Not if the defendant was acting in mistaken self-defence. Then it's culpable homicide, if he was objectively negligent.
He was found grossly negligent bordering on DE by the Judge and her application/ interpretation of the law on DE is what has the SA legal fratinity in dispute.
Actually I think it was a bit more that, he has a reckless behaviour but there are a lot of people out there like that..
I just feel he was just completely di-sensitive to the gun for whatever reason, upbringing, culture, personality. It had built up over years, something happened that night as a trigger, and he just used it much like he was shouting at someone does that make sense...
I am not agreeing with what he did just trying to make sense of it ..this is always an issue in countries where the gun is so freely available and no boundaries are set in everyday life, where owning a gun is akin to owning a handbag, however despite that most people have self control..so maybe I am back to agreeing with you:p
It was part of all the circumstantial evidence and the Judge made her Ruling on the common cause facts alone . Anyone who heard those witnesses give testimony know that from that evidence .they were awake
...the two voices heard....the two tones ,the woman shouting ...woman screaming for help....followed by a man....hearing gunshots -
The VDM 'argument' testimony and the scream testimony were separate points in time. An hour before is not the period between the gun shots and the bat strikes.
She did not ignore circumstantial evidence and rely solely on common cause issues. Once she accepted that the shots came first the state's case was simply and rightly over. Everything else was simply explaining why she felt witnesses misperceived events and why other evidence became irrelevant.
No witnesses described "them" arguing. You are incorrect. Shouldn't you ensure you are correct in your facts at the very least?
Mrs VDM heard a woman shouting .....she wasn't having an argument by herself was she . Not to mention that the man and woman's voices were heard coming from his house ...and then a woman's screams....so I'd say that was obvious evidence there was a violent argument going on in his house that night because Reeva ended up dead with 3 bullets in her body. ........and you don't know the facts do you now.
Not if the defendant was acting in mistaken self-defence. Then it's culpable homicide, if he was objectively negligent.
I'm not an OP fan, and I think that Masipa should not have tossed out the witness statements, as they were crucial to events that night
But
I do agree with you that if the defendant was mistaken during an unlawful act, that removes the culpa.
In addition there is something in DE that the defendant doesn't just foresee the outcome of his act but he associates himself with that outcome. And I think it was where Masipa found wiggle room to give him
A big big break.
I worked with ex prisoners and I know that even 3 months let alone 10 inside a hell hole, even in the hospital wing, is mind breaking to hardy types.
It could sound like a light sentence but he will never forget it, for sure.
Mrs VDM heard a woman shouting .....she wasn't having an argument by herself was she . Not to mention that the man and woman's voices were heard coming from his house ...and then a woman's screams....so I'd say that was obvious evidence there was a violent argument going on in his house that night .....and you don't know the facts do you now.
We don't know what the source of the perceived 'argument' was. She never described shouting either, and there is literally nothing to link it to Pistorius' house. It could have been somebody's TV or a woman arguing on the phone somewhere.
For a woman to scream, she needs to be alive to do so. Reeva was not alive by the time the screams were heard, tragically.
If I was honest I don't know either oscar Pistorius nor Reeva Steenkmp. Their lives and indeed their deaths are meaningless to me. I'm a mere spectator as is everyone here is also. Their lives do not impact on me in any way and my opinion does not impact on them . We are however all here discussing it so it's rather disingenuous for anyone to pretend that they have any moral high ground .
The VDM 'argument' testimony and the scream testimony were separate points in time. An hour before is not the period between the gun shots and the bat strikes.
She did not ignore circumstantial evidence and rely solely on common cause issues. Once she accepted that the shots cagme first the state's case was simply and rightly over. Everything else was simply explaining why she felt witnesses misperceived events and why other evidence became irrelevant.
The hour was between hearing Reeva shouting and her being shot and killed.
I disagree - made my points on this and others have covered this numerous times.
The VDM 'argument' testimony and the scream testimony were separate points in time. An hour before is not the period between the gun shots and the bat strikes.
She did not ignore circumstantial evidence and rely solely on common cause issues. Once she accepted that the shots came first the state's case was simply and rightly over. Everything else was simply explaining why she felt witnesses misperceived events and why other evidence became irrelevant.
Boring beyond words . This has be discussed and rehashed so many times. Read the threads would be my best advice . You are with respect covering old ground that has been well covered by excellent and very competent debaters. We have the verdict . We will all deal with it .
I completely disagree. Evidence was not skipped. It was not a 'pick and mix' or selective use of evidence verdict as I've often seen it characterized. People who think that, and there are depressingly many of them, don't understand how she applied logic and reason. The most reasonable interpretation of key evidence rendered other evidence less important or negated it all together.
I'm not sure what you intend the question to be relevant to. Certainly it's not relevant to understanding the facts of the case and their implication in assessing the judgement and sentence. The ability to reason, sort information and logically and reliably resolve conflicting narratives is what is necessary for that. For a fine example, see Masipa's judgement.
Ehr...not sure how to spell duh...have not dumbed down enough....The question was only a few words long...I guess it was about DV....domestic violence....ring any bells?
Tell me please what your experience is why it has F*ck all to do with the Judgement/sentencing ...Intention so close to Dolus...over to you.
Ehr...not sure how to spell duh...have not dumbed down enough....The question was only a few words long...I guess it was about DV....domestic violence....ring any bells?
Tell me please what your experience is why it has F*ck all to do with the Judgement/sentencing ...Intention so close to Dolus...over to you.
There is a) no proof that either of them were awake, never mind both. And b) ONE neighbour heard a female voice only. She couldn't identify the language or where it was coming from. That evidence was rightly disemissed as unreliable and unusable.
Allow me to scream.....Arrrrrggggggghhhhhhhhhh. what language was that in? be careful I speak 8.
Time for bed and also time to wean myself off this site.
Thanks to all the posters on all sides of the arguments - some have been well informed, intelligent and thought provoking and some not so. Many have been very witty and amusing and made me laugh out loud. Sad that some have not been allowed to be here for the end. So thanks to all and IF there is an appeal and the thread is still open I'll allow myself to pop in.
The VDM 'argument' testimony and the scream testimony were separate points in time. An hour before is not the period between the gun shots and the bat strikes.
She did not ignore circumstantial evidence and rely solely on common cause issues. Once she accepted that the shots came first the state's case was simply and rightly over. Everything else was simply explaining why she felt witnesses misperceived events and why other evidence became irrelevant.
So basically, in a nutshell, the judge accepted OP's version.
Allow me to scream.....Arrrrrggggggghhhhhhhhhh. what language was that in? be careful I speak 8.
Merwe said nothing about screaming. She was referring to an alleged argument she heard an hour before, and she couldn't tell where it was coming from or even what language the participants were speaking.
Comments
He was found grossly negligent bordering on DE by the Judge and her application/ interpretation of the law on DE is what has the SA legal fratinity in dispute.
Join the club - I often talk myself in circles
The VDM 'argument' testimony and the scream testimony were separate points in time. An hour before is not the period between the gun shots and the bat strikes.
She did not ignore circumstantial evidence and rely solely on common cause issues. Once she accepted that the shots came first the state's case was simply and rightly over. Everything else was simply explaining why she felt witnesses misperceived events and why other evidence became irrelevant.
Mrs VDM heard a woman shouting .....she wasn't having an argument by herself was she . Not to mention that the man and woman's voices were heard coming from his house ...and then a woman's screams....so I'd say that was obvious evidence there was a violent argument going on in his house that night because Reeva ended up dead with 3 bullets in her body. ........and you don't know the facts do you now.
I'm not an OP fan, and I think that Masipa should not have tossed out the witness statements, as they were crucial to events that night
But
I do agree with you that if the defendant was mistaken during an unlawful act, that removes the culpa.
In addition there is something in DE that the defendant doesn't just foresee the outcome of his act but he associates himself with that outcome. And I think it was where Masipa found wiggle room to give him
A big big break.
I worked with ex prisoners and I know that even 3 months let alone 10 inside a hell hole, even in the hospital wing, is mind breaking to hardy types.
It could sound like a light sentence but he will never forget it, for sure.
We don't know what the source of the perceived 'argument' was. She never described shouting either, and there is literally nothing to link it to Pistorius' house. It could have been somebody's TV or a woman arguing on the phone somewhere.
For a woman to scream, she needs to be alive to do so. Reeva was not alive by the time the screams were heard, tragically.
I disagree - made my points on this and others have covered this numerous times.
Boring beyond words . This has be discussed and rehashed so many times. Read the threads would be my best advice . You are with respect covering old ground that has been well covered by excellent and very competent debaters. We have the verdict . We will all deal with it .
Ehr...not sure how to spell duh...have not dumbed down enough....The question was only a few words long...I guess it was about DV....domestic violence....ring any bells?
Tell me please what your experience is why it has F*ck all to do with the Judgement/sentencing ...Intention so close to Dolus...over to you.
Please read the sentencing statement.
Note taken....
Deleted
Allow me to scream.....Arrrrrggggggghhhhhhhhhh. what language was that in? be careful I speak 8.
Thanks to all the posters on all sides of the arguments - some have been well informed, intelligent and thought provoking and some not so. Many have been very witty and amusing and made me laugh out loud. Sad that some have not been allowed to be here for the end. So thanks to all and IF there is an appeal and the thread is still open I'll allow myself to pop in.
So basically, in a nutshell, the judge accepted OP's version.
In her sentencing she stated they found oscar had the intent to shoot.
She also says it wasa bording on dolus eventualis.
She made a half-baked sentence that is really just 10 months jail-time.
She can't admit she was wrong, but she is making it easy to appeal.
Heyyyyyyy
I wondered that too.
Sweet...ridiculing the dead is an art on this site. Hope you don't disturb the Steenkamp's with that blather.
Merwe said nothing about screaming. She was referring to an alleged argument she heard an hour before, and she couldn't tell where it was coming from or even what language the participants were speaking.
His 'I saw the truth' rambling makes even more sense now doesn't it..