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

Nodin

Clearlier wrote: »

I think that your average person might do this. Oscar Pistorius however will I imagine seek some kind of public forgiveness and redemption and reinvent his celebrity. It's not going to be edifying.

Is there a South African equivalent of Oprah?

robinph

conorh91 wrote: »

Like i said, he was a major sports icon, it's interesting from that viewpoint. But theres no need to excite oneself.

Whole names. Surnames.

They're strangers, you don't know them, nor can you read their minds; this isn't a soap opera.. remember??

It's easier to type Oscar and Reeva than it is to use their surnames. This is the internet and nobody can speel round here. Careful you don't get too excited with being outraged there yourself.

FunGoose

conorh91 wrote: »

Like i said, he was a major sports icon, it's interesting from that viewpoint. But theres no need to excite oneself.

Whole names. Surnames.

They're strangers, you don't know them, nor can you read their minds; this isn't a soap opera.. remember??

Ha ha!!

Fair enough, from now on I'll use their whole names.
And you're right, Oscar Leonard Carl Pistorius was a major sports icon. (Am I being a bit smart now and exciting myself again?)

C'mon man, it takes ages to type his 'whole' name. Can I not just use Oscar, Reeva, Gerrie, Barry etc for short? Everyone can just presume I don't actually know these people.

conorh91

Circus folk.

volchitsa

robinph wrote: »

Not suggesting it's not real crime.

I'm saying that anything he does is going to be under a very high level of scrutiny from now on, and any future partners are going to be exceedingly aware of his past.

Going by the reaction of some women to Graham Dwyer's "celebrity status" one would have to conclude that this doesnt mean that all women will now steer clear of Pistorius. Alas.

And I didn't mean to imply that you personally were suggesting that, I just found the turn of phrase unfortunate. Sorry if it came across as an accusation.

FunGoose

volchitsa wrote: »

Going by the reaction of some women to Graham Dwyer's "celebrity status" one would have to conclude that this doesnt mean that all women will now steer clear of Pistorius. Alas.

And I didn't mean to imply that you personally were suggesting that, I just found the turn of phrase unfortunate. Sorry if it came across as an accusation.

I agree. Some future partners will be aware of his past and be drawn to it. Dwyer being an example and also Richard Ramirez, who was unbelievably horrific and had thousands of lady fans after he was caught.

Maybe some future partners just won't care. Apparantly Oscar Leonard Carl Pistorius has had a girlfriend for some time before the trial. Brave girl in my opinion.

bnt

Whatever the prosecution do, they've got to avoid running in to South Africa's double jeopardy law. It's in the Constitution:

Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right ... not to be tried for an offence in respect of an act or omission for which that person has previously been either acquitted or convicted ...
- Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s. 35(3)(m)

That's why they're appealing the conviction, not looking for a re-trial.

Muff Richardson

wait, wait...what's this, is this a tiny semblance of justice, logic and common sense???? it couldn't be.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-33987669

(cue Audrey Hepburn for a post on what a travesty of justice this is and how dare they do this to poor old Oscar)

Mr Freeze

Muff Richardson wrote: »

wait, wait...what's this, is this a tiny semblance of justice, logic and common sense???? it couldn't be.

Read earlier today that this was possible, did not expect it to happen though.
Another 4 months at least hopefully for him before he gets his parole review, probably get out Monday instead.

Clearlier

Muff Richardson wrote: »

wait, wait...what's this, is this a tiny semblance of justice, logic and common sense???? it couldn't be.

As is probably evident from my earlier posts on this thread I don't believe that Pistorius received as severe a sentence as he should have. That said I don't believe that the law should be bent to political whims. If the process in South Africa for any other prisoner convicted of the crime that Pistorius was would be to have them paroled at this point the exact same thing should have happened to Pistorius. Justice should not vary either way depending on the identity of the criminal.

Mr Freeze

Clearlier wrote: »

As is probably evident from my earlier posts on this thread I don't believe that Pistorius received as severe a sentence as he should have. That said I don't believe that the law should be bent to political whims. If the process in South Africa for any other prisoner convicted of the crime that Pistorius was would be to have them paroled at this point the exact same thing should have happened to Pistorius. Justice should not vary either way depending on the identity of the criminal.

It's too soon, he is only in 6 months, he should be paroled at 10 months which would be the norm in SA.

Thats what I got from the few articles anyways.

robinph

Mr Freeze wrote: »

It's too soon, he is only in 6 months, he should be paroled at 10 months which would be the norm in SA.

Thats what I got from the few articles anyways.

Seemed to be some confusion about how long he had been held for in what I saw as well. If he has served the required time though then he must be released, otherwise it will allow for them to be making up the law as they go along for other prisoners as well. The problem with not releasing him is for other cases, not this one.

AudreyHepburn

Muff Richardson wrote: »

wait, wait...what's this, is this a tiny semblance of justice, logic and common sense???? it couldn't be.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-33987669

(cue Audrey Hepburn for a post on what a travesty of justice this is and how dare they do this to poor old Oscar)

Nice try....I'm not going to rise to it though, sorry.

All I'll say is even though I don't agree with trying Pistorius for murder, I do agree that 10 months is too short for what he did.

Accidental it may have been but he still took Reeva's life through his own recklessness and he should be punished for it.

Muff Richardson

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Nice try....I'm not going to rise to it though, sorry.

All I'll say is even though I don't agree with trying Pistorius for murder, I do agree that 10 months is too short for what he did.

Accidental it may have been but he still took Reeva's life through his own recklessness and he should be punished for it.

you won't rise to it but "all I'll say... blah blah" followed by "accidental it may have been...blah blah blah"

okey dokey

Mr Freeze

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

All I'll say is even though I don't agree with trying Pistorius for murder, I do agree that 10 months is too short for what he did.

Accidental it may have been but he still took Reeva's life through his own recklessness and he should be punished for it.

One article I read stated that be could be in prison for years before getting parole, I will try dig up the article and post it.

No idea how reliable or unreliable it is though.

AudreyHepburn

Muff Richardson wrote: »

you won't rise to it but "all I'll say... blah blah" followed by "accidental it may have been...blah blah blah"

okey dokey

Give it a rest.

AudreyHepburn

Mr Freeze wrote: »

One article I read stated that be could be in prison for years before getting parole, I will try dig up the article and post it.

No idea how reliable or unreliable it is though.

As well he should be.....I don't recall ever saying otherwise to be fair.

AudreyHepburn

http://news.sky.com/story/1570103/oscar-pistorius-to-be-released-on-parole

Just a little update on the case.....Pistorius is due to be released and will likely serve out the rest of sentence under house arrest.

Mr Freeze

^ Not surprising. He served more time than I expected him too. I feel for the Steenkamp family hearing this news.

Any word on the prosecutions appeal?

robinph

The updated report now says that the prosecution appeal is set for 3rd November.

Kristopherus

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

Mr Freeze

Kristopherus wrote: »

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

I doubt they will overturn the judges manslaughter verdict.
(unless they already have)...

Muff Richardson

Mr Freeze wrote: »

I doubt they will overturn the judges manslaughter verdict.
(unless they already have)...

they already have....beautiful.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34993002

Gaygooner

he'd been convicted of murder (BBC)

Mr Freeze

Muff Richardson wrote: »

they already have....beautiful.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34993002

Shocked that they had the balls to do this.

Good news for a change in this case for the victims family.

Hurtbuthealing

In breaking news justice has finally been done, the blade gunner has been found guilty of murder by a South African appeals court.

A good day for justice.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-found-guilty-of-murder-after-appeal-upheld-1.2452934

screamer

About fecking time bet he will need a few buckets now

CosmicSmash

Sure he never had a leg to stand on to begin with.

Wonda-Boy

Absolutely delighted he has been charged with murder, if ever someone was guilty its him.....need this kind of justice over here.

seamus

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.

El Weirdo

Wonda-Boy wrote: »

Absolutely delighted he has been charged with murder, if ever someone was guilty its him.....need this kind of justice over here.

Convicted, not just charged.

cherryghost

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.

If it was anywhere else I would have figured it would have been thrown out by now.

Tarzana2

LOL.

robinph

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.

suicide_circus

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.

Yeah absolutely wacky judicial system by the looks of things

IamtheWalrus

Wonda-Boy wrote: »

Absolutely delighted he has been charged with murder, if ever someone was guilty its him.....need this kind of justice over here.

Really?

murpho999

Is this the final hurdle now?

Can Pistorius appeal this decision?

Mr Freeze

murpho999 wrote: »

Is this the final hurdle now?

Can Pistorius appeal this decision?

I would say so.

Kristopherus

murpho999 wrote: »

Is this the final hurdle now?

Can Pistorius appeal this decision?

Doubt it. This is a Supreme Court decision. Thankfully no European Court of Human Rights for him:(.

Mr Freeze

robinph wrote: »

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.

One report said it was a minimum of 15 years.

We will have to wait and see, loads of reports\news articles could be inaccurate or just made up at the moment regarding this.

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.