Pistorius charged with murder!

[Caocao]

Hopefully he will spend sometime in jail.

[eme]

Just for some perspective, this is legal in South Africa http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaster_(flamethrower)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[La]

...and he'll probably walk.

So to speak.

[Darth Tater]

...and he'll probably walk.

So to speak.

[jonovision_man]

5 years. Might be moved to house arrest as early as 10 months from now.

Also, the paralympic folks have banned him for the full 5 years of his sentence:
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/disability-sport/29701616

"In our rules, regardless of whether Oscar Pistorius is released early or not, it is still a five-year sentence so the earliest he would be able to compete - if he wanted to - is 2019."

He's only 27, so that puts him at 33 when that's done, 34 by the time the next competition season would start... who knows, we might see him again.

jono

[Robinandamelia]

I guess it's better than nothing, but really not a whole lot better...

[turd ferguson]

5 years. Might be moved to house arrest as early as 10 months from now.

Its not insignificant that he is considered disabled and prisons aren't well-equipped to deal with persons with disabilities.

[Robinandamelia]

5 years. Might be moved to house arrest as early as 10 months from now.

Its not insignificant that he is considered disabled and prisons aren't well-equipped to deal with persons with disabilities.

He moved pretty fast across the floor with no legs to get to the bathroom door to shoot and kill his girlfriend....They showed video of him re-enacting, he gets around just fine! I think it's crazy but I am surprised he got time at all, I thought they'd let him go.

[turd ferguson]

Not from the Onion

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... e-leg.html

[deerdree]

Not from the Onion

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... e-leg.html

so much to say after reading that - i don't even know where to begin.

[canalrunner]

I don't know what to think but sadness is not an emotion I am feeling right now. Give me 5 years and then may be...but unlikely.

[La]

Could they not affix the device to his wrist?

[Robinandamelia]

I'm not going to say anything cuz it wouldn't be very nice.

[Jwolf]

Could they not affix the device to his wrist?

They say it doesn't work because it's too easy to take off.

[Double Bellybuster]

5 years. Might be moved to house arrest as early as 10 months from now...

House arrest? Wasn't it paranoia defending a house that was his defence?

[jonovision_man]

5 years. Might be moved to house arrest as early as 10 months from now...

House arrest? Wasn't it paranoia defending a house that was his defence?

jono

[Jo-Jo]

5 years. Might be moved to house arrest as early as 10 months from now...

House arrest? Wasn't it paranoia defending a house that was his defence?

jono

Good one!

[Robinandamelia]

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

Oscar Pistorius convicted of murder as appeals court overturns earlier conviction

[La]

That's quite the turn of events!

[deerdree]

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

Oscar Pistorius convicted of murder as appeals court overturns earlier conviction

South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the lower court did not correctly apply the rule of dolus eventualis - whether Pistorius knew that a death would be a likely result of his actions.

i'm glad to read this. i know the law can be difficult to interpret for people who don't practice it, but this one never sat well with me - it seemed pretty obvious that he would've known that he was shooting to kill.

[ian]

i'm glad to read this. i know the law can be difficult to interpret for people who don't practice it, but...

Me too. In my case, it's the notion that any conviction of a wealthy person will automatically lead to a string of appeals. It's nice to see that sometimes the original sentence can be increased, and if that happened more often, perhaps that would be a deterrent against some of the more frivolous appeals.

[jonovision_man]

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

Oscar Pistorius convicted of murder as appeals court overturns earlier conviction

South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the lower court did not correctly apply the rule of dolus eventualis - whether Pistorius knew that a death would be a likely result of his actions.

i'm glad to read this. i know the law can be difficult to interpret for people who don't practice it, but this one never sat well with me - it seemed pretty obvious that he would've known that he was shooting to kill.

To play devil's advocate, though - while shooting a burglar and shooting your girlfriend are both killing, they really aren't the same offence... one is done in anger to an entirely innocent victim, the other is in defense, to fend off a criminal act. In fact if there really had been a burglar behind that door, it's not hard to imagine this not making it to court at all... especially in a country where crime is so rampant, and often violent/brutal.

What IMO makes his defence wrong is that it's up to him to identify which human is behind the door before shooting. You can't just guess... not that I find it that likely he even thought this was a burglary.

jono

[deerdree]

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

Oscar Pistorius convicted of murder as appeals court overturns earlier conviction

South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the lower court did not correctly apply the rule of dolus eventualis - whether Pistorius knew that a death would be a likely result of his actions.

i'm glad to read this. i know the law can be difficult to interpret for people who don't practice it, but this one never sat well with me - it seemed pretty obvious that he would've known that he was shooting to kill.

To play devil's advocate, though - while shooting a burglar and shooting your girlfriend are both killing, they really aren't the same offence... one is done in anger to an entirely innocent victim, the other is in defense, to fend off a criminal act. In fact if there really had been a burglar behind that door, it's not hard to imagine this not making it to court at all... especially in a country where crime is so rampant, and often violent/brutal.

What IMO makes his defence wrong is that it's up to him to identify which human is behind the door before shooting. You can't just guess... not that I find it that likely he even thought this was a burglary.

jono

i understand what you're saying, but the ruling (as far as i'm able to interpret it) seems to suggest that it didn't matter who was behind the door. but i'll admit, it's a bit of a slog for a non-lawyer, so i'm not sure.

here, for example:
"[32] What was in issue, therefore, was not whether the accused had foreseen that Reeva might be in the cubicle when he fired the fatal shots at the toilet door but whether there was a person behind the door who might possibly be killed by his actions. The accused’s incorrect appreciation as to who was in the cubicle is not determinative of whether he had the requisite criminal intent. Consequently, by confining its assessment of dolus eventualis to whether the accused had foreseen that it was Reeva behind the door, the trial court misdirected itself as to the appropriate legal issue."

[jonovision_man]

i understand what you're saying, but the ruling (as far as i'm able to interpret it) seems to suggest that it didn't matter who was behind the door. but i'll admit, it's a bit of a slog for a non-lawyer, so i'm not sure.

here, for example:
"[32] What was in issue, therefore, was not whether the accused had foreseen that Reeva might be in the cubicle when he fired the fatal shots at the toilet door but whether there was a person behind the door who might possibly be killed by his actions. The accused’s incorrect appreciation as to who was in the cubicle is not determinative of whether he had the requisite criminal intent. Consequently, by confining its assessment of dolus eventualis to whether the accused had foreseen that it was Reeva behind the door, the trial court misdirected itself as to the appropriate legal issue."

I think you're interpreting it correctly. I just don't think the trial or outcome is the same if it had been an intruder... the story would be "Heroic Pistrious Overcomes Disability, Fends Off Intruder".

jono

[ian]

What IMO makes his defence wrong is that it's up to him to identify which human is behind the door before shooting.

Suppose he had known for sure that it was a stranger behind that door. Is he then justified in killing someone who, up to that point, is only guilty of trespassing? It kind of takes "get off my lawn" to a whole new level.