Oscar Pistorius thread

was posting from my phone earlier so couldn't cite sources or post much detail - but from what I can gather there has been some controversy over the apparent inconsistencies by the Judge.

manic111 said:
How, sorry? Not asking from an argumentative standpoint, but i haven't had the chance to read any of the analysis yet.
Click to expand...

boils down to 'dolus eventualis' - "Dolus eventualis is 'did' foresee, culp is 'should have'"

the former is a lesser murder charge than pre-meditated... i.e. in the heat of the moment...(what a lot of people basically think he is guilty of) the latter the culpable homicide verdict that she's arrived at

she has seemingly contradicted herself with her statements, he could have faced a lesser murder charge if he'd foreseen that his actions would lead to the death of a person which she basically did say he had done previously

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/12/us-safrica-pistorius-idUSKBN0H52IJ20140912
A 2008 paper by KwaZulu Natal law professor Shannon Hoctor explained 'dolus eventualis' as when a person "foresaw the possibility that the act in question ... would have fatal consequences, and was reckless whether death resulted or not".

Masipa said the state had not proven that Pistorius had foreseen such a possibility. She did, however, find on Thursday that "a reasonable person would have foreseen if he fired shots at the door, the person inside the toilet might be struck and might die as a result".
Click to expand...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2014/sep/11/oscar-pistorius-verdict-trial-live

The judge’s decision to rule out murder by dolus eventualis – that is, that Pistorius foresaw that his actions in firing four shots into the door could have led to the death of the person behind it, but went ahead anyway – has attracted many questions and some criticism.
[...]
This interpretation suggests the judge has accepted Pistorius’ argument that he did not think his actions would lead to the death of the person – whether Steenkamp or an intruder – behind the door. But if she decides that a reasonable person should have foreseen that, she can find him guilty of culpable homicide.
Click to expand...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-cleared-murdering-lover-Reeva-Steenkamp.html

Chris Greenland, a retired South African high court judge, said this was a serious inconsistency.

He told MailOnline: 'I am utterly bemused that this mistake was made.

'I can't wrap my head around it. I have never seen a judge make such a big mistake especially when she had so much time to arrive at a judgement.

'It's inexplicable.

'She has misinterpreted herself with regard to the law because she herself said previously that Oscar Pistorius's defence was that he was not guilty of murder because he killed her by mistake thinking that he was shooting at an intruder.
Reeva Steenkamp was shot dead in the athlete's Pretoria home on Valentine's Day last year
+24

Reeva Steenkamp was shot dead in the athlete's Pretoria home on Valentine's Day last year

'Now, during her verdict, she made a statement that was inconsistent because she found that he had not foreseen that he would kill the human being on the other side of the door.

'That was erroneous - she had already set out the law.

'It was a fundamental mistake.'

He believes the state would have a strong case on appeal.
Click to expand...

She's also previously commented on the height of the shots and that he knew he'd be killing the person the other side of the door...
 
Last edited:
I don't see what the point in arguing whether he can compete in Olympics or not, like is he not allowed to continue with life now?

The trial concluded he was not guilty of murder. Manslaughter meant that he used poor judgement or made a mistake. It's completely different.

People are allowed another chance and forgiveness after making a mistake.
 
It doesn't matter what I think, or what you think really. A judge, who is qualified to do so, has concluded that he is guilty of manslaughter. Your OPINION doesn't really hold any significance on that. The witch hunt by the public and the media butchering that he will no doubt get for the rest of his life will be grim. Enjoy waving your pitch fork.
 
Captain Planet said:
It doesn't matter what I think, or what you think really. A judge, who is qualified to do so, has concluded that he is guilty of manslaughter. Your OPINION doesn't really hold any significance on that. The witch hunt by the public and the media butchering that he will no doubt get for the rest of his life will be grim. Enjoy waving your pitch fork.
Click to expand...

It is possible to disagree with the verdict but still respect it.

I think he is a very lucky boy.
 
Weather he got life or walked free he life is going to be pretty ****** either way, it may even turn out to be worse on the outside considering the reactions hes going to get from the public. For me the worst part is him appearing to not show any real remorse all the sobbing seems like he feels sorry for HIMSELF, and to see the pictures of him smiling in court is even worse. I just hope her family can find peace.
 
Captain Planet said:
The trial concluded he was not guilty of murder. Manslaughter meant that he used poor judgement or made a mistake. It's completely different.

People are allowed another chance and forgiveness after making a mistake.
Click to expand...

I think you've got way to much confidence in the legal system of SA if your position is to blindly accept things simply because they've said so. They judge's decision isn't without controversy including from legal professors, retired judges etc..

Courts aren't infallible - manslaughter means that the judge believed he made a mistake, it doesn't mean that he actually made a mistake at least not in the way he's claiming. A lot of other people would disagree with him/the judge and believe that he knew whoever he shot at behind that door would die - the judge essentially said this too at one point then seemingly contradicted herself. Its perfectly fine to believe that he should have been found guilty of a lesser murder charge...
 
OldCoals said:
My mistake, ordering the wrong part.

His mistake, a dead woman.

Calling what he did a mistake dishonours the memory of his victim.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. If it's a mistake then it means he unintentionally killed her, which is manslaughter.

dowie said:
I think you've got way to much confidence in the legal system of SA if your position is to blindly accept things simply because they've said so. They judge's decision isn't without controversy including from legal professors, retired judges etc..

Courts aren't infallible - manslaughter means that the judge believed he made a mistake, it doesn't mean that he actually made a mistake at least not in the way he's claiming. A lot of other people would disagree with him/the judge and believe that he knew whoever he shot at behind that door would die - the judge essentially said this too at one point then seemingly contradicted herself. Its perfectly fine to believe that he should have been found guilty of a lesser murder charge...
Click to expand...

What's your point then? If it is in fact that the SA authorities are as inept as you suggest then on the contrary a verdict of guilty for murder would have been equally dubious.
 
woofercooker said:
Weather he got life or walked free he life is going to be pretty ****** either way, it may even turn out to be worse on the outside considering the reactions hes going to get from the public. For me the worst part is him appearing to not show any real remorse all the sobbing seems like he feels sorry for HIMSELF, and to see the pictures of him smiling in court is even worse. I just hope her family can find peace.
Click to expand...

How do you show "real remorse" also you can't cherry pick a few images of someone smiling and say this makes them an inhuman monster for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom