Why is anyone surprized that there was a joke outcome to a joke trial?
In my eyes it was murder even if he didn't realize the person inside a locked toilet was his girlfriend. His "defence" hinged on him supposedly not knowing who was behind the door, which to my mind is no defence whatsoever.
Had he shouted a warning his girlfriend would have answered so it's obvious his intentions were to kill what with him knowing the dimensions of his own toilet, being no stranger to handling guns and firing four times through the door as opposed to a single warning shot away from the loo towards the window or such like.
Assuming Reeva simply got out of bed to spend a penny several questions needed to be answered....
1) Why lock the toilet door?
2) Did her injuries and the bullet holes align in such a way as to suggest she was sat on the loo, standing up or what?
3) What height did he shoot through the door at?
I'm assuming they must have run a simulation. Does anyone know ?
Nothing about his defence stacks up imo, an opinion which only hardened after the initial guilty verdict was announced and they were talking to character witnesses on the radio about what might come out during the sentencing hearing when they can throw their hats in the ring.
It turns out the son of a family friend was staying with him and came in late one night and started banging around in the kitchen. Pistorius appeared in the kitchen, gun cocked, loudly demanding to know who was there?
Doesn't it strike anyone as a bit weird that in a situation where he was home alone and wasn't sure who came into his house he entered a much bigger area (the kitchen) shouting and not shooting but for some reason, knowing his girlfriend was in the house went about hunting down and shooting the occupant of a locked toilet in total silence?Why the different approach?
He may not rot in prison but i hope he burns in hell.
And people who shoot through toilet doors and kill their girlfriends
I have already stated that this is a DANGEROUS country, or certainly parts of the country are. Everyone is armed personally, and although the Gun Law states among other clauses, that one should only shoot at an assailant that can be see and is mortally threatening you, I think there are many who understandably shoot first and ask questions afterwards. One must live there to understand this I do not, but have friends who have relatives born and bred in South Africa, so understand a little what life is like there. The judge gave her decision on the law in South Africa, much of which is based on English law, coupled with consideration for the opinions conditions and life of South Africans living in a time of changer, politically and socially
I have already stated that this is a DANGEROUS country, or certainly parts of the country are. Everyone is armed personally, and although the Gun Law states among other clauses, that one should only shoot at an assailant that can be see and is mortally threatening you, I think there are many who understandably shoot first and ask questions afterwards. One must live there to understand this I do not, but have friends who have relatives born and bred in South Africa, so understand a little what life is like there. The judge gave her decision on the law in South Africa, much of which is based on English law, coupled with consideration for the opinions conditions and life of South Africans living in a time of changer, politically and socially
The fact it's a dangerous country doesn't explain his sudden change of tactics towards dealing with a suspected intruder.
How do you go from being home alone and running gun in hand into the kitchen shouting and not firing a shot to a scenario where he knows he's not alone, but quietly and without warning fires 4 times through a locked door into a toilet the size of a closet? Don't South African's ever wake up in the night for a pee or call out/check on a partner?
The former sounds like the action of someone genuinely frightened, the latter sounds more like a hunt.
Seriously bad verdict borne out of trying not to upset the white paranoid society.
If you have taken aim, are a crack marksman, use dum-dum bullets and fire three times into a very enclosed space, you know there is a very high chance you will kill whoever is in there and there is no chance of the action itself being accidental.... any other statement is just not believable.
He put his feet on and clacked down the hall... this just isn't an acidental action, and the outcome is not one that was likely to be anything else.
From just this information it is surely unreasonable to allow a manslaughter verdict, it is at best attemped murder, but must have been in fact, murder. The law is meant to proclaim beyond reasonable doubt. Even allowing for the snowstom of crap the defence put out, the bare bones were enough, how the hell did he get off with that verdict??????
I must say I agree with this, I was listening on R5 to the sentencing, and the judge mentioned a couple of cases where someone had shot and killed an innocent party, and where non-custodial sentences had been agreed.
She then said that Pistorius's case was different and explained why, in particular mentioning that he had fired straight at the door of a small bathroom.
It struck me as pretty incongruous that in the circumstances she described, she had still been able to decide it was not murder.
The fact it's a dangerous country doesn't explain his sudden change of tactics towards dealing with a suspected intruder.
How do you go from being home alone and running gun in hand into the kitchen shouting and not firing a shot to a scenario where he knows he's not alone, but quietly and without warning fires 4 times through a locked door into a toilet the size of a closet? Don't South African's ever wake up in the night for a pee or call out/check on a partner?
The former sounds like the action of someone genuinely frightened, the latter sounds more like a hunt.
Given the recent history of killings in South Africa and Pistorius being a double amputee you can somewhat understand a fire first ask questions later attitude.
Not sure if this was actually applicable in this case though.
Didn't he get the maximum sentence for what he was found guilty of?
Yes and no
Yes 5 years was the maximum under the guidelines he was sentenced under but he could have been sentenced under other guidelines and be given a longer sentence as indeed the prosecution asked for.
The prosecution are currently deciding whether to appeal the verdict in favour of one for murder
Last year Judge Masipa jailed a rapist and housebreaker to 252 years in prison. Today she jailed someone who had killed a person by firing 4 black talon bullets through a closed door to 5 years. Unbelievable.
Seriously bad verdict borne out of trying not to upset the white paranoid society.
If you have taken aim, are a crack marksman, use dum-dum bullets and fire three times into a very enclosed space, you know there is a very high chance you will kill whoever is in there and there is no chance of the action itself being accidental.... any other statement is just not believable.
He put his feet on and clacked down the hall... this just isn't an acidental action, and the outcome is not one that was likely to be anything else.
From just this information it is surely unreasonable to allow a manslaughter verdict, it is at best attemped murder, but must have been in fact, murder. The law is meant to proclaim beyond reasonable doubt. Even allowing for the snowstom of crap the defence put out, the bare bones were enough, how the hell did he get off with that verdict??????
Beause the highly trained judge applied the law and weighed up the evidence and did not go into hysterical ignorant rant mode.
Interesting read. It's what I thought as a layman. I must say, when I saw the mock up of the bathroom I was amazed how small it was. You could hardly fire into that room and not expect to hit someone.
At the beginning of the trial I was half expecting to see some jumped up, primitive form of legal proceedings.
I was however very pleased to have been proved wrong. The judge has shown great wisdom all the way through.
The sentence is 100% spot on. It was a tragedy, she was beautiful. Her family have accepted the verdict, so should we.
I agree. I found the summing up fascinating as she explained stage by stage why she has reached her conclusions. And the point made by the prosecution barrister at the end regarding Pistorious' fitness ever to hold a gun licence or gun again was interesting.
Pistorius has suffered massive humiliation and has fallen from the world's stage. He will not be fit or available to take part in the 2026 Olympic Games and his hobby of firing guns indiscriminately has ended.
That, and a five years sentence, for the reasons given by the judge, seemed about right to me.
Comments
In my eyes it was murder even if he didn't realize the person inside a locked toilet was his girlfriend. His "defence" hinged on him supposedly not knowing who was behind the door, which to my mind is no defence whatsoever.
Had he shouted a warning his girlfriend would have answered so it's obvious his intentions were to kill what with him knowing the dimensions of his own toilet, being no stranger to handling guns and firing four times through the door as opposed to a single warning shot away from the loo towards the window or such like.
Assuming Reeva simply got out of bed to spend a penny several questions needed to be answered....
1) Why lock the toilet door?
2) Did her injuries and the bullet holes align in such a way as to suggest she was sat on the loo, standing up or what?
3) What height did he shoot through the door at?
I'm assuming they must have run a simulation. Does anyone know ?
Nothing about his defence stacks up imo, an opinion which only hardened after the initial guilty verdict was announced and they were talking to character witnesses on the radio about what might come out during the sentencing hearing when they can throw their hats in the ring.
It turns out the son of a family friend was staying with him and came in late one night and started banging around in the kitchen. Pistorius appeared in the kitchen, gun cocked, loudly demanding to know who was there?
Doesn't it strike anyone as a bit weird that in a situation where he was home alone and wasn't sure who came into his house he entered a much bigger area (the kitchen) shouting and not shooting but for some reason, knowing his girlfriend was in the house went about hunting down and shooting the occupant of a locked toilet in total silence?Why the different approach?
He may not rot in prison but i hope he burns in hell.
I have already stated that this is a DANGEROUS country, or certainly parts of the country are. Everyone is armed personally, and although the Gun Law states among other clauses, that one should only shoot at an assailant that can be see and is mortally threatening you, I think there are many who understandably shoot first and ask questions afterwards. One must live there to understand this I do not, but have friends who have relatives born and bred in South Africa, so understand a little what life is like there. The judge gave her decision on the law in South Africa, much of which is based on English law, coupled with consideration for the opinions conditions and life of South Africans living in a time of changer, politically and socially
The fact it's a dangerous country doesn't explain his sudden change of tactics towards dealing with a suspected intruder.
How do you go from being home alone and running gun in hand into the kitchen shouting and not firing a shot to a scenario where he knows he's not alone, but quietly and without warning fires 4 times through a locked door into a toilet the size of a closet? Don't South African's ever wake up in the night for a pee or call out/check on a partner?
The former sounds like the action of someone genuinely frightened, the latter sounds more like a hunt.
I must say I agree with this, I was listening on R5 to the sentencing, and the judge mentioned a couple of cases where someone had shot and killed an innocent party, and where non-custodial sentences had been agreed.
She then said that Pistorius's case was different and explained why, in particular mentioning that he had fired straight at the door of a small bathroom.
It struck me as pretty incongruous that in the circumstances she described, she had still been able to decide it was not murder.
Given the recent history of killings in South Africa and Pistorius being a double amputee you can somewhat understand a fire first ask questions later attitude.
Not sure if this was actually applicable in this case though.
Yes and no
Yes 5 years was the maximum under the guidelines he was sentenced under but he could have been sentenced under other guidelines and be given a longer sentence as indeed the prosecution asked for.
The prosecution are currently deciding whether to appeal the verdict in favour of one for murder
Beause the highly trained judge applied the law and weighed up the evidence and did not go into hysterical ignorant rant mode.
http://newyorkcriminaldefenseblawg.com/2014/09/the-oscar-pistorius-verdict-analyzed-and-next-steps/
Interesting read. It's what I thought as a layman. I must say, when I saw the mock up of the bathroom I was amazed how small it was. You could hardly fire into that room and not expect to hit someone.
At the beginning of the trial I was half expecting to see some jumped up, primitive form of legal proceedings.
I was however very pleased to have been proved wrong. The judge has shown great wisdom all the way through.
The sentence is 100% spot on. It was a tragedy, she was beautiful. Her family have accepted the verdict, so should we.
I agree. I found the summing up fascinating as she explained stage by stage why she has reached her conclusions. And the point made by the prosecution barrister at the end regarding Pistorious' fitness ever to hold a gun licence or gun again was interesting.
Pistorius has suffered massive humiliation and has fallen from the world's stage. He will not be fit or available to take part in the 2026 Olympic Games and his hobby of firing guns indiscriminately has ended.
That, and a five years sentence, for the reasons given by the judge, seemed about right to me.
I wouldn't have thought so either. More like entertainment.