Oscar Pistorius Trial part 9

[JillJ72]

Starting a new thread as part 8 is nearly full, here - www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/2080468-Oscar-Pistorius-Trial-Part-8

I think the sentance was spot on. I'm surprised that so many posters are so certain they know what happened. No one can ever know. I think both senerios are plausible.
I hope Reeva's family are ok with the sentance.
I can understand Oscars story - having recently lived in South Africa for many years in a similar secure housing compound in a similar area I can relate to the fear of home invasion. It has nothing to do with being burgled in the UK. They carry out the most awful violent attacks and can torture their victims. It's the stuff of nightmares. Nearly all my South african friends carried guns. . If you look up the crime statistics for South Africa you can see it's not an unreasonable worry. You don't live in compounds surrounded by razor wire and armed security men fun.

It's perfectly reasonable to assume a home invader was armed and about to kill you.

Sorry for typos

Latecomer to the thread, just reading out of interest following the media coverage of sentencing.

I don't know SA law, but surely this would be murder in UK law. He intentionally (by which I mean, not involuntarily) fired the gun into a small room because he thought that someone was in there.

In some bizarre way, I feel that the evidence the prosecution presented that OP is trigger happy (and the firearms charges against him) in fact contributed to the idea of his recklessness taking hold - but recklessness is a legal term of art and one of many unfortunate cross overs with a term used much more colloquially.

I think, as many commentators have said, that it is the law that is at fault here, not the judge (and goodness knows UK homicide law is a mess too). Homicide needs a technical language of its own, rather than trying to impose a technical meaning onto emotive, subjective words (intent primary among them). As well as a clearer, graded system of offences.

If anyone wants to feel a lot crosser, read this indefensible article by Simon Jenkins in the Guardian. It left my jaw on the floor.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/21/oscar-pistorius-jail-sentence-imprisonment

Someone mentioned oscars dogs earlier. I have no clue about oscars dogs but it is typical for dogs to be kept outside in South Africa. Intruders routinely kill any dogs as a lot of dogs are trained as guard dogs.

AskYourselfWhy Anyone who has listened to the evidence is perfectly entitled to form their own opinion. That's how human minds work. It's not about being "certain".

Yes, SA is very dangerous - but that he thought there was an intruder is not the hard to believe part. It's the not talking to Reeva when she was awake and in the same room, making no effort to make sure she was safe, choosing to walk screaming down a pitch black passage to confront an armed intruder, walking past rather than escaping through a door, walking past rather than spending a few seconds putting on the legs that would have made him less vulnerable, shooting FOUR times merely for hearing a noise.

And the evidence of the state of his bedroom shows that either the police were involved in wholesale tampering or he is lying. Since the judge found no evidence of tampering, then we are left with lying.

Personally, I don't believe him - but that's not the point. What I think is irrelevant.

By his own admissions he killed a human being because he heard a single unthreatening noise. I don't believe any civilised society considers that acceptable and it bothers me a bit that people are attempting to justify it.

5 years in prison, probably only serving 10 months, is pathetic, IMO.

And anyone anywhere is entitled to their view on this. I hope that Reeva's parents can find peace and closure too, but justice is the purview of everyone, not only those directly involved.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/remember-reeva-steenkamp-and-the-thousands-of-other-women-killed-by-men-every-year-9727469.html

RespecttheChemistry

I don't think its possible to hear an 'unthreatening' noise in the middle of the night in South Africa. If Oscar believed there were home intruders in his house he would have been scared for his life. Of course he would not have walked away, left his girlfriend and turned his back on where the 'extremely threatening' noise was coming from.

It's never acceptable to kill another person but if you had live in South Africa there is not much sympathy towards home intruders and armed robbers who get killed. Thankfully, more cases are coming to court where intruders or robbers have been killed in cold blood but generally it is not something that people worry about . There are too many other things to worry about in South Africa.

My maid was held up by armed robbers 3 times in 4 years. She had a gun held to her face. She was also 'relieved' of her belongings by the police on two occasions.

I really don't know if OP is guilty or not but his story rings true to me.

If he was that scared for his life, why not leave? Isn't the first instinct of anyone to get the hell away from serious, life-threatening danger?

And, sorry, but who in their right minds chooses to let an armed intruder, that they can't see, know they are coming for them by screaming their heads off?

He shot four times. That's the crux of this. Every other example of case law where people have inadvertently shot family members involves one shot. One.

Those extra three shots are the difference between "I was scared and startled" and "I shot to kill". This cannot be justified, no matter how dangerous SA is...which I fully accept.

Gun ownership comes with laws. He should not have been in that bathroom, according to the law...he should have taken every step he could to avoid confrontation. He didn't - he chose murder instead.

Sorry, I don't think that's OK. And people behaving like that is why accidents happen. The law is there to protect people.

A woman ended up dead, for goodness sake, because she went to the toilet. No amount of "I was scared because I heard a window open and forgot to check it was my awake girlfriend" justifies that. None.

That's if we believe his story and ignore the evidence of the bedroom, the smashed up bathroom, the phone on charge downstairs, the horrifying female screams occurring simultaneously with male yells.

I hope this is appealed, and I hope the State win.

If he was that scared for his life, why not leave?

Because he had a gun.

I don't know what I believe about OP but I do believe that countries with widespread ownership of guns make a mockery of 'gun laws'. The only gun law is the law that prohibits them.

Oh, and I don't think "People have no sympathy for armed intruders" is even slightly relevant here.

There was no intruder, let alone an armed one - and the law is the law, regardless of public opinion about what intruders deserve.

Going in gung ho shooting people without knowing what, if any threat they pose, is a crime. A serious one.

Reeva died because Pistorius broke every gun law in existence. But that's OK, because he was scared?

Worth adding that most of SA, in spite of what you're saying, thinks he's a murderer. It's something like 80%.

Yes, RootyPig he had a gun. That's why he didn't leave...because he wanted to use it. Making him a murderer.

All I was responding to was the idea that you would flee or hide from an intruder - imo a gun would change that entirely. I am not saying that OP did not commit murder. if you read my earlier post - quite the opposite.

askyorselfwhy. Don't waste your energy. What on earth would someone who lived in SA and actually experienced the fear of crime and knows personally how dangerous the country is, know about anything? Especially in the face of such stunningly self opinionated beliefs expressed by respecthechem who must live in some kind of parallel universe which only operates in the way she dictates. It's definitely not the real world!

I can't even be bothered to refute some of the obvious inaccuracies apart from to wonder where the evidence is to back up the '80% of SAs believe OP guilty' assertion. And even if it were correct the judges who were presumably far more intelligent than most of us did not.

NoMary why do you assume posters here are basing their opinions purely on thoughts from outside of SA?

NoMary there's space for different opinions. None of us were there so no-one has a 'monopoly' on what happened that night.

Also, you might want to read the earlier threads to see how many posters have experience of SA, of being caught up in robberies, of living in areas with guns, of working in parts of Africa that are even more volatile than SA. Or, if you don't have time to read the other 8 threads then you might want to respectfully consider that all of the above are posting here.

NoMary

You realise that they have newspapers in SA? TV shows? Access to the internet to use discussion forums? Twitter?

I have read hundreds (literally) of comments from people living in SA now who do not see things the way that this one anonymous MumsNetter does. So, do excuse me if I do not immediately assume that she knows better than anyone else!

I am certain that Judge Masipa is very intelligent. But so are the law professors and practitioners who are certain she made very serious, fundamental errors.

Even intelligent people can make mistakes.

It could not be proven to Masipa's satisfaction that he knew it was Reeva...and that is fair enough. She has to be very sure. But that does not make him innocent...and even she said he was basically a liar and his story made no sense.

But maybe it does to someone who would commit murder because of an imaginary machete rather than call for help...like the law instructs.

Thought those of you on this thread would be interested in this

here

I'm pleased, I think appealing is the right call.

Appeal has been entered

"Judge Masipa "erred in over-emphasising the personal circumstances of the accused and the fact that the accused was suffering from post-traumatic stress, was anxious and 'seems remorseful'.

"Not enough emphasis was placed on the horrendous manner in which the deceased died coupled with the gruesome injuries she sustained when the accused shot and killed her," Nell said."

I agree with that.

The appeal hearing scheduled 9th December

Glad to see that's it's not another few months to wait and it's getting dealt with very soon.

Judge Masipa has given leave to the state to appeal the conviction, and the appeal will be heard in the Supreme Court this year. Anyone know what form this will take?

She didn't give leave to appeal the sentence, although I assume if his conviction for manslaughter is overturned and he IS found guilty of murder, then he would be re-sentenced.

Another quirk of the SA judicial system to me, to give the original judge the power to decide on an appeal proceeding based on their judgment.

I thought that Spotty. Surely it would have made more sense for another judge to review to case & then hear the appeal than to have them explaining to her why she was wrong! She could quite easily have turned round & said she didn't think she was wrong & just dismiss the appeal!

I'm glad there's going to be a second opinion on the case & I also assume that the sentence will be reconsidered if he were convicted of a higher charge.

Have her parents said anything about this latest development? It must be so draining for them to have it dragged out like this!