Blade Runner becomes Blade Gunner **Mod Warning Read OP""

Egginacup

Holsten wrote: »

Haha why?

Does him serving 10/20/30 years being her back to life? No, so what's the point then.

Will he re offend? Probably not. Is he a danger to others? Nope.

You want revenge plain and simple.

I'm not so sure about that. The snivelling puker has demonstrated a condescending disdain for anyone who is beneath him. A black police officer? Oscar wouldn't give the time of day to a kaffir. He's also shown a penchant for firing guns in public. I'd say the prick is a danger. Firing guns in restaurants, out of car windows, through toilet doors....someone's bound to get hurt, or worse.

AudreyHepburn

Egginacup wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that. The snivelling puker has demonstrated a condescending disdain for anyone who is beneath him. A black police officer? Oscar wouldn't give the time of day to a kaffir. He's also shown a penchant for firing guns in public. I'd say the prick is a danger. Firing guns in restaurants, out of car windows, through toilet doors....someone's bound to get hurt, or worse.

When or where did he demonstrate this?

Egginacup

robinph wrote: »

It is really scary the number of people who would claim to be looking for "justice" but are able to completely disregard anything to do with the evidence that was actually put before the court. If you had any additional evidence to help with the prosecutions case then you really should have let them know about it sooner.

No expensive lawyers were really needed for this case, and despite people singing Nels praises during the trial he really can't have been that great as he didn't manage to make the dodgy charge that the initial dodgy cop came up with stick. The defence team seemed to be getting criticised through the trial as being incompetent, how then does that fit with peoples claims that Pistouris got off due to having an expensive legal team?

Pistouris didn't get found guilty of pre-meditated murder because there was zero evidence for that charge. It didn't need an expensive legal team to get him off that charge, it was never going to stick anyway.

You are right for the most part. It just goes to show that the adversarial jury system is the worst justice system there is because all you need to do is make 12 people hate the defendant regardless of innocence or guilt and they will deliver the verdict you want. The non-jury inquisitorial system is much more sophisticated and effective.

Egginacup

Philo Beddoe wrote: »

Their gut-instinct and ability to read body language and sniff out liars trumps any of this so-called 'evidence'.

Nothing trumps evidence. If you don't have evidence you don't have a case.

You can have all the hunches, "gut-instincts", suspicions, premonitions, tea-leaves in a cup, you want. Proof is all that matters.

Egginacup

Soups123 wrote: »

I think she leaned to much on the side of caution when it came to evidence.

What the hell do you propose?
Kangaroo courts?
A drum-head court-martial?

You want her to come to a verdict and a sentence for "the craic"?

Egginacup

Cyber Ghost wrote: »

Bad and all as the American justice system is they would have laughed him out of the place if he said "yeah I did it but I thought it was a burglar"
He'd be lucky if he didn't get the needle over there. Instead he'll do a few months

That's why there are tens of thousands of innocent people behind bars in America.

Soups123

Egginacup wrote: »

What the hell do you propose?
Kangaroo courts?
A drum-head court-martial?

You want her to come to a verdict and a sentence for "the craic"?

Yep

Egginacup

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

When or where did he demonstrate this?

He threatened to shoot a former football coach who crossed his path. He also verbally abused a black police officer who pulled him over.

He's a bit of a wanker.

weldoninhio

I really don't understand the people on this thread defending OP. He shot and killed his girlfriend. 5 years is nothing for taking someone's life.

The prosecution may not have been able to prove that he knew it was his girlfriend. That's fair enough, but he still fired indiscriminately into a tiny room with the intention to kill whoever was in there.

Clearlier

weldoninhio wrote: »

I really don't understand the people on this thread defending OP. He shot and killed his girlfriend. 5 years is nothing for taking someone's life.

The prosecution may not have been able to prove that he knew it was his girlfriend. That's fair enough, but he still fired indiscriminately into a tiny room with the intention to kill whoever was in there.

I haven't read the whole thread. Have people really been defending OP? A number of us have said that the verdict was in line with the evidence and appropriate to that evidence. That's not defending him. Robin has pointed out where the prosecution screwed up and I don't think that I've been alone in stating that while I think that the verdict was appropriate given the evidence I also believe that he deserved a much harsher sentence. The justice system has to work on evidence presented though not on belief.

weldoninhio

Clearlier wrote: »

I haven't read the whole thread. Have people really been defending OP? A number of us have said that the verdict was in line with the evidence and appropriate to that evidence. That's not defending him. Robin has pointed out where the prosecution screwed up and I don't think that I've been alone in stating that while I think that the verdict was appropriate given the evidence I also believe that he deserved a much harsher sentence. The justice system has to work on evidence presented though not on belief.

The only evidence needed was Pistorius confession that it was him that fired all 4 shots into a confined room. Those shots killed another human.

Everything else is window-dressing. 5 years for killing.

Peist2007

Clearlier wrote: »

I haven't read the whole thread. Have people really been defending OP? A number of us have said that the verdict was in line with the evidence and appropriate to that evidence. That's not defending him. Robin has pointed out where the prosecution screwed up and I don't think that I've been alone in stating that while I think that the verdict was appropriate given the evidence I also believe that he deserved a much harsher sentence. The justice system has to work on evidence presented though not on belief.

As a lawyer i can understand the contraints placed upon the Judge in reaching her verdict. However, much of Pistorious' story should have been dismissed far earlier for the bunkem it was. His crying in Court etc seemed to have an effect as it was regarded that this was a reliable example of his remorse. Let's face it the defence presented in Court was concocted and i wouldnt be surprised to hear he was extensively coached in order to present the bumbling vomiting mess we all saw.

If i were one of the most famous people in the world and had my life before me and i did what he did, i would be quite distraught too. That shouldnt be any form of a mitigating factor against the crime that was committed. It seemed to be given far more creedance in this case than it would if the accused were black and poor.

Creative Juices

We all know he did it on purpose. We know. The rest is just spin.
He got away with it because he is a white celebrity.

Creative Juices

Peist2007 wrote: »

As a lawyer i can understand....

Peist2007

Creative Juices wrote: »

Sorry?

Clearlier

Peist2007 wrote: »

Sorry?

I think that there may have been some surprise that as a lawyer you seemed to imply that the failure to convict him of premeditated murder had something to do with the evidence that Pistorius presented. As I'm sure you're aware the onus is on the prosecution to prove their case which the judge found they failed to do. It didn't really have anything to do with the evidence Pistorius presented, it was the lack of anything other than circumstantial evidence that was presented by the prosecution.

Ash.J.Williams

I don't buy into this "sure he's unlikely to reoffend" lark....the chap is a killer

REXER

myshirt wrote: »

The South African justice system has been a lesson I'll tell you.

I'm aghast...

I wouldn't be surprised to find it's in the written judgement that the Steenkamps are required to pay for a new bathroom door.

They may aswell go the full hog sher. Shocking stuff.

I think that you need to look a bit closer to home to find a corrupt justice system to criticize as there are numerous examples in good old Ireland.

Think Cavan, February 1943. 36 (35 of them children) killed in a fire at a "Facility" run by a religious order.

Fire escapes locked but no one was prosecuted? In fact the state bent over backwards to clear the nuns and the majority of the investigation board went on to much greater things as reward for their efforts! :eek:

Talk about a shockingly outrageously corrupt justice system! :mad::(

Peist2007

Clearlier wrote: »

I think that there may have been some surprise that as a lawyer you seemed to imply that the failure to convict him of premeditated murder had something to do with the evidence that Pistorius presented. As I'm sure you're aware the onus is on the prosecution to prove their case which the judge found they failed to do. It didn't really have anything to do with the evidence Pistorius presented, it was the lack of anything other than circumstantial evidence that was presented by the prosecution.

I would take the position that whether or not either side's evidence had an effect is a completely separate issue to the burden of proof. The manner and format of the arguments put forward at the sentencing hearing should tell you everything you need to know. The Defendant's financial losses suffered as a result of his crime being a factor in sentencing or at least presented as such implies that such an argument holds water in a South African court. That is ludicrous in my opinion.

And that was not the reason he commented on my post either. He's a little butt-hurt i called him out on another thread so now he follows me around winking at me and then liking my responses. A weirdo

Yarf Yarf

Clearlier wrote: »

I think that there may have been some surprise that as a lawyer you seemed to imply that the failure to convict him of premeditated murder had something to do with the evidence that Pistorius presented. As I'm sure you're aware the onus is on the prosecution to prove their case which the judge found they failed to do. It didn't really have anything to do with the evidence Pistorius presented, it was the lack of anything other than circumstantial evidence that was presented by the prosecution.

In fairness, people have been put in prison for very serious crimes based only or mainly on circumstantial evidence. It's not exactly unheard of. Circumstantial evidence is not automatically less valuable or less important than direct evidence. I think you'll remember Joe O' Reilly was convicted on circumstantial evidence. Most of the evidence against Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial too.

Also, the judge did seem to lend a lot of meaning to his theatrics in court, which I found kind of unbelievable.

Clearlier

Peist2007 wrote: »

I would take the position that whether or not either side's evidence had an effect is a completely separate issue to the burden of proof. The manner and format of the arguments put forward at the sentencing hearing should tell you everything you need to know. The Defendant's financial losses suffered as a result of his crime being a factor in sentencing or at least presented as such implies that such an argument holds water in a South African court. That is ludicrous in my opinion.

I disagree that the arguments in mitigation a defendant puts forward is a good indicator of what will be taken into account.

You may remember in the UK a year or so ago Theresa May citing a court case where the ownership of a pet cat was offered as a justification under the human rights act for someone not to be deported. What she didn't say (and which Ken Clarke called her out on) was that the judges rejected out of hand that argument. Does this imply in some way that such an argument holds water in an English court?

I haven't read the judgement (don't know if it's available or not) so I'm open to correction but I haven't seen any indication that the judge took into account his financial losses when determining her sentence. As with the cat case above I don't believe that it's unheard for the defence to offer evidence in mitigation that might not be considered that relevant in the hope that something will stick. She did consider his disability (but seems to have largely rejected it as a factor given her comments) and in determining his sentence took into account his remorse, that he is a first time offender and his contribution to society. It's worth noting that the NPA (National Prosecuting Authority) said afterwards that they may appeal the verdict but not the sentence.

It's perhaps cynical to say this but there can be a PR element to this. Letting it be known that he has lost all his money could easily be seen as a plea for sympathy not to the judge but to the general public - similarly some of the theatrics that went on during the trial.

Peist2007

Clearlier wrote: »

I disagree that the arguments in mitigation a defendant puts forward is a good indicator of what will be taken into account.

You may remember in the UK a year or so ago Theresa May citing a court case where the ownership of a pet cat was offered as a justification under the human rights act for someone not to be deported. What she didn't say (and which Ken Clarke called her out on) was that the judges rejected out of hand that argument. Does this imply in some way that such an argument holds water in an English court?

I haven't read the judgement (don't know if it's available or not) so I'm open to correction but I haven't seen any indication that the judge took into account his financial losses when determining her sentence. As with the cat case above I don't believe that it's unheard for the defence to offer evidence in mitigation that might not be considered that relevant in the hope that something will stick. She did consider his disability (but seems to have largely rejected it as a factor given her comments) and in determining his sentence took into account his remorse, that he is a first time offender and his contribution to society. It's worth noting that the NPA (National Prosecuting Authority) said afterwards that they may appeal the verdict but not the sentence.

It's perhaps cynical to say this but there can be a PR element to this. Letting it be known that he has lost all his money could easily be seen as a plea for sympathy not to the judge but to the general public - similarly some of the theatrics that went on during the trial.

My point was that the financial losses are even aired in Court in the first place. It wouldnt happen here. The fact that they have can only lead one to assume they were taken into account by the Judge in this case. She heard them therefore they are in the mix.

robinph

Looks like the prosecution is going to appeal the conviction and sentence now.

AudreyHepburn

robinph wrote: »

Looks like the prosecution is going to appeal the conviction and sentence now.

I don't see how they can do that successfully. There just is not enough evidence to convict him of murder.

arybvtcw0eolkf

robinph wrote: »

Looks like the prosecution is going to appeal the conviction and sentence now.

The speed (or lack off) which South African courts move they'll probably all die of old age before there's an appeal hearing.

robinph

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I don't see how they can do that successfully. There just is not enough evidence to convict him of murder.

It would be a waste of time for them to appeal the pre-meditated charge, but there is a case for them to try for the murder one. They seem to be saying that they will appeal based on the judge interpreting the law wrong. That is a very tricky one to call as it all gets lost in legal mumbo jumbo for that charge and why it didn't stick in the first place. The prosecution need to sort themselves out though as for them not to have made that charge stick first time round suggests they didn't understand what they needed to prove either.

MathDebater

He's getting out on parole in August.

OSCAR PISTORIUS, THE South African amputee sprinter who shot dead his girlfriend, is set to be freed on parole in August after serving just 10 months in jail, sparking anger from her family.

Pistorius, who became a global hero after competing in both the Paralympics and Olympics, claimed he mistook Reeva Steenkamp for an intruder when he fired four shots through a locked bathroom door on Valentine’s Day in 2013.

The 28-year-old athlete was found guilty last year of culpable homicide — a charge equivalent to manslaughter — and sentenced to five years in prison.

“The Correctional Supervision and Parole Board… approved the placement of Oscar Pistorius under correctional supervision with effect from 21 August,” a government statement said.

But Steenkamp’s family voiced dismay at the announcement.

“Incarceration of 10 months for taking a life is simply not enough,” Reeva’s parents June and Barry Steenkamp said in a statement released online.

http://www.thejournal.ie/pistorius-parole-2149990-Jun2015/

The family are justifiably unhappy with the decision.

omerin

Hard to believe, but there's a worse judicial system then Ireland. What a complete joke

heretochat

Isn't the State's appeal against the non-guilty verdict for Ms. Steenkamp's murder to be heard in November? His "freedom" may be short lived if the State is successful

conorh91

Just heard on the radio this morning that Pistorius is due to be released from prison next week

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/11800463/Oscar-Pistorius-to-be-released-from-prison-next-week.html

He was sentenced to five years in prison but was eligible for release after serving just one sixth of his sentence under “correctional supervision”.
Correctional supervision is usually given to offenders who commit serious crimes but are not deemed to be a danger to the community, and are not best-served by a long stretch in South Africa’s notoriously dangerous and overcrowded prisons.

He could be eligible to take part in an electronic tagging programme, or will have to check in regularly with a parole officer and at first will be allowed only to leave the house to go to work or to run the occasional errand.

As well as the habitual parole conditions including abstaining from alcohol and drugs or touching guns, he is likely to be instructed to undertake anger management courses as well as community service.

His difficulties are not over yet, though. There will still be an appeal to upgrade his conviction to murder, and under the rules of the International Paralympic Committee, he will be unable to compete in the Rio Olympics.