...to feel terrible for Reeva Steenkamp's parents as once again her murderer Oscar Pistorius has been sentenced to far less than the mandatory minimum?

[Proginoskes]

I've just watched the sentencing live. He was sentenced by the same judge who erred in the first case and caused it to be sent back for review. Supposedly the mandatory minimum for murder, the crime for which he was convicted, is fifteen years, however Judge Thokozile Masipa gave him...six. Six years for pumping four high-powered rounds through a bathroom door at a person whose identity he claimed not to know, a person who he knew had nowhere to hide from those rounds. To top it all off as Reeva Steenkamp's poor parents sat there they had to hear their daughter repeatedly referred to as "the deceased" without even the courtesy and dignity of her name.

I do hope there's a procedure for judicial recall in SA and this judge gets to go through it. So much blatant favouritism through both trials and sentencing phases, it makes me ill.

On the other Pistorious thread, someone has said that Gerrie Nel has tweeted that she's been paid off by his family...

Would you be "allowed" to say that in the UK about a judge? O would you be in contempt of court or done for libel?

I'm sure the rules are different in SA, but it does make you wonder of he knows something to back that up, and that's why he's happy to say it...

I also think that it's difficult for a non-disabled person to know how self-defence is different if you can't run away and you know that you can't run away. Everything you do to protect yourself has to be done before the conflict because once it begins you have no chance. In South Africa it is common to die in a burglery. If you think there are thieves in your house, your are looking at a threat to your life, no doubt about that. If you are standing a few feet high and can't even stand properly alone without holding onto something, let alone wield a weapon, you would be wise to know that your chance is before they get into the room. Before we comment on the rightness or wrongness of that I would just like to say that when someone is in your home and you think you are protecting yourself and your girlfriend, you don't stand around moralising about it.

On the other Pistorious thread, someone has said that Gerrie Nel has tweeted that she's been paid off by his family

I suspected this since the trial began. It's just disgusting😡

gone whether there were holes in the prosecution's case or not is irrelevant. Pistorious was found guilty of murder and should have been sentenced accordingly. The country's minimum term for murder is 15 years. I hope the overly lenient sentence can be challenged.

So corrupt and wrong. They eyes of the world are watching South Africa's "justice" system and thinking the same.

That's a fake gerrie nel Twitter account

He was found guilty of murder in a rather ridiculous way and the judge's sentence reflects this. He meant to kill someone but the law in the UK recognises that there are different contexts for this that give the action different meanings. If you kill someone because you think they have broken into your home and are a threat to your life, it's different to killing someone who poses no threat to you. So it's not irrelevant and she knew this.

gone it's no good looking back and talking about his disability, whether he thought someone was in the toilet, whether he thought it was Reeva, or anything. I think there were more holes in his case than a string vest TBH.

As Hoose says he is guilty of murder and should be sentenced accordingly.

From the SA Press about Judge Masipa's ruling -
“For 99% of what I have attended to and listened to in her judgment I am quite satisfied that she considered everything in law that was supposed to be considered, the case law, she made a good analysis of what the requirements are before sentencing is handed down etc etc. However, the 1% that I can criticise is actually the end conclusion. And the only reason I base that is because seeing that the minimum sentencing act requires her to hand down a sentence of 15 to 20 years for a first time offender, she deviated to such an extent from that requirement that’s set by the legislator almost nine years if you start calculating at absolute minimum that the legislator requires her to hand down as a guideline”

Now, that in itself is more than sufficient reason if you ask me for Advocate Gerrie Nel to seriously consider lodging a request for leave to appeal within the next 14 days. Obviously, the mere fact that Judge Masipa herself immediately after the court proceedings and sentence suggested that she is even amicable to listen and attend to a request for leave to appeal today suggest that in her mind also she expects some kind of possible appeal from the State side at least.”

I doubt Reeva's family have the stomach for it TBH.

And anyone watching South Africa's justice system would be very naive to expect justice.

There were more holes in the prosecution's case than a string vest - they just gave up in the end really. Their narrative didn't check out on any level. It just makes no sense at all. Why would a disabled man who could only walk slowly and painfully on his stumps not put his prosthetics on if he was angrily going into a combat situation? Why would he struggle up a corridor if there was any time at all to put his prosthetics on? The only reason he would, in my view, have failed to do so was because he genuinely believed that he didn't have time.

I think the Gerrie Nel on twitter is a spoof account.

Personally, having listened to the evidence in the fully broadcast trial, I conclude that his 'story' is a crock of shit. I can't believe Masipa fell for it - as I thought Nel did an excellent job of showing it was absolutely nonsensical. I simply don't accept that you can grab a gun from under the bed, and then stalk down a corridor "screaming and shouting" and shoot into a toilet without realising your girlfriend was not in the bed that you retrieved your gun from underneath.

She also disregarded a lot of evidence that I thought was important - his ex-girlfriend for example, who said he was frightening and possessive, had a hot temper and definitely did not scream like woman.

gone "UK law" (do you mean English as Scottish law is different?) is also completely irrelevant in this case.

I always put very little credence in the views and opinions of someone who continously pops up on threads where men have committed awful crimes against women and constantly posts in defence of the men.

Judge Masipa was starstruck from the beginning, hence the manslaughter verdict in the original trial.

During the two day sentencing hearing for murder, the Guardian on its live coverage reported this:

Judge Masipa intervenes: she wants to know more about the prison psychologist report.

It says that at the beginning he struggled to adapt to prison life and was verbally violent, she says.

It doesn’t say anything about him being violent in nature.

I feared for the outcome as soon as I read it. I could see which way Judge Masipa's wind was blowing.

gone I think your analysis is seriously fallacious.

The State didn't give up. From the indictment itself it is abundently clear that they knew the case for him knowing it was Reeva would not be easy to prove. All the evidence was circumstantial - although most of it was compelling.

"Error in persona is not a defence to murder" it said on the indictment. And they were right to say that....the SCA vindicated them and agreed.

The fact remains that, whoever Pistorius thought was there, he was still a murderer because he was not under threat, had no credible reason for thinking he was, used disproportionate violence (four shots) and ignored all of the guns laws that he was schooled in.

The very fact that SA has a problem with violence does NOT excuse any person for behaving as Pistorius did....in fact, it's exactly why the self defence laws are so very stringent. Violence begets violence.

That man heard a vague sound in his bathroom. Didn't trouble to properly ensure it wasn't the person who shared the bathroom with him...simply grabbed his gun, headed to confront someone, heard a noise and then fired four times into a box.

If that is not murder, I don't know what the hell is.

And, frankly, if you think the most likely explanation those horrific, haunting female screams four people heard at around the time a woman got murdered were made by her male murderer hobbling down a passage in the still of the night to confront an intruder, then I have a bridge you might like to buy.

It's impossible to prove/solve this case fairly when only one of the two people who know what actually happened is still alive. If he didn't mean to kill Reeva I think he would be less bothered about going to prison, imagine killing your partner who you love, accidently, personally I'd be so repulsed by my stupidity I'd be grateful for the punishment - how would you live with yourself? In my opinion money has changed hands somewhere - either that or Pistorius's family know about something they shouldn't and are using it as a bargaining tool. Corruption must be at the route of this sentence - poor Reeva and her poor parents, they must know corruption is at the route of this.

All the evidence was circumstantial - although most of it was compelling.

What was compelling was the circumstantial evidence underpinning the key moments in their narrative fell away on closer scrutiny.

Virtually nothing could have happened the way they said it could. That's why it was 'difficult' to prove. Had it really happened, it wouldn't have been so difficult to prove because the evidence would have supported it.

The cricket bat. Why didn't they bring that up? Because there was not evidence to show it was used any way than how Oscar said it was used.
The crucial matter of whether Oscar was wearing prosthetic limbs. Expert evidence showed that wrong so it became 'difficult' to prove he was not as defenceless as he claimed.
The jealous boyfriend narrative became 'difficult' to prove because the text they believed they would find on Reeva's phone wasn't there.
The drug-fuelled maniac become 'difficult' to prove because the pills they'd assumed were 'drugs' were in fact a legal supplement that bore no relation to what they'd assumed.
The witnesses who reported hearing a woman's voice turned out not to be as reliable as they hoped.

It all became very, very difficult to prove.

Well gone, I'm glad your consistent.

Defending murderers of women with the same gusto that you jump to the defence of rapists with.

Bravo.

he was not under threat

It's easy to say that now. Go and live in South Africa, surrounded by daily stories of rape, thieving and casual murder (I love SA by the way, not knocking it but it's a bad place to feel relaxed in - I averaged at least one break-in every three weeks during my time there). Try being disabled to begin with, as I was - you know you haven't a chance if they come out of that door. And if they're in there, chances are high they will come out with a gun, rape you and your girlfriend and quite possibly kill you both.

If this was genuinely Oscar's frame of mind - and it seems the most plausible narrative to me in the absence of any prosecuting narrative that was supported by the evidence - I can understand why he cracked and panicked. It simply didn't occur to him that his girlfriend wasn't lying, terrified, on the floor as he'd instructed. It seems plausible to me that she heard his cry that there was someone in the room and was staying silent for that reason.

But no, in that environment, shooting an intruder isn't 'murder' IMO. It's manslaughter because you are in a situation in which you are very likely to be killed. Not saying he should have done it or that it was a balanced, justified thing to do. But murder, as in what the prosecution tried to suggest he had done? No.

As for haunting cries - I don't know. I think Oscar has the highest pitched cry of any man I heard - could easily have been him.

I take it gone is also a fan of that Brock one? The rapist who can also swim?

Slim hope that in jail this murdering piece of shit if shoved into a loo, mistaken for an intruder and blown to bits. Every cloud eh

If he didn't mean to kill Reeva I think he would be less bothered about going to prison

He was determined not to go to prison for murder because he does not believe he 'murdered' Reeva insofar as he didn't mean to kill her. He always stated that he was willing to go to prison for manslaughter and is not at all sure he 'deserves' to live.

aye I am consistent in wanting everyone, regardless of gender, to have a fair hearing. It's irrelevant to me that he is a man and she is a woman - and it should be to you as well.

Thanks for talking about me as if I wasn't there hoose. No, I'm fucking well not a fan of Brock and don't you dare suggest it.

You have a real thing for defending criminals who happen to be sportsmen, don't you gonetoseeamanaboutadog?

He's had a bloody fair hearing - certainly more than most. He's a convicted murderer. Six years is pitiful.

Yep, also a fan of the guy who snuck into a dark room where a drunk women was when her partner had left the bedroom, and pretended to be her partner and had sex with her knowing she thought he was someone else.

Best not to engage.