Log in:  

Register

Oscar Pistorius

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Moderators: peloton, Irondan, Eshnar, Alpe d'Huez, Red Rick, Tonton, Pricey_sky

11 Sep 2014 19:37

Simple:
The rich prevailed. OJ did, now Pistol Man did, even (high positioned) gang members in Germany come away with murder.*

We have to live with it: Most judical systems suck beyond help. If you have no(t enough) money you are in the hands of the judge like the old roman fighters were in the hand of "thumb up thumb down Ceasar".
OTOH, if you are rich (or a diplomat in a foreign country), you can do whatever you want.

But after all, I think the US (of all systems :eek:) is the best of all those bad ones. I´d rather try my luck with 12 men/women, than one corrupt and/or dumb judge.

* There was a police officer shot to death trou a closed door of the mobsters home. The killer got trou the trial unharmed as the judge called it "self-defence". :eek: One of the biggest judicial scandals in Germany (and there are many). Every walking person with a single brain cell knows that judge was either paid or blackmailed or both.
User avatar FoxxyBrown1111
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,379
Joined: 15 Jun 2009 12:35
Location: Germany

11 Sep 2014 19:40

The sun will rise in the west before the day comes when Foxxy writes a post that does not contain a direct or indirect reference to Germany :D
"Doping doesn’t just even the playing field. It throws everyone’s chip back into a bag and you pull out a new one. Sometimes it makes you a god, other times, you hardly get much better." - Steve Tilford
kingjr
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,145
Joined: 09 Sep 2012 18:53
Location: Germany

11 Sep 2014 19:52

kingjr wrote:The sun will rise in the west before the day comes when Foxxy writes a post that does not contain a direct or indirect reference to Germany :D


The whole GGTG thread is full of posts with no relation to Germany. :)
User avatar FoxxyBrown1111
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,379
Joined: 15 Jun 2009 12:35
Location: Germany

11 Sep 2014 20:08

I think if one uses what Merckx concluded fairly logically, steps back and thinks with Occam's Razor about what did happen, the most likely scenario is this:

They got into a big fight. He grabbed the shotgun. She ran into the bathroom and locked the door. He shot through it and killed her.

Why this? It's known they fought a lot. It's known he had a very hot temper. It's known he was somewhat of a gun nut. It's presumed he was abusive to her.

Is this exactly what happened? No one knows. But this is what makes most sense. Thus he didn't commit premeditated murder. In the US we would call this 2nd degree murder, and he would serve anywhere between 10-30 years in prison for it, depending on the State, background, and other factors.

But the judge ruled against the equivalent of that. But she also stated that he "acted too hastily and used excessive force" and that, "It is clear that his conduct was negligent". This puzzles me. She either believes his story, for the most part (how, I don't know), or is she saying the gun went off on accident? Four times?

I guess we'll know tomorrow!
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Administrator
 
Posts: 9,751
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

11 Sep 2014 21:23

Alpe d'Huez wrote:I think if one uses what Merckx concluded fairly logically, steps back and thinks with Occam's Razor about what did happen, the most likely scenario is this:

They got into a big fight. He grabbed the shotgun. She ran into the bathroom and locked the door. He shot through it and killed her.

Why this? It's known they fought a lot. It's known he had a very hot temper. It's known he was somewhat of a gun nut. It's presumed he was abusive to her.

Is this exactly what happened? No one knows. But this is what makes most sense. Thus he didn't commit premeditated murder. In the US we would call this 2nd degree murder, and he would serve anywhere between 10-30 years in prison for it, depending on the State, background, and other factors.

But the judge ruled against the equivalent of that. But she also stated that he "acted too hastily and used excessive force" and that, "It is clear that his conduct was negligent". This puzzles me. She either believes his story, for the most part (how, I don't know), or is she saying the gun went off on accident? Four times?

I guess we'll know tomorrow!


It wasn't a shotgun, it was a pistol. But more important, premeditated murder is defined differently in SA. You're correct that the likely scenario you've described would not be considered premeditated in America. But in SA, a spur of the moment, crime of passion killing can be premeditated. Basically, if even a bare second or two elapses between the thought and the action, it can be premeditated. This came out during the trial, and like most Americans, I was very surprised to learn this.

Very much aware of this, during the trial, OP claimed at one point that he didn't intend to pull the trigger, that in fact it was an accident. It was a really clumsy moment, in which he had to explain how his finger pulled the trigger if he didn't intend it to. And he fell into a trap, too. Because he also claimed he aimed low in order to avoid killing the alleged burglar--obviously with an aim to alleviating the excessive force charge--but if he did that, he must have fired intentionally.

I don't think the judge buys his story that he didn't know it was Steenkamp. She just doesn't believe the evidence supports that beyond a reasonable doubt. That being the case, she has to look what he did as if he really thought there was an intruder. And from that point of view, his actions were hasty and excessive. In fact, as discussed upthread, in order to purchase his guns, OP had to sign a legal document stating he was aware of what he was and was not allowed to do in case of an intruder, and his actions, by his own account, clearly were in violation of that document.
User avatar Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,013
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

11 Sep 2014 22:22

Alpe d'Huez wrote:I think if one uses what Merckx concluded fairly logically, steps back and thinks with Occam's Razor about what did happen, the most likely scenario is this:

They got into a big fight. He grabbed the shotgun. She ran into the bathroom and locked the door. He shot through it and killed her.

Why this? It's known they fought a lot. It's known he had a very hot temper. It's known he was somewhat of a gun nut. It's presumed he was abusive to her.

Is this exactly what happened? No one knows. But this is what makes most sense. Thus he didn't commit premeditated murder. In the US we would call this 2nd degree murder, and he would serve anywhere between 10-30 years in prison for it, depending on the State, background, and other factors.

But the judge ruled against the equivalent of that. But she also stated that he "acted too hastily and used excessive force" and that, "It is clear that his conduct was negligent". This puzzles me. She either believes his story, for the most part (how, I don't know), or is she saying the gun went off on accident? Four times?

I guess we'll know tomorrow!

In law it's not about 'what is the most likely that happened', but about the proof that can be provided. What I heard, the judge said there was not enough evidence to claim that he knew that his wife was in that room.

No of course she's not saying it was by accident. But he can still get like... 15 to 20 years?


edit: oh 3rd alinea previous post says basically the same :o
User avatar l.Harm
Member
 
Posts: 1,938
Joined: 24 Jul 2011 22:54
Location: Holland

11 Sep 2014 23:03

LittleJo wrote:The stuff I've read on Twitter (obviously a great source of information :rolleyes:) suggests that she only applied the murder charge to Reeva i.e. she's saying he didn't intend to kill Reeva, rather than he didn't intend to kill anyone. I would have thought that someone who was used to shooting a gun would have some idea that four bullets would kill someone.


I've been reading the fallout from today's court session. A general consensus among legal minds is that judge Masipa's verdict was correct on the premeditated murder charge because conclusive evidence was lacking. However, she got mixed up and erred in her judgement on the 'dolus eventualis' murder charge. In fact, they said Masipa contradicted herself during her explanations. In South Africa, the state can appeal on questions of law, so things may get even more interesting after Friday.
Bosco10
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: 29 Aug 2012 13:15

11 Sep 2014 23:42

Bosco10 wrote:I've been reading the fallout from today's court session. A general consensus among legal minds is that judge Masipa's verdict was correct on the premeditated murder charge because conclusive evidence was lacking. However, she got mixed up and erred in her judgement on the 'dolus eventualis' murder charge. In fact, they said Masipa contradicted herself during her explanations. In South Africa, the state can appeal on questions of law, so things may get even more interesting after Friday.


Yes I read a bbd report that this may be a plus for the prosecution. She did not ask the proper question..."did he have intent to kill WHOMEVER was behind the door" not just about his gf.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/oscar-pistorius-judge-error-prosecutors-article-1.1936371
craig walsh always with us
User avatar mewmewmew13
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,283
Joined: 09 Aug 2010 22:20
Location: co

12 Sep 2014 00:25

the sceptic wrote:rich white man walks away from charges. great justice.

Are you suggesting the (poor?) black female judge is corrupt?
If so, on what basis?
Team GB 2016: victoRIOus, happy and gloRIOus
User avatar oldcrank
Member
 
Posts: 1,363
Joined: 24 Jul 2009 07:16

12 Sep 2014 17:15

l.Harm wrote:In law it's not about 'what is the most likely that happened', but about the proof that can be provided.

True. Take a look at the OJ case, some 20 years ago now. The prosecution made a few key gaffs, while the defense was both wisely strategic and impeccable in defending him - arguably as deft as any in the history of law.

Thanks Merckx for the clarifications.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Administrator
 
Posts: 9,751
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

13 Sep 2014 20:41

kingjr wrote:Rio 2016 here we come. Has he written an autobiography yet?


Oscar Pistorius will be allowed to compete at the 2016 Paralympic Games if he is not in jail, the International Paralympic Committee has revealed.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/disability-sport/29179210
Bosco10
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: 29 Aug 2012 13:15

13 Sep 2014 22:50

Bosco10 wrote:Oscar Pistorius will be allowed to compete at the 2016 Paralympic Games if he is not in jail, the International Paralympic Committee has revealed.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/disability-sport/29179210


He would need to be nominated first. It probably hinges on SASCOC's view on Pistorius. the following selection rule applies:

1.2.2 The athlete shall be a member in good standing with the NF affiliated to SASCOC, and is also a member in good standing with SASCOC;


http://www.sascoc.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/General-Selection-Policy-20131.pdf

So I suppose enough money would do it.
User avatar Alex Simmons/RST
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,036
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 23:47
Location: Australia

21 Oct 2014 08:42

So he's getting a couple of years with a maximum of five years.
User avatar l.Harm
Member
 
Posts: 1,938
Joined: 24 Jul 2011 22:54
Location: Holland

21 Oct 2014 09:34

Pistorius' defence lawyer Barry Roux said he expected the jailed athlete to serve only 10 months of the five-year sentence behind bars, and the remainder under house arrest.

However, South Africa's state prosecuting authority disputed this opinion, saying Pistorius was likely to serve at least a third of his sentence in prison - effectively 20 months.


http://sports.yahoo.com/news/1-grim-faced-pistorius-faces-sentencing-south-african-074331752--spt.html;_ylt=AwrTWf2WJkZUBUUAqfRNbK5_;_ylu=X3oDMTBmMnFmanUyBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQ--

Steenkamp's family said justice was served, but I wonder if they said that knowing how much of the five year sentence OP would likely serve. Ten months in jail for what he did is absurd. Twenty months is still far too light a sentence. Frankly, I think five years is too light, even if he served it all. And this is assuming he doesn't appeal.

He will able to continue his spin that it was all a tragic mistake, and no doubt resume his track career, albeit with fewer endorsements. But I assume Steenkamp's family will now start the civil proceedings against him.
User avatar Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,013
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

21 Oct 2014 12:22

Wow!

I'm not sure what else to say. I guess just like in the US, if you're rich and famous you get better lawyers and better chances than the rest of us.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Administrator
 
Posts: 9,751
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

21 Oct 2014 13:27

Alpe d'Huez wrote:Wow!

I'm not sure what else to say. I guess just like in the US, if you're rich and famous you get better lawyers and better chances than the rest of us.


In Germany you are even worse off. One judge say yes or no. He is not bound to weight in all witnesses or evidence. And appeals have a 0.1 % chance to prevail. 90+ % that end up in a courtroom are convicted. It´s 3rd world "justice", plain arbitrariness...

I´d rather have a 12 people jury and "only" 80% conviction rate a la USA. At least you got a chance there to prevent jail or hefty fines if you are innocent... Your judges are not allowed to play God and/or Cesar with thumbs up/down rulings.

OK, that was off topic. So my last few words towards OP. I don´t know. I guess the judge had reasons to give a 5 year only penalty.
User avatar FoxxyBrown1111
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,379
Joined: 15 Jun 2009 12:35
Location: Germany

21 Oct 2014 14:14

FoxxyBrown1111 wrote:In Germany you are even worse off. One judge say yes or no. He is not bound to weight in all witnesses or evidence. And appeals have a 0.1 % chance to prevail. 90+ % that end up in a courtroom are convicted. It´s 3rd world "justice", plain arbitrariness...

I´d rather have a 12 people jury and "only" 80% conviction rate a la USA. At least you got a chance there to prevent jail or hefty fines if you are innocent... Your judges are not allowed to play God and/or Cesar with thumbs up/down rulings.

OK, that was off topic. So my last few words towards OP. I don´t know. I guess the judge had reasons to give a 5 year only penalty.

wonder if Nissan Trek Radio Shack will underwrite his comeback. Mellow Johnny's? US Postal? Smith & Wesson?
"Hitler … didn't even sink to using chemical weapons."
User avatar blackcat
Veteran
 
Posts: 12,190
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 19:20

21 Oct 2014 15:45

Merckx index wrote:2) that when OP heard someone in the bathroom, he didn’t check to see if Steenkamp was still in bed, even though the gun that he fetched was right by or under the bed, and in fact he had to pass right by the bed to reach the bathroom, anyway;
This more than anything else, doesn't make sense. But added to the other incongruities you cited in your post, and the whole thing becomes farcical.

I hope the prosecution appeals.
"if anybody is the deserving winner of those seven tours, it's Ferrari." - Neal Rogers
Pazuzu
Member
 
Posts: 337
Joined: 04 Feb 2012 00:52

28 Oct 2014 08:11

Prosecution is appealing:

The NPA said in a statement its decision to appeal was based on a "question of law," meaning it believes that Judge Masipa misapplied the law when she acquitted Pistorius of murder.

"The merits and the demerits of the NPA's argument ... will become evident when we file papers for leave to appeal," the national prosecuting body said. "The prosecutors are now preparing the necessary papers in order to be able to file within the next few days."


Prosecutors must apply initially to Masipa for permission to appeal within 14 days of Pistorius' Oct. 21 sentencing. If Masipa grants them permission, Pistorius' case would be reviewed by a panel of three or five judges in the Supreme Court of Appeal, legal expert Marius du Toit said. They could overturn the manslaughter conviction and find Pistorius guilty of murder.


Experts say there are grounds for an appeal, partly because the judge may have misapplied a part of the law called "dolus eventualis" — which says someone should be found guilty of murder if they foresaw the possibility of killing someone through their actions and went ahead anyway. The experts questioned how Masipa ruled that Pistorius did not predict that someone might die when he decided to shoot four times from close range into the small toilet cubicle in his Pretoria home, hitting Steenkamp in the hip, arm and head.
User avatar Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,013
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

28 Oct 2014 12:30

blackcat wrote:wonder if Nissan Trek Radio Shack will underwrite his comeback. Mellow Johnny's? US Postal? Smith & Wesson?


Taurus handgun..
User avatar Bustedknuckle
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,834
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 15:38
Location: USofA

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Back to top