Pistorious Trial, Murder Vs Manslaughter

Mikey000

I've been googling this, but haven't been able to find a decent reply.
The paddy powers ad had me thinking, can Oscar Pistorious actually walk away from this trial a free man.
Whether or not her intentionally murdered a woman sitting on the toilet by shooting through the door, isn't it still a case of serious Manslaughter?
Can he really walk away from shooting someone unarmed without an attempt to communicate?
Is this any different to someone crushing a pedestrian in a car while they checked their phone for messages? I imagine that would result in manslaughter charges due to negligence.

Is this trial about x years for manslaughter or 4x years for murder. Or 4x years or freedom?

Can you really walk away from this kind of thing if you can convince a judge on your state of mind at the time of a crime?

chops018

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rMurderandInvoluntaryMS.pdf

Enjoy!

Mikey000

Actually I've found an article that explains it
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/03/oscar-pistorius-trial-begins
In South Africa it's Culpable Homocide, not Manslaughter, which can result in fines or prison.

chops018

"Sentences in such cases range from fines to prison. They are left to courts to determine and are not set by fixed guidelines."

Interesting....

Mikey000

Yeah, seriously messed up if the Judge decides on a fine. I'd hate to see the expression on her mums face in that case.

I'm still trying to imagine how the Judge could rule in his favour.
"I believe you that in your mind an armed and dangerous robber silently entered your bathroom through a window, and immediately locked himself in the toilet when he heard you approach. You believed this person to be a threat to you and your girlfriend, so you decided in the heat of the moment to shoot at this robber through the door at chest / head level..."

Holsten

Why would it be messed up if he was fined?

Will putting him in prison for x years bring back the girl? No.

Will the family feel so much better now that he is in prison? Doubt it.

hullaballoo

Moderator: This will be the only warning in this thread. Please ensure that you do not encroach on the sub judice rule. I know the trial is taking place in RSA but the rule exists for a reason.

johnnyskeleton

Mikey000 wrote: »

Can you really walk away from...

Care to rephrase?

Slideshowbob

Paddy Power odds have swung in last few days from more likely to be done for premeditated murder to now more unlikely ...

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/novelty-betting/current-affairs/oscar-pistorius?ev_oc_grp_ids=1297770

Wheelnut

He seems to admit firing blindly through a door knowing there was someone on the other side.

Devil08

Murder!
Don't think he has a leg to stand on..

Mikey000

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Care to rephrase?

Not really, the man is perfectly capable of running and walking.

sopretty

Hi.
Not sure if anyone is following the trial. I'm catching tit-bits, but not watching the whole trial.

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post this opinion, as I know this forum has a strict charter, so feel free to delete mods if you wish..

However, the Prosecution is using the incident in the bar with the gun going off as proof of Oscar's carelessness around guns.

Why is the Defence NOT using this? Could they not argue that Oscar is familiar with guns, familiar with using them, and therefore would probably quite happily shoot at a potential intruder?

Maybe I'm raving, but to me the prosecution is actually strengthening the defence's case by focusing on this - assuming of course, that the defence picks up on the notion that a gung-ho attitude to gun use in general, would support Pistorious' non guilty plea - i.e. that his almost natural instinct would have been to shoot a perceived intruder?

Mikey000

A green beret might be sitting at the dinner table next to me. I'm certain he's well comfortable handling and shooting guns. If he fired the gun under the dinner table (nearly hitting someone's foot), I really couldn't see it strengthening the defences case. It does suggest either the person that fired it doesn't know what's an appropriate place to fire a gun, or that a gun could go off by accident in their hand.

I'm not sure what the moderator is warning us about. I got the info I was after why the word manslaughter is never used in articles about this trial, so feel free to delete it if we're breaking some charter.

sopretty wrote: »

Hi.
Not sure if anyone is following the trial. I'm catching tit-bits, but not watching the whole trial.

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post this opinion, as I know this forum has a strict charter, so feel free to delete mods if you wish..

However, the Prosecution is using the incident in the bar with the gun going off as proof of Oscar's carelessness around guns.

Why is the Defence NOT using this? Could they not argue that Oscar is familiar with guns, familiar with using them, and therefore would probably quite happily shoot at a potential intruder?

Maybe I'm raving, but to me the prosecution is actually strengthening the defence's case by focusing on this - assuming of course, that the defence picks up on the notion that a gung-ho attitude to gun use in general, would support Pistorious' non guilty plea - i.e. that his almost natural instinct would have been to shoot a perceived intruder?

sopretty

Mikey000 wrote: »

A green beret might be sitting at the dinner table next to me. I'm certain he's well comfortable handling and shooting guns. If he fired the gun under the dinner table (nearly hitting someone's foot), I really couldn't see it strengthening the defences case. It does suggest either the person that fired it doesn't know what's an appropriate place to fire a gun, or that a gun could go off by accident in their hand.

I'm not sure what the moderator is warning us about. I got the info I was after why the word manslaughter is never used in articles about this trial, so feel free to delete it if we're breaking some charter.

No, I'm not saying a moderator has warned me. I'm just wondering to be honest, why there is no discussion about this case I suppose, and I assumed that maybe it wasn't 'allowed' to be discussed.

The evidence today, by Oscar's ex, further suggests that he randomly went with his gun whenever he heard a noise being made.

It's a tough one to call really.

Mikey000

Yeah, I saw the moderator message here, I'm just not sure what they're saying.

I'm mostly interested to see if they find him not guilty for murder, does it automatically fall through to Manslaughter (or Culpable homicide as they call it)

Do lawyers have to pick one thing to argue for? One side is arguing for Murder, the other for Freedom. I know this is just my opinion, but I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I don't see him intentionally shooting her, then claiming he thought she was a burglar. And I don't get how you can shoot at someone through a door, kill them and claim it was an accident so there shouldn't be any punishment.

What if it was teenage boy who climbed in through a window to steal some valuables while they slept. Would there even be a trial then?
Or what if an ex who had a key, let herself in to write some profanities on a mirror in lipstick or something?

His argument of "I thought it was in intruder" would be 100% valid then, but does there not need to be some "He was coming at me with a knife" or "I was certain that black thing in his hand was a gun" situation to be able to shoot someone dead without receiving any punishment.

Maybe I've got this all wrong and the defence are arguing for a lesser charge of Manslaughter / Culpable Homicide.

Idbatterim

he was saying he was scared, would the first thing you would do, not be to wake the other half or at least see if she was in bed beside you?! then you go into the bathroom without having checked, you have a gun, would you not say identify yourself before opening fire? Id say they had an argument, he might have become abusive and she she locks herself in the bathroom to get away from him OR she says she is leaving him and he absolutely loses it. As sorry as I am for the girl, can they not identify men like this psycho, its like the girl that was murdered in Australia by that nut job, ok they will be putting their best foot forward at first, but once out of honey moon stage, you think they would be getting out of there asap, regardless of how difficult it would appear to be... This is the second girl in recent times to have suffered this faith, awful! Of course he is the only one who knows for sure what happened that night, and no one can say if he did it for certain, but I would be 99% certain he knew exactly what he was doing... He blatantly has anger issues, as has already been identified by his ex in court...

hullaballoo

Mikey000 wrote: »

I'm not sure what the moderator is warning us about. I got the info I was after why the word manslaughter is never used in articles about this trial, so feel free to delete it if we're breaking some charter.

Mikey000 wrote: »

Yeah, I saw the moderator message here, I'm just not sure what they're saying.

Moderator: if you are not sure what I mean then do you not think it would be a good idea to look it up rather than discuss my warning in-thread?

I find the number of people who blatantly advertise the fact that they haven't read the charter incredible. Anyway, this is the rule that is relevant here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87523044&postcount=3

sopretty

d

Mikey000

Yeah, I'll admit I was lazy not reading the charter before posting my question, but as I said, I found the answer I was after when I started this thread, and I suggested deleting this thread if we're breaking the charter.

It looks like we are by discussing a trial that is currently before the courts, so let's delete / shut down the thread.
I've tried to delete it, but don't think I have privileges to do so.

Vision of Disorder

Idbatterim wrote: »

As sorry as I am for the girl, can they not identify men like this psycho,

It's not like 'psychos' have a big facial tattoo that warns people of what they might do.

Idbatterim

It's not like 'psychos' have a big facial tattoo that warns people of what they might do.

obviously, but how long do you have to be with them before it becomes so obvious that they might as well have said tattoo on their face?...

sopretty

Idbatterim wrote: »

obviously, but how long do you have to be with them before it becomes so obvious that they might as well have said tattoo on their face?...

As with a lot of things in life, hind-sight is 20:20 vision.....

Wheelnut

Does any body think that Oscar is overdoing the visibly-upset bit? I mean things like being emotional and getting physically sick. After all, he was there on the night and saw things first-hand so the descriptions in court are not telling him anything new. This is a man who endured the limelight on his every stride in sport so he is used to being under pressure and in the public gaze.

sopretty

Wheelnut wrote: »

Does any body think that Oscar is overdoing the visibly-upset bit? I mean things like being emotional and getting physically sick. After all, he was there on the night and saw things first-hand so the descriptions in court are not telling him anything new. This is a man who endured the limelight on his every stride in sport so he is used to being under pressure and in the public gaze.

I'd answer you, but I'm not sure whether I'd be in breach of the forum charter by discussing someone in the trial or not!

Wheelnut

sopretty wrote: »

I'd answer you, but I'm not sure whether I'd be in breach of the forum charter by discussing someone in the trial or not!

Not sure if you're serious or tongue-in-cheek, but I don't see anything in the charter about (not) discussing the demeanor of someone in the court:

Charter wrote:

- no disobeying court orders/suggesting others do so;
- no direct criticism of a member of the judiciary in the execution of their function;
- no talking about cases currently before the courts;
- no talking about cases that are under criminal investigation or are likely to be investigated in future;
- no breaching reporting restrictions imposed by a judge.

sopretty

Wheelnut wrote: »

Not sure if you're serious or tongue-in-cheek, but I don't see anything in the charter about (not) discussing the demeanor of someone in the court:

'no talking about cases before the courts'. That's the one which could be widely interpreted!

jcsoulinger

Was wondering if he is found guilty has he the right to appeal and does anyone know how long this may take.


And I'm not sure if this is against the charter but a lot has been written in the media about his testimony, but nowhere do I see where he keeps his gun in the house. where was his gun before he used it to shoot through the door?


thank you in advance.

Vision of Disorder

Idbatterim wrote: »

obviously, but how long do you have to be with them before it becomes so obvious that they might as well have said tattoo on their face?...

Wholly dependent on the individual in question. It's easy see all the signs after the event.

Holsten

jcsoulinger wrote: »

Was wondering if he is found guilty has he the right to appeal and does anyone know how long this may take.


And I'm not sure if this is against the charter but a lot has been written in the media about his testimony, but nowhere do I see where he keeps his gun in the house. where was his gun before he used it to shoot through the door?


thank you in advance.

He would have to apply for leave to appeal which is applying for the chance to appeal.

If convicted he could appeal both the conviction itself and whatever sentence is imposed.