Oscar Pistorius

GoingUp said:

Wow, judge said he CANNOT be found guilty or murder or premeditated murder.

Click to expand...

Nathan said:

Why go for lunch, then just do 30 minutes after lunch. Adjourned for the day now.

Click to expand...

KZNSeagull said:

How can the judge say that he could not foresee that someone could die when talking about murder, but he could have foreseen that someone could die when talking about culpable homicide? At least she has said that he does not pass the reasonable man test and that he was negligent and reckless.

Click to expand...

Bold Seagull said:

"she said he could not have foreseen killing whoever was behind the toilet door." as with you I am baffled by this, how can someone NOT foresee killing someone when firing four shots into a confined space? There is no logic to Masipa's interpretation here. Surely anyone firing a gun through a door into a tiny room can foresee they are likely to kill the person on the other side. It's completely unreasonable to suggest otherwise. The murder charge appears to have swung on her reading of this.

Does this really mean anyone in South Africa can shoot someone within their home and basically say they made a mistake!? Frightening.

Click to expand...

Bob! said:

Are they still at Lunch?

Click to expand...

Bob! said:

Are they still at Lunch?

Click to expand...

KZNSeagull said:

Apparently, Oscar could not foresee that shooting 4 shots through a toilet door into a room 1m by 1.5m may kill whoever was behind there. Balls, is what I say to that.

Lots of lawyers and ex judges here commenting that her reasoning for this finding is rather weak, as she appears to have based it upon his immediate reaction to witnesses after the event (ie "I thought it was an intruder"). Dunno if there is grounds for appeal here?

So not guilty of murder then but not got off yet. Culpible Homicide will be based on the reasonable person test - ie would a reasonable person have reacted in the same way he did. I hate to think of the reaction if she says yes, a reasonable person would act like that.

Click to expand...

Bold Seagull said:

"she said he could not have foreseen killing whoever was behind the toilet door." as with you I am baffled by this, how can someone NOT foresee killing someone when firing four shots into a confined space? There is no logic to Masipa's interpretation here. Surely anyone firing a gun through a door into a tiny room can foresee they are likely to kill the person on the other side. It's completely unreasonable to suggest otherwise. The murder charge appears to have swung on her reading of this.

Does this really mean anyone in South Africa can shoot someone within their home and basically say they made a mistake!? Frightening.

Click to expand...

Hamilton said:

It's totally mad isn't it. How to make a society unsafe - justify indiscriminate actions.

The state will have to appeal against this otherwise there's going to be a lot of dead people behind toilet doors in South Africa.

Click to expand...

Vegas Seagull said:

Too much reliance on one person, the reason why we have a Jury and why the person running the show is not always the best person to sit back, observe And make the final decision.
Championship boxing follows strategy with good reason

Click to expand...

KZNSeagull said:

One of the SA law journalists has tweeted that she has now been told that the difference in law is that if he did foresee that he would kill someone, then that is murder. If he did not, which is what Judge is saying, then not murder. If a reasonable person should have foreseen this, then it is culpable homicide.

Essentially then, the Judge has believed Oscar's story, even though in court he admitted that he knew that firing into the door may result in someone's death and that he was a "very poor witness". She even said that any story that involved arming himself and taking the safety catch off but he was not intending to fire were "absurd".

This is going to run and run. A retired judge on the TV has said that he is struggling to get his head around her reasoning, and he has 40 years legal experience. His main point is that justice must be SEEN to be done here and at the moment, if he cannot understand it, then the general public cannot either. Some lawyers are convinved that she has made a mistake in law.

She has pretty much intimated that he is guilty of culpable homicide. I sincerely hope he gets a long sentence, as the consequences of a lenient sentence are not worth thinking about. I feel extremely sorry for the Steenkamps today as they must be feeling even more wretched, if that is possible.

Click to expand...

KZNSeagull said:

Don't agree. There are far too many people here that insist that he is completely innocent. The question of Jury trials here is still very difficult due to race and gender issues mainly - as the retired Judge said on tv earlier, if there were a Jury determining this, you may as well just roll a dice. The court system here is still very good and if a mistake in law has been made, the Supreme Court will sort it out.

Click to expand...

Vegas Seagull said:

Condescending for others to say that any Jury cannot give a measured decision. I have served twice and found all round sensible, considered decisions. Has this judge or you ever served as Jurors? If not, you are making incorrect assessments based purely on guesswork

Click to expand...

Hamilton said:

Perhaps she's taking it down a line whereby she can put him away for 15 years minimum with very little likelihood of his appeal succeeding i.e. go for the sentence with the path of least resistance.

Click to expand...