Oscar Pistorius thread

[MooMoo444]

They were just warning shots

 

[fez]

You either shoot to kill or you don't shoot at all. Especially if they are behind a closed door. One shot could hit them in the head. Four is very likely to do some serious damage especially being hollow point.

 

[Yaayuh!]

I'd like to put a tenner on culpable homicide.

Most certainly.

What's that, 10 years?

 

[deuse]

Bet he gets just a fine.

 

[Danthus]

15 years maximum I believe.

 

[Diddums]

At this rate Steenkamp will be found guilty of obstructing his bullets.

 

[cheesyboy]

Sounds like it will be culpable homicide.

Although I can't believe the judge has discounted murder saying he couldn't forsee that 4 shots would have killed the person behind the small toilet's door? The judge says: "Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this, that he would have killed the person behind the door, let alone the deceased"

He fired 4 shots at through a small cubicle that someone was standing in and it isn't reasonable to believe that, that would kill someone!? bull****

"Intent"

It couldn't be proved, so you can't convict on murder. He'll almost certainly get manslaughter; it's the sentence which will be interesting (will we have to wait for that?)

 

[Havana_UK]

Obviously firing 4 shots into a tiny cubicle with someone behind it is not intention to kill.

What a farce, I knew South Africa was bent, but my word, this is taking it to a whole new level.

Wouldn't be surprised to see him get away scot free.

I think what this comes down to, in the strictest sense, is that he was accused of murdering Reeva, not just murdering someone. He won't get away with anything. He's almost certainly going to be found guilty of culpable homicide (we call it manslaughter), which will still carry a lengthy jail term.

It has never been in doubt that he killed Reeva. The only question has been whether he intentionally killed her (which the judge believes was not the case), or whether he unintentionally killed her.

 

[cheesyboy]

I think what this comes down to, in the strictest sense, is that he was accused of murdering Reeva, not just murdering someone. He won't get away with anything. He's almost certainly going to be found guilty of culpable homicide (we call it manslaughter), which will still carry a lengthy jail term.

It has never been in doubt that he killed Reeva. The only question has been whether he intentionally killed her (which the judge believes was not the case), or whether he unintentionally killed her.

That's what the "dolus eventualis" murder charge was: that he was intending to murder someone

 

[McBain]

I think what this comes down to, in the strictest sense, is that he was accused of murdering Reeva, not just murdering someone. He won't get away with anything. He's almost certainly going to be found guilty of culpable homicide (we call it manslaughter), which will still carry a lengthy jail term.

It has never been in doubt that he killed Reeva. The only question has been whether he intentionally killed her (which the judge believes was not the case), or whether he unintentionally killed her.

Not necessarily a jail term, could be a fine.

 

[Jono8]

"Intent"

It couldn't be proved, so you can't convict on murder. He'll almost certainly get manslaughter; it's the sentence which will be interesting (will we have to wait for that?)

That isn't what she said though. She said that it could be murder if he had foreseen that his actions would have killed the deceased. It is pretty obvious that firing 4 shots through a small cubicle door at the person in there would likely result in the death of that person.

 

[Havana_UK]

Not necessarily a jail term, could be a fine.

Not a chance IMO. Definitely a jail term.

 

[Havana_UK]

That isn't what she said though. She said that it could be murder if he had foreseen that his actions would have killed the deceased. It is pretty obvious that firing 4 shots through a small cubicle door at the person in there would likely result in the death of that person.

I think this is what it's about. She's stated that he couldn't have foreseen that his actions would have killed Reeva, as he believes she was in bed.

 

[Jono8]

I think this is what it's about. She's stated that he couldn't have foreseen that his actions would have killed Reeva, as he believes she was in bed.

But we aren't talking about Reeva anymore, we are talking about the person behind the door, whoever it may have been ( in Oscar's view at the time).

 

[Danthus]

She said who was behind the door was irrelevant.

 

[McBain]

Not a chance IMO. Definitely a jail term.

Wouldn't be at all surprised if he serves no time, the judge seems to think he had no intention to kill whoever was behind the door so i'm not counting anything out.

 

[cheesyboy]

That isn't what she said though. She said that it could be murder if he had foreseen that his actions would have killed the deceased. It is pretty obvious that firing 4 shots through a small cubicle door at the person in there would likely result in the death of that person.

Yeah, you're right. It is a bit of a stretch.

I wonder if the prosecution will appeal that...?

 

[Castiel]

But we aren't talking about Reeva anymore, we are talking about the person behind the door, whoever it may have been ( in Oscar's view at the time).

The deceased is Reeva, the Judge was referring to her.

 

[platypus]

The deceased is Reeva, the Judge was referring to her.

In the few minutes that I listened too I heard her say twice that who the deceased was is no longer relevant, in relation to the sentencing.

 

[Jono8]

She said who was behind the door was irrelevant.

Exactly. So to say he had no intention to kill that person is ludicrous. He fired 4 black talon rounds through the door of a very small cubicle. The result was pretty much certain to be the death of the person in the cubicle and he knew it.