Oscar Pistorius

[Alf Bentley]

GUILTY of Culpable Homicide

 

 

Meanwhile, in a historic case, Big Chief Sitting Bull has been acquitted of murdering General Custer at Little Big Horn. However, he has been found guilty of the lesser charge of Scalpable Homicide.

 

Custer's descendants are going to appeal, though. It'll be their last stand. Sitting Bull's descendants aren't happy about being siouxed. Yep, it's fair to say that they have their reservations.

[Guest MattP]

http://news.sky.com/story/1333974/pistorius-televised-trial-exposed-legal-system

 

A small but decent read. Pretty much my take on it, what the World is really left is seeing South Africa as a pretty shoddy dogdy country with a very very poor legal system. I know Balts laughed at me yesterday for using the words 'Civilised Europe' but we still have the best legal system in the World imo and this case has done everything to reinforce that view.

 

In any British court, I'm convinced he would have never have got away with this to the extent he appears to have.

 

The live television coverage of the Oscar Pistorius trial has exposed a slow and sometimes bizarre criminal justice system and some shoddy policing.

It has allowed the two principal lawyers to showboat and frighten witnesses into choosing not to be seen on camera.

And it was unable to stop grim images of the victim's shattered head being flashed on screen.

But most here believe the bold decision to let cameras into a South African court for the first time was the right one.

It has allowed justice to be seen to be done, a right that's been denied to most of the population in this fledgling democracy where, for so many years, justice was colour blind.

The judge deciding the Olympic athlete's guilt or innocence is a former tea girl from the Soweto township.

When Thokozile Masipa became a judge at the age of 43 she was only the second black woman to do so.

But she has presided over a trial that's been excruciatingly embarrassing at times.

It was supposed to last three weeks, but has limped on in fits and starts for six months and a tougher judge might have clamped down on the delays.

She has also, in some observers' views, allowed the principal lawyers, prosecutor Gerrie Nel and defence barrister Barry Roux, to play to the gallery.

There has been no jury to sway, so who else can their showboating have been aimed at but the television audience?

And Nel's mocking and goading of Pistorius in his cross-examination was courtroom behaviour that would never be tolerated in the Old Bailey or any British court.

But, oddly, the judge suddenly one day reprimanded the prosecutor for calling Pistorius a liar.

The whole trial was predicated on the prosecution's belief that the defendant was lying. If Mr Nel thought Pistorius was telling the truth, there would not have been a trial.

The witness translation was sometimes laughable, with interpreters translating from Afrikaans into English which was their third language.

So poor was it that some witnesses who had chosen to speak in Afrikaans gave up and delivered the rest of their testimony in often perfect English.

Cross-examination of police witnesses revealed some shoddy detective work.

An officer who handled a gun without gloves, a door that was kept in a senior detective's office instead of contamination-free storage, and a valuable watch that appeared to have been stolen from Pistorius' house in the early hours of the investigation.

Seemingly important evidence introduced early on, but never revisited.

The court was shown photographs of blood splatter on the wall above Oscar's bed and a bullet hole in a door frame.

The images hinted at a fight, but that was the first and last we saw or heard of them.

And the defence promised we would hear sound test recordings that would demonstrate that Oscar Pistorius screams like a woman. The recordings were never played.

For all its delays, faults, inconsistencies and omissions, few people who have followed the Oscar Pistorius trial could argue that it was wrong to televise it live.

 

[surrifox]

coming soon to a courtroom in SA the Diwani trial (alleged hit organised by the husband whilst on honeymoon) that'll be interesting too

[Guest MattP]

coming soon to a courtroom in SA the Diwani trial (alleged hit organised by the husband whilst on honeymoon) that'll be interesting too

 

If they can't get a murder charge on a guy who admitted riddling a bathroom with bullets good luck with a guy who was miles away from the action at the time of this death.

 

That said, he supposedly used black guys to commit the act so he's in a right pickle, what a schoolboy error that was.

 

Still, I'm going Diwani gets a yellow card.

[leicsmac]

http://news.sky.com/story/1333974/pistorius-televised-trial-exposed-legal-system

 

A small but decent read. Pretty much my take on it, what the World is really left is seeing South Africa as a pretty shoddy dogdy country with a very very poor legal system. I know Balts laughed at me yesterday for using the words 'Civilised Europe' but we still have the best legal system in the World imo and this case has done everything to reinforce that view.

 

In any British court, I'm convinced he would have never have got away with this to the extent he appears to have.

 

From that it seems like the prosecution were either not really competent or relying on emotive measures directed at Pistorius himself rather than hard evidence ir order to get a murder charge that stuck. Dropped the ball big time by the sounds of it.

 

I think that the UK legal system is probably the best in the world purely because it's the oldest, has a ridiculous amount of precedent and case law and (most importantly) isn't subject to money in the same way many others in other leading countries are.

 

That being said, do you really think a guilty murder verdict would have been the inevitable result regardless of the jury and the quality of the lawyers in a jury trial in the UK? It would certainly be more likely but I still think the prosecution would have to be good.

[Kitchandro]

I agree that the burglar story is all likelihood bullshit made up to try and get some mitigating circumstances. I also think it's perfectly possible that they were having an argument and he fired into the bathroom door. But neither of those things adds up to proving that he deliberately set out to kill her in, particularly in a way that could be passed off as manslaughter. 

 

People are acting like he's going to get away scot-free, but it seems highly likely a verdict of culpable homicide will be reached and he'll be doing 10-15 years in jail. That doesn't sound like getting away with it to me.

 

The legal system is a convoluted mess - no disagreement there, but there's a reason why the burden of proof for murder cases is set as high as it is. You're dealing with peoples lives - and in some cases punishments that are absolute - and so you really, really need certainty in such things. Perhaps the judiciary should start adopting more 'common sense' in their judgements, but personally I prefer laws that aren't open to different interpretations like that - there's enough prejudice in the judicial system already, having laws set in stone helps defend against that.

 

 

How so?

 

Like I said, in a courtroom maybe not, in all common sense, of course it adds up. Why would he fire gunshots at his girlfriend unless he intended to kill her (especially if they'd had an argument)?

 

If we know he didn't mistake her for a burglar then that's his only defence up in smoke, surely? That has been his defence all along. So if we use our common sense and deduce that he couldn't possibly have assumed it was a burglar in the circumstances (like I said in the post above, why would you assume that?)

 

I doubt he'll be in prison for 15 years, but even if he was, of course he's getting away with it. He murdered someone, yet he was acquitted of murder. So he got away with murder.

 

I don't really understand how you can come to a verdict of culpable homicide. If you fire bullets at someone (especially into a small room) surely you expect them to die? So in that case, why would you fire unless you wanted to kill them?

 

If he did think it was a burglar, he clearly did not make enough of an attempt to identify who it was, or if they were armed. My point is, if there was even the slightest possibility that this was your unarmed girlfriend in the toilet, you wouldn't fire. Unless you wanted to kill them.

[Buzzell]

I don't know. I assumed they haven't really followed the case and thought they were married. Which doesn't help their arguments.

Ok so there not married, my mistake, but he still killed her, whether they we're married or not still don't mean jack.

I do see everybody's view on this though. People think it's accidental, some think he meant it. Whatever happens he should be punished and do time behind bars.

[AKCJ]

Ok so there not married, my mistake, but he still killed her, whether they we're married or not still don't mean jack.

I do see everybody's view on this though. People think it's accidental, some think he meant it. Whatever happens he should be punished and do time behind bars.

 

 

I always read about half of your posts before your sig takes over.

[Alf Bentley]

I don't think he should continue on bail, especially as he has been convicted now.

 

He could run away and end up in Lesotho.

 

 

If you see a bloke pounding down your street on blades, weeping and retching, I'd shoot on sight, Baltimore. What's the worst that could happen?

[Guest MattP]

From that it seems like the prosecution were either not really competent or relying on emotive measures directed at Pistorius himself rather than hard evidence ir order to get a murder charge that stuck. Dropped the ball big time by the sounds of it.I think that the UK legal system is probably the best in the world purely because it's the oldest, has a ridiculous amount of precedent and case law and (most importantly) isn't subject to money in the same way many others in other leading countries are.

 

That being said, do you really think a guilty murder verdict would have been the inevitable result regardless of the jury and the quality of the lawyers in a jury trial in the UK? It would certainly be more likely but I still think the prosecution would have to be good.

 

Yeah absolutely, a jury of 12 people who generally look at the whole case and judge on their own common sense I'm certain would deliver a guilty verdict in such a situation. You only have to look at the comments on Sky News etc to see what most think.

 

Your average man in the street isn't buying the fact that a man who blew numerous gunshots into a bathroom after a prolonged argument with his Mrs was thinking it was a burglar without shouting who is in there or firing at least a warning shot first - what were they stealing, his range of soaps?

I don't think he should continue on bail, especially as he has been convicted now.

 

He could run away and end up in Lesotho.

 

May as well try it, given most things we see in South Africa I wouldn't imagine it would be too hard. He'd probably be able to escape just booking a normal flight from Joburg.

[leicsmac]

How so?

 

Like I said, in a courtroom maybe not, in all common sense, of course it adds up. Why would he fire gunshots at his girlfriend unless he intended to kill her (especially if they'd had an argument)?

 

If we know he didn't mistake her for a burglar then that's his only defence up in smoke, surely? That has been his defence all along. So if we use our common sense and deduce that he couldn't possibly have assumed it was a burglar in the circumstances (like I said in the post above, why would you assume that?)

 

I doubt he'll be in prison for 15 years, but even if he was, of course he's getting away with it. He murdered someone, yet he was acquitted of murder. So he got away with murder.

 

I don't really understand how you can come to a verdict of culpable homicide. If you fire bullets at someone (especially into a small room) surely you expect them to die? So in that case, why would you fire unless you wanted to kill them?

 

If he did think it was a burglar, he clearly did not make enough of an attempt to identify who it was, or if they were armed. My point is, if there was even the slightest possibility that this was your unarmed girlfriend in the toilet, you wouldn't fire. Unless you wanted to kill them.

 

There's a whole gamut of reasons why someone would fire a gun in someones direction without the intent of killing them. Warn, scare, wound just being the ones off the top of my head. I know gun instructors say that when you fire at a living thing you should only fire at something you know you can kill and intend to kill, but out in the world it rarely works out that way.

 

The burglar excuse is BS, let's get that out the way first. But there's a few reasons why he'd fire the gun in that direction without the intent to kill.

 

I think it's certainly possible he did intend to kill her and he's 'gotten away with murder', as you and others on here have put it. But looking at the way the case has gone on it looks like that simply hasn't been proven to the degree required. There's enough reasonable doubt.

 

Incidentally, as an aside, he's not gotten away with murder, in the same way that OJ didn't 'get away with murder'. They were acquitted after legal judgement, and in this case that is the only judgement that really matters. His girlfriend is dead, it's his fault, but they couldn't prove that the intent was there to the degree of proof required. As I've said before from a common sense point that does seem fvcking ridiculous, but there is a reason the burden of proof for such absolute crimes is that high.

 

 

Yeah absolutely, a jury of 12 people who generally look at the whole case and judge on their own common sense I'm certain would deliver a guilty verdict in such a situation. You only have to look at the comments on Sky News etc to see what most think.

 

Your average man in the street isn't buying the fact that a man who blew numerous gunshots into a bathroom after a prolonged argument with his Mrs was thinking it was a burglar without shouting who is in there or firing at least a warning shot first - what were they stealing, his range of soaps?

 

May as well try it, given most things we see in South Africa I wouldn't imagine it would be too hard. He'd probably be able to escape just booking a normal flight from Joburg.

 

I don't think anyone would buy the burglar line, but would all 12 buy the total intent line that a murder charge requires? Only takes one to disagree.

[Guest MattP]

I don't think anyone would buy the burglar line, but would all 12 buy the total intent line that a murder charge requires? Only takes one to disagree.

 

Under British law yes I think so.

 

Murder is generally defined in law as an intent to cause serious harm or injury (alone or with others), combined with a death arising from that intention, there are certain circumstances where a death will be treated as murder even if the defendant did not wish to kill the actual victim. This is called "transferred malice", and arises in two common cases: -

• The defendant intended serious harm to one or more persons, but an unintended other person dies as a result;
• Several people share an intent to do serious harm, and the victim dies because of the action of any of those involved (for example, if another person goes "further than expected" or performs an unexpectedly lethal action).

[David Guiza]

There's a whole gamut of reasons why someone would fire a gun in someones direction without the intent of killing them. Warn, scare, wound just being the ones off the top of my head. I know gun instructors say that when you fire at a living thing you should only fire at something you know you can kill and intend to kill, but out in the world it rarely works out that way.

 

The burglar excuse is BS, let's get that out the way first. But there's a few reasons why he'd fire the gun in that direction without the intent to kill.

 

I think it's certainly possible he did intend to kill her and he's 'gotten away with murder', as you and others on here have put it. But looking at the way the case has gone on it looks like that simply hasn't been proven to the degree required. There's enough reasonable doubt.

 

Incidentally, as an aside, he's not gotten away with murder, in the same way that OJ didn't 'get away with murder'. They were acquitted after legal judgement, and in this case that is the only judgement that really matters. His girlfriend is dead, it's his fault, but they couldn't prove that the intent was there to the degree of proof required. As I've said before from a common sense point that does seem fvcking ridiculous, but there is a reason the burden of proof for such absolute crimes is that high.

 

 

 

I don't think anyone would buy the burglar line, but would all 12 buy the total intent line that a murder charge requires? Only takes one to disagree.

I think it's almost certain that one or two would agree that it was not pre meditated murder, but of course the judge can choose to accept a majority verdict after deliberation. The problem would occur when it comes to Dolus Eventualis, when basically it is a question of whether the defendant subjectively viewed that his actions could result in death.

That's the problem with juries, they are not legally educated persons, I have a Law Degree and studided at A-Level also, but there's many a trial that I would have next to no idea on. If I were wrongly accussed of something, personally, I would rather be tried by a legal proffessional than 12 strangers. I can also so the benefits to trial by jury also, after all we do live in a democracy.

[leicsmac]

 

Under British law yes I think so.

 

Murder is generally defined in law as an intent to cause serious harm or injury (alone or with others), combined with a death arising from that intention, there are certain circumstances where a death will be treated as murder even if the defendant did not wish to kill the actual victim. This is called "transferred malice", and arises in two common cases: -

• The defendant intended serious harm to one or more persons, but an unintended other person dies as a result;
• Several people share an intent to do serious harm, and the victim dies because of the action of any of those involved (for example, if another person goes "further than expected" or performs an unexpectedly lethal action).

 

 

I think he would definitely have been in trouble on that first technicality, then.

 

I think it's almost certain that one or two would agree that it was not pre meditated murder, but of course the judge can choose to accept a majority verdict after deliberation. The problem would occur when it comes to Dolus Eventualis, when basically it is a question of whether the defendant subjectively viewed that his actions could result in death.

That's the problem with juries, they are not legally educated persons, I have a Law Degree and studided at A-Level also, but there's many a trial that I would have next to no idea on. If I were wrongly accussed of something, personally, I would rather be tried by a legal proffessional than 12 strangers. I can also so the benefits to trial by jury also, after all we do live in a democracy.

 

Is a majority verdict allowed in murder cases? Or does it have to be unanimous? 

 

Definitely agree on the contention with judge v jury trial...neither is really anywhere near perfect, but of course the idea of the jury trial is the cornerstone of democracy.

[David Guiza]

I think he would definitely have been in trouble on that first technicality, then.

 

 

Is a majority verdict allowed in murder cases? Or does it have to be unanimous? 

 

Definitely agree on the contention with judge v jury trial...neither is really anywhere near perfect, but of course the idea of the jury trial is the cornerstone of democracy.

I'm not too sure, I know that the judge can accept a majority verdict providing he/she believes that the case has been discussed in enough detail. But, it could well be different for murder of course.

Exactly, I'm pretty sure that in complicated fraud trials the jury is removed due to obvious reasons. So I don't see why that couldn't possibly be the case for other criminal trials, it surely doesn't have to be so black and white.

[ADK]

I think a jury is appropriate. There are some people out there who simply won't convict no matter how compelling the evidence though.

 

Was he aware his actions were likely to cause death? Yes

Was he aware it was his girlfriend behind the door? Yes

Were his actions deliberate? Yes

 

A jury can ask for clarification on aspects of law, they aren't just allowed to come up with verdicts on a whim.

 

I think we'll have to agree to disagree though.

[leicsmac]

I think a jury is appropriate. There are some people out there who simply won't convict no matter how compelling the evidence though.

 

Was he aware his actions were likely to cause death? Yes

Was he aware it was his girlfriend behind the door? Yes

Were his actions deliberate? Yes

 

A jury can ask for clarification on aspects of law, they aren't just allowed to come up with verdicts on a whim.

 

I think we'll have to agree to disagree though.

 

I reckon they are. I think it's called 'jury nullification', and it's been used to both good and bad effect in the past. Thing is, lawyers aren't allowed to tell juries that it is an option so not many people actually know that it's a possibility.

 

It's being used quite often in minor drug cases in the US now where juries know that the law says they should convict a person for drug offences but acquite them anyway because they think the law is wrong.

[fuchsntf]

A guy has a gun, he fires it blind through a wooden door, not once but several times.

This guy was at home, his home, I have lived in big houses and small houses, even with my children and wife moving around, in normal day life, after arguments, or with only myself and 1 family member, I have known where they were, including when I have only been awake 2-3 minutes, or come in from the garden.

I cant get it into my head he believed his girlfriend, in HIS house was somewhere else, other than the bathroom, even if he had bloody 3 bathrooms.

That said thank god, that prosecution have the duty, to prove guilt without any reasonable doubt.Simply because opinions made1000 miles away on 3rd hand information, cant and shouldnt give me/others the right to judge

Because I think the man is a prat, played the court, and fired the gun, my thoughts should never make him guilty.

The witness who said she heard terrible screams, and her testimony was ruled irrelevant, did they ever go to that area, and have someone scream, and shout, from the complex, and listen from said position, if it was possible to hear the type of mentioned screams.

But I do believe in all cases he should be found guilty of the equal of our 'manslaughter' and serve a sentence.....That is just my thought because of my British up bringing and thoughts on consequence of carrying guns.

Just to throw in a curved ball If he had been a black sportsman,or not rich enough, I just wonder how the trial would have ran.

[dedlock]

I reckon that this has shown the SA justice system in a good light.The eyes of the world were on them.There was insufficient evidence of pre-meditation but lots suggesting a culpable failure to care for your supposed dearest. So probably the correct verdict.The sentence has to ignore his celebrity and reflect his stupidity.

[Merging Cultures]

http://news.sky.com/story/1333974/pistorius-televised-trial-exposed-legal-system

A small but decent read. Pretty much my take on it, what the World is really left is seeing South Africa as a pretty shoddy dogdy country with a very very poor legal system. I know Balts laughed at me yesterday for using the words 'Civilised Europe' but we still have the best legal system in the World imo and this case has done everything to reinforce that view.

In any British court, I'm convinced he would have never have got away with this to the extent he appears to have.

I'll give you civilised Europe, even if it does sound a little xenophobic. But having read this...

However, we don't know what Pistorious would have 'got away' with in the UK because he wasn't tried there.

It is funny that I read a lot on here how criminals get lenient sentences and prison is too easy. I guarantee, prison won't be as easy for Pistorious.

I think the Judge ignored the drama of the lawyers (who are the same everywhere it seems), she convicted him based on the evidence presented. In my opinion a jury would be much more likely to be sucked in to the emotion of the case. So I think this case was handled reasonably well. It would have been handled better in the UK I'm sure though.

[David Guiza]

Back in court today, although sentencing expected to last until Friday. Pistorius' team claiming his that remourse, prison conditions not equiped for his disability and that it's his first offence as mitigating circumstances when the judge passes senence. Serious questions must be asked if he doesn't get at least 5 years custodial sentence, especially after litterally getting away with murder.

[MrSpaM]

Strange world we live in when somebody can possibly get off with community service for shooting their mrs three times

[Trav Le Bleu]

Is it true the judge is giving the sentence out tomorrow because she was a bit tired and jaded today?

[Kitchandro]

Community service

 

I shouldn't laugh but what else can you do?

[Merging Cultures]

5yrs, could be out in 2.5yrs.

 

Seems quite light to me.