Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #67 *Appeal Verdict*

[Tortoise]

I seems odd to try to claim that OP's abilities with his prostheses on bear any relation to his abilities with them off.

As far as I know he holds no records for running on his stumps.

This hasn't got anything to do with his abilities. He has had a clean mental evaluation. He says he approached a potentially deadly situation where he could not have escaped if he had wanted to, despite having no mental defects (and despite having a pair of prostheses as readily available to him as his firearm).

Even if you believe him, you must consider that his loaded firearm in ready mode more than compensated for his mobility issues. He was protected.

The SCA found that he had no reason to believe his life was in danger. The door did not move and he was not devoid of his senses, he decided not to fire a warning shot. This is proof that he fully appreciated the unlawfulness of his actions.

He then claimed that he did not consciously fire his gun, or aim at the perceived danger. Proof that he was not actually defending himself against a perceived attack at all.

So to cut a long story short, he has had a fair hearing and his story is just that, a story, one that defies any belief, a despicable coward's attempt to avoid the truth at all costs.

 

[krkrjx]

Everyone should just prepare themselves that OP may be under house arrest or may be remanded in to custody until January and then be handed and serve a mandatory 15 year sentence for Murder. There, fixed it for ya!

It would be great to see this murderer pay for what he did instead of coddled. I am not very hopeful that the right thing will happen but I admire your positive thinking.

 

[mhiforme]

Having a physical disability does not EVER excuse one of murder.

There isn't one law for able-bodied people, and another for disabled people.

I don't think anyone would suggest that the disabled should be excused from any crime they commit.

Sometimes however, there needs to be a way to address a handicap and I thought the reasonable disabled person test was an excellent idea that was put forward by someone in the SA legal community. It's easy for an able body person to say that someone should have done this or this but it's not always that simple. It's why they say you don't know what someone is going through unless you walk a mile in their shoes.

 

[Val1]

Absolutely right.

Without his legs he is extremely disabled. Very, very vulnerable.

With his legs, he can compete alongside able-bodied people at the Olympics and carry a 9 stone woman down two flights of stairs.

Rather odd, then, that he wouldn't take the 20 seconds (probably less in a hurry) necessary to pull on the legs that were right next to him when he "heard the noise" and felt himself to be in mortal danger.

Wasn't thinking clearly, eh? Except he was. That excuse won't wash anymore.

As has been proven time and time again, guns equal power and OP certainly seemed to believe that his gun was a better equalizer than even his legs. So much so that he was confident enough to chase down and confront an alleged unknown number of intruders, rather than simply don his legs and retreat with RS to safety while setting off the alarm system meant to protect them by simultaneously scaring off possibly intruders and attract the patrolling guards.

 

[mhiforme]

FYI.. OP is entitled to an attorney but he is not entitled to the best attorney(s) possible or that money can buy, he can get those if he can afford them. In this case his uncle seems to be most concerned with maintaining his own personal wealth; lucky for OP that his attorneys are working his case for free now, very lucky, but appeals cost only a fraction of what the original trial cost. Cheap family, not good, really not good at this point.

Everyone is entitled to representation and if you are born into a family of privilege, you generally are able to get the best that money can afford.

There are lots of stories going around about OP being broke, Arnold paying the bill, Roux working for free but no one from the Pistorius family has officially gone on record to say what is the payment structure for these legal fees and they don't need to because it is no ones business. but theirs. However, whatever the arrangements, it is something that Arnold, Roux and Pistorius seem happy about at this time and so there should be no issue with Roux defending Pistorius if they are both happy with the arrangement.

 

[Cherwell]

I don't think anyone would suggest that the disabled should be excused from any crime they commit.

Sometimes however, there needs to be a way to address a handicap and I thought the reasonable disabled person test was an excellent idea that was put forward by someone in the SA legal community. It's easy for an able body person to say that someone should have done this or this but it's not always that simple. It's why they say you don't know what someone is going through unless you walk a mile in their shoes.

And speaking of shoes, all he needed to do to cancel out any disability was the equivalent of putting on a pair of shoes.

 

[LemonMousse]

I'd be surprised if a SA got a hefty sentence for shooting an intruder.

Reeva was not an intruder. It's dismissive, insulting and disrespectful to keep writing off her death as "OP shot an intruder".

He did not. He shot and murdered REEVA STEENKAMP.

 

[LemonMousse]

I don't think anyone would suggest that the disabled should be excused from any crime they commit.

Sometimes however, there needs to be a way to address a handicap and I thought the reasonable disabled person test was an excellent idea that was put forward by someone in the SA legal community. It's easy for an able body person to say that someone should have done this or this but it's not always that simple. It's why they say you don't know what someone is going through unless you walk a mile in their shoes.

I find this distasteful.

Are you suggesting that we should acknowledge that disabled people are more likely to be murderers?

I will not.

Pistorius was not defending himself. He was not in danger and he had no reason to believe that he was. That much is undeniable.

If there ever is such a thing as the "reasonable disabled person test" (and there won't be because the notion is disgusting) Pistorius would fail. No one needs to walk a mile in his shoes to understand that what he did was utterly, utterly indefensible and beyond rational justification.

 

[krkrjx]

And speaking of shoes, all he needed to do to cancel out any disability was the equivalent of putting on a pair of shoes.

Exactly, and the fact that he didn't absolutely screams that he didn't feel any danger. It stands to reason that if a person feels scared at hearing what might be an intruder they would arm themselves with all they have available to them...in this case, prosthetic legs. His leaving them off actually bolsters the idea that he did not feel threatened. He was a man on a mission that he knew he could carry out without bothering to enable himself with his prostheses.

 

[LemonMousse]

I can't help but remember all the times were were asked if we'd accept the findings of the SCA when Nel's argument failed...."Wouldn't fly" I think was the exact phrase.

Ho hum.

 

[mhiforme]

I find this distasteful.

Are you suggesting that we should acknowledge that disabled people are more likely to be murderers?

I will not.

Pistorius was not defending himself. He was not in danger and he had no reason to believe that he was. That much is undeniable.

If there ever is such a thing as the "reasonable disabled person test" (and there won't be because the notion is disgusting) Pistorius would fail. No one needs to walk a mile in his shoes to understand that what he did was utterly, utterly indefensible and beyond rational justification.

With a name like LemonMousse, it's ironic how many things you find distasteful. You're clearly not understanding this and this will be my last post on this subject to you.

No one is saying that disabled people are more likely to be murderers and I challenge you to show me where that was said in post 928.

The simple point that was made was a confirmation of what someone in the highly learned South African law community said and that was that perhaps the reasonable man test needs to be amended to accommodate for the challenges of the disabled.

 

[Jake18]

BIB

I did accept Masipa's ruling of CH and felt that was appropriate.
I also watched and read the SCA's judgement and can understand their rationale for murder. I also accept this and have no issue with this as OP received a fair trial and the decision was unanimous.

But I don't feel this is the end of the case. In the SCA judgement, Leech does say "The fact is that different judges reach different conclusions and, in thelight of an appeal structure, those of the appellate court prevail"

So if this does go to the CC, I can see an argument around the reasonable man test and the need to have a reasonable disabled man test. I think there is also a possibility of the CH verdict being restored as I believe what Masipa did was relate to OP's disability with her own health issues and in turn applied an incorrect (at this point in time) version of the reasonable man test.

This case has been much more than just a CH/murder trial.

It's been about defining:

1. Circumstantial evidence
2. Dolus Eventualis

and we may now get a new definition in South Africa for the reasonable man test, who knows?

So, having a physical disability (in the absence of a significant mental illness or intellectual disability) should relate to diminished criminal responsibility? The "reasonable disabled man"?

If OP's verdict is reduced on this basis is it then reasonable to allow people with physical disabilities access to the same privileges as able bodied people? Such as legal access to guns?

Do you think people with disabilities would welcome a down-grading of OP's verdict on this basis?

 

[cottonweaver]

I don't think anyone would suggest that the disabled should be excused from any crime they commit.

Sometimes however, there needs to be a way to address a handicap and I thought the reasonable disabled person test was an excellent idea that was put forward by someone in the SA legal community. It's easy for an able body person to say that someone should have done this or this but it's not always that simple. It's why they say you don't know what someone is going through unless you walk a mile in their shoes.

BIB Who is that then? Would be good to check out their credentials.
(We like links here at Websleuths- that's why it is so informative. )

 

[Greater Than]

The NPA is not doing itself any favours. When it comes to sentencing, if they have not robustly objected to him remaining under house arrest after conviction, they can hardly then argue that he shouldn't serve whatever sentence he gets also under house arrest. I thought the whole idea of prison is that it protects the population at large from dangerous criminals and is a punishment.

Do they see Pistorius as a harmless murderer? Are they really monitoring him closely? I saw a pic of him yesterday out driving a car, that is not restricted freedom, it is freedom, he is in control of the pedals. He could cause havoc with his temper and/or his alleged suicidal thoughts, now that he is feeling powerless.

OP has a history of reckless behavior:

- he had a drunken boating accident
- he's a self-admitted speed freak
- he ran over someone's pet..and then put a bullet through its head
- he shot a gun through an open sunroof
- he shot a gun in a crowded restaurant
- he assaulted Cassidy Taylor-Memmory
- he was in possession of unlicensed .38 special ammo
- he pulled a gun on his washing machine
- he pulled a gun on his friend Mike Azzie..because he made noise getting a drink of water in the middle of the night

He also has a history of threatening people:

- he told Quinton Van der Burgh (who had to get a restraining order against him) that he'd "f#©k him up"
- he told Marc Batchelor that he'd break his legs
- he growled "how do you sleep at night" to Gina Myers as he exited the courtroom
- he got into a drunken bar fight with Jared Mortimer, DURING his murder trial

The guy was a loose cannon even before being convicted of murder. He is a danger to society. He needs to be locked up.

 

[cottonweaver]

For instance:
http://nod.org/news_events/news/P40
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/disability-justify-pistorius-shooting-groups/story?id=24401355
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09687599.2013.808085

Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, professor of Women's Studies and English at Emory University, wrote in the aftermath of the Steenkamp shooting: “As a woman, mother of daughters, and feminist, I seethed with repugnance and outrage hearing that he'd shot Reeva Steenkamp four times, that he had a history of abusive incidents against women. As a person with a disability myself –in fact, a congenital limb reduction like Pistorius – I fear the links that may be made between disability and temperament.”

As it emerged, those links would be made not by callous commentators but by Pistorius’ own defence team.

Last week the president of the US-based National Organisation on Disability, Carol Glazer, was quoted as describing the use of disability in his murder defence as “exploitation”



Disability groups in the United States say they find it hard to believe Pistorius’s disability could be to blame for the shooting.

Glazer of the National Organization on Disabilities said there tends to be a “knee-jerk” reaction to assume that becoming disabled is “the most traumatic experience on earth,” but it’s not true because people adapt.

Pistorius’s legs were amputated when he was an infant.

“Anyone who can figure out how to win an able-bodied track medal in the World Championships, participate in the able-bodied Olympics, and then win a gold in the Paralympics, has figured out how to adapt to his disability,” Glazer said. “It’s highly unlikely that the same disability would trigger hyper-vigilance or other stress reactions.”

Henry Claypoll, the executive vice president of the American Association of People with Disabilities, said it’s true that people react differently to their disabilities and experience discrimination. But he, too, has a hard time reaching Derman’s conclusion.

“The bottom line is I don’t think you can justify these actions by his having lived with a disability,” Claypoll said.

 

[LemonMousse]

With a name like LemonMousse, it's ironic how many things you find distasteful. You're clearly not understanding this and this will be my last post on this subject to you.

No one is saying that disabled people are more likely to be murderers and I challenge you to show me where that was said in post 928.

The simple point that was made was a confirmation of what someone in the highly learned South African law community said and that was that perhaps the reasonable man test needs to be amended to accommodate for the challenges of the disabled.

Pistorius is a convicted murderer. Have you forgotten that?

i can think of no justification whatsoever for your implication that different expected standards of behaviour should be applied to disabled people when it comes to murder....the intentional, unlawful killing of a human being.

"....this will be my last post..." "....on this subject to you"

 

[cottonweaver]

here's another well-formed argument

Ari Seirlis is the CEO of the QuadPara Association of South Africa (QASA), leading disabled rights advocate.

"We don’t want our own laws. We are happy with the Equality Act (PEPUDA)."
“You can’t hold up a gold medal in one hand and a pistol in another.”

Seirlis said: “We’re saying he didn’t earn the right to use that as an excuse; when he earned the gold, he took away his right to use that excuse.”"

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opin...-vulnerability-a-new-disability/#.VmYmxOOyOko

But TBH like Lemon Mousse, must reflect why am I wasting my time on this nonsense? That'll be my last too.

 

[LemonMousse]

And, of course, if Pistorius was so very, very vulnerable because of his disability in that moment....why precisely did he not ask for help from the able-bodied person in the room? The awake one lying in bed three feet away?

He was not feeling vulnerable. He was not feeling threatened. That is why he grabbed his gun and headed off to the bathroom ready to shoot.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

With a name like LemonMousse, it's ironic how many things you find distasteful. You're clearly not understanding this and this will be my last post on this subject to you.

No one is saying that disabled people are more likely to be murderers and I challenge you to show me where that was said in post 928.

The simple point that was made was a confirmation of what someone in the highly learned South African law community said and that was that perhaps the reasonable man test needs to be amended to accommodate for the challenges of the disabled.

Oh dear, scraping the bottom already, not enough calling Reeva a gold digger. No compassion for the victim, the REAL victim.

 

[mhiforme]

Oh dear, scraping the bottom already, not enough calling Reeva a gold digger. No compassion for the victim, the REAL victim.

One thing I've noticed about this forum is many members are very hardened in their position and it becomes very difficult to have an open conversation to explore perhaps other issues. Such a shame that others that don't share exactly the same views get shouted down.