Oscar Pistorius - Sentencing - 6.13.2016 #2

[cottonweaver]

I'm not sure that convicted murderers out on parole are allowed to relocate outside of the country, they still have weekly/monthly obligations to the parole board and their parole officers. If so then after prison OP will just be the pariah to South Africa that he is now being shunned by society and only interacting with family. And he will have to get a job, somewhere! :lol:

I meant after he has served out the full whack including the part he will inevitably spend back at home with Arnold & Lois,
House arrest - he's like that bad penny that keeps coming back.

Then he'll maybe leave the country to avoid the inevitable grocery-shop traumas.


I might as well run with it ....so I see him now :crystalball:
Finding holy redemption, getting re-baptised in some river, a bunch of kids and ministering to anyone who will listen. :deadhorse:

I don't mean pastor Jim Jones, even I wouldn't go that far.

PS I am not actually being serious though but sincerely now: the shorter his sentence is on the 6th, the less the general public will feel that he has paid his dues when he does start his new life.

So if it's lenient, he still has to pay again, later. IDK if that's clear?

 

[Hazy]

I meant after he has served out the full whack including the part he will inevitably spend back at home with Arnold & Lois,
House arrest - he's like that bad penny that keeps coming back.

Then he'll maybe leave the country to avoid the inevitable grocery-shop traumas.


I might as well run with it ....so I see him now :crystalball:
Finding holy redemption, getting re-baptised in some river, a bunch of kids and ministering to anyone who will listen. :deadhorse:

I don't mean pastor Jim Jones, even I wouldn't go that far.

PS I am not actually being serious though but sincerely now: the shorter his sentence is on the 6th, the less the general public will feel that he has paid his dues when he does start his new life.

So if it's lenient, he still has to pay again, later. IDK if that's clear?

By accepting and serving his sentence he would be able to say that he had done his time. This could actually help him.

The other scenario is that he is seen as too cowardly, desperate, exploitive and untruthful to even serve a fair sentence for the crime.

He wants the lesser sentence so in a lot of respects he will have to deal with the consequences of whatever comes from that if that is the outcome if there are any.

You reap what you sow.

 

[aftermath]

By accepting and serving his sentence he would be able to say that he had done his time. This could actually help him.

The other scenario is that he is seen as too cowardly, desperate, exploitive and untruthful to even serve a fair sentence for the crime.

He wants the lesser sentence so in a lot of respects he will have to deal with the consequences of whatever comes from that if that is the outcome if there are any.

You reap what you sow.

If he gets a fair sentence for the crime he has been found guilty of, then we will all be satisfied

 

[Kakidoll]

Just a note: The Interview is on Reelz again tonight... 9pm I think.

 

[Really?]

Thanks.........uke:

Still haven't watched it.........I may wanna see if I think he had a facial or not.....or if I think he is Oscar worthy.....ha

 

[jilly]

On his stumps, in a real intruder situation, do you accept he would be significantly more vulnerable than an able bodied man?

If you do, then rather than 'playing on his disability ', it can be seen that Pistorius and the defence team are in fact pointing out the context of the shooting in order to ensure that the time given in sentence reflects that.

With respect, I think you need to look at the photos of Reeva's lifeless body again. Oscar could have stopped at one shot.

 

[BeachSky]

Just a note: The Interview is on Reelz again tonight... 9pm I think.

Yes!
worth the watch

 

[aftermath]

With respect, I think you need to look at the photos of Reeva's lifeless body again. Oscar could have stopped at one shot.

I really don't need to look at them again. Sadly, they change nothing in terms of the context of the shooting. They don't indicate why he picked up the gun or why he fired - they show us the terrible consequences.

The photos are indeed horrific, however he isn't going to be sentenced for the photos. Did the photos of Visagie's dead daughter impact on the decision not to charge him? Did the photos of Mdunge's pregnant wife help decide his verdict and sentence? Crime scene photos of victims are terribly distressing to look at. They can however show us things: the consequences of a set of actions, and clues as to the nature of the crime. Nothing in the photos of Reeva Steenkamp suggest that Pistorius meant for her (or anyone) to die. Hopefully though, they will -as Barry Steenkamp wished- act as a deterrent, making others think before even picking up a gun let alone firing one.

Pistorius isn't going to be sentenced for how broken her poor father is either. (if she hadn't been so loved by her parents, or if her father hadn't made such a heartbreaking testimony, would that mean Pistorius shouldn't serve as much time?)

He could have fired once, but he didn't. He could have checked for Reeva, but he didn't. He could have done all number of things differently. However, he couldn't be 'less disabled '. And of course being disabled doesn't give him carte blanche to open fire at people - that's why he was prosecuted and found guilty of CH then DE. But it does provide important context as to what might have led him to take that course of action. It's part of an explanation, not an excuse.

 

[cottonweaver]

Just a note: The Interview is on Reelz again tonight... 9pm I think.

I'm wondering how the contracts worked for the ITV programme.

That's an awful lot of repeat showings in US & SA.

Somebody made a bundle of cash from this programme.
The UK audience ratings aren't up yet, but it will be a hefty wodge of advertising revenue generated in the UK alone.

How do "any potential profits" ( Arnold Pistorius's statement) get paid to unnamed charities?

In the UK, it's fairly standard that the charity is named with the broadcast so that it is transparent and audit-able.

 

[Really?]

4.........

 

[JudgeJudi]

I'm wondering how the contracts worked for the ITV programme.

That's an awful lot of repeat showings in US & SA.

Somebody made a bundle of cash from this programme.
The UK audience ratings aren't up yet, but it will be a hefty wodge of advertising revenue generated in the UK alone.

How do "any potential profits" ( Arnold Pistorius's statement) get paid to unnamed charities?

In the UK, it's fairly standard that the charity is named with the broadcast so that it is transparent and audit-able.

It’s the same here too, but hey, this is the Pistorius family, and they’re the antithesis of transparent and have they’re own personal set of rules. Dishonesty goes hand in glove with the name Pistorius.

Arnie has some problems of his own now. The family run a multi-million-rand fertiliser :floorlaugh: (a rose by any other name) business and he and 4 senior family members have been accused of colluding to fix prices over a period of 13 years. They’re up for millions if they lose.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2016/06/03/Oscars-uncle-accused-of-fixing

 

[Sherbert]

Aftermath, I suppose the million dollar question is whether or not Pistorius will be sentenced on the basis of what he would have got, had he murdered a real intruder, (in which case, an overreaction due to disability might be considered relevant to mitigation); or will Masipa sentence him on the basis that, as per the judgement of the SCA, he murdered Reeva in circumstances where he never offered an acceptable explanation for firing four times through a closed door and his evidence was so vacillating, untruthful and contradictory that it was impossible to know his true reason for firing, (in which case, his disability would probably not constitute mitigating circumstances).

 

[Viper]

I'm wondering how the contracts worked for the ITV programme.

That's an awful lot of repeat showings in US & SA.

Somebody made a bundle of cash from this programme.
The UK audience ratings aren't up yet, but it will be a hefty wodge of advertising revenue generated in the UK alone.

How do "any potential profits" ( Arnold Pistorius's statement) get paid to unnamed charities?

In the UK, it's fairly standard that the charity is named with the broadcast so that it is transparent and audit-able.

Well the guy doing the interview denies that they paid any money at all, to anyone. Not to OP, because it is against their policy to pay a convicted felon for an interview, and not to uncle Arnold; check his twitter feed. So either he or uncle Arnold is lying.

 

[Viper]

Aftermath, I suppose the million dollar question is whether or not Pistorius will be sentenced on the basis of what he would have got, had he murdered a real intruder, (in which case, an overreaction due to disability might be considered relevant to mitigation); or will Masipa sentence him on the basis that, as per the judgement of the SCA, he murdered Reeva in circumstances where he never offered an acceptable explanation for firing four times through a closed door and his evidence was so vacillating, untruthful and contradictory that it was impossible to know his true reason for firing, (in which case, his disability would probably not constitute mitigating circumstances).

You folks are funny! Real intruder? You mean a blood thirsty hardened criminal, a murderer of women and children, ugly and smelling of body odor whilst armed with a rocket launcher, a sub machine gun, and a flame thrower and hiding in a water closet? Or a real intruder that was a teenage girl hiding in a water closet hoping to get near her heartthrob crush or steal something of value in order to be able to buy food for her poor family? Which one should he be sentenced for murdering? Cheers!

 

[Sherbert]

You folks are funny! Real intruder? You mean a blood thirsty hardened criminal, a murderer of women and children, ugly and smelling of body odor whilst armed with a rocket launcher, a sub machine gun, and a flame thrower and hiding in a water closet? Or a real intruder that was a teenage girl hiding in a water closet hoping to get near her heartthrob crush or steal something of value in order to be able to buy food for her poor family? Which one should he be sentenced for murdering? Cheers!

Your post is going off on a tangent. Mine related to the question of whether or not Masipa J will consider Pistorius's disability to be relevant to the length of sentence, bearing in mind that the SCA did not rule out the possibility that he may have been afraid.

 

[aftermath]

Aftermath, I suppose the million dollar question is whether or not Pistorius will be sentenced on the basis of what he would have got, had he murdered a real intruder, (in which case, an overreaction due to disability might be considered relevant to mitigation); or will Masipa sentence him on the basis that, as per the judgement of the SCA, he murdered Reeva in circumstances where he never offered an acceptable explanation for firing four times through a closed door and his evidence was so vacillating, untruthful and contradictory that it was impossible to know his true reason for firing, (in which case, his disability would probably not constitute mitigating circumstances).

I think the two options will be married together in Masipa's verdict. Essentially, his belief in an intruder holds, so he will be sentenced as though he had killed an intruder. But his fear of imminent attack, his reason for firing, was not found to be rational. And the measures he took were excessive. So that will be reflected too.

In both of these, his disability plays a part in why he reacted the way he did, so I feel it has a mitigating significance.

 

[Duchy]

I really don't need to look at them again. Sadly, they change nothing in terms of the context of the shooting. They don't indicate why he picked up the gun or why he fired - they show us the terrible consequences.

The photos are indeed horrific, however he isn't going to be sentenced for the photos. Did the photos of Visagie's dead daughter impact on the decision not to charge him? Did the photos of Mdunge's pregnant wife help decide his verdict and sentence? Crime scene photos of victims are terribly distressing to look at. They can however show us things: the consequences of a set of actions, and clues as to the nature of the crime. Nothing in the photos of Reeva Steenkamp suggest that Pistorius meant for her (or anyone) to die. Hopefully though, they will -as Barry Steenkamp wished- act as a deterrent, making others think before even picking up a gun let alone firing one.

Pistorius isn't going to be sentenced for how broken her poor father is either. (if she hadn't been so loved by her parents, or if her father hadn't made such a heartbreaking testimony, would that mean Pistorius shouldn't serve as much time?)

He could have fired once, but he didn't. He could have checked for Reeva, but he didn't. He could have done all number of things differently. However, he couldn't be 'less disabled '. And of course being disabled doesn't give him carte blanche to open fire at people - that's why he was prosecuted and found guilty of CH then DE. But it does provide important context as to what might have led him to take that course of action. It's part of an explanation, not an excuse.

I don't see myself as disabled. There's nothing I can't do that able-bodied athletes can do.

Oscar Pistorius

:thinking:

 

[aftermath]

I don't see myself as disabled. There's nothing I can't do that able-bodied athletes can do.

Oscar Pistorius

:thinking:

Context is everything

 

[Hazy]

If OP didn't have a gun would he have confronted an alleged intruder?

Highly unlikely I think.

There are zero records of him confronting noises without a GUN. Note that his first reaction was to get his GUN.

The fact he had a GUN and was trained in its use suggests that it was this that drove him MORE than his disability.

His disability has nothing to do with why he says he thought there was an intruder. He thought it because of the alleged noise.

What's it called when you kill someone who hasn't made a threat against you?

 

[Really?]

A murdering @&$!',ser"....and a coward