How could he possibly know that shooting 4 bullets into a small room could kill someone. You have to also remember that he had no way of verifying where Steenkamp was as he as so in fear of his life (from whoever it was behind the locked door). The poor lamb has suffered enough and should just be shown mercy.
Some people will actually think along the above lines. Personally I think he is a murderer who should be banged up for as long as possible.
I get it, this case has perhaps generated more public interest than any other court case in the last ten years internationally.
However, I don't need Sky News sending me minute-by-minute breaking news notifications considering they only ever do one notification per story per day at the very most. Think Sky need to take the 17-year old intern they have on the social media team off the computer for a few hours.
Possibly the most ridiculous court proceedings I have seen in relation to the tragic nature of the crime. We've seen actors crawl across the floor on their knees with cricket bats, witnesses who were nowhere near the scene and a media circus, and barely any attention paid to the heart of the case, which would appear to be a troubled paraplegic causing the death of an innocent person. Sentencing is lenient but both Oscar and the families of both sides will be serving a mental sentence for their rest of their lives.
He's a lucky man .. however, given his very high international profile and the whole furore surrounding the trial, such a verdict and sentence were inevitable. Pistorious is one of the very few contemporary South African icons and heroes, and icons and heroes are given lots of leeway even when it comes to unwarranted killings, a polite term for the M word. I suspect that Pistorious is a man who in overcoming extreme physical handicaps has forgotten the meaning of the words humility and co-operation. His behaviour, demands and attitude before the notorious killing were becoming more and more erratic. All too often the IOC would give in and allow him what he wanted even though his demands were detrimental to other athletes. A spell in prison, however short, may allow him to reflect on the nature of fame and fortune. That is, it takes a lot to achieve it and it can all be lost in a heartbeat.
How could he possibly know that shooting 4 bullets into a small room could kill someone.
THat's exactly what he was found guilty of, what's your point?
Lol. Looks like the sarcasm police are out in force.
Not sarcasm, I just don't see what point you are trying to make.
You will have to forgive me. I binned my law degree in the 1st year so I base my opinion on what I think may have happened rather than any actual legal insight. Yes he was found guilty of manslaughter because he couldnt possibly know that shooting 4 times through a door would actually kill someone. My personal opinion is that when you fire a gun four times (not once) into a small room that someone is standing in, your only intention is to kill them.
The thing I find strangest (if I've understood this correctly, and freely admit I may not) is that he got three years for firing a gun at nobody, and five years for firing a gun into someone's head. What's a leg shot? Four years?
How could he possibly know that shooting 4 bullets into a small room could kill someone.
THat's exactly what he was found guilty of, what's your point?
Lol. Looks like the sarcasm police are out in force.
Not sarcasm, I just don't see what point you are trying to make.
You will have to forgive me. I binned my law degree in the 1st year so I base my opinion on what I think may have happened rather than any actual legal insight. Yes he was found guilty of manslaughter because he couldnt possibly know that shooting 4 times through a door would actually kill someone. My personal opinion is that when you fire a gun four times (not once) into a small room that someone is standing in, your only intention is to kill them.
Personally if I was looking to murder someone, I'd make sure my view and my shot wasn't obstructed by a door.
How could he possibly know that shooting 4 bullets into a small room could kill someone.
THat's exactly what he was found guilty of, what's your point?
Lol. Looks like the sarcasm police are out in force.
Not sarcasm, I just don't see what point you are trying to make.
You will have to forgive me. I binned my law degree in the 1st year so I base my opinion on what I think may have happened rather than any actual legal insight. Yes he was found guilty of manslaughter because he couldnt possibly know that shooting 4 times through a door would actually kill someone. My personal opinion is that when you fire a gun four times (not once) into a small room that someone is standing in, your only intention is to kill them.
Personally if I was looking to murder someone, I'd make sure my view and my shot wasn't obstructed by a door.
Personally I could imagine a scenario something like this .. Pistorious and girlfriend have a row .. gf locks herself in the bathroom crying and upset .. Pistorious tries to unlock the door and fails .. shouts .. 'open the f***ing door or I'll shoot the lock off' .. no joy .. he gets a gun and fires into the door in a fit of extreme rage (this is a man who is used to always getting his own way) .. he is reckless as to where the bullets go or of the consequences .. gf is shot dead .. to me, this is A LOWER DEGREE of murder .. in the US perhaps 2nd degree .. it's too extreme for manslaughter.
Pistorious perhaps did not intend to kill but his action in firing a gun into an enclosed space made the death of his GF a distinct possibility .. similarly, if one were to toss a brick into a crowd from a high building there may be no real intent to hurt someone, anyone .. it is a reckless and dangerous act. If the brick hits a person on the head and kills them, that is murder. There was no intent to hurt or kill that particular person but there was an intent to cause harm, enough for a verdict of murder.
How could he possibly know that shooting 4 bullets into a small room could kill someone.
THat's exactly what he was found guilty of, what's your point?
Lol. Looks like the sarcasm police are out in force.
Not sarcasm, I just don't see what point you are trying to make.
You will have to forgive me. I binned my law degree in the 1st year so I base my opinion on what I think may have happened rather than any actual legal insight. Yes he was found guilty of manslaughter because he couldnt possibly know that shooting 4 times through a door would actually kill someone. My personal opinion is that when you fire a gun four times (not once) into a small room that someone is standing in, your only intention is to kill them.
Personally if I was looking to murder someone, I'd make sure my view and my shot wasn't obstructed by a door.
Personally if I was looking to not be murdered by someone I'd make damn sure that their view was as obstructed as possible. If they then asked me to open a door so they could have a nice clean shot I would politely decline
If all goes well for him and he is allowed to train and compete, he will be representing his country again in the next olympics. If you take drugs, you are banned, if you murder someone that is OK. How will South Africans feel when he wears the national colours?
How could he possibly know that shooting 4 bullets into a small room could kill someone.
THat's exactly what he was found guilty of, what's your point?
Lol. Looks like the sarcasm police are out in force.
Not sarcasm, I just don't see what point you are trying to make.
You will have to forgive me. I binned my law degree in the 1st year so I base my opinion on what I think may have happened rather than any actual legal insight. Yes he was found guilty of manslaughter because he couldnt possibly know that shooting 4 times through a door would actually kill someone. My personal opinion is that when you fire a gun four times (not once) into a small room that someone is standing in, your only intention is to kill them.
Personally if I was looking to murder someone, I'd make sure my view and my shot wasn't obstructed by a door.
Personally I could imagine a scenario something like this .. Pistorious and girlfriend have a row .. gf locks herself in the bathroom crying and upset .. Pistorious tries to unlock the door and fails .. shouts .. 'open the f***ing door or I'll shoot the lock off' .. no joy .. he gets a gun and fires into the door in a fit of extreme rage (this is a man who is used to always getting his own way) .. he is reckless as to where the bullets go or of the consequences .. gf is shot dead .. to me, this is A LOWER DEGREE of murder .. in the US perhaps 2nd degree .. it's too extreme for manslaughter.
Pistorious perhaps did not intend to kill but his action in firing a gun into an enclosed space made the death of his GF a distinct possibility .. similarly, if one were to toss a brick into a crowd from a high building there may be no real intent to hurt someone, anyone .. it is a reckless and dangerous act. If the brick hits a person on the head and kills them, that is murder. There was no intent to hurt or kill that particular person but there was an intent to cause harm, enough for a verdict of murder.
Which is exactly why he was convicted of culpable homicide. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but one of the distinctions between murder and homicide in the SA legal system is the difference between would have and could have. As far as I remember the judge said that Pistorious should have known his actions could have killed whoever was behind the door.
How could he possibly know that shooting 4 bullets into a small room could kill someone.
THat's exactly what he was found guilty of, what's your point?
Lol. Looks like the sarcasm police are out in force.
Not sarcasm, I just don't see what point you are trying to make.
You will have to forgive me. I binned my law degree in the 1st year so I base my opinion on what I think may have happened rather than any actual legal insight. Yes he was found guilty of manslaughter because he couldnt possibly know that shooting 4 times through a door would actually kill someone. My personal opinion is that when you fire a gun four times (not once) into a small room that someone is standing in, your only intention is to kill them.
Personally if I was looking to murder someone, I'd make sure my view and my shot wasn't obstructed by a door.
Personally I could imagine a scenario something like this .. Pistorious and girlfriend have a row .. gf locks herself in the bathroom crying and upset .. Pistorious tries to unlock the door and fails .. shouts .. 'open the f***ing door or I'll shoot the lock off' .. no joy .. he gets a gun and fires into the door in a fit of extreme rage (this is a man who is used to always getting his own way) .. he is reckless as to where the bullets go or of the consequences .. gf is shot dead .. to me, this is A LOWER DEGREE of murder .. in the US perhaps 2nd degree .. it's too extreme for manslaughter.
Pistorious perhaps did not intend to kill but his action in firing a gun into an enclosed space made the death of his GF a distinct possibility .. similarly, if one were to toss a brick into a crowd from a high building there may be no real intent to hurt someone, anyone .. it is a reckless and dangerous act. If the brick hits a person on the head and kills them, that is murder. There was no intent to hurt or kill that particular person but there was an intent to cause harm, enough for a verdict of murder.
Which is exactly why he was convicted of culpable homicide. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but one of the distinctions between murder and homicide in the SA legal system is the difference between would have and could have. As far as I remember the judge said that Pistorious should have known his actions could have killed whoever was behind the door.
That has been the whole crux of the case. The defence have never pretended he was totally innocent, or did not realise he could/would kill or seriously injure whoever it was behind the door. The prosecution case though was that he knew all along exactly who was behind the door and intended to kill Reeva Steenkamp specifically, but they couldn't get the charge to stick.
Seems lenient to me but in a country like South Africa even when he's out of jail he'll be living in fear for the rest of his life, and I doubt he'll perform as a top level athlete again, or ever find sponsors and merchandising deals which to someone like he seems to be may well be as bad as time behind bars.
Pistorious keeps his gun by the bed: Pistorious hears a noise from the bathroom: IF Reeva was still in the bed, Then check it out. wake her up and ask her to phone police.
Reeva's not in the bed, she must be the person in the bathroom. 10 months sure ain't justice.
How could he possibly know that shooting 4 bullets into a small room could kill someone.
THat's exactly what he was found guilty of, what's your point?
Lol. Looks like the sarcasm police are out in force.
Not sarcasm, I just don't see what point you are trying to make.
You will have to forgive me. I binned my law degree in the 1st year so I base my opinion on what I think may have happened rather than any actual legal insight. Yes he was found guilty of manslaughter because he couldnt possibly know that shooting 4 times through a door would actually kill someone. My personal opinion is that when you fire a gun four times (not once) into a small room that someone is standing in, your only intention is to kill them.
Personally if I was looking to murder someone, I'd make sure my view and my shot wasn't obstructed by a door.
Personally I could imagine a scenario something like this .. Pistorious and girlfriend have a row .. gf locks herself in the bathroom crying and upset .. Pistorious tries to unlock the door and fails .. shouts .. 'open the f***ing door or I'll shoot the lock off' .. no joy .. he gets a gun and fires into the door in a fit of extreme rage (this is a man who is used to always getting his own way) .. he is reckless as to where the bullets go or of the consequences .. gf is shot dead .. to me, this is A LOWER DEGREE of murder .. in the US perhaps 2nd degree .. it's too extreme for manslaughter.
Pistorious perhaps did not intend to kill but his action in firing a gun into an enclosed space made the death of his GF a distinct possibility .. similarly, if one were to toss a brick into a crowd from a high building there may be no real intent to hurt someone, anyone .. it is a reckless and dangerous act. If the brick hits a person on the head and kills them, that is murder. There was no intent to hurt or kill that particular person but there was an intent to cause harm, enough for a verdict of murder.
Which is exactly why he was convicted of culpable homicide. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but one of the distinctions between murder and homicide in the SA legal system is the difference between would have and could have. As far as I remember the judge said that Pistorious should have known his actions could have killed whoever was behind the door.
We are in danger of hair splitting here, an all too common occurrence in legal matters and discussions. Correct me if I am wrong .. 'culpable homicide' is akin to 'manslaughter' .. I repeat that in my opinion, that verdict is too lenient and should be a step higher than culpable homicide/manslaughter, it should be some class of murder.
'Could have' and 'should have' are matters of interpretation and somewhat of opinion. Surely if Pistorious 'should have' considered the consequences, did or did not and still went ahead, that is murder. If he 'could have' considered the consequences and refused/neglected to do so, that also is reckless and again is murder. I am not arguing here necessarily with you @coltthe3rd, more with the illogical verdict of the judge
How could he possibly know that shooting 4 bullets into a small room could kill someone.
THat's exactly what he was found guilty of, what's your point?
Lol. Looks like the sarcasm police are out in force.
Not sarcasm, I just don't see what point you are trying to make.
You will have to forgive me. I binned my law degree in the 1st year so I base my opinion on what I think may have happened rather than any actual legal insight. Yes he was found guilty of manslaughter because he couldnt possibly know that shooting 4 times through a door would actually kill someone. My personal opinion is that when you fire a gun four times (not once) into a small room that someone is standing in, your only intention is to kill them.
Personally if I was looking to murder someone, I'd make sure my view and my shot wasn't obstructed by a door.
Personally I could imagine a scenario something like this .. Pistorious and girlfriend have a row .. gf locks herself in the bathroom crying and upset .. Pistorious tries to unlock the door and fails .. shouts .. 'open the f***ing door or I'll shoot the lock off' .. no joy .. he gets a gun and fires into the door in a fit of extreme rage (this is a man who is used to always getting his own way) .. he is reckless as to where the bullets go or of the consequences .. gf is shot dead .. to me, this is A LOWER DEGREE of murder .. in the US perhaps 2nd degree .. it's too extreme for manslaughter.
Pistorious perhaps did not intend to kill but his action in firing a gun into an enclosed space made the death of his GF a distinct possibility .. similarly, if one were to toss a brick into a crowd from a high building there may be no real intent to hurt someone, anyone .. it is a reckless and dangerous act. If the brick hits a person on the head and kills them, that is murder. There was no intent to hurt or kill that particular person but there was an intent to cause harm, enough for a verdict of murder.
Which is exactly why he was convicted of culpable homicide. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but one of the distinctions between murder and homicide in the SA legal system is the difference between would have and could have. As far as I remember the judge said that Pistorious should have known his actions could have killed whoever was behind the door.
We are in danger of hair splitting here, an all too common occurrence in legal matters and discussions. Correct me if I am wrong .. 'culpable homicide' is akin to 'manslaughter' .. I repeat that in my opinion, that verdict is too lenient and should be a step higher than culpable homicide/manslaughter, it should be some class of murder.
'Could have' and 'should have' are matters of interpretation and somewhat of opinion. Surely if Pistorious 'should have' considered the consequences, did or did not and still went ahead, that is murder. If he 'could have' considered the consequences and refused/neglected to do so, that also is reckless and again is murder. I am not arguing here necessarily with you @coltthe3rd, more with the illogical verdict of the judge
No I realise it is the equivalent of manslaughter and that's what I was pointing out. You are saying that culpable homicide/manslaughter is too lenient, yet in your post you said "Pistorious perhaps did not intend to kill but his action in firing a gun into an enclosed space made the death of his GF a distinct possibility." That there is surely the very definition of homicide. You have demonstrated reasonable doubt with the "...perhaps did not intend to kill..." yet his actions were likely to kill. That's what he was convicted of.
How could he possibly know that shooting 4 bullets into a small room could kill someone.
THat's exactly what he was found guilty of, what's your point?
Lol. Looks like the sarcasm police are out in force.
Not sarcasm, I just don't see what point you are trying to make.
You will have to forgive me. I binned my law degree in the 1st year so I base my opinion on what I think may have happened rather than any actual legal insight. Yes he was found guilty of manslaughter because he couldnt possibly know that shooting 4 times through a door would actually kill someone. My personal opinion is that when you fire a gun four times (not once) into a small room that someone is standing in, your only intention is to kill them.
Personally if I was looking to murder someone, I'd make sure my view and my shot wasn't obstructed by a door.
Personally if I was looking to not be murdered by someone I'd make damn sure that their view was as obstructed as possible. If they then asked me to open a door so they could have a nice clean shot I would politely decline
If all goes well for him and he is allowed to train and compete, he will be representing his country again in the next olympics. If you take drugs, you are banned, if you murder someone that is OK. How will South Africans feel when he wears the national colours?
IOC say he is banned for five years and will not be able to compete in Rio
Pistorious keeps his gun by the bed: Pistorious hears a noise from the bathroom: IF Reeva was still in the bed, Then check it out. wake her up and ask her to phone police.
Reeva's not in the bed, she must be the person in the bathroom. 10 months sure ain't justice.
I wonder what the judge, who sat through every single court moment and shred of evidence for months, thinks ?
How could he possibly know that shooting 4 bullets into a small room could kill someone.
THat's exactly what he was found guilty of, what's your point?
Lol. Looks like the sarcasm police are out in force.
Not sarcasm, I just don't see what point you are trying to make.
You will have to forgive me. I binned my law degree in the 1st year so I base my opinion on what I think may have happened rather than any actual legal insight. Yes he was found guilty of manslaughter because he couldnt possibly know that shooting 4 times through a door would actually kill someone. My personal opinion is that when you fire a gun four times (not once) into a small room that someone is standing in, your only intention is to kill them.
Personally if I was looking to murder someone, I'd make sure my view and my shot wasn't obstructed by a door.
Personally I could imagine a scenario something like this .. Pistorious and girlfriend have a row .. gf locks herself in the bathroom crying and upset .. Pistorious tries to unlock the door and fails .. shouts .. 'open the f***ing door or I'll shoot the lock off' .. no joy .. he gets a gun and fires into the door in a fit of extreme rage (this is a man who is used to always getting his own way) .. he is reckless as to where the bullets go or of the consequences .. gf is shot dead .. to me, this is A LOWER DEGREE of murder .. in the US perhaps 2nd degree .. it's too extreme for manslaughter.
Pistorious perhaps did not intend to kill but his action in firing a gun into an enclosed space made the death of his GF a distinct possibility .. similarly, if one were to toss a brick into a crowd from a high building there may be no real intent to hurt someone, anyone .. it is a reckless and dangerous act. If the brick hits a person on the head and kills them, that is murder. There was no intent to hurt or kill that particular person but there was an intent to cause harm, enough for a verdict of murder.
Which is exactly why he was convicted of culpable homicide. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but one of the distinctions between murder and homicide in the SA legal system is the difference between would have and could have. As far as I remember the judge said that Pistorious should have known his actions could have killed whoever was behind the door.
We are in danger of hair splitting here, an all too common occurrence in legal matters and discussions. Correct me if I am wrong .. 'culpable homicide' is akin to 'manslaughter' .. I repeat that in my opinion, that verdict is too lenient and should be a step higher than culpable homicide/manslaughter, it should be some class of murder.
'Could have' and 'should have' are matters of interpretation and somewhat of opinion. Surely if Pistorious 'should have' considered the consequences, did or did not and still went ahead, that is murder. If he 'could have' considered the consequences and refused/neglected to do so, that also is reckless and again is murder. I am not arguing here necessarily with you @coltthe3rd, more with the illogical verdict of the judge
No I realise it is the equivalent of manslaughter and that's what I was pointing out. You are saying that culpable homicide/manslaughter is too lenient, yet in your post you said "Pistorious perhaps did not intend to kill but his action in firing a gun into an enclosed space made the death of his GF a distinct possibility." That there is surely the very definition of homicide. You have demonstrated reasonable doubt with the "...perhaps did not intend to kill..." yet his actions were likely to kill. That's what he was convicted of.
.. in English Law, I can't speak for SA, there is no necessity for an intention to kill to bring about a murder verdict .. an intention to cause GBH will suffice .. as to 'negligence/ disinterest of consequences/ recklessness' or death caused during the commission of a crime .. read this .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_English_law .. again to me, the verdict all too often will depend on the circumstances of each particular case as there is no statutory law as to murder, it is a common law crime, decided by circumstances and precedent.
Much depends on the opinions and chain of thought of the judge and the (not in this case) jury .. in Pistorious' case there was no jury. I suspect, but who knows, that if there had been, murder would have been the verdict
Surely his career is over? Will he be fit enough to compete when he is eventually allowed to? If taking drugs can get you banned for life, then surely killing someone is at least as bad as that?
Comments
Some people will actually think along the above lines. Personally I think he is a murderer who should be banged up for as long as possible.
However, I don't need Sky News sending me minute-by-minute breaking news notifications considering they only ever do one notification per story per day at the very most. Think Sky need to take the 17-year old intern they have on the social media team off the computer for a few hours.
Possibly the most ridiculous court proceedings I have seen in relation to the tragic nature of the crime. We've seen actors crawl across the floor on their knees with cricket bats, witnesses who were nowhere near the scene and a media circus, and barely any attention paid to the heart of the case, which would appear to be a troubled paraplegic causing the death of an innocent person. Sentencing is lenient but both Oscar and the families of both sides will be serving a mental sentence for their rest of their lives.
Pistorious is one of the very few contemporary South African icons and heroes, and icons and heroes are given lots of leeway even when it comes to unwarranted killings, a polite term for the M word.
I suspect that Pistorious is a man who in overcoming extreme physical handicaps has forgotten the meaning of the words humility and co-operation. His behaviour, demands and attitude before the notorious killing were becoming more and more erratic. All too often the IOC would give in and allow him what he wanted even though his demands were detrimental to other athletes.
A spell in prison, however short, may allow him to reflect on the nature of fame and fortune. That is, it takes a lot to achieve it and it can all be lost in a heartbeat.
If she had shot him in panic of an intruder, would the sentence have been the same?
Pistorious perhaps did not intend to kill but his action in firing a gun into an enclosed space made the death of his GF a distinct possibility .. similarly, if one were to toss a brick into a crowd from a high building there may be no real intent to hurt someone, anyone .. it is a reckless and dangerous act. If the brick hits a person on the head and kills them, that is murder. There was no intent to hurt or kill that particular person but there was an intent to cause harm, enough for a verdict of murder.
Seems lenient to me but in a country like South Africa even when he's out of jail he'll be living in fear for the rest of his life, and I doubt he'll perform as a top level athlete again, or ever find sponsors and merchandising deals which to someone like he seems to be may well be as bad as time behind bars.
Then check it out. wake her up and ask her to phone police.
Reeva's not in the bed, she must be the person in the bathroom. 10 months sure ain't justice.
'Could have' and 'should have' are matters of interpretation and somewhat of opinion. Surely if Pistorious 'should have' considered the consequences, did or did not and still went ahead, that is murder. If he 'could have' considered the consequences and refused/neglected to do so, that also is reckless and again is murder.
I am not arguing here necessarily with you @coltthe3rd, more with the illogical verdict of the judge
.. in English Law, I can't speak for SA, there is no necessity for an intention to kill to bring about a murder verdict .. an intention to cause GBH will suffice .. as to 'negligence/ disinterest of consequences/ recklessness' or death caused during the commission of a crime .. read this .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_English_law .. again to me, the verdict all too often will depend on the circumstances of each particular case as there is no statutory law as to murder, it is a common law crime, decided by circumstances and precedent.
Much depends on the opinions and chain of thought of the judge and the (not in this case) jury .. in Pistorious' case there was no jury. I suspect, but who knows, that if there had been, murder would have been the verdict