To think that if you murder your partner, you should be considered to be dumped?

[BalloonSlayer]

From BBC website:

A South African court has increased Olympic athlete Oscar Pistorius's jail sentence for killing his girlfriend to 13 years and five months.

How about "Murderer of Reeva Steenkamp has his sentence doubled."

I mean, do they think that if for some reason Reeva hadn't been killed that they would still be together?

How bloody dare they call her his girlfriend?

His girlfriend = 14 characters
Reeva Steencamp = 15 characters

[BatteredBreadedOrSouthernFried]

it was never proven that he intended to kill Reeva.

Wasn’t his conviction changed to murder from (the SA equivalent of ) manslaughter? Which would imply intent.

[AlongStoryShort]

Yes, intent to kill whoever was in the toilet. Not specifically intent to kill Reeva.

[AlongStoryShort]

Believe me, I followed that case every day as I was off work sick. I know what I thought.
Judge Masiba initially ruled manslaughter.
That was upgraded to murder on appeal, as he would have had to know that he would have killed whoever was in the toilet.
It was never proven that it was Reeva he intended to kill.

[Pumperthepumper]

Why can’t they say ‘he killed Reeva Steenkamp’ though? He’s a murderer nonetheless, is their relationship important to the fact he killed her?

[AnnieAnoniMouse]

Because, until the very moment she was killed, she was his girlfriend. That’s who he killed, his girlfriend. Not some random woman. It’s equally reported that a Woman killed her Husband. It’s fact filling, nothing more.

[DJBaggySmalls]

Yanbu, her name is not 'more graphic', and its less sensational.

[AnnieAnoniMouse]

Of course their relationship is an important fact in the reporting.

[AlongStoryShort]

Odd case to follow, not sure if SA law differs from ours. I would have thought that if you murdered someone, even if you didn't know who that person was (apparently), then you'd be found guilty of murder of that person specifically.
Masiba ruled manslaughter initially which shocked everyone as she thought that he might not have known that the shots he fired could have killed whoever was in the toilet.
Appeal ruled that there was no way that he could not have known that the shots he fired would have murdered the person in the toilet.

In my mind, Reeva will never get justice because the ruling is that he murdered an apparently unknown person. Not that he intentionally murdered her. That's just my opinion though.

[LipstickHandbagCoffee]

What does professionally offended mean does it mean temerity to ask uncomfortable q
I counter perhaps one who thinks folk are professionally offended is In fact professionally offensive

[Chrys2017]

When he killed her, she was still his girlfriend. So, he killed his girlfriend. The headline is correct.

[sleeponeday]

Uh, well, that's a bit long for a headline.

It's one letter longer than the one they used. How in the world is it not too long to call the woman he murdered, "his girlfriend" but suddenly "uh" worthily long to call her by, you know - her name?

Look, I take your point and I see that you're annoyed about the whole thing (rightly), but news outlets have a lot of limitations on what and how they report stuff, particularly relating to legal cases. You are on a hiding to nothing by demanding that it's reported in the way you want.

Tosh. Utter, unadulterated tosh. He was convicted of murder. That means he is a murderer. It's perfectly legal to call someone by the term, post conviction. You might as well argue that you can't call Rose West or Ian Huntley murderers in headlines.

[AlongStoryShort]

Valentine's day too.
My first beating from my ex was on Holy Thursday. Next beating was Valentine's day. Quite the romantic.

[Eltonjohnssyrup]

It's the best way to describe her which gets across some very important information about Reeva's position in the case. Reeva was a victim of domestic violence. She also had every right to be where she was when she was killed and was doing nothing wrong.

If she was described as 'ex-girlfriend' or 'presenter' it might imply that Reeva shouldn't have been at his house or was an unwelcome visitor. It would also downplay the role of domestic violence in the incident by pretending they weren't in a relationship when they were.

The very fact she is described as 'girlfriend' shows exactly how awful what he did was, because the killing involved such a big breach of trust from someone she trusted enough to be alone in bed with.

If the 'girlfriend' role was downplayed it would just make Pistorius look better. Like he'd just shot some random instead of the woman he was supposed to love and protect.

[sleeponeday]

He murdered her, because he was convicted of murder. That's perfectly accurate. The headline that really would be too long is, ""Murderer of Reeva Steenkamp (though he may or may not have thought some random person was in that toilet at the point he shot them to kill) has his sentence doubled".

There's no legal requirement that someone convicted of murdering someone else has to have the reason the victim may not have been personally targeted spelled out in every headline. Especially on a British website over which the SA courts have no jurisdiction.

[AlongStoryShort]

He murdered Reeva Steenkamp, but it was never proven in court that he intended to murder her. What was proven (on appeal) was that he intended to murder whoever was in the toilet. It's a random nuance of law, but that's what happened. I watched the case every day.

[AlongStoryShort]

Elton - the conviction totally eliminates any suggestion that he knew she was in the toilet and that he intended to kill her.

[sleeponeday]

Eltonjohnssyrup the fact they didn't name her definitely plays down what he did, to me. It eliminated her from the headline altogether, outside her relationship with him.

The whole world knows what happened. They know she was his girlfriend when he killed her. She deserves to have her name used, IMO, and not to be described solely in terms of her connection with her killer.

[AlongStoryShort]

To me, that's the real injustice in this case.

[Chrys2017]

@AlongStoryShort I followed the trial too, and the bit I missed was—if it actually had been an intruder in the toilet as Pistorious believed, would it still have been murder?

[Gileswithachainsaw]

I'm with you op

Use her name. Don't just address her as an anonymous person tied to "the real star"

[Eltonjohnssyrup]

I agree her name should have been used. But I think that girlfriend alongside it is okay.

sleep does it actually rule it out? Have you got a link to the info on that? I thought it was just on the basis it couldn't be proven he didn't know it was her. Nobody really believes he didn't know it was her though do they?

[ferrier]

But let's suppose it's the other way around. The victim is the famous woman and the murderer is her boyfriend - the headline would be eg. '(name of famous woman)'s boyfriend has jail sentence increased. The newspaper.gains attention with the famous person's name, be they male or female, murderer or victim.

[Pumperthepumper]

Eltonjohnsyrup yes, you’re right. It does downplay domestic violence if they don’t mention they had a relationship, of course it does. She had every right to be in his apartment at that time. I apologise.

[AlongStoryShort]

Chrys, under SA law, even if it had been an intruder, it was murder, as he would have known that the five shots would have killed whoever was in there. That was only proven on appeal.

The initial ruling was manslaughter. I.e. that he wouldn't have known that the shots he fired would have killed whoever was in the toilet. That shocked most of the world.

What was never proven was that he knew it was Reeva in the bathroom and that it was her he intended to murder.

[AlongStoryShort]

There was a lot of evidence of the type of bullets he used and video coverage of him blowing things apart in 'practice', which went a long way to eventually prove murder as he would have known what the bullets were capable of.