Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
He’ll get fined £200 for a replacement door and £2.99 for ruining that bucket, but he’ll be able to claim back the cost of four rounds from her family.
On the night of Steenkamp's death, Pistorius used Black Talon hollow-point bullets, that Gert Saayman, the forensic medicine department at the University of Pretoria, described in court as "an expanding bullet" designed to cause "maximum tissue damage"
Pretty standard though, if you carry a gun for self defence you normally load it will hollow point so that any hit you get causes maximum damage. You don't a bullet to pass straight through soft tissue and the attacker to still come at you....
[img] 
[/img]
Is his brother one of those Tom Cruise clones ?
It looks like there will already be an error on the Judges ruling/part:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2014/sep/11/oscar-pistorius-verdict-trial-live
I am impressed by your reading choices Hora - I was just about to post that
Is anyone so stupid that they dont realise that firing four bullets at someone [ through a door] might kill them?
Is anyone so stupid that they dont realise that firing four bullets at someone [ through a door] might kill them?
If hes bright he'll be on the first plane out before the State lodges an appeal and re-confiscates his passport. That is- if he gets his passport back straight away..
We expected the court to have resumed by now but the judge is not back. Nor yet is the prosecution team. All other parties appear to be back in the room.
Interesting...maybe they are already pointing this out.
called to the judges chambers.. last minute deal methinks
Dont think its going to be a Bernie deal but I reckon somethings come up that might close the proceedings early.
Last chance Oscar ...
Surely the point is that the prosecution didn't [b]prove[/b] that he knew he was going to kill the person behind the door. Is the chance he might kill enough?
I am impressed by your reading choices Hora - I was just about to post that
It's free, we can all understand that. Plus its useful to read things from different viewpoints. IMO BBC coverage is better and live video feed working vs Guardian hanging regularly.
Surely the point is that the prosecution didn't prove that he knew he was going to kill the person behind the door. Is the chance he might kill enough?
They didn't prove it was pre-meditiated. I think the judge will say he did know what he was doing and that he knew he might kill.
its still manslaughter so culpaple homicide still valid
"On this charge, the judge will need to assign a degree of negligence. The higher the negligence, the longer the prison term. If convicted on this charge, he could face up to 15 years."
ref: [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26985770 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26985770[/url]
This is all interesting whats happening now. Is this allowed/can the Judge amend or change at such a late stage? Doesn't give much confidence in the SA judicial system if so.
Now the Defence called? I'm guessing an Adjournment and possible retrial with a different Judge?!! (far fetched but why would the Prosecution call in the Defence for discussion at this stage).
Judge: 'A reasonable person would not have fired four shots into the toilet cubicle'
Masipa says that if Pistorius had woken to see a “silhouette” by his bed and shot that figure, even if it turned out to be Steenkamp, he would have acted reasonably.But she does not think a reasonable person would have fired four shots into the toilet cubicle. A reasonable person would have foreseen that the person inside could have been struck and could have died.
Ah! Shes reversed her previous decision on dolus eventualis.
Masipa says Pistorius acted “too hastily and used excessive force … It is clear his conduct was negligent.”And with that, court adjourns for the day.
He is now ****ed.
8:30 tomorrow morning folks.
Some sort of deal being cooked up for sure!
its all going against oscar... with emphasis on not excusable!
What !!!! We break until tomorrow after she says
I find the accused knew the might kill, knew what he was doing, was competant in the use of firearms and that he was negligent.
(and then like the two Ronnies would say)
in other news, it's tea time so I am off see you tomorrow !
ahhhhh..round two..see you tomorrow folks
Some sort of deal being cooked up for sure!
No. The Judge made a mistake in intepretation on dolus eventualis. It looks like the meeting was called to discuss that point (possibly instigated by the Prosecutor which makes sense).
Ah! Shes reversed her previous decision on dolus eventualis.
No, I don't think so as that's to do with legal intent, not negligence, and simply rules out the murder charges, not culpable homicide (which is what he's clearly going to be found guilty of).
It is all a bit Deal or no Deal though "and after the break..."
This lot are clearly getting paid day rates.
If this was a fixed price job old Oscar would have been sent down months ago.
All will be revealed tomorrow on..
Will there be a boxset? 😐
Bkinkin ek, bet he's carping himself.. 😯
As Roy said in Bladerunner, quite an experience to live in fear isn't it.
I'm surprised at the judges wording as much as the verdict, but I suspect that we need to remember that South African crime - against all races - involves a routine level of violence that we don't see over here, so his actions are not being judged by normal UK values.
My relatives over there tell some really unpleasant stories about what is normal in terms of attacks and defence.
he leaps up
How might he do this with no legs on?
Well a "special forces" dude might roll along the floor like they do in the movies to avoid being seen. He could have managed that.
I'll bet it makes him sick that his fate will be decided by a black woman.
is a hell of an accusation to make about anyone without any sort of anything to back it up with?
Earlier trial coverage had focused on his arrogance and a sense of entitlement as part of a minority white privileged wealthy 'upper' class. I obviously don't know him personally, but its no secret that a lot of whites in SA still look down on the black population.
Surely the point is that the prosecution didn't prove that he knew he was going to kill the person behind the door. Is the chance he might kill enough?
Well know one can know for sure, even if you are trying to, but i would say firing 4 bullets, that expand on impact, at someone then you probably are trying to kill them.
DRUM ROLL STARTS
looks like he's getting off....
So far I am of the opinion that this judgement must have cost the Pistorius family a small fortune.
guilty of the lesser charge...
accused cannot be found guilty of murder, dolos directus or dolus eventualis, on basis on his belief and conduct, it cannot be said that he foresaw that either the deceased or anyone else for that matter might be killed when he fired the shots at the toilet door"
Everytime you fire four bullets at someone it seems reasonable to assume they MIGHT die as a result of this .
Not getting that logic at all tbh
GUilty of culpabale homicide not murder
will he do time?
Everytime you fire four bullets at someone it seems reasonable to assume they MIGHT die as a result of this .
Not getting that logic at all tbh
Nor me. Putting 4 dumdum bullets through a door, when you know there is someone behind it (whether he knew it was his girlfriend or genuinely thought it was an intruder, we'll never know) - that has to be an action that I'd be pretty confident would have a very high chance of death.
Everytime you fire four bullets at someone it seems reasonable to assume they MIGHT die as a result of this .
Murder has to be premeditated, they have to prove he planned to kill her.
warton - Memberwill he do time?
Not necessarily, but surely he will - I'll guess 8 years...
Murder has to be premeditated, they have to prove he planned to kill her
Do they? I thought the lesser charge was of acting in a way that you could reasonably foresee that someone is likely to be killed as a result. Like for example firing 4 bullets through a door when you know someone's the other side.
"The judge says that the "accused cannot be found guilty of murder, dolos directus or dolus eventualis, on basis on his belief and conduct, it cannot be said that he foresaw that either the deceased or anyone else for that matter might be killed when he fired the shots at the toilet door".
I can't square that he couldn't reasonably foresee the result.
As opposed to the one he got found for, which is negligence. It was more than negligent, surely.
I win the internetz today folks, (so do many others) I placed my "bet" and won with Culpable Homicide. Still reckon on him facing jail and 15 years.
I don't actually feel quite right about this, I mean "betting" on someone elses fate. Guess thats why I'm not a Judge.
😕
I agree, toj - "somebody" is on one side of the door, you fire a gun through the door. You must be intending to seriously harm if not kill the person on the other side of the door, IMO.
especially having experience with firearms, and being aware that there are hollowpoint bullets in the gun. And, according to the judge, it being to some extent a premeditated act (can't find the details but she did say yesterday that he could have called for help, phoned security, several other things, but he chose to shoot instead). It wasn't a blind panic as someone was rushing at him.
I too don't understand the logic that says he couldn't know he might kill someone. He fired 4 shots into a small space knowing there was someone inside.
I still say he gets a long sentence, he's been shown to be reckless and negligent with guns.
part of the reason the judge gave was his actions after the death. he was crying, tried to resuscitate her etc.
seems a bit strange to me, of course he would have been upset if he did it on impulse, and then it hit him...
Murder has to be premeditated, they have to prove he planned to kill her.
it cannot be said that he foresaw that either the deceased or anyone else for that matter might be killed when he fired the shots at the toilet door"
As others note how can you not forsee that the person you are shooting at might die as a result?
Who on the planet does not realise that shooting someone four times might kill them?
That this is South African law makes it a little harder for us to appreciate all the nuances than it would if it were UK law, but it appears that it still allows for murder (their lesser murder charge, where premeditation is not a factor) when
knowing someone might be killed and still firing a gun.
which is the one part of the judge's reasoning I can't quite fathom.
(As an aside, murder in English law does not require an intention to kill. If the intention is to cause serious injury but the outcome is death then that is also murder).
As others note how can you not forsee that the person you are shooting at might die as a result?Who on the planet does not realise that shooting someone four times might kill them?
I'd hope no one but they have to prove he planned to kill her, he claims he didn't know it was her they can't prove otherwise.
"The state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder," she said. "There are just not enough facts to support such a finding."The judge found that he consistently said he had fired in the belief there was an intruder and she had no reason to disbelieve him.
Verdict is in, and like all these things it comes down to proof as opposed to likelihood or balance of probability. Having not sat through the whole thing, I can't make a judgement on that.
What I still can't understand is why given the facts as the judge has stated them, she has come to a different conclusion to the one I'd come to based on the same facts.
Now to the conjecture bit, which is worthless now but anyway. WTF if you think there's an intruder in the house, would you start shooting before KNOWING where your girlfriend was. Just a simple 'Reeva, is that you?' and this would have been all avoided. Which leads me back to thinking that on the balance of probabilities, i think he's 'got away with it'.
I disagree here Drac, and maybe it's ignorance of SA law, but my understanding of the lesser murder charge is not that he cold blooded planned to kill her, but acted in a way where you can reasonably foresee that someone could get killed, and then act in that way anyway. In that case doesn't even have to be distinct to her, but to anyone, which people more knowledgable than you and I were saying is why there was a strange adjournment yesterday while the judge and lawyers checked and agreed their understanding of that bit of the law.
I disagree here Drac, and maybe it's ignorance of SA law, but my understanding of the lesser murder charge is not that he cold blooded planned to kill her, but acted in a way where you can reasonably foresee that someone could get killed, and then act in that way anyway.
He claimed he didn't know it was her, they couldn't prove otherwise. That's all there is to it.
For the premeditated murder charge, yes. I think what theotherjonv is saying is that it is not required that he knew it was Reeva for the lesser common law murder charge, which is also my understanding of it based on the judges own comments.
I'd hope no one but they have to prove he planned to kill her, he claims he didn't know it was her they can't prove otherwise
the quote says her or anyone else
it cannot be said that he foresaw that either the deceased or anyone else for that matter might be killed when he fired the shots at the toilet door
I agree we dont know whether he meant to kill her - that has not been proved - but it is clearly true that firing four shots at someone that anyone reasonable should be able to forsee that death is a possibility
I see no way where you can say firing four dum dum bullets at someone it is not possible to see that death MIGHT occur.
From the BBC (so assuming they get it right too:)
Common-law murder
She also ruled this out, saying: "The accused had the intention to shoot at the person behind the door, not to kill."He could also have been convicted of a lesser charge of murder, if he had unlawfully intended to kill in the heat of the moment but without "malice aforethought".
This could have covered either shooting at the door intending to kill, or knowing someone might be killed and still firing a gun.
This would also apply if he had intended to kill an intruder but had instead killed his girlfriend.
But judge Masipa also dismissed this, saying: "The evidence failed to prove the accused had intention."
"Clearly he did not objectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door."
[b]This could have covered either shooting at the door intending to kill, or knowing someone might be killed and still firing a gun.[/b]
It seems to have been dismissed on the basis that he didn't foresee that putting 4 hollowpoint bullets through a door when 'someone' is behind it might lead to killing them. Which is why i can't square her comments on the legal basis vs her interpretation of the facts.
I reckon it'll be no time in jail based on time served and trial time [s]and corruption[/s].
the quote says her or anyone else
Yes, which is why it's not murder.
It seems to have been dismissed on the basis that he didn't foresee that putting 4 hollowpoint bullets through a door when 'someone' is behind it might lead to killing them. Which is why i can't square her comments on the legal basis vs her interpretation of the facts.
Yeah I don't get either I will add, the purpose of a gun is to kill. If he'd fired at the ceiling it then ricocheted off and killed her then maybe but not firing at the source of the disturbance directly.
Ah wait.
The penny drops. I was referring to premeditated murder others were talking about common-law murder.
OJ Simpson Deja Vu.
The penny drops. I was referring to premeditated murder others were talking about common-law murder.
🙄 , but in a tongue in cheek way 😉
Sometimes i worry that saying the same thing over and over is just arguing in a 'la la, not listening' way. Sometimes it's valid.
well sentencing i on 13/10/14
one very long drum roll
Cripes, is he still on bail?
The judge didn't seem that confident
So, what's the max he can now get 15? Out in what 5-6?
No doubt what happened in my mind, they had a massive row, she ran to hide, the red mist came down, he shot her through the door.
The 'Intruder' claim? Why didn't he check to make sure she was alright before 'defending' her as well as himself, total nonsense. If you even think you hear a noise, you wake your partner or at least check it's not her moving about.
So it may not have been premeditated but it was a deliberate act, for which he should do serious time, anything less than life is ridiculous.
So how, as a matter of interest, can you ever PROVE that the shooter is doing so with the intent to kill ? Surely now any murderer can stand up in court and claim that he may have shot someone down in a hail of Uzi fire, but he was only planning to give him a bit of a fright. Precedent - Pistorius 2014, m'lud ??
Is this just me? Oscars defence this week are constantly saying it'd hurt, it'd affect, it'd destroy him (its all about him). No one else. Not the remorse he feels for her, her death etc. Just about him.
The Probationary Officer- is she paid off? She literally said he'd be beaten up in prison by prisoners using his prosthetics, there wouldn't be disability facilities, he'd suffer and it'd turn out a broken man from jail.
WTF.
I've been listening to some of it on radio 4 this week. Unbelievable that it does appear he will actually get away with it!
According to the prosecution he will be competing again with a new bird on his arm by the end of the month!