...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.

[BeyondCymru]

Of course he isn't appealing - he's somehow got half of the minimum sentence and only a year longer than he had already

Under, do you know what the book is called?

[UnderTheGreenwoodTree]

Beyond, it's mentioned in this Telegraph Article

"The book, Oscar vs The Truth, was written by brothers Calvin and Thomas Mollett, amateur sleuths who have previously examined other controversial cases in their native South Africa."

[gonetoseeamanaboutadog]

Less of the word 'little' please...call him what you like but leave the disability out of it.

[LuluJakey1]

He is a little man- he is narrow minded, self-obsessed, dominated by his ego and nothing else, selfish and a liar. That is a little man.

[gonetoseeamanaboutadog]

Yes but in the context, it's a bit too convenient and says more about the speaker than him, frankly.

[LuluJakey1]

And frankly, he is a man who used his disability throughout the trial to try to engender sympathy and excuse his actions in murdering her. Says more about him than the speaker, frankly.

[BeyondVulvaResistance]

"Horrible little man" is a standard insult, isn't it? Is it related to disability in the first place or just an uncomfortable coincidence?

[gonetoseeamanaboutadog]

Well, it's probably not worth a long conversation, but IMO I would stay away from such coincidences, not because of Oscar particularly but because of who I want to be and the stance I take on disability. Disability is something you make accommodations for regardless of circumstances. I don't want to contribute in any way to a society that is soft on using a person's disability to slam them, regardless of what they've done. So I would choose a different word, it's not hard.

[gonetoseeamanaboutadog]

I'm also not aware that he used his disability. I understood him to be saying that his disability made a difference to how he evaluated the risk to himself and his ability to defend himself and Reeva. It also made a vital difference in terms of physically being able to do the things he was accused of doing.

For example, without prosthetic limbs it is very, very difficult to imagine him being able to overpower an able bodied person with a cricket bat - something that the prosecution eventually didn't claim he had done (and if there was any evidence of it they would have done).

It was necessary for him to talk about his disability partly because the prosecution thought it was important to set up a narrative in which he was wearing his prosthetic limbs and not therefore not disabled. So no, I don't think he used it as far as I'm aware. Even if he had done, I still think it would be low to slam anyone in terms of their disability even by 'accident'. It would say a lot about the speaker.

[BeyondVulvaResistance]

And your entire post sums up why my stance was
"I am very uncomfortable with the potential precedent set by this. I think it minimises the believability of real cases (like eg Gary McKinnon), as everyone knows Pistorius is just trying it on"

He snivelled and cried and played the poor me disabIlity card. And as a disabled person I think that is fucking disgusting.

[BeyondVulvaResistance]

Cheers for this little (sorry) bit of advice though:
"Disability is something you make accommodations for regardless of circumstances"

[gonetoseeamanaboutadog]

beyond You sound as if you think yourself a victim and in a position to decide how 'valid' other people's disabilities are and how other disabled people should behave. Without logical basis.

Last time I checked, crying does not negate a disability.

I was severely disabled for a number of years - there isn't much I don't know about it. I also know enough not to ever try and decide that someone else isn't 'really disabled'.

If you don't think disability should always be accommodated regardless of how 'deserving' the person is, I feel sorry for you.

[UnderTheGreenwoodTree]

beyond You sound as if you think yourself a victim and in a position to decide how 'valid' other people's disabilities are and how other disabled people should behave.

No, Beyond really, really doesn't sound as if she thinks that.

You, on the other hand, are defending a murderer.

[BeyondVulvaResistance]

Cheers under, I did read back my posts a few times and wonder where that had come from

[gonetoseeamanaboutadog]

Well, perhaps it was a leap to think you sounded like a victim. I could think of no other explanation for the breathtaking audacity you showed in deciding that he wasn't really disabled in any valid way and had used his 'disability' by trying to gain sympathy and bringing it into a context where it was irrelevant. You judged him harshly for doing this, without evidence, and you referred to the fact that you had a disability to justify doing so. A victim complex seemed the most likely explanation for such madness. I retract it.

I'm not defending anyone as such but it bugs me to see bigotry. I know as much as anyone else regarding what he is guilty of (which is next to nothing about his intent, which I believe constitutes the difference between murder and self-defence in the context of a house invasion) and don't think his gender comes into it. His disability, given the context of self-defence, was relevant in my opinion. I think the judge did a good job but that has nothing to do with my feelings for Reeva or her family. Go figure.

[UnderTheGreenwoodTree]

He's been convicted of murder - dolus eventualis, in a court of law, where the burden of proof was on the prosecution. So yes, we do know about his intent to kill. Still, I'm sure you'll post another longwinded post about how it's bigoted to call a convicted murderer a murderer.

[iminshock]

Gone you are the voice of reason here. I agree 100% with you

[gonetoseeamanaboutadog]

Thanks Imin

No I won't Greenwood. I don't have enough respect for you to do so.

[amarmai]

I have been reading greenwood' contributions on mn for years and def respect her povs , which I usually agree with. I cannot say the same about some other people's.

[BeyondVulvaResistance]

"deciding that he wasn't really disabled in any valid way"

Please quote me.

[UnderTheGreenwoodTree]

Thanks armarmai

[Owlytellsmesecrets]

Would you all feel the same way about the prosecution if it was a burglar?
Why on earth would a man in his position kill his immensely popular girlfriend?
I think you'd feel pretty sorry for yourself too with lots of sad faces if you had killed your partner accidentally and lost her. Then to go to prison for murder, when it was an accident!

[BeyondVulvaResistance]

Owly, he had been found guilty of murder.
I don't think it is unreasonable for us, from that little fact, to assume he is guilty of murder.