Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #64 ~ the appeal~

[Val1]

This article was published on 20 August but I hadn’t seen it until today. It sheds more light on what was happening behind the scenes at the time of all the brouhaha about OP’s non-release from prison.

Defence prepared to fight minister in court

OP’s legal team are expected to fight tooth and nail to have him released from jail tomorrow.

“Brian Webber could not be reached late yesterday to confirm whether they would launch an urgent application in the high court in Pretoria to secure his release, but legal experts say there is no doubt this would end up in a legal fight”. Webber said last night he couldn’t speak as the legal team were in a meeting. The advocate who cannot be named for ethical reasons, added, however, that the court, following an urgent application, could order OP’s release pending the outcome of the review. If the minister succeeded, it would mean that OP would have to go back to prison. "

“But the senior advocate said this reasoning didn’t make sense, as the parole board in most cases decided beforehand whether an inmate could be released on a certain date. ‘It is not as if he is being released before he had served his fulltime’” .

“He added that while the Minister was empowered to refer the matter to the review board, he could not decide himself whether OP should be released. He said the department wasn’t obliged to release an inmate on parole or correctional supervision , but in the case of inmates sentenced under the same provision as OP, it was usually done.

If there are exceptional circumstances as to why an inmate should not be released after serving a sixth of his sentence, or if the board is of the view that the sentence served was too lenient, he could be refused parole,” he said.

The ANC Women’s League welcomed the decision. They remain convinced that Masipa handed down an erroneous judgment and an extremely lenient sentence, setting a bad precedent in cases involving gender-based violence, especially in instances where women die at the hands of their partners.

“We are shocked and disappointed,” an unidentified family member said. And no doubt more than a little :furious:

http://www.pressreader.com/south-africa/the-star-early-edition/20150820/281479275156627/TextView

David Dadic @DavidDadic Aug 25
Spose if Oscar brings an urgent application to get out today, we may find out sooner than the appeal whether he's taken new legal counsel.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, ah, :behindbar :tears: uke: and raying: for a :deal:

BBMHmm, wouldn't the PT's appeal be considered "exceptional circumstances"? I would think it normal that an inmate not get out on an early release of any kind if the judgement on his/her sentence is under appeal.

 

[JudgeJudi]

BBMHmm, wouldn't the PT's appeal be considered "exceptional circumstances"? I would think it normal that an inmate not get out on an early release of any kind if the judgement on his/her sentence is under appeal.

The short answer is no. It's much the same as applying for bail before a trial, even if the charge is murder. You'll recall that bail needs exceptional circumstances if the charge is murder and OP was successful with his application.

Let's say he had been given a longer sentence, then he could not be released until he'd served his time, appeal or no appeal. OP has served his minimum time and was entitled to have parole/correctional supervision considered on or after 21 August. However, this decision was made before he'd served his 10 months and therefore was not legally binding.

 

[cottonweaver]

I could not respond to your question because I've never given it any thought until you asked. I would definitely agree with heritage. snipped

The words I would use to describe what OP has become as an adult are: childish, greedy, violent, entitled, manipulative, self centered, delusional.

You've given it far more thought than my quip deserved- it was just an opportunity for a cheap joke at his expense, taking into account BIB - if I say what I was thinking it might well be deemed offensive to Old World pig-farmers , so I won't elaborate .......

 

[cottonweaver]

Viper on OP: ...........childish, greedy, violent, entitled, manipulative, self centered, delusional.

and add to your list sexist

Just because this quote from Fossil's* linked transcript reminded me that the P women don't seem to carry guns

Op explaining a WhatsApp message to Roux:
" In the middle, it is 19 January2013, the printed time 17:05. --- It is a message I sent Reeva and it says:

OP: “I do not want you driving alone at night.”
BR: Why is that? ---
OP In our family we do not... the girls especially are not
allowed driving alone at night. They have all got... run flat tyres and smash and
grab on their windows and most of them have automatic cars, so that they cannot
stall if there is a smash and grab or an attempt hi-jacking and I did not want
Reeva to drive alone at night. It is not safe"

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/...oor/downloads/transcripts/Oscar+Pistorius.pdf

(* PS A few of the Sky transcripts, the critical ones eg. of OP's testimony, linked by Bessie, no longer work. )

 

[Interested Bystander]

Not madly interesting but there is little appropriate news about.

Minister'sdecision to suspend Oscar's parole not unique - law expert
2015-08-19 18:59
Johannesburg - Justice Minister Michael Masutha's decision tosuspend Paralympian Oscar Pistorius's release onparole this Friday is not unique, law expert Mannie Witz told News24.
"He has done it before with Clive Derby-Lewis and theWaterkloof Four," Witz said. "There has obviously been some form ofpressure and a petition, which the minister would need to consider."
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Oscar_Pistorius/Ministers-decision-to-suspend-Oscars-parole-not-unique-law-expert-20150819

 

[Viper]

This article was published on 20 August but I hadn’t seen it until today. It sheds more light on what was happening behind the scenes at the time of all the brouhaha about OP’s non-release from prison.Defence prepared to fight minister in courtOP’s legal team are expected to fight tooth and nail to have him released from jail tomorrow.“Brian Webber could not be reached late yesterday to confirm whether they would launch an urgent application in the high court in Pretoria to secure his release, but legal experts say there is no doubt this would end up in a legal fight”. Webber said last night he couldn’t speak as the legal team were in a meeting. The advocate who cannot be named for ethical reasons, added, however, that the court, following an urgent application, could order OP’s release pending the outcome of the review. If the minister succeeded, it would mean that OP would have to go back to prison. "“But the senior advocate said this reasoning didn’t make sense, as the parole board in most cases decided beforehand whether an inmate could be released on a certain date. ‘It is not as if he is being released before he had served his fulltime’” .“He added that while the Minister was empowered to refer the matter to the review board, he could not decide himself whether OP should be released. He said the department wasn’t obliged to release an inmate on parole or correctional supervision , but in the case of inmates sentenced under the same provision as OP, it was usually done.If there are exceptional circumstances as to why an inmate should not be released after serving a sixth of his sentence, or if the board is of the view that the sentence served was too lenient, he could be refused parole,” he said. The ANC Women’s League welcomed the decision. They remain convinced that Masipa handed down an erroneous judgment and an extremely lenient sentence, setting a bad precedent in cases involving gender-based violence, especially in instances where women die at the hands of their partners.“We are shocked and disappointed,” an unidentified family member said. And no doubt more than a little :furious:http://www.pressreader.com/south-africa/the-star-early-edition/20150820/281479275156627/TextViewDavid Dadic @DavidDadic Aug 25Spose if Oscar brings an urgent application to get out today, we may find out sooner than the appeal whether he's taken new legal counsel.Meanwhile back at the ranch, ah, :behindbar :tears: uke: and raying: for a :deal:

Thank you JJ. The "unnamed" advocate was obviously wrong. Seems the Board is in no rush to deal with the matter as they set their review date a month out, and OPs attorneys are just sitting on their hands. This is a sideshow now just like everything OP. The real issue is the SCA and that outcome.

 

[mrjitty]

So no matter how restricted the gun laws are, the criminals will get their hands on them and only responsible law abiding citizens are impacted.

This is a logical fallacy.

OP was a law abiding citizen, who used a gun and zombie killers to gun down a female in a domestic incident.

If like other countries, RSA sensibly restricted citizens from sleeping with loading weapons beside their beds, Reeva would still be alive today.

I grew up in a gun owning family - as was typical of those times.

Guns are kept locked up. Ammunition is kept locked up separately.

Which is why NZ has few gun deaths

 

[mrjitty]

The problem is with the attitude of a gun owner who thinks it is responsible to handle a loaded gun in a crowded restaurant or to conduct a military style sweep in his home.

Responsible gun owners don't have a problem with laws designed to promote safety.

Responsible gun owners don't sleep with a loaded gun beside the bed.

They keep their guns in gun safes and store ammo separately. They are happy for the police to come and verify storage arrangements.

They don't hold the irrational belief that planning ahead to gun down intruders is legitimate

That's how partners and children get killed.

Personally, given my upbringing with guns, I find it amazing that anyone would load one unless you are on the rifle range, or out on a shoot.

The weapons are never stored loaded, or transported loaded.

Anyone who packs a loaded weapon around the city or their house deserves what comes to them.

 

[Viper]

The problem is with the attitude of a gun owner who thinks it is responsible to handle a loaded gun in a crowded restaurant or to conduct a military style sweep in his home.Responsible gun owners don't have a problem with laws designed to promote safety.Responsible gun owners don't sleep with a loaded gun beside the bed.They keep their guns in gun safes and store ammo separately. They are happy for the police to come and verify storage arrangements. They don't hold the irrational belief that planning ahead to gun down intruders is legitimateThat's how partners and children get killed.Personally, given my upbringing with guns, I find it amazing that anyone would load one unless you are on the rifle range, or out on a shoot.The weapons are never stored loaded, or transported loaded.Anyone who packs a loaded weapon around the city or their house deserves what comes to them.

First let me say that in practice I agree with you. When I bought my first handgun I stored it unloaded and transported it to the shooting range the same way. But I never locked it up and the ammunition was stored in the same drawer. If it was loaded the safety was engaged if I wasn't about to fire it. After the kids started walking I changed the practice to more closely mirror what you describe.

Now that the kids aren't a safety issue anymore those precautions are no longer necessary. And I have learned from law enforcement professionals that it is best to store the gun in an easily accessible place, loaded, with the safety off. The point is reaction time, it takes time to get it ready and if its needed there may not be that much time.

Many people in SA want more gun laws but as Hatfield expressed aside from taking guns from all responsible gun owners and leaving the criminals to continue using them there really is no silver bullet law to prevent all gun violence. OP passed the criteria for gun ownership in SA and still he murdered, it is my belief that maniacs like OP would have used whatever weapon to kill even if it was his bare hands. There is no law that would have prevented what he did.

There are two popular sayings:

1) Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
2) I would rather have a gun and never need it than need a gun and not have one.

Only criminals, OP included, kill people with guns. But to your point irresponsible gun owners can let accidents happen by not responsibly securing their firearms that are kept in the home.

 

[Hatfield]

First let me say that in practice I agree with you. When I bought my first handgun I stored it unloaded and transported it to the shooting range the same way. But I never locked it up and the ammunition was stored in the same drawer. If it was loaded the safety was engaged if I wasn't about to fire it. After the kids started walking I changed the practice to more closely mirror what you describe.

Now that the kids aren't a safety issue anymore those precautions are no longer necessary. And I have learned from law enforcement professionals that it is best to store the gun in an easily accessible place, loaded, with the safety off. The point is reaction time, it takes time to get it ready and if its needed there may not be that much time.

Many people in SA want more gun laws but as Hatfield expressed aside from taking guns from all responsible gun owners and leaving the criminals to continue using them there really is no silver bullet law to prevent all gun violence. OP passed the criteria for gun ownership in SA and still he murdered, it is my belief that maniacs like OP would have used whatever weapon to kill even if it was his bare hands. There is no law that would have prevented what he did.

There are two popular sayings:

1) Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
2) I would rather have a gun and never need it than need a gun and not have one.

Only criminals, OP included, kill people with guns. But to your point irresponsible gun owners can let accidents happen by not responsibly securing their firearms that are kept in the home.

Totally Agree and you said things much better than I ever could.

 

[Hatfield]

The problem is with the attitude of a gun owner who thinks it is responsible to handle a loaded gun in a crowded restaurant or to conduct a military style sweep in his home.

Responsible gun owners don't have a problem with laws designed to promote safety.

Responsible gun owners don't sleep with a loaded gun beside the bed.

They keep their guns in gun safes and store ammo separately. They are happy for the police to come and verify storage arrangements.

They don't hold the irrational belief that planning ahead to gun down intruders is legitimate

That's how partners and children get killed.

Personally, given my upbringing with guns, I find it amazing that anyone would load one unless you are on the rifle range, or out on a shoot.

The weapons are never stored loaded, or transported loaded.

Anyone who packs a loaded weapon around the city or their house deserves what comes to them.

Viper replied much better than I could and I think the problem with the topic is it is way too complex to ever try to have general statements. Like the one I even made was angled mainly to an existing population that already has all the guns in the population and to try to make a rule to eliminate them would not work very well unless there is a method to somehow really abolish them. But the reality is that would not be possible because criminals would never turn theirs in.

With OP's situation, it was a domestic incident which is much much different than a criminal breaking into a home and a homeowner wanting to protect themselves. So those 2 situations are totally different.

Most responsible gun owners agree with safety and promote home safety as much as they have been trained but there again, it is very specific depending on whether others in the house can get access to guns.

In my situation, with no children, and nobody that could access my gun, then your statement is too broad too. "Responsible gun owners don't sleep with a loaded gun beside the bed."

That is NOT what is taught by the policeman that taught my Conceal Carry class. What he did say was that so long as no family member had inadvertent access to your gun, then it is best to have it loaded and ready to use if a criminal breaks in your home to do you harm. He indicated that you don't want to be fumbling around in the dark looking for bullets as he is entering your room. Not enough time.

With kids, a whole different set of safety practices need to be considered. So again, no broad brush can be painted on these tough subjects.

It also is very specific to a specific situation of where you live and whether the crime in your neighborhood is sufficient to have a valid possibility. Certain areas are much more prone and the reality is there. Other areas, it may not be warranted at all.

The bottom line is common sense laws are generally well received by responsible gun owners.
Like Background checks, etc.

And common sense safety practices must be followed by responsible gun owners. Its people like OP that don't fit into the equation or discussion because he is BOTH IRRESPONSIBLE and a CRIMINAL. He breaks rules and laws. So go ahead and write the next law so he can break it too.

 

[Viper]

Totally Agree and you said things much better than I ever could.

Hope not to offend anyone, it is just information. This is an interesting read:

"In 2009, twelve years after the Firearms Act of 1997 was passed, Daily Mail Online reported that Britain was “the most violent country in Europe.” They also reported that Britain’s home figures showed “the UK [had] a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and South Africa.”

http://www.*********.com/national-security/2014/09/24/how-gun-control-made-england-the-most-violent-country-in-europe/On

Oh, the link is censored. To read the article you will need to google its title, which you can read in the link. One of the sources for the article is below and hopefully not censored:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

A side note IIRC I read that Detroit is seeing its crime rate drop after officials began to encourage citizens to own a personal firearm for home protection. I'll look for that later.

 

[Viper]

Here is that article regarding Detroit. I had to laugh after reading this portion:

"Craig noted that in a survey of 1,800 felons, the respondents pointed to "armed citizens" as the thing they were most afraid of."

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/...-invasions-way-down-amid-rising-gun-ownership

 

[cottonweaver]

The first search took me here:

Homicide Monitor Map

"Among the safest places in the world, in terms of the risk of being murdered, are Western Europe including the UK, China, Australia, Canada and Chile – an oasis of safety in South America. Argentina and the US have under 5.55 homicides per 100,000 people."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...shows-homicide-rates-world.html#ixzz3kbwLrcTs

 

[cottonweaver]

Hope not to offend anyone, it is just information. This is an interesting read:

"In 2009, twelve years after the Firearms Act of 1997 was passed, Daily Mail Online reported that Britain was “the most violent country in Europe.” They also reported that Britain’s home figures showed “the UK [had] a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and South Africa.”

I could well believe it as it includes in the stats affray, robbery, burglary, mugging and drunken yobbery! However I would be very cautious about the methodology and the article is very clear on a political agenda re ex govt. ( Labour )

"But criminologists say crime figures can be affected by many factors, including different criminal justice systems and differences in how crime is reported and measured.

In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured.
There are also degrees of violence. While the UK ranks above South Africa for all violent crime, South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year - compared with Britain's 921 in 2007.

Experts say there are a number of reasons why violence is soaring in the UK. These include Labour's decision to relax the licensing laws to allow round-the-clock opening, which has led to a rise in the number of serious assaults taking place in the early hours of the morning.
But Police Minister David Hanson said: 'These figures are misleading.
Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz3kbz2kEl3

TBH the only figures I would trust on any of this would be those reviewed by Radio 4's "More Or Less" ( weekly prog. of manipulation of data in topical news.)
eg. Here's the prog on gun crime in US - haven't downloaded it myself as I can't at moment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02rzsql

 

[Viper]

The first search took me here:

Homicide Monitor Map

"Among the safest places in the world, in terms of the risk of being murdered, are Western Europe including the UK, China, Australia, Canada and Chile – an oasis of safety in South America. Argentina and the US have under 5.55 homicides per 100,000 people."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...shows-homicide-rates-world.html#ixzz3kbwLrcTs

LOL! After reading the previous Daily Mail article that I posted that had officials looking for "social" reasons and cures, this article is hysterical! The opening sentences basically say (my words), "Sure you live in the country with the most violent crime in Europe! But hey, at least you won't likely be murdered, so give the politicians credit for a job well done!" This seems like a kiss and make up apology article written for the politicians to make up for the previous article.

Statistics are evil I always say because people give in to the temptation to look at the world through just the statistics that support their goals, casting aside the many other statistics that point to the whole picture.

 

[Viper]

Murder in all countries, regardless of social and economic circumstances, most often occurs between two people that know each other, as is the case with OP killing his girlfriend, Reeva. In SA and the impoverish country of Honduras the two qualifiers (social and economic) are vastly different than in the UK and there is lots of gang activity and drug wars unlike what anyone in the UK could ever imagine to possibly every occur on a London street, ever.

Education, wealth, and family stability had no effect on OPs decision to kill and he had them all to the plus side.

The gun laws in SA are very strict and yet many unlicensed people own guns. OP was licenced by the state, took all of the courses, passed all of the background checks.

For me I would be cautious about traveling to SA (and now the UK too ), but I am very comfortable in Brazil. The reason is I have never been to SA, but I have been to Brazil many times and I know that, like in the US, murders are predominantly bad people killing bad people.

 

[cottonweaver]

Well, looks like we have collectively exhausted every possible OP topic- only thing remaining is drumming up interest in that betting syndicate!

Any takers? It's only a straw poll for a little light entertainment. And who really cares if they are ultimately proved wrong ?
(Not like it's a new experience for any of us!)

..... But I'm not sure I should be calculating odds, just cause of my inexperience of gambling.

:waiting:

 

[Viper]

Well, looks like we have collectively exhausted every possible OP topic- only thing remaining is drumming up interest in that betting syndicate!

Any takers? It's only a straw poll for a little light entertainment. And who really cares if they are ultimately proved wrong ?
(Not like it's a new experience for any of us!)

..... But I'm not sure I should be calculating odds, just cause of my inexperience of gambling.

:waiting:

Put me down for 1. The fix is in, he will not be paroled. 2. He will be found a. Guilty of Murder or b. His CH sentence will be increased to 12 years. As the Steenkamps said either way none of it will bring Reeva back, but it would be something much closer to justice.

I gotta run for a while, but if banning guns is the answer, why do the UK and Australia have any murder rate at all? The anecdotal evidence points to it negatively affecting (sharply increasing) other types of crime. Who knows really, I don't. But I do know that guns will never go away, they can be printed out of plastic using a 3D printer and a store bought nail today. Maybe they should just ban bullets instead! Don't hate me for stating the fact!

 

[cottonweaver]

Yes, sadly, we like "us knives" here in the UK. Seriously, I have no answers. A friend of mine, tho don't see him these days, was last advising the UK Govt on gun and gang crime. It wasn't working but he made a great income out of it!

Anyway here's the light entertainment option. Feel free, or not, to paste, add your "vote" etc.

1. No release to house arrest until Appeal -
2. Release re-affirmed by Review Board on 18th Sept -

some won't want to do No.3 until Defence's Heads are in and legal appraisals read but for the risk-takers...

3a) SCA verdict : Dolus Eventualis with substantial sentence
or 3b) SCA verdict : CH Upheld with substantially increased sentence -
or 3c) SCA verdict : CH ( Masipa verdict & sentence ) Upheld, OP released to house arrest. -


Anyone going for 3c) ....drinks are on Arnold, party at Waterkloof,....
There you go, straw poll instead as some may be sniffy about wagers on this matter.