Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[Interested Bystander]

What needs to be further investigated? I thought Beeton's reasons were valid so why the need?

If OP makes another appeal, I hope she is the magistrate.

If OP appeals the Supreme Court decision I think it then goes to the Constitutional Court where I have read 8 judges sit and they bring in a majority verdict. There is something here about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Court_of_South_Africa

 

[Interested Bystander]

[h=1]Oscar Pistorius parole: a symbol of being rich and white in South Africa[/h]Rebecca Davis

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/10/oscar-pistorius-parole-a-symbol-of-being-rich-and-white-in-south-africa

“Oh, how fast five years passes in South Africa… feels like 10 months,” one Twitter user wrote in response to the news ofOscar Pistorius’s imminent release. It was a response which summed up theprevailing public sentiment in the country: resignation, cynicism, and a touchof dark humour.”

 

[soozieqtips]

I also worry that he is at great risk of doing something stupid and/or violent. His life will never be the same as before. He will no longer be the well respected Hero, the great athlete. I think he will get a bit of disrespect and some mocking if he tries to walk the red carpets and hang in the VIP rooms. There are going to be some ugly incidents, imo.

BIB - I agree. He's used to being fawned over, so I can't see him being okay with the abuse he's going to get on occasions. That nasty temper of his isn't just going to disappear, and he'll probably have spent 10 months festering at the injustice of being jailed - especially as if Reeva had just called out ... it wouldn't have happened, and he wouldn't be in this mess.

 

[L2L]

[h=1]Oscar Pistorius parole: a symbol of being rich and white in South Africa[/h]Rebecca Davis

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/10/oscar-pistorius-parole-a-symbol-of-being-rich-and-white-in-south-africa

“Oh, how fast five years passes in South Africa… feels like 10 months,” one Twitter user wrote in response to the news ofOscar Pistorius’s imminent release. It was a response which summed up theprevailing public sentiment in the country: resignation, cynicism, and a touchof dark humour.”

Thanks for link to this excellent article! Makes me think OP (and/or family) is rich and powerful enough to win the November appeal as well.

 

[katydid23]

BIB - I agree. He's used to being fawned over, so I can't see him being okay with the abuse he's going to get on occasions. That nasty temper of his isn't just going to disappear, and he'll probably have spent 10 months festering at the injustice of being jailed - especially as if Reeva had just called out ... it wouldn't have happened, and he wouldn't be in this mess.

Exactly. Well said. I sure hope that any woman that is foolish enough to get involved with OP now, will watch her back. He is going to be angrier and more resentful and bitter than usual. JMO

 

[Deleted member 102539]

"So... In South Africa you don't even need legs to outrun the law."



1 comment re Oscar Pistorius may be out on parole in August (news24)

 

[Deleted member 102539]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P65a9yi1lFk&feature=youtu.be

Pistorius Got Away With Murder?! - The Angry Nerd

 

[GR_Turner]

RSBM

A disingenuous reply to Lithgow's point. Of course you never expected to find "delight" re OP setnence/release on this WS forum. That's not what you came onto WS for.

What an odd reply. The other poster was the one who seemed to think there was some delight at OP's imminent release and I pointed out that there wasn't on here at least (or anywhere else I've read in fact). So you agree with me.

This thread could do with a range of views but it seems as though only those who want to insult OP or Masipa or revel in anything negative about them are welcome. Anyone who disagrees doesn't have to wait long to be insulted.

I'm still astonished that there are people arguing that the screams must have been Reeva's when even on the State's case it's impossible (they put the shots at 3.17 in their heads of argument, remember). No court is going to say they were her screams and neither should they, but this is still being repeated though I notice it's now a 'belief' ie something that can't be proven. Is that really what most of you think??

 

[JudgeJudi]

If OP appeals the Supreme Court decision I think it then goes to the Constitutional Court where I have read 8 judges sit and they bring in a majority verdict. There is something here about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Court_of_South_Africa

“The constitution requires that a matter before the court be heard by at least eight judges. In practice, all eleven judges hear almost every case. Decisions are reached by a majority vote of the judges sitting in a case. Each judge must indicate his or her decision, and the reasons for the decision are published in a written judgment”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Court_of_South_Africa

A number of experienced advocates and lawyers in SA have stated that there's a real possibility that the Pistorius matter could end up in the Constitutional Court.

The following was the final para from an article published in the Daily Maverick commenting on a case brought before the Constitutional Court. The case had nothing to do with murder but I found it very interesting nevertheless.

"The Constitutional Court has a well-deserved reputation for being on the side of the “victim”. That’s how it should be, and what you would expect in a court imbued with the human rights ethos so absent from our past. But it’s also important that from time to time it stands up and says people must also take responsibility for their actions. That if you are found guilty in the proper process, you must take your punishment. And that you cannot use your circumstances as a defence. Your actions are your choice. It strikes us that this is a good place for the court to make this statement".

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...out-in-sas-constitutional-court/#.VXu5URsVg4l

 

[Colin de France]

All of us who have been following this affair closely know there is something wrong somewhere....even if we accept the idea that he thought there was an intruder in the WC he shot that person four times without having any need to do so after in his own words having told them to get out....his reputation with guns, the witness to screams, the tampered telephone....this case is an absolute travesty of justice of the poorest level, surely even an intruder merits more than ten months......without a single warning, he shot to kill.

 

[Trotterly]

All of us who have been following this affair closely know there is something wrong somewhere....even if we accept the idea that he thought there was an intruder in the WC he shot that person four times without having any need to do so after in his own words having told them to get out....his reputation with guns, the witness to screams, the tampered telephone....this case is an absolute travesty of justice of the poorest level, surely even an intruder merits more than ten months......without a single warning, he shot to kill.

Really?

If an intruder broke into my home in the middle of the night where my family were sleeping and I shot that intruder dead I would be expecting a medal not 10 months in prison. I value the lives of my loved ones a lot more than that of an intruder.

 

[Colin de France]

Really?

If an intruder broke into my home in the middle of the night where my family were sleeping and I shot that intruder dead I would be expecting a medal not 10 months in prison. I value the lives of my loved ones a lot more than that of an intruder.

...then think again....... there was no break-in, there was no immediate threat of danger to his life, he had already shouted for the person to get out, he gave no warning that he was armed......there was nothing whether it be physical or intellectual to back up a theory of self-defense....

 

[JudgeJudi]

Really?

If an intruder broke into my home in the middle of the night where my family were sleeping and I shot that intruder dead I would be expecting a medal not 10 months in prison. I value the lives of my loved ones a lot more than that of an intruder.

You may be expecting a medal but the reality is that you too would be going to prison if you were in SA. There is no "stand your ground" defence in SA (or Australia). OP knew he was breaking the law when he fired through the toilet door

Sean Rens of the International Firearm Training Academy was in charge of the assessment OP had to undergo in order to purchase and own the firearms he bought. He had to complete a Unit Standard questionnaire which included the following questions:

Q.2 You are at home alone in an isolated area, far from police or security services. You happen to look out of your window and you see two strange men jumping over your wall and make their way towards your house. You do not know these men and you are not expecting any form of visitor because it is very late at night. Have they committed an offence that justifies the use of lethal force against them?
OP correctly answered “No”.

Q.3 The men come to your house and proceed to break off the burglar bars of one of your windows and enter your house through the window. They go to your lounge and they start to remove your extremely expensive hi-fi. Can you discharge a firearm at them at this point?
OP correctly answered “No”.

Q.4 When the burglars who are stealing your hi-fi become aware of your presence, they turn and they order you to go away or they will kill you. You are behind a security gate 10 metres away. Can you discharge a firearm at them because you fear for your life?
OP correctly answered “No”.

Q5. There is no security gate between you and the burglars and they turn around and both are armed, one with a knife and the other with a firearm in their hands and they advance towards you. Can you discharge a firearm at them because you fear for your life?
OP correctly answered “Yes”.

6. Explain the legal requirements when using lethal force for private or self-defence.
OP wrote, “The attack must be against you, it must be unlawful and it must be against a person”.

He had been able to list the top safety rules. When asked to explain target identification, he answered, “Know your target and what lies beyond”.

He achieved top marks in the test.

It's a tragedy that he was ever issued a gun licence and owned a weapon. Not everyone is a fit and proper person, and clearly he falls into that category.

 

[Trotterly]

...then think again....... there was no break-in, there was no immediate threat of danger to his life, he had already shouted for the person to get out, he gave no warning that he was armed......there was nothing whether it be physical or intellectual to back up a theory of self-defense....

In part you are correct -hence the CH.

He only needed to genuinely think there was an intruder which you postulated in your previous post and was under imminent attack when he heard the noise. The prosecution did not prove this was not reasonably possible.

 

[Colin de France]

In part you are correct -hence the CH.

He only needed to genuinely think there was an intruder which you postulated in your previous post and was under imminent attack when he heard the noise. The prosecution did not prove this was not reasonably possible.

..that's one of the reasons why i believe the prosecution did a bad job if not an extremely bad job in court, he was not under imminent attack even by his own words, even if he had thought the intruder was coming out the WC, simply because that potential action did not constitute an immediate threat to his life and secondly again by his own words he had shouted for them to get out.... thirdly it was him who held the gun ...and that was a fact ....lastly and above all the psychological act of the intruder entering the WC was symbolic of someone hiding or running away and not of someone confrontationaly aggressive....

 

[Trotterly]

You may be expecting a medal but the reality is that you too would be going to prison if you were in SA. There is no "stand your ground" defence in SA (or Australia). OP knew he was breaking the law when he fired through the toilet door

Sean Rens of the International Firearm Training Academy was in charge of the assessment OP had to undergo in order to purchase and own the firearms he bought. He had to complete a Unit Standard questionnaire which included the following questions:

Q.2 You are at home alone in an isolated area, far from police or security services. You happen to look out of your window and you see two strange men jumping over your wall and make their way towards your house. You do not know these men and you are not expecting any form of visitor because it is very late at night. Have they committed an offence that justifies the use of lethal force against them?
OP correctly answered “No”.

Q.3 The men come to your house and proceed to break off the burglar bars of one of your windows and enter your house through the window. They go to your lounge and they start to remove your extremely expensive hi-fi. Can you discharge a firearm at them at this point?
OP correctly answered “No”.

Q.4 When the burglars who are stealing your hi-fi become aware of your presence, they turn and they order you to go away or they will kill you. You are behind a security gate 10 metres away. Can you discharge a firearm at them because you fear for your life?
OP correctly answered “No”.

Q5. There is no security gate between you and the burglars and they turn around and both are armed, one with a knife and the other with a firearm in their hands and they advance towards you. Can you discharge a firearm at them because you fear for your life?
OP correctly answered “Yes”.

6. Explain the legal requirements when using lethal force for private or self-defence.
OP wrote, “The attack must be against you, it must be unlawful and it must be against a person”.

He had been able to list the top safety rules. When asked to explain target identification, he answered, “Know your target and what lies beyond”.

He achieved top marks in the test.

It's a tragedy that he was ever issued a gun licence and owned a weapon. Not everyone is a fit and proper person, and clearly he falls into that category.

I must admit this part of the trial did make me laugh. SA is a truly macabre and uncivilised place.

You are right OP should never have been allowed a gun and neither should any one else.

But since he was, because presumably he knows which end is the dangerous end and he's memorised a few answers, then we must take it seriously I suppose.

Was he tested in a combat situation where he feared for his life?

 

[Trotterly]

..that's one of the reasons why i believe the prosecution did a bad job if not an extremely bad job in court, he was not under imminent attack even by his own words, even if he had thought the intruder was coming out the WC, simply because that potential action did not constitute an immediate threat to his life and secondly again by his own words he had shouted for them to get out.... thirdly it was him who held the gun ...and that was a fact ....

Nel certainly had a bit of trouble trying to pigeon hole OP's intention but in the end it was pretty simple.

Before I knew what was happening I had fired (4) shots and I thought there was someone coming out to attack me was not disproved and in the gun crazy world of SA it made sense to me - and to the judge.

 

[Colin de France]

Nel certainly had a bit of trouble trying to pigeon hole OP's intention but in the end it was pretty simple.

Before I knew what was happening I had fired (4) shots and I thought there was someone coming out to attack me was not disproved and in the gun crazy world of SA it made sense to me - and to the judge.

...that's a big jump, from asking someone to get out of his house, hearing a noise from someone already hiding in the WC and then shooting them dead without a prior warning, ...if you can find sense in that then you really do deserve a medal ...! Then of course we can discuss the need to fire four shots, one, then three, the first one identified the position of the body, the last three were to finish the work, that's what happened, plain and simple murder.....the problem was that we had a Mr Nice Guy prosecution more interested in his public image and playing up to the cameras than taking Pistorius apart, really apart, there were elements which were not pushed hard enough....as for the judge ..

 

[Trotterly]

Something strange going on. The post I was replying to just disappeared!

I was going to say that much of the comment here seems motivated more by emotion than by a desire to see the facts.

 

[Colin de France]

Something strange going on. The post I was replying to just disappeared!

I was going to say that much of the comment here seems motivated more by emotion than by a desire to see the facts.

...now go back and read your post 371...