pistorius's home. Yet when the guard rang the athlete he was told 'it's ok, nothing has happened'.

Had you accidentally shot your girlfriend through a locked door, getting help would be anyone's first response. 

That's just a micron of the evidence against the man which all builds up to a compelling case for murder that, if it was put before the courts in this country, I don't think even the CPS could stuff up.

He said he thought it was an intruder , which begs the question,   Is it justifiable to take the life of a burglar ?

Another thought , you hear a noise in your house ,is n't the first thing you do is wake your partner to avert them of  a possible danger ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Major Isewater said:

He said he thought it was an intruder , which begs the question,   Is it justifiable to take the life of a burglar ?

Another thought , you hear a noise in your house ,is n't the first thing you do is wake your partner to avert them of  a possible danger ?

Indeed. You have to believe that someone was downstairs opening the windows at night because they felt hot then, hearing a noise from the toilet, they rush upstairs to get their semi-automatic rifle failing to notice that their partner isn't in bed next to where they keep the gun. They then go downstairs "shout a warning" and start spraying the bathroom with bullets on the basis that maybe an intruder had got past the wall and guard, scaled an exterior wall to their home, squeezed through a minute window and was for some reason lurking in the khazi. 

 

What really happens: dangerously trigger-happy and violent bloke has row with girlfriend over jealousy issues which have been prompted by her seeing an ex-. She runs to bathroom to escape the row and shuts door. Incensed he gets his gun and fires randomly through locked door. He then panics and as she bleeds to death in the loo, phones his best mate to ask him what sort of story he can concoct. Guard who had shots and screaming reported to him by neighbour, phones bloke who tells him "everything is fine".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw earlier the decision was going to be made today. I usually can guess which way cases go, but with this it could have gone either way after the verdict last time. I think now justice has righted itself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 31/10/2015, 11:49:19, Red-Robbo said:

Indeed. You have to believe that someone was downstairs opening the windows at night because they felt hot then, hearing a noise from the toilet, they rush upstairs to get their semi-automatic rifle failing to notice that their partner isn't in bed next to where they keep the gun. They then go downstairs "shout a warning" and start spraying the bathroom with bullets on the basis that maybe an intruder had got past the wall and guard, scaled an exterior wall to their home, squeezed through a minute window and was for some reason lurking in the khazi. 

 

What really happens: dangerously trigger-happy and violent bloke has row with girlfriend over jealousy issues which have been prompted by her seeing an ex-. She runs to bathroom to escape the row and shuts door. Incensed he gets his gun and fires randomly through locked door. He then panics and as she bleeds to death in the loo, phones his best mate to ask him what sort of story he can concoct. Guard who had shots and screaming reported to him by neighbour, phones bloke who tells him "everything is fine".

Also, one thing that bothers me:

If it's the middle of the night and I either wake up or have to nip downstairs for a drink, then I hear a noise in the bathroom, the first thing that would go through my mind would be "oh, the mrs has gone the bathroom" . The "that must be a burglar" default is a big leap and without checking her whereabouts? Just doesn't wash.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Super said:

Great news what it should of been in the first place.

 

5 hours ago, RedM said:

I saw earlier the decision was going to be made today. I usually can guess which way cases go, but with this it could have gone either way after the verdict last time. I think now justice has righted itself. 

These are big statements to make.  What evidence was there to be certain he intended to murder her?

I can concede that it didn't look good, but that's not enough to find someone guilty of murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Collis1 said:

 

These are big statements to make.  What evidence was there to be certain he intended to murder her?

I can concede that it didn't look good, but that's not enough to find someone guilty of murder.

Think about it, even if you believed that you had an intruder locked in your bathroom, there is no way you could know whether that person was armed, so indiscriminately peppering the bathroom with bullets has to be murder or let me put this another way  let's just say for instance that the police had done what Pistorious did especially here in the UK, what would Mr Corbyn and you be calling it?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Think about it, even if you believed that you had an intruder locked in your bathroom, there is no way you could know whether that person was armed, so indiscriminately peppering the bathroom with bullets has to be murder or let me put this another way  let's just say for instance that the police had done what Pistorious did especially here in the UK, what would Mr Corbyn and you be calling it?.

:laughcont:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Think about it, even if you believed that you had an intruder locked in your bathroom, there is no way you could know whether that person was armed, so indiscriminately peppering the bathroom with bullets has to be murder

You have never lived in Johannesburg or Pretoria I'm guessing?

I know you are being factious but to compare the Pistorious case with UK law is embarrassingly amateur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Collis1 said:

You have never lived in Johannesburg or Pretoria I'm guessing?

I know you are being factiouus but to compare that situation with UK law is embarrassingly amateur.

What is embarrassingly amateur is ignoring the law of the land, which is broadly the same in South Africa and the UK, what Pistorious did could never be described as self defence and what you are suggesting is summary execution, trying to base an argument on the difference in violence between South Africa and the UK is frankly embarrassingly amateur and I am not being facetious at all, it's the law of the land and that land was South Africa, you cannot have it all ways, what Pistorious did was shoot to kill, remember that?. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

What is embarrassingly amateur is ignoring the law of the land, which is broadly the same in South Africa and the UK, what Pistorious did could never be described as self defence and what you are suggesting is summary execution, trying to base an argument on the difference in violence between South Africa and the UK is frankly embarrassingly amateur and I am not being facetious at all, it's the law of the land and that land was South Africa, you cannot have it all ways, what Pistorious did was shoot to kill, remember that?. 

:clap:

"Bravo EMB, well said - the voice of reason".

"Booooooooo, Collis1"

:disapointed2se:

 

Uncle TFR

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...