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

robinph

murpho999 wrote: »

Is this the final hurdle now?

Can Pistorius appeal this decision?

Unlikely.

Pistorius can challenge the ruling in the constitutional court but only if his lawyers can argue that his constitutional rights have been violated.

Legal expert Mannie Witz told the BBC that there do not appear to be any grounds for such an appeal.

Can't see any reason to appeal this myself.

Kristopherus

robinph wrote: »

The BBC report when I left the house said the appeal was rejected, then by the time I get to work it changed to accepted. Confused me for a moment there.

This is still not a charge of murder of Reeva Steenkamp however, this is now the charge that the prosecution should have been going for in the first place of murder of unknown person who happened to be behind the door. The prosecution really screwed up and it should never have needed to go to appeal if they had just done their job properly in the first place and not fixated on something that they could never prove.

Can't quite remember now, but I think the sentencing guidelines for this new charge of murder are basically the same as for the manslaughter charge, so don't necessarily expect him to now be locked up for 20 years. If they just double the sentence then that would only mean him going back to prison for another couple of months due to time already served, then he'll be back under house arrest again for the remainder.

The decision of the Supreme Court is that the origibnal decision was incorrect and that he should be covicted for murder. The case has now been referred back to the original court for imposition of the appropriate sentence. This will happen early in the new year.

The_Valeyard

He better enjoy his Christmas so, could be going away for a long time in the new year.

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod:

Merged threads

asherbassad

seamus wrote: »

Not convinced of the murder verdict myself based on the evidence presented at trial.

Seems like a crazy system though, how can it be correct that someone's charge can be "upgraded" without a full retrial? South Africa's legal system seems like it's a bit of a kangaroo court.

Nah, that's Australia's system.

asherbassad

So he's definitely going back to prison it seems.

Wonder if they'll televise his bawling and barfing at the sentencing.

whatstherush

robinph wrote: »

This is still not a charge of murder of Reeva Steenkamp however, this is now the charge that the prosecution should have been going for in the first place of murder of unknown person who happened to be behind the door. The prosecution really screwed up and it should never have needed to go to appeal if they had just done their job properly in the first place and not fixated on something that they could never prove.
.

If it was the prosecution that screwed up, why did the supreme court judge directly criticize Masipa saying the her ruling was “confusing in various respects” and not the prosecution?

Kunkka

Seems like justice to me anyway. Never believed him from the start and felt his story was a total fabrication. I don't think he meant to kill her. I'd say it was a domestic and he tried to scare her but killed her in the process. Regardless I'm glad he's going back to prison.

However, as mentioned it really does portray the SA justice system as a kangaroo court....

VisibleGorilla

So anyone in SA can have their sentence changed at any time by a judge?

Ex post facto?
Double jeopardy?

I feel this is purely motivated by the backlash received for not giving him an extremely harsh sentence.

robinph

whatstherush wrote: »

If it was the prosecution that screwed up, why did the supreme court judge directly criticize Masipa saying the her ruling was “confusing in various respects” and not the prosecution?

The prosecution had only tried to get the murder of Reeva Steenkamp charge, and didn't try for the other murder charge. The judge was then stuck with not being able the find him guilty of that murder charge of Reeva, which then got downgraded to the manslaughter equivalent. If they had just gone for the other murder charge it would have stuck at the first attempt.

I seem to recall her sentencing being a bit confusing. Almost as if she was saying he was guilty of the murder charge he's now been handed, but for some reason she couldn't use that one. I still think she made the right call based on what was presented to her and the charges that were made.

The first arresting cop that got sacked after the initial hearing started the whole mess for the prosecution.

AudreyHepburn

I'm not sure how I feel about this to be honest....I just don't think there was enough evidence put forward to say that Pistorius did know it was Reeva S behind the door and less again to say his intention was to kill.

I also don't like the idea of a system where you can be charged with something then re-charged without a full trial.

I do feel this has more to do with the public backlash about the original conviction than any real feeling that he is actually guilty.

sadie06

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I also don't like the idea of a system where you can be charged with something then re-charged without a full trial.

.

Yes, but remember the unusual feature of the SA judicial system…no jury!

That is a lot of weight placed on the ability of one person to make the right call in a complicated case. There has to be a process that allows that call to be scrutinised without a full retrial, which would once again place the outcome in the hands of one person.

10000maniacs

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'm not sure how I feel about this to be honest....I just don't think there was enough evidence put forward to say that Pistorius did know it was Reeva S behind the door and less again to say his intention was to kill.

I also don't like the idea of a system where you can be charged with something then re-charged without a full trial.

I do feel this has more to do with the public backlash about the original conviction than any real feeling that he is actually guilty.

:rolleyes:
That original trial was the biggest farce I have ever seen, putting anything I have seen here in Ireland in the ha'penny place.
THEY HAD A ROW AND OSCAR LOST IT. SIMPLES
Lets hope the "sisters" give Oscar a great welcome when he arrives back in the cells.

robinph

10000maniacs wrote: »

THEY HAD A ROW AND OSCAR LOST IT. SIMPLES.

A total of 8* South African judges now disagree with you based on the evidence.


* I think I've added that up right. The original one, plus the two who were overseeing her at the first trail, and now the 5 appeal judges.

ronjo

If the first sentence had been a bit tougher would they have persued this I wonder?

Nodin

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

So anyone in SA can have their sentence changed at any time by a judge?

Ex post facto?
Double jeopardy?

I feel this is purely motivated by the backlash received for not giving him an extremely harsh sentence.

Not really. Often it seemed in the other trial as if the question was did he know it was her. Here the judge cut to the chase and stated that, not having fired a warning shot and given the size of the toilet, any shots fired in there would result in death with no chance for the occupant. Thus its murder.

JP Liz V1

asherbassad wrote: »

So he's definitely going back to prison it seems.

Wonder if they'll televise his bawling and barfing at the sentencing.

What is the max sentence he can get now, life?

wil

Nodin wrote: »

Not really. Often it seemed in the other trial as if the question was did he know it was her. Here the judge cut to the chase and stated that, not having fired a warning shot and given the size of the toilet, any shots fired in there would result in death with no chance for the occupant. Thus its murder.

This reflects very poorly on the original judge. If it was possible for the appeals court to come to this fairly obvious conclusion, she should have known her original ruling could likely be overturned. Blaming the prosecution for a poorly presented case does not excuse an equally poorly concluded verdict.

mzungu

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

What is the max sentence he can get now, life?

I think murder in SA is 15 years and upwards.

Nodin

mzungu wrote: »

I think murder in SA is 15 years and upwards.

Somebody on RTE this morning saying that 15 years was a guideline, and that it can be under or over that length at the judges discretion.

seagull

He's been found to be guilty of murder, not necessarily the wilful murder of Reeva Steenkamp.This should have come down to 4 basic questions to Pistorius at the start

1) Why did you choose that type of ammunition?
2) What would you expect to happen to someone hit by one of those rounds?
3) when firing through that door, would you expect to hit the person on the other side?
4) Would you expect them to survive being shot?

Basically, anyone with any knowledge of firearms would look at the type of ammunition, the size of that room, and conclude that anyone in that toilet would be extremely unlikely to survive 4 shots through the door.

On top of that, his whole story makes no sense start to finish. Imagine the scenario, you wake up in the middle of the night, hear someone in the bathroom, and think it's an intruder and start shouting. If that were me, my wife's response would be "Shut up and go back to sleep, you dopey twit".

wil

seagull wrote: »

On top of that, his whole story makes no sense start to finish. Imagine the scenario, you wake up in the middle of the night, hear someone in the bathroom, and think it's an intruder and start shouting. If that were me, my wife's response would be "Shut up and go back to sleep, you dopey twit".

Now I ask you, and think very carefully before you reply, - As you were awoken during the night by sounds coming from the bathroom, where exactly was your wife when she called you "a dosey twit"? His words m'lud "dosey twit" it's a derogatory term m'lud, occasionally a term of endearment, unlike the other similar word.
You may answer the question.:P

jimgoose

Kristopherus wrote: »

Appeal decision now on Sky News. He's going down for Murder.

Good. About sodding time.

lazza14

Finally , some justice in this.

seagull

wil wrote: »

Now I ask you, and think very carefully before you reply, - As you were awoken during the night by sounds coming from the bathroom, where exactly was your wife when she called you "a dosey twit"? His words m'lud "dosey twit" it's a derogatory term m'lud, occasionally a term of endearment, unlike the other similar word.
You may answer the question.:P

Any reasonable person would go through the following process
- ****, I hear a noise. I hope it's not a burglar
- Reach out to partner in bed to check if they heard it too
- Find she isn't there
- Assume it's her making the noise in the bathroom, roll over and go back to sleep. Possibly ask her to stop making such a racket if I was feeling very brave or suicidal.

P.s. It's dopey, not dosey. I do not have the clap.

seamus

seagull wrote: »

Any reasonable person would go through the following process
- ****, I hear a noise. I hope it's not a burglar
- Reach out to partner in bed to check if they heard it too
- Find she isn't there
- Assume it's her making the noise in the bathroom, roll over and go back to sleep. Possibly ask her to stop making such a racket if I was feeling very brave or suicidal.

Look, this has been gone over a million times in this thread. You don't live in South Africa. You don't live in a country where home invaders are pretty much guaranteed to rape your partner and then murder you both.

Any reasonable person in Ireland or most western countries would go with the above approach. South Africa is not like Ireland or most western countries. So to presume that what you would do right now is what you would do in SA is an error.

That doesn't mean his actions were necessarily reasonable, but part of his defence did admit a certain level of unreasonableness in what he did due to having a serious fear of being caught out by an intruder.

The judge never disputed his account. Even now having been upgraded to murder, the judge still hasn't disputed or disbelieved Pistorious's account, except for one fact - the judge has decided that in firing against the door, Pistorious intended to kill whoever was behind it. That was the difference between murder and culpable homicide. All of the events leading up to that moment are not in dispute.

Worth noting that his account was not that he was woken up by noise in the bathroom. He woke up and took a fan out of the bedroom onto a balcony. When he came back into the room, he heard a noise in the bathroom and he panicked. Reeva had obviously gotten out of bed and gone into the bathroom without him noticing.

10000maniacs

robinph wrote: »

A total of 8* South African judges now disagree with you based on the evidence.


* I think I've added that up right. The original one, plus the two who were overseeing her at the first trail, and now the 5 appeal judges.

And you have full confidence in the South African legal system/ South African judges after being subjected to that farce earlier this year.

robinph

10000maniacs wrote: »

And you have full confidence in the South African legal system/ South African judges after being subjected to that farce earlier this year.

More confidence in them being able to make the correct descion based on the facts than the lynch mob of boards.

darkpagandeath

I'm confused in relation to the comment on "Pistorius must have known shooting though the door would have killed someone" does that mean if it was a burglar it would still have been murder ?

Merkin

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I'm confused in relation to the comment on "Pistorius must have known shooting though the door would have killed someone" does that mean if it was a burglar it would still have been murder ?

Yes. This explains things pretty succinctly

http://www.thejournal.ie/oscar-pistorius-back-in-prison-murder-charge-2481246-Dec2015/

Personally I'm delighted. Just feel sorry that it's been such a protracted process for her family.