Oscar Pistorius thread

[Gilly]

I don't think that it's really comparable. If we believe his story, we know that he fired his weapon recklessly without checking his target first. If you were to compare it to a driving offence, I guess the closest would be causing death by dangerous driving.

Only if you apply the scenario here.

He's not here, and therefore that is, IMO, the best match.

If he truly felt that his life was in danger then his actions are explainable and that is entirely relevant.

 

[Gilly]

I am sorry but that is ridiculous comparing OP to a soldier on duty in a war zone. How can you justify the killing of Reeva in this case? Even if his story is entirely true he should be jailed for the reckless use of a firearm.

You were talking in absolute terms.

 

[Gilly]

To me it is absolute. He killed his girlfriend so he should be in jail for murder or manslaughter. The trial just needs to prove which it was.

That's not what you said though, you said he killed a person therefore should be in jail regardless of circumstance (ie before trial).

That is an absolute that also encompasses policemen and soldiers, as per example given.

 

[Gilly]

EDIT: I'm not saying that he was guilty of murdering his girlfriend, or of premeditated murder. I'm saying that, on current evidence, he was guilty of murdering somebody. The fact that it was his girlfriend is incidental to that point.

He isn't guilty of murder at all

He is guilty of killing someone, that is all we know.

 

[Gilly]

Well there's basically no way he can be done for murder now, giving bail basically means they think there's reasonable doubt.

I don't believe that to be true.

 

[Gilly]

Sky News

Reeva Steenkamp's mother looks on from the public gallery as her daughter's killer goes on trial for murder.

didn't know he's already been found guilty. Assume the trial is to set the punishment in SA?

There is no question that Oscar killed Reeva. That's not what is being decided.

 

[Gilly]

So you think its fair to lock him up AND take his legs from him, why exactly? because they are easy to take off? why deny him a right to walk? his imprisonment is punishment enough, surely? they dont hack off an able bodies killers legs do they?

What if someone takes his legs from him and kills/maims him, or somebody else, with them?

 

[Gilly]

what if a prisoner kicks another prisoner to death with their regular legs?

The prison system could still be said to have tried to do everything they can to prevent it. Could they do that if he retained his legs?

 

[Gilly]

No I doubt they could but heath and safety does not justify taking them away in my opinion.
Lets not forget he is claiming he only opened fire because he was on his stumps and felt vulnerable without his legs, that was in his own home, while armed.
How do you think he would feel in a prison environment with out them?

You don't need to justify to me why you think he should keep them. He would already be in for a very rough time of it in an SA prison being such an infamous person, and I'm not advocating taking them away.

That does need to be weighed against the danger posed by them though.

 

[Gilly]

I was wondering about that. Does that mean that he could walk away despite killing someone (regardless of circumstances)?

Yes, of course. If it had been an intruder that night it wouldn't even be newsworthy now.

 

[Gilly]

I for one demand a trial.

Voice of reason.