Pistorious Trial

[Phil D. Rolls]

Fascinating to see the way the prosecutor is taking Oscar to bits. His tears at the start of the week just sound like self pity now, and he seems to refuse to accept responsibility for anything.

[lapsedhibee]

Fascinating to see the way the prosecutor is taking Oscar to bits. His tears at the start of the week just sound like self pity now, and he seems to refuse to accept responsibility for anything.

:tsk tsk:

[Phil D. Rolls]

:tsk tsk:

Sorry folks, I didn't think of how that might read.

[Pete]

He's a rich, white national hero.

It's time to end this charade and just let him go.

[Sir David Gray]

The trial's not looking good for him at the moment.

The prosecuting lawyer is tearing him to shreds.

His explanation of what happened in the restaurant is really nonsensical.

I still don't think he deliberately shot Reeva Steenkamp but I think a guilty verdict is looking quite likely at the moment. The prosecution is showing Oscar Pistorius to be someone who is a gun fanatic and also someone who is quite reckless when in possession of a firearm and I think that might be enough to convict him.

Still can't quite believe that this is the same man I had lunch with back in 2009 when he visited Scotland.

[Future17]

Fascinating to see the way the prosecutor is taking Oscar to bits. His tears at the start of the week just sound like self pity now, and he seems to refuse to accept responsibility for anything.


:tsk tsk:


Sorry folks, I didn't think of how that might read.

It reads absolutely fine and there is certainly no need for you to apologise. I'd be intrigued to know why lapsedhibee felt the need to make his comment? :confused:

[stoneyburn hibs]

It reads absolutely fine and there is certainly no need for you to apologise. I'd be intrigued to know why lapsedhibee felt the need to make his comment? :confused:
Humour :confused:

[lapsedhibee]

It reads absolutely fine and there is certainly no need for you to apologise. I'd be intrigued to know why lapsedhibee felt the need to make his comment? :confused:

Honestly, you can't even post a howdareyouuseapossiblyambiguousphrasewithoutthorou ghlyconsideringthepotentialfeelingsofeveryoneelseo ntheplaneteitherbornorasyetunborn smilie on an internet forum without being pulled up for it!

[Phil D. Rolls]

It reads absolutely fine and there is certainly no need for you to apologise. I'd be intrigued to know why lapsedhibee felt the need to make his comment? :confused:


Humour :confused:

I didn't think it was funny, or offensive. I thought it had the potential to upset somebody so, it was as well pointing that out, so we could move on with talking about the trial.

So, LapsedHibbie, oi poot eet two yew, thet yew werr wel aweyah thet peepel moit........(continues for weeks and weeks)

[Beefster]

A relatively interesting opinion piece on Pistorious's defence.

http://criminallawza.net/2014/04/13/pistoriuss-new-defence/

[RyeSloan]

A relatively interesting opinion piece on Pistorious's defence. http://criminallawza.net/2014/04/13/pistoriuss-new-defence/

I think it sums up very well the confusion of Pistorious's defence....I think he has struggled to convey why he would shoot anyone 4 times behind a locked bathroom door, even if it was an intruder...he's now morphing into suggesting he didn't intend to fire the gun at all, which considering he fired more than one round seems a bit strange.

All in all his story has always sounded like he knew what he was doing but regretted it the moment his rage subsided...totally my opinion based on the reports I have read so hardly fully informed but I'm expecting him to be convicted of murder simply down to the fact he can't clearly articulate what exactly prompted him to fire the shots.

[Pretty Boy]

I still don't comprehend the idea that, knowing his partner was in the house, his 1st reaction upon hearing a noise from the bathroom was to blindly fire 4 shots at the door.

Nothing he has said so far has come close to explaining why his first assumption would be that it was anyone other than his girlfriend.

[calumhibee1]

I still don't comprehend the idea that, knowing his partner was in the house, his 1st reaction upon hearing a noise from the bathroom was to blindly fire 4 shots at the door.

Nothing he has said so far has come close to explaining why his first assumption would be that it was anyone other than his girlfriend.

That about sums it up for me. Although the South African police don't sound like they've been very clever in there handling of the case either which I'm not sure if that could end up with him maybe getting away with it? Like SiMar said above, I think he's done it, then instantly regretted it. The burglar story is nonsense IMO.

[SuperAllyMcleod]

I think it sums up very well the confusion of Pistorious's defence....I think he has struggled to convey why he would shoot anyone 4 times behind a locked bathroom door, even if it was an intruder...he's now morphing into suggesting he didn't intend to fire the gun at all, which considering he fired more than one round seems a bit strange.

All in all his story has always sounded like he knew what he was doing but regretted it the moment his rage subsided...totally my opinion based on the reports I have read so hardly fully informed but I'm expecting him to be convicted of murder simply down to the fact he can't clearly articulate what exactly prompted him to fire the shots.

What is really annoying me is that the media never seem to mention that it's not ok to shoot an intruder. It's irrelevant who was behind the door, he fired four shots to kill them, therefore murder is the only possible verdict.

If you have a gun and an intruder locked in the bathroom then a simple shouted warning for them to stay put until the police arrive should be sufficient.

[Beefster]

I think it sums up very well the confusion of Pistorious's defence....I think he has struggled to convey why he would shoot anyone 4 times behind a locked bathroom door, even if it was an intruder...he's now morphing into suggesting he didn't intend to fire the gun at all, which considering he fired more than one round seems a bit strange.

All in all his story has always sounded like he knew what he was doing but regretted it the moment his rage subsided...totally my opinion based on the reports I have read so hardly fully informed but I'm expecting him to be convicted of murder simply down to the fact he can't clearly articulate what exactly prompted him to fire the shots.

That's my [admittedly ill-informed] take on it. While not on the same scale, his hissy fit at the Olympics suggests that he can lose a bit of control/perspective when angered. There have been other examples coming up during the trial.

If he gets away with it, Mrs Beefster better watch herself if she ever needs a pee in the middle of the night.

[Jonnyboy]

The Prosecutor constantly referred to a 'tailored' response to his questions. I take that to mean what I've thought from the bits we've heard in that he has rehearsed his answers with his defence team. I don't like to think he murdered the lassie but I'm pretty well convinced he did.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I'm not sure he'll be able to cope in prison if/when he is found guilty, he is so used to the adulation and being fawned over, I think he may well top himself.

[Hibrandenburg]

I'm not sure he'll be able to cope in prison if/when he is found guilty, he is so used to the adulation and being fawned over, I think he may well top himself.

Is that a reason not to jail him? :dunno:

[sleeping giant]

I'm not comfortable with court cases being televised in the slightest.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Is that a reason not to jail him? :dunno:

Did someone suggest it was? Must've missed that post.

[heretoday]

I think the whole thing is a disgusting charade played out for the world's cameras.

We risk bringing that sort of scenario into our own courts at our peril.

Make no mistake. Any media organisation advocating televising court proceedings in this country is only after sensation and increased advertising revenue.

The courts are already open to the public to view as they wish.

Without editing.

[Hibrandenburg]

Did someone suggest it was? Must've missed that post.

Wow, only asked a question!

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Me too!

[Mixu62]

Interesting speaking to some South Africans at work. We really can't comprehend the level of paranoia about home invasion over there. And gun ownership is such an accepted fact of life. Not saying he's innocent, just adding some context.

[EH6 Hibby]

Interesting speaking to some South Africans at work. We really can't comprehend the level of paranoia about home invasion over there. And gun ownership is such an accepted fact of life. Not saying he's innocent, just adding some context.

Anyone who has seen Louis Theroux's Law and Disorder in Johannesburg would understand it. I was genuinely disturbed after watching that.

[Sylar]

I think it's quite difficult for us here in the UK to comprehend his actions. Having lived in the US for a while, in an area where gun ownership is relatively high, the right to shoot to kill in the name of defense of property and person is just not something I could get my head around. But it's everywhere.

Whilst not a defense, it's also difficult as able bodied folks to say what actions are acceptable/not acceptable for someone with a physically limiting disability, in a state of fear and possession of a firearm. If he was, as he suggests (and the evidence appears to support) on his stumps, it stands to reason (no pun intended, seriously) his heightened state combined with the firearm culture could both have played a part.

What I struggle to square is that he managed to pass the bed where he thought Reeva was sleeping and didn't notice she wasn't there. I think his regret/contrition is genuine but I am starting to doubt his innocence, despite my willingness to believe he didn't murder her in cold blood! Like Trig, I met him when he was here in 2012 after he finished one of his rounds at the Dunhill Links (one of the caddies in his group of 4 was a friend of mine) and over a few drinks in the bar, he seemed a genuinely nice and well rounded individual.

Either way, the chance of him not going to jail is infinitesimally low IMO - even if he gets off with the murder charge, South African law than have to consider culpable homicide or manslaughter, both of which still carry jail terms. No way he'll escape all 3 IMO.

[Hibrandenburg]

I think it's quite difficult for us here in the UK to comprehend his actions. Having lived in the US for a while, in an area where gun ownership is relatively high, the right to shoot to kill in the name of defense of property and person is just not something I could get my head around. But it's everywhere.

Whilst not a defense, it's also difficult as able bodied folks to say what actions are acceptable/not acceptable for someone with a physically limiting disability, in a state of fear and possession of a firearm. If he was, as he suggests (and the evidence appears to support) on his stumps, it stands to reason (no pun intended, seriously) his heightened state combined with the firearm culture could both have played a part.

What I struggle to square is that he managed to pass the bed where he thought Reeva was sleeping and didn't notice she wasn't there. I think his regret/contrition is genuine but I am starting to doubt his innocence, despite my willingness to believe he didn't murder her in cold blood! Like Trig, I met him when he was here in 2012 after he finished one of his rounds at the Dunhill Links (one of the caddies in his group of 4 was a friend of mine) and over a few drinks in the bar, he seemed a genuinely nice and well rounded individual.

Either way, the chance of him not going to jail is infinitesimally low IMO - even if he gets off with the murder charge, South African law than have to consider culpable homicide or manslaughter, both of which still carry jail terms. No way he'll escape all 3 IMO.

My first thought if I suspected there were burglars in my house would be my family. Only after I'd made sure they were safe would I even contemplate going after the burglars. The whole story has been made up to fit the case put forward by the prosecution.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I think it's quite difficult for us here in the UK to comprehend his actions. Having lived in the US for a while, in an area where gun ownership is relatively high, the right to shoot to kill in the name of defense of property and person is just not something I could get my head around. But it's everywhere.

Whilst not a defense, it's also difficult as able bodied folks to say what actions are acceptable/not acceptable for someone with a physically limiting disability, in a state of fear and possession of a firearm. If he was, as he suggests (and the evidence appears to support) on his stumps, it stands to reason (no pun intended, seriously) his heightened state combined with the firearm culture could both have played a part.

What I struggle to square is that he managed to pass the bed where he thought Reeva was sleeping and didn't notice she wasn't there. I think his regret/contrition is genuine but I am starting to doubt his innocence, despite my willingness to believe he didn't murder her in cold blood! Like Trig, I met him when he was here in 2012 after he finished one of his rounds at the Dunhill Links (one of the caddies in his group of 4 was a friend of mine) and over a few drinks in the bar, he seemed a genuinely nice and well rounded individual.

Either way, the chance of him not going to jail is infinitesimally low IMO - even if he gets off with the murder charge, South African law than have to consider culpable homicide or manslaughter, both of which still carry jail terms. No way he'll escape all 3 IMO.

In a sense, I can see how an Adreniline rush would explain his story. But I struggle to see why he can't explain that now. Over to the defence.

[easty]

I'm sitting listening to the closing arguments on the BBC website.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-28684915

Tell you what, the prosecutor doesnt have the charisma of Keanu Reeves in The Devils Advocate, or Matthew McConaughey in The Lincoln Lawyer.

[wpj]

I'm sitting listening to the closing arguments on the BBC website.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-28684915

Tell you what, the prosecutor doesnt have the charisma of Keanu Reeves in The Devils Advocate, or Matthew McConaughey in The Lincoln Lawyer.

Agreed, he put me to sleep earlier with his delivery, apparently there will be 3-4 weeks before the verdict, that's a lot of summing up. Also no jury but a judges decision "with assistance" interesting way to do it but not sure I would be happy with that process (if innocent)

[Mr White]

Agreed, he put me to sleep earlier with his delivery, apparently there will be 3-4 weeks before the verdict, that's a lot of summing up. Also no jury but a judges decision "with assistance" interesting way to do it but not sure I would be happy with that process (if innocent)
It does seem strange but after my experience on a jury 4 years ago I'd probably prefer to take my chances with a judge's decision than be at the mercy of a group containing several members who had made their decision before a word had been spoken in court (also assuming innocence and an impartial judge who manages to stay awake http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28498362 )

[calumhibee1]

It does seem strange but after my experience on a jury 4 years ago I'd probably prefer to take my chances with a judge's decision than be at the mercy of a group containing several members who had made their decision before a word had been spoken in court (also assuming innocence and an impartial judge who manages to stay awake http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28498362 )

:agree: I done jury duty a few years ago, and ultimately the guy on trial was guilty as sin and was found as such on all charges. However, we had three older woman on our jury, one of which had decided the guy was guilty as soon as she heard it was a rape case, and another 2 who had decided on his guilt when they seen him because "he looked dodgy as hell". This was before a single piece of evidence had been given.

[Sylar]

Verdict being delivered just now - prolonged review of the case, evidence and testimonies just now.

[RyeSloan]

Using my powers of remote deduction and having seen none of the live trial it has to be guilty surely!?

[Sylar]

Early doors, it's sounding promising for the defence...

[Kato]

Using my powers of remote deduction and having seen none of the live trial it has to be guilty surely!?

Going by what the judge is so far I wouldn't bet on it, unless she comes to a "however" moment.

[Sylar]

We appear to be going into a 'however' moment now, as his action has been deemed to be a conscious decision that did not lack criminal capacity.

[Sylar]

Not guilty of premeditated murder. State haven't convinced beyond a doubt and evidence mostly circumstantial.

[Geo_1875]

What a farce!!!

[Beefster]

Cue a few night-time domestic murders around the world.

"I thought it was an intruder, honest..."

[Sylar]

Sounding like he's going to be 'guilty' of culpable homicide as he's been deemed to have failed the reasonable man test.

[Pretty Boy]

I understand the not guilty for pre meditated murder but not guilty of 2nd degree murder?

He fired a gun through a door 4 times having taken no reasonable steps to ensure he was aware of the identity of the person on the other side. That must be intent to kill.

If that isn't murder then I don't know what is.

[Sylar]

I understand the not guilty for pre meditated murder but not guilty of 2nd degree murder?

He fired a gun through a door 4 times having taken no reasonable steps to ensure he was aware of the identity of the person on the other side. That must be intent to kill.

If that isn't murder then I don't know what is.

The argument presented was that he did not fire (based on the entry holes and trajectory of the bullets through the door) where he would reasonably expect an intruder to be (as, if he did suspect it were an intruder, he wouldn't have had due cause to suspect they were sitting on the toilet). It would have been reasonable to expect any intruder to be standing behind the door, preparing to come through it and so there was no strong evidence of intent.

However, you fire a gun with black tallon ammunition four times into a restricted space before seeking to clarify the identify of the person or resorting to 'softer' approaches first (such as calling for help from security/police) and you're culpable for their death.

I can't see him getting off with culpable homicide but I think the time he'll serve will be under house arrest.

[RyeSloan]

Bizarre comments from the judge:

"How could the accused reasonably have foreseen that the shot he fired would kill the deceased?" she said.

"Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility, that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time."

He left the bedroom (empty) to fire the shots did he not?

He fired 4 bullets (special type) into a confined space.

Yet he had no foresight that could allow him to think that would be enough to kill someone nor that the person behind the door might be the person currently NOT in the bedroom.

Very strange. Sure he will go down for culpable but none the less wives and girlfriends in SA will be sleeping a lot less soundly tonight I would imagine!!

[s.a.m]

I thought her citing his distress after the incident, as an indication that he hadn't known it was her, was a bit odd.
If I completely lost the place and killed one of my loved ones, I'm pretty sure I'd be capable of genuine remorse and grief once I came to my senses, and realised what I'd done.

[snooky]

I understand the not guilty for pre meditated murder but not guilty of 2nd degree murder?

He fired a gun through a door 4 times having taken no reasonable steps to ensure he was aware of the identity of the person on the other side. That must be intent to kill.

If that isn't murder then I don't know what is.

Alas, you've forgot about the "Get me out of here I'm a celebrity" card.

[NAE NOOKIE]

I understand the not guilty for pre meditated murder but not guilty of 2nd degree murder?

He fired a gun through a door 4 times having taken no reasonable steps to ensure he was aware of the identity of the person on the other side. That must be intent to kill.

If that isn't murder then I don't know what is.

With you PB ....... If you thought someone was in the house and you were carrying a Fk off big gun you would at least shout 'who is in there?' before you started blasting away through the door. Especially if your girlfriend was in the house.

Which brings me to another point .... if he thought there was danger why didn't he try to wake Reeva up? .... even if he didn't try to wake her, how the hell did he not notice she wasn't in the bed?. If it was me the first thing I would do would be to turn the lights on. If he did think Reeva was up and he was so afraid and so sure danger to life was present that he armed himself, why didn't he shout a warning to her before he got to the bog.

I smell OJ

[Wembley67]

Sad part for me is if he was black he would be deep in a cell already.

Good to see the judge will have a nice new shiny Ferrari delivered though.

[Pretty Boy]

The more I read the less I understand how he has been cleared of common law/2nd degree murder. The judges comments seem contradictory.

For common law to be convicted he either had to intend to kill the person behind the door or know someone could be killed and still fire. Even allowing for the stirring/standing position debate, firing 4 times into a confined space surely suggests someone could be killed. On one hand the judge say 'the accused had the intention to shoot, not kill' and 'clearly he did not objectively foster this was a possibility he would kill the person behind the door.' Yet on the other hand she says 'the accused had reasonable time to think and conduct himself reasonably, the accused knew there was someone behind the door, he chose to use a firearm which is a lethal weapon, was competent in the use of firearm as he had received training.' Following this with 'the accused acted too hastily and used excessive force' before summing up his conduct as 'negligent'.

So someone trained in firearm use who gave no warning shout, was aware someone was in a confined room discharged a lethal weapon 4 times yet he didn't consider this might kill the person on the other side of the door and even though he fired multiple times he had no intention to kill and was merely negligent?

Sorry full of contradictions and doesn't add up to me. Screams of someone trying to desperately try to find reasons for returning the lowest possible guilty verdict possible.

[Pretty Boy]

Also to further continue the 'foster the possibility he could kill' theme. The judge ruled the evidence that stated a woman screamed as 'uncorroborated' therefore she has said this evidence is unreliable. So Pistorius fires a gun into a room and there is no scream of 'stop it's me your girlfriend' or even just a general scream, bear in mind the judge has ruled that the evidence of there being a scream is unreliable, and he proceeds to fire 3 more shots rather than think he may have hit the person and injured them seriously/fatally with the 1st shot?

If a bullet flies past your head and missed surely you scream?

[easty]

The more I read the less I understand how he has been cleared of common law/2nd degree murder. The judges comments seem contradictory.

For common law to be convicted he either had to intend to kill the person behind the door or know someone could be killed and still fire. Even allowing for the stirring/standing position debate, firing 4 times into a confined space surely suggests someone could be killed. On one hand the judge say 'the accused had the intention to shoot, not kill' and 'clearly he did not objectively foster this was a possibility he would kill the person behind the door.' Yet on the other hand she says 'the accused had reasonable time to think and conduct himself reasonably, the accused knew there was someone behind the door, he chose to use a firearm which is a lethal weapon, was competent in the use of firearm as he had received training.' Following this with 'the accused acted too hastily and used excessive force' before summing up his conduct as 'negligent'.

So someone trained in firearm use who gave no warning shout, was aware someone was in a confined room discharged a lethal weapon 4 times yet he didn't consider this might kill the person on the other side of the door and even though he fired multiple times he had no intention to kill and was merely negligent?

Sorry full of contradictions and doesn't add up to me. Screams of someone trying to desperately try to find reasons for returning the lowest possible guilty verdict possible.

Totally agree PB. Yesterday morning I was convinced the common law conviction would be what he received. Now? I've no idea.

[Sylar]

Not guilty on one of the counts of firearm offenses (unrelated to the murder).

[Sylar]

Not guilty on one of the counts of firearm offenses (unrelated to the murder).

...and guilty on the other (restaurant).

[Sylar]

Not guilty of murder.
Guilty of culpable homicide.
Not guilty of firearms offense 1.
Guilty of firearms offense 2.
Not guilty of possession charge.

[Sylar]

Non-custodial sentence expected according to the South African legal expert on Sky.

[RyeSloan]

Amazing definition of negligent from the Judge....leaving your front door unlocked is negligent, firing 4 special type bullets through a locked door into a confined space that you knew someone is in surely demands a rather different description...

[Pretty Boy]

Non-custodial sentence expected according to the South African legal expert on Sky.

Brilliant.

So you can fire a gun loaded with black talon ammunition, take no reasonable steps to warn the person on the other side and take no steps to ascertain the identity of the person on the on the other side. You can do all that and a judge will rule you couldn't have foreseen you might kill someone and there's a decent chance you won't even go to jail.

Tell you what nobody should ever piss me off then go to the toilet every again.

[snooky]

Brilliant.

So you can fire a gun loaded with black talon ammunition, take no reasonable steps to warn the person on the other side and take no steps to ascertain the identity of the person on the on the other side. You can do all that and a judge will rule you couldn't have foreseen you might kill someone and there's a decent chance you won't even go to jail.

Tell you what nobody should ever piss me off then go to the toilet every again.

All is Barry. Constipation is a thing o' the past in your hoose :greengrin

[Geo_1875]

Not guilty of murder.
Guilty of culpable homicide.
Not guilty of firearms offense 1.
Guilty of firearms offense 2.
Not guilty of possession charge.

Totally unbelievable result. And more unbelievable explanation of the law from the judge.

Apparently he was unlawfully in possession of ammunition but had no intent to be in possession? I must try that the next time the police are going through my pockets.

And as far as the murder verdict in regard to intent. That may be accurate after the first bullet. maybe even after the second bullet. But he fired four times into a confined space. Not with an automatic weapon, not with a semi-automatic weapon. This was four separate, single shots. No intent my arse.

[Sylar]

Totally unbelievable result. And more unbelievable explanation of the law from the judge.

Apparently he was unlawfully in possession of ammunition but had no intent to be in possession? I must try that the next time the police are going through my pockets.

And as far as the murder verdict in regard to intent. That may be accurate after the first bullet. maybe even after the second bullet. But he fired four times into a confined space. Not with an automatic weapon, not with a semi-automatic weapon. This was four separate, single shots. No intent my arse.

Not to come over as a pedant (as it's an important fact IMO) but it was a semi-automatic 9mm Taurus pistol he used.

[The Gorf]

They were asking why he has sold his house. Pretty obvious it was to pay off mi'lady.

[LALthehibeeGAL]

some comments which sum up my opinion and save me typing it all !!! :agree:

He got away with it.
You hear a sound that makes you go for a gun, yet you don't wake the person in bed next to you?
The judge was taken in by the case, and Pistorius celebrity status, it all seems to have gone to her head.
Poor judge, poor verdict.

Although they differed slightly in their account of the incident both witnesses agreed Pistorius fired his gun through the car sun roof, yet she dismissed their evidence and acquitted him. Very strange.

Oh man!! watch this man boast about getting off for murder ..... he wont serve the maximum sentence of 15 years for manslaughter! He showed no emotions this man ... he is heartless to say the least ...

crying yesterday, smirking today.

out in seven years , plenty of time to write a book and make plenty of money.

feel very sorry for Ms Steenkamps parents and friends it all seems to be about Oscar,
not the real victim,
Hope they get some comfort from whatever justice is served

taking the other charges into account it appears this guy was an accident waiting to happen,he appears a very arrogant person

Personally never believed a shred of OPs story. If I thought an intruder was in my house the first thing I'd do is make sure my wife and children were ok and where they were, not start firing 'randomly' at any slightest noise in the house. As another poster stated this sets a very dangerous precedent when it comes to cases of domestic violence or protecting your property.

The way the case has gone and the manner in which the murder charges have been astoundingly dropped makes the subject of Reeva Steenkamp and the firing of a gun irrelevant. The culpable manslaughter is based on an unlawful killing of a subject that the accused wasn't aware of whom he was killing. ( In other words an unintentional killing) The same charges relate to a speed boat or motor vehicle accident where persons are killed. I'd will be very surprised if he gets more than seven years in jail.

He can certainly switch the emotions on and off can't he?
Feeling sorry for himself and unable to look her mother in the eyes.

Lal:wink:

[LALthehibeeGAL]

They were asking why he has sold his house. Pretty obvious it was to pay off mi'lady.

:agree:

Lal:wink:

[DaveF]

Sky News (I think?) reporter said tonight that there is a chance he might walk away with something as little as community service citing an example of a SA footballer who beat a traffic warden \ cop to death and received that sentence.

Not sure how long ago that was though, as I can't find any online story to back that up.

[Beefster]

They said on Five Live last night that Pistorius was out partying on Thursday night after being cleared of both murder charges, despite it looking highly likely he was about to be found guilty of culpable homicide.

Sounds like he's wracked by guilt.

[Pretty Boy]

There were reports yesterday he has already enquired about running at Rio in 2016 and the IOC said there is no reason he can't.

He's obviously not expecting any serious jail time.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Feeling pretty sick about this verdict. Hopefully the ******* will get a hard time wherever he goes.

[cabbageandribs1875]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29700457

South African athlete Oscar Pistorius has been jailed for five years for killing his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.

Judge Thokozile Masipa, issuing the ruling in court in Pretoria, also gave Pistorius a three-year suspended sentence for a firearms charge. Pistorius has been taken to the cells.


what an excellent result for him, could be out in 8 months with good behaviour, then well on his way to becoming a multi-millionaire with the book publishers, sickening :agree:

[Geo_1875]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29700457

South African athlete Oscar Pistorius has been jailed for five years for killing his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.

Judge Thokozile Masipa, issuing the ruling in court in Pretoria, also gave Pistorius a three-year suspended sentence for a firearms charge. Pistorius has been taken to the cells.


what an excellent result for him, could be out in 8 months with good behaviour, then well on his way to becoming a multi-millionaire with the book publishers, sickening :agree:

Seems very lenient and they are already giving him a release date. Hopefully it'll turn into the longest 8 months of his life when he finds out his arse is not just an exit.

[Hibs Class]

Seems very lenient and they are already giving him a release date. Hopefully it'll turn into the longest 8 months of his life when he finds out his arse is not just an exit.


Not sure if this is a poor attempt at humour or not, but either way it's not acceptable.

[Allant1981]

Not sure if this is a poor attempt at humour or not, but either way it's not acceptable.

Not acceptable to hope a convicted murderer gets whats coming to him, i hope he gets worse, he took a life for no reason what so ever

[steakbake]

The Steenkamp family have said they are satisfied with the outcome. That being the case, so should we all be.

[wpj]

The Steenkamp family have said they are satisfied with the outcome. That being the case, so should we all be.

They are very forgiving, not sure I could be in the Sam circumstances

[hibsbollah]

The writing was on the wall for a verdict like this as soon as the judge made the bizarre decision to call it manslaughter (or culpable homicide specifically) not murder. The victim was shot multiple times in a toilet without any other exits, the intention was clearly to kill and hence murder, to my mind uneducated in the complexities of south African law, is the only logical charge.

[heretoday]

I can't help thinking that if he was an unknown wee man from one of the townships he'd have got life.

Pistorius could be out in 10 months. It's outrageous.

[blackpoolhibs]

When he gets out where will they put the tag?

[Peevemor]

When he gets out where will they put the tag?


Oooooof!

[DH1875]

South African prisons aint nothing like the prisons here. Very dangerous places for rich white guys. Already had threats made against him so he's gonna have to be very careful.

[Moulin Yarns]

South African prisons aint nothing like the prisons here. Very dangerous places for rich white guys. Already had threats made against him so he's gonna have to be very careful.

The exercise area would be fun to watch.

[hibsbollah]

http://m.ewn.co.za/2013/05/15/axe-man-moyo-gets-triple-life-sentence

The same judge gave this guy a 252 year sentence.

[hibsbollah]

South African prisons aint nothing like the prisons here. Very dangerous places for rich white guys. Already had threats made against him so he's gonna have to be very careful.

Its already been announced he'll be held in a secure hospital, not a typical jail, for the 10 months.

[Betty Boop]

The Steenkamp family have said they are satisfied with the outcome. That being the case, so should we all be.

Hard to believe they took monthly payments from Pistorius during the trial, seems strange.

[silverhibee]

The whole trial and sentencing has been an absolute farce, as for the judge, bet she won't run out of brown envelopes any time soon.

[steakbake]

Hard to believe they took monthly payments from Pistorius during the trial, seems strange.

I suppose justice takes many forms. It doesn't have to revolve around the crowd's thirst for vengeance. I've read as many editorials in SAfrican papers which see this as a sensible application of the options the judge had before her as criticise it.

One argument goes that had they pursued the murder charge, the way the investigation was conducted might have made making those stick very difficult. She's closed down the realistic options for a defence appeal.

I think the sentence is definitely light based on how I feel about the case, but that's inconsequential. The judge went into great detail about similar cases before reaching her conclusion. Not sure where te criticism of the judge is coming from apart from a sense that she should have thrown the book at him.

As a lawyer mate says and as I've said before on here, courts aren't there to dish out subjective forms of justice: they are there to make a sensible application of the law.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Its already been announced he'll be held in a secure hospital, not a typical jail, for the 10 months.

By no means a soft option.

[Betty Boop]

I suppose justice takes many forms. It doesn't have to revolve around the crowd's thirst for vengeance. I've read as many editorials in SAfrican papers which see this as a sensible application of the options the judge had before her as criticise it.

One argument goes that had they pursued the murder charge, the way the investigation was conducted might have made making those stick very difficult. She's closed down the realistic options for a defence appeal.

I think the sentence is definitely light based on how I feel about the case, but that's inconsequential. The judge went into great detail about similar cases before reaching her conclusion. Not sure where te criticism of the judge is coming from apart from a sense that she should have thrown the book at him.

As a lawyer mate says and as I've said before on here, courts aren't there to dish out subjective forms of justice: they are there to make a sensible application of the law.


I understand all that, however can't get my head round them accepting blood money, which now they are apparently going to pay back.