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

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.

namloc1980

robinph wrote: »

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

But the Appeal court said the original trial judge erred in her application of the law. Couldn't have confidence in that.

seamus

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. And the same law applies here in Ireland.

Nodin

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 ?

Essentially, yes. There was no warning shot and he shot to kill. Who was thought to be behind the door was deemed irrelevant. Realistically he knew full well who was behind the door, and the hole in his story is the way in which he made insufficient effort to determine who was actually in there and shot without an attempt to do so.

Muff Richardson

robinph wrote: »

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

As you are so concerned with facts and law and correct procedure that's now totally irrelevant and this 'lynch mob' has been proven correct because he is now deemed to be a convicted murderer.

After all the facts and blah blah blah you have spewed during and particularly post verdict it seems you are wrong and have always been wrong. maybe it's time to eat a slice of that humble pie.

Muff Richardson

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.

doesn't really matter what rose tinted glasses you were looking through. There was evidence and plenty of it... he's now a convicted murderer according to a supreme court judge and the majority of the planet who had any insight into the case.

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

What about someone who has spent years in prison but are actually innocent, when the appeal finds them to be so, should there be a full re trial? It's the same principle, only the converse...nonsensical and idiotic in equal measure.

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.

This sounds like nothing more than chucking your toys out of the pram, ridiculous.

darkpagandeath

Nodin wrote: »

Essentially, yes. There was no warning shot and he shot to kill. Who was thought to be behind the door was deemed irrelevant. Realistically he knew full well who was behind the door, and the hole in his story is the way in which he made insufficient effort to determine who was actually in there and shot without an attempt to do so.

Yeah I get that now, I would have thought SA would have more Robust house defence laws though.

robinph

Muff Richardson wrote: »

As you are so concerned with facts and law and correct procedure that's now totally irrelevant and this 'lynch mob' has been proven correct because he is now deemed to be a convicted murderer.

After all the facts and blah blah blah you have spewed during and particularly post verdict it seems you are wrong and have always been wrong. maybe it's time to eat a slice of that humble pie.

Are you aware of what he has now been found guilty of? He has still not been found guilty of the murder of Reeva Steenkamp, or of pre meditated murder.

Never had any issue with this verdict as being the result.

Muff Richardson

robinph wrote: »

Are you aware of what he has now been found guilty of? He has still not been found guilty of the murder of Reeva Steenkamp, or of pre meditated murder.

Never had any issue with this verdict as being the result.

Yet you call it a 'lynch mob'

robinph

Muff Richardson wrote: »

Yet you call it a 'lynch mob'

Bunch of people calling for blood based on zero evidence for the crime they think was committed? Sounds about right.

Nodin

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yeah I get that now, I would have thought SA would have more Robust house defence laws though.

If you can find me a country that allows burglars to be shot dead for hiding in a toilet, please let me know the name.

Vic_08

robinph wrote: »

Bunch of people calling for blood based on zero evidence for the crime they think was committed? Sounds about right.

How can you actually say something so patently stupid as that?

Zero Evidence? Apart from the dead girl and (actual) smoking gun in Oscar's hand?

The only thing there is zero evidence for is anything other than the simple fact that he committed the crime, the very essence of an open and shut case.

PressRun

His story was ridiculous from the outset, tbh. Right verdict.

robinph

Vic_08 wrote: »

How can you actually say something so patently stupid as that?

Zero Evidence? Apart from the dead girl and (actual) smoking gun in Oscar's hand?

The only thing there is zero evidence for is anything other than the simple fact that he committed the crime, the very essence of an open and shut case.

Please do try and keep up.

There are two different murder charges that have been discussed throughout the case. The one that he has now been found guilty of you are quit right there is plenty of evidence for.

The other charge of pre meditated murder of RS there is zero evidence for, but that seems to be what people think he has now been found guilty of and have been screaming for since the start. He has not been found guilty of that charge.

weldoninhio

robinph wrote: »

Please do try and keep up.

There are two different murder charges that have been discussed throughout the case. The one that he has now been found guilty of you are quit right there is plenty of evidence for.

The other charge of pre meditated murder of RS there is zero evidence for, but that seems to be what people think he has now been found guilty of and have been screaming for since the start. He has not been found guilty of that charge.

It makes no odds. He murdered that poor girl and now he is going away for a long, long time. Justice has been served to him. His fairytale was completely unbelievable. I understand the charge isn't that he specifically murdered Reeva, but you seem pretty butt hurt that the majority of your statements have been proven completely wrong and your trying to use semantics to get a semblance of saving face.

robinph

weldoninhio wrote: »

It makes no odds. He murdered that poor girl and now he is going away for a long, long time. Justice has been served to him. His fairytale was completely unbelievable. I understand the charge isn't that he specifically murdered Reeva, but you seem pretty butt hurt that the majority of your statements have been proven completely wrong and your trying to use semantics to get a semblance of saving face.

What has been proven wrong?

Tarzana2

robinph wrote: »

Are you aware of what he has now been found guilty of? He has still not been found guilty of the murder of Reeva Steenkamp, or of pre meditated murder.

Never had any issue with this verdict as being the result.

Are all the media outlets wrong then?

Olympic athlete Oscar Pistorius has been found guilty of murder after a South African appeals court overturned an earlier manslaughter verdict.

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

robinph

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Are all the media outlets wrong then?



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

Nope, they are correct. You are just reading it wrong.

Tarzana2

robinph wrote: »

Nope, they are correct. You are just reading it wrong.

Ah, OK. Note to self: sign up for 'Introduction to Reading Comprehension'.

weldoninhio

robinph wrote: »

Just had a look at the twitter and the masses do seem to be getting a bit upset at the verdict so far. I guess most people were listening to a different set of evidence to what the prosecution was actually presenting to the judge then?

The appeal judge must have been "listening to a different set of evidence to what the prosecution was actually presenting to the judge then?"

Eh?

seamus

weldoninhio wrote: »

The appeal judge must have been "listening to a different set of evidence to what the prosecution was actually presenting to the judge then?"

Eh?

Nope. It's clear he re-evaluated the same evidence.

You need to go and read up on this case and see exactly what Pistorious has now been found guilty of and why.

Kunkka

robinph wrote: »

What has been proven wrong?

In fairness, you seemed pretty keen to defend Oscar throughout this thread. You clearly believed his version of events in some shape or form as ridiculous as they were. The right thing to do now would be to just say you got it wrong & this horrible liar is getting a proper jail sentence.

It's one thing to kill someone but it's the sign of a sociopath the way he has gone on with these fabrications.

robinph

weldoninhio wrote: »

The appeal judge must have been "listening to a different set of evidence to what the prosecution was actually presenting to the judge then?"

Eh?

You've misunderstood what is being talked about again.

People were shouting for a guilty of pre-meditated murder of RS.

That is not what he has just been found guilty of.

robinph

Kunkka wrote: »

In fairness, you seemed pretty keen to defend Oscar throughout this thread. You clearly believed his version of events in some shape or form as ridiculous as they were. The right thing to do now would be to just say you got it wrong & this horrible liar is getting a proper jail sentence.

It's one thing to kill someone but it's the sign of a sociopath the way he has gone on with these fabrications.

His version of events have not been proved wrong. Both the original judge and the appeal judges fully accept his version of events.

Tarzana2

Dog. With. A. Bone.

whatstherush

robinph wrote: »

You've misunderstood what is being talked about again.

People were shouting for a guilty of pre-meditated murder of RS.

That is not what he has just been found guilty of.

"pre meditated" is a term you have added. There's is nothing incorrect in saying he has been found guilty of the murder of RS. You can south your soul by saying he didn't know it was her if you want.

robinph

whatstherush wrote: »

"pre meditated" is a term you have added. There's is nothing incorrect in saying he has been found guilty of the murder of RS. You can south your soul by saying he didn't know it was her if you want.

I didn't come up with the "pre-meditated" bit. That was what he was being charged with right from the outset.

I'm perfectly happy with the current verdict and my position has not changed from the start. The initial judge dismissed this version of murder due to some technical reading of the SA law and some Latin terminology which nobody really understood, but now the appeal judges have re-read that and found it correct to find him guilty of that charge.

You can sooth your soul by thinking that he has now been found guilty of what people were screaming for, the pre-meditated murder charge. The fact is that he has not.

Tarzana2

But, he has been found guilty of murder, yes?

robinph

Tarzana2 wrote: »

But, he has been found guilty of murder, yes?

Yes.

Tarzana2

robinph wrote: »

Yes.

OK. Then why did you say he hadn't been in the following post?

robinph wrote: »

Are you aware of what he has now been found guilty of? He has still not been found guilty of the murder of Reeva Steenkamp, or of pre meditated murder.

Never had any issue with this verdict as being the result.

You didn't just say he hadn't been found guilty of pre-meditated murder. You said that he hadn't been found guilty of murder or pre-meditated murder.

Kunkka

robinph wrote: »

His version of events have not been proved wrong. Both the original judge and the appeal judges fully accept his version of events.

O come on!!!