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

Tipsy McSwagger

Fcuking joke

robinph

Stupid work keeps getting in the way of listening. :mad:

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

So he knew the difference between right and wrong, wasn't mentally unsound at the time of the incident, she states that his assertion of "not thinking" at the time of the shooting was inconsistent with the shots fired, the whole thing is "peculiar" and we know that he shot four bullets through the door and into the person behind the door. I don't really see how you could then come to the conclusion that he didn't "foresee" the person behind the door being killed. Whether he knew it was his girlfriend behind the door or not, it seems plainly obvious to me that he fully intended to kill whoever was behind the door.

Did she actually say that though? The verdict of not guilty for "pre-meditated murder" is all shes given so far isn't it, shes not given a verdict on culpable-homicide has she?

BoJack Horseman

robinph wrote: »

Stupid work keeps getting in the way of listening. :mad:



Did she actually say that though? The verdict of not guilty for "pre-meditated murder" is all shes given so far isn't it, shes not given a verdict on culpable-homicide has she?

No, she has ruled not guilty on 2 charges.
- Premeditated Murder
- Murder.

The 2nd of which I think Oscar can consider himself fortunate to be found innocent of.

Birroc

Wow did not expect that...judicial systems around the world are as bad as they are here so.

Da Shins Kelly

robinph wrote: »

Stupid work keeps getting in the way of listening. :mad:



Did she actually say that though? The verdict of not guilty for "pre-meditated murder" is all shes given so far isn't it, shes not given a verdict on culpable-homicide has she?

She said that there was no way for him to "foresee" the person behind the door being killed, whether he knew that person was the deceased or not. Seems outrageous after saying that he made a "conscious decision" to shoot through the door.

Mr Freeze

He will hardly be acquitted....But I think its looking like a suspended sentence.

roddymansfield 19 minutes ago
Here's a reminder of the verdict options remaining.

:: Guilty of culpable homicide - If Judge Masipa finds there is a reasonable possibility Pistorius did not intend to kill Ms Steenkamp, but finds his actions of shooting through a closed door in the belief that there may be an intruder were negligent and not in keeping with those of a reasonable person, he will be guilty of culpable homicide. The maximum prison term for this offence is capped at 15 years. In certain circumstances, persons guilty of this offence can also receive suspended and even non-custodial sentences.

:: Acquittal - To be acquitted of culpable homicide, Pistorius must show he acted out of a genuine belief he was defending himself, even if he was mistaken in so believing.

He might see the inside of a jail based on the charges below.

roddymansfield 7 minutes ago
In addition to the above charges, Mr Pistorius also faces the below lesser charges:

:: Discharging of a firearm in public - maximum custodial sentence of five years.
:: Illegal possession of ammunition - maximum custodial sentence of 15 years.

BoJack Horseman

Mr Freeze wrote: »

He will hardly be acquitted....But I think its looking like a suspended sentence.



He might see the inside of a jail based on the charges below.

Strange the difference in maximum sentences between the 2 charges (illegal firearm vs illegal ammo)

robinph

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No, she has ruled not guilty on 2 charges.
- Premeditated Murder
- Murder.

The 2nd of which I think Oscar can consider himself fortunate to be found innocent of.

The prosecution screwed up by trying for the pre-meditated charge. They could probably have made the murder one stick though but they got carried away with trying for pre-meditated from the start when they had zero evidence for it.

Da Shins Kelly

It'll be a scandal if he doesn't get a proper prison sentence. I'm quite astounded he got off on the lesser murder charge. How you could assert that he knew what he was doing when he fired the shots but still didn't know that the person, whoever they were, would be killed seems like an unbelievable contradiction.

robinph

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

It'll be a scandal if he doesn't get a proper prison sentence. I'm quite astounded he got off on the lesser murder charge. How you could assert that he knew what he was doing when he fired the shots but still didn't know that the person, whoever they were, would be killed seems like an unbelievable contradiction.

That was from the point she made earlier about the location of the shots and that they would have been aimed differently if he was aiming for an intruder behind the door. She accepted that point from OP, but then said she'd come back to it on the culpable homicide charge later.

alchemist33

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

She said that there was no way for him to "foresee" the person behind the door being killed, whether he knew that person was the deceased or not. Seems outrageous after saying that he made a "conscious decision" to shoot through the door.

That really is an outrageous statement. Guns are designed to kill people, ffs.

Rory28

We are about to see a grave injustice.

whiskeyman

alchemist33 wrote: »

Guns are designed to kill people, ffs.

Guns don't kill people... runners do!

A Greedy Algorithm

Hes probably giggling inside, waiting to go home and watch relax for the evening.

bucketybuck

Can somebody clarify something for me?

If there was an intruder who had broken in and was standing behind that door and Pistorius had shot him, what would the charges have been? In America it would probably just be self-defense, whats the standard in SA?

sadie06

Just to say, sentencing will not happen today.

I'm kind of shocked at the turn of events, although the judge seems to be backing up all her decisions with legal clauses and examples from other cases. She seems (and has seemed throughout) meticulous and dedicated to delivering a just outcome.

I feel very bad for her family right now.

Right Turn Clyde

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Strange the difference in maximum sentences between the 2 charges (illegal firearm vs illegal ammo)

It's not 'illegal firearm'. It's discharging a firearm in public. The gun would be legally owned, but should not have been fired in the given circumstances.

Illegal ammunition is a different matter altogether. There's no good reason to have it in the first place.

The difference in sentences is appropriate.

bucketybuck

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

It's not 'illegal firearm'. It's discharging a firearm in public. The gun would be legally owned, but should not have been fired in the given circumstances.

Why is an intruder in your house not good circumstances to fire your legally held gun?

Right Turn Clyde

bucketybuck wrote: »

Why is an intruder in your house not good circumstances to fire your legally held gun?

It ought to be as far as I'm concerned. But that's not the point I was addressing. BoJack misread an earlier post and I was simply clarifying it for him/her.

robinph

bucketybuck wrote: »

Why is an intruder in your house not good circumstances to fire your legally held gun?

That is a different charge they are on about, it's in relation to shooting the floor in a restaurant.

Egginacup

bucketybuck wrote: »

Can somebody clarify something for me?

If there was an intruder who had broken in and was standing behind that door and Pistorius had shot him, what would the charges have been? In America it would probably just be self-defense, whats the standard in SA?

Well in America you can kill someone who looks at you the wrong way and say you were "standing your ground" or that the guy "looked like he was thinking about killing you" and get off scot free.

transylman

robinph wrote: »

The prosecution screwed up by trying for the pre-meditated charge. They could probably have made the murder one stick though but they got carried away with trying for pre-meditated from the start when they had zero evidence for it.

Zero evidence? Neighbours heard a man and woman arguing in the middle of the night, followed by gun shots. Stomach contents indicated that she had eaten shortly before being killed, contradicting the account of the defendant. Would have been a slam dunk if the judge hadn't decided to throw it all out.

NightOfTheHunt

He's had an interesting year and a half anyway to say the least

robinph

transylman wrote: »

Zero evidence? Neighbours heard a man and woman arguing in the middle of the night, followed by gun shots. Stomach contents indicated that she had eaten shortly before being killed, contradicting the account of the defendant. Would have been a slam dunk if the judge hadn't decided to throw it all out.

How does the contents of her stomach count as evidence of pre-meditated murder?

The ear witnesses could have been useful as secondary evidence if they didn't contradict each other and even people from the same house contradicted each other. And how does a charge of pre-meditated murder come about the day after the shooting before the cops have any of this witness statements about arguments happening?

They just came up with the charge and then tried to make their evidence fit the charge. The initial investigating officer was an idiot as shown in the bail hearing.

exiledelbows

transylman wrote: »

Zero evidence? Neighbours heard a man and woman arguing in the middle of the night, followed by gun shots. Stomach contents indicated that she had eaten shortly before being killed, contradicting the account of the defendant. Would have been a slam dunk if the judge hadn't decided to throw it all out.

have you been following what she's said at all? Eyewitness accounts are unreliable, contradicted phone records and appeared influenced by media coverage. Stomach evidence not an exact science, thus both raised a reasonable doubt.

Ihatecuddles

What's with the meeting in the judges chambers? what could that be about?

Soups123

What a disgusting turn of events, I sometimes despair at what we allow happen in this world.

The guy is a murder and should be treated as such.

Da Shins Kelly

I don't have any problem with what she said about the witnesses. Fair enough, they're unreliable. However, Pistorius himself is an unreliable witness too and the bit I don't understand is the idea that he could make a conscious decision to shoot through the door but still somehow be absolved of the responsibility of knowing that such an action would kill the person on the other side. I don't know how it could be in doubt that he intended to kill someone.

Gosub

How do you get away with murder?

1) Be famous.
2) Kill someone.

Seems to be the same the world over.

robinph

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I don't have any problem with what she said about the witnesses. Fair enough, they're unreliable. However, Pistorius himself is an unreliable witness too

She made a big point about OP not being a reliable witness was also not to be taken as proof of guilt in this case, or any other case in the future where her judgement may be used in other judgements.

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

and the bit I don't understand is the idea that he could make a conscious decision to shoot through the door but still somehow be absolved of the responsibility of knowing that such an action would kill the person on the other side. I don't know how it could be in doubt that he intended to kill someone.

That is where he'll be getting the culpable homicide charge. The prosecution could have done more to make the murder of the unknown person charge stick if they had dropped the premeditated charge.