Legless blade runner shoots girlfriend - out after 10 months Page 7

  • Ziz0u 6 Jul 2016 09:38:15 11,006 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Worth it.

    brb, murdering my lovers.
  • Ziz0u 6 Jul 2016 09:38:45 11,006 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    For the new page: 6 years.
  • monkman76 6 Jul 2016 09:39:53 14,319 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Should they maybe have had a different judge this time around, given her verdict was shown to be wrong first time around?
  • M83J01P97 6 Jul 2016 09:40:19 7,585 posts
    Seen 22 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Pathetic. But from what I've been told by a friend who used to live out in South Africa, their legal system is generally blind to anyway with money.
  • X201 6 Jul 2016 09:44:26 18,946 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Ziz0u wrote:
    6 years...
    Wouldn't it really be five?
    The six will take into account the year he's already spent in jail from the first trial
  • Ziz0u 6 Jul 2016 09:46:11 11,006 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Yup, I think you're right. Who knows if he'll serve the full 5 either.
  • Deleted user 6 July 2016 09:48:50
    Hmm, he will be out by end of the week. Under house arrest probably :(
  • Ziz0u 6 Jul 2016 09:51:11 11,006 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Legal experts say OP can be paroled for good behaviour after serving a third of the sentence - that is two years
  • Deleted user 6 July 2016 09:57:07
    I don't get it. Surely with such a high profile case which is being seen around the world, where your original judgement was seen to be ridiculous. You would give at least the minimum sentence.
  • monkman76 6 Jul 2016 10:00:18 14,319 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Graxlar_v2 wrote:
    I don't get it. Surely with such a high profile case which is being seen around the world, where your original judgement was seen to be ridiculous. You would give at least the minimum sentence.
    Or the SA justice system would assign a judge with some impartiality this time around.
  • CosmicFuzz 6 Jul 2016 10:02:34 32,582 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Interesting outcome. The judge said that there was a "misconception" that Pistorius had intended to commit murder. But if there was no intention then it should be culpable homicide. And if he's already been upgraded from that to murder, then surely a court has found that there WAS intention to commit murder.

    Confusing.
  • monkman76 6 Jul 2016 10:03:32 14,319 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    It is notable that Pistorius’ original sentence, when he was initially found guilty of culpable homicide (the equivalent of manslaughter), was five years.

    The increase in sentence – bearing in mind the judge spelt out how much more serious a crime murder is – was just one year.
  • Deleted user 6 July 2016 10:06:25
    CosmicFuzz wrote:
    Interesting outcome. The judge said that there was a "misconception" that Pistorius had intended to commit murder. But if there was no intention then it should be culpable homicide. And if he's already been upgraded from that to murder, then surely a court has found that there WAS intention to commit murder.

    Confusing.
    I have read that as, I said it wasn't murder so it isn't murder. You may change the 'ruling' but at the end of the day i am the law and he will serve only what I deem to be legitimate.
  • monkman76 6 Jul 2016 10:06:58 14,319 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Yep, that's kind of how it comes across.
  • CosmicFuzz 6 Jul 2016 10:16:50 32,582 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    After talking with folk at work, the consensus is that whilst there wasn't any intention to kill, he acted with wicked recklessness (not caring if the person lived or died) which is enough to convict a person of murder under SA law.

    So yeah, I guess the judge is correct in saying he never intended to kill, he just didn't care if the person lived or died. Which still doesn't quite sit right with me, because if he thought it was an intruder then self-defence would have cleared him of it I would've thought.

    Also, very odd the original judge was back on the scene.
  • MrWonderstuff 6 Jul 2016 10:54:44 2,849 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    Murder is cheap in SA.
  • IronGiant 6 Jul 2016 11:01:17 5,858 posts
    Seen 38 minutes ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    CosmicFuzz wrote:
    After talking with folk at work, the consensus is that whilst there wasn't any intention to kill, he acted with wicked recklessness (not caring if the person lived or died) which is enough to convict a person of murder under SA law.

    So yeah, I guess the judge is correct in saying he never intended to kill, he just didn't care if the person lived or died. Which still doesn't quite sit right with me, because if he thought it was an intruder then self-defence would have cleared him of it I would've thought.

    Also, very odd the original judge was back on the scene.
    No intention to kill you say.. So he thought firing multiple black talon rounds into a small toilet would just scare whoever was in there and not rip them to bits? Very odd indeed.
  • Dirtbox 6 Jul 2016 11:05:57 91,011 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 17 years ago
    Post deleted
  • Mola_Ram 6 Jul 2016 11:10:39 19,336 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Maybe he was just really angry at the door?
  • CosmicFuzz 6 Jul 2016 11:14:17 32,582 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Dirtbox wrote:
    Quite, if he didn't mean to commit murder, why did he pull the trigger? He knew full well what he was doing was potentially lethal.
    Absolutely. Which is why it is possible to convict someone of murder by wicked recklessness (or whatever they call it in SA). You didn't intend to kill someone, you just didn't care if they lived or died.
  • Youthist 6 Jul 2016 11:17:09 13,617 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Also there is of course the issue of his entire story being utter nonsense - he killed her in a jealous rage as she was hiding terrified behind the door. They just cannot fully prove it, which is a shame. Can't believe they didn't go full OJ on him and maximise the lesser charge jail term in light of the fact everyone knows his story is bullshit.
  • CosmicFuzz 6 Jul 2016 11:19:18 32,582 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I'm still not clear on what the official court ruling was on whether or not he believed there was an intruder behind the door.
  • DFawkes Friendliest Forumite, 2016 6 Jul 2016 12:48:48 32,215 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Yes, the ruling was he was guilty of murder because he knew an unlawful act (death) might occur as a result of his actions (shooting though a door into a small room) but did so anyway.

    The difference to the original verdict is intent - the new upgraded conviction assumes it was his intent to purposefully act in a way that was probable to cause the death of the perceived intruder. Originally, his conviction was based on him shooting into the room and not thinking the person that was in there would die, which now I'm typing it feels a bit off. That was overruled.

    Edit: I'm not a lawyer though so I might not be 100% on this. Do not use me as legal council at any point unless you want to lose a case fairly severely.

    Edited by DFawkes at 12:49:36 06-07-2016
  • CosmicFuzz 6 Jul 2016 12:56:50 32,582 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Yeah I think that's right, Fawkes. My understanding is that the original verdict was overturned and upgraded to murder because it was ruled the original judge had erred in stating that unless the prosecution could show intent to kill, it couldn't be murder (which is wrong).
  • sirtacos 7 Jul 2016 04:14:48 8,074 posts
    Seen 4 months ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Mola_Ram wrote:
    Maybe he was just really angry at the door?
    :D
  • Psychotext 7 Jul 2016 10:38:25 64,702 posts
    Seen 30 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    CosmicFuzz wrote:
    Yeah I think that's right, Fawkes. My understanding is that the original verdict was overturned and upgraded to murder because it was ruled the original judge had erred in stating that unless the prosecution could show intent to kill, it couldn't be murder (which is wrong).
    I'm still dumbfounded that they got her back in the second time around.
  • FWB 7 Jul 2016 10:41:58 55,737 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 17 years ago
    So good being a rich white man. Can do what the fuck you like.
  • CosmicFuzz 7 Jul 2016 10:55:08 32,582 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Psychotext wrote:
    CosmicFuzz wrote:
    Yeah I think that's right, Fawkes. My understanding is that the original verdict was overturned and upgraded to murder because it was ruled the original judge had erred in stating that unless the prosecution could show intent to kill, it couldn't be murder (which is wrong).
    I'm still dumbfounded that they got her back in the second time around.
    Yeah that does seem rather bizarre doesn't it?
  • Ziz0u 7 Jul 2016 11:04:07 11,006 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I can't wait for the movie. Reeva Steenkamp is the role Charlize Theron was born to play.

    Leo to revive his accent in Blood Diamond?
  • Deleted user 7 July 2016 11:05:37
    Eddie Redmayne plays all required spazzes
Log in or register to reply

Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.