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?
If she does give him the full 15 year minimum (minus what he's already served) can he appeal that sentence and possibly be allowed to stay on mansion-bond until the appeal comes up?
Yes to the first question geevee, for the second I would guess no.
His team would need to have that appeal already written for immediate submission surely?
So IMO it means on the 6th he will be going down those steps to jail whilst they get any such appeal together.
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?
In short, he's depressed because he's forced to live with the consequences of committing a very serious crime. Do you think that this depression warrants a shorter sentence?
You mention that he's depressed because his appeal to the Constitutional Court was unsuccessful, but, IMO, he should be thanking his lucky stars that, thanks to Masipa's confusion, he managed to escape a finding of dolus directus.
I'm not saying he's not depressed, but one thing that struck me about his interview was how well-rested he looked - I found myself idly wondering if he'd had a facial. Reeva's father, on the other hand, needs no words to convey his suffering - it's written all over the poor man's face.
Maybe a 15 year sentence will aide your recovery.
I hope all goes well with your operation![]()
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.
BIB - hi, yes it was discussed. Most of us couldn't understand why he didn't wait for her to respond. Of course, he knew she couldn't respond because he knew she wasn't there. We're expected to believe that after Reeva asked "Can't you sleep, baba" - she never made another sound until she was screaming for her life. Not a word when he 'asked' her to call the police, no response when he 'whispered in a low tone' for her to get down low, and even stranger, no reaction to the noise that scared OP so much he had to arm himself, chase it down and shoot 4 times.This is likely been discussed in this forum but I have never heard it discussed in the case. Perhaps those more familiar with the case could let me know if and when it was discussed.
Is this all correct?.....
When Oscar heard the noise he said "Reeva call the police." And that's it. If you just said to somebody "call the police" they would reply to you and say "and say what??". So no one would say to somebody to just call the police; they would either expect an answer or follow it up with the reason to call the police. So were expected to believe that he just said call the police and got no answer and expected that she was calling the police even though he didn't tell her what to tell the police. Did the
lawyers ever bring that up and ask OP about that?
Welcome back Ms SQT
snippedHiya soozie, great to see you.
snipped
Thank you
I can't believe I'll miss the sentencing. It's been great to be around as and when things happen with this case. Any idea if Masipa will simply read out the sentence with a brief explanation of how she arrived at it, or will it be like her lengthy judgement which we're not even sure she wrote herself? If she's going to give him a light sentence, I hope she lays out in great detail why she thinks it's appropriate that someone guilty of murder, lying and aggressive behaviour in prison deserves to be treated any differently to anyone else.
She can't base anything on the fake hobble.
Yes to the first question geevee, for the second I would guess no.
His team would need to have that appeal already written for immediate submission surely?
So IMO it means on the 6th he will be going down those steps to jail whilst they get any such appeal together.
ie. don't quote me as I'm not qualified to say.
This is likely been discussed in this forum but I have never heard it discussed in the case. Perhaps those more familiar with the case could let me know if and when it was discussed.
Is this all correct?.....
When Oscar heard the noise he said "Reeva call the police." And that's it. If you just said to somebody "call the police" they would reply to you and say "and say what??". So no one would say to somebody to just call the police; they would either expect an answer or follow it up with the reason to call the police. So were expected to believe that he just said call the police and got no answer and expected that she was calling the police even though he didn't tell her what to tell the police. Did the
lawyers ever bring that up and ask OP about that?
I agree with you...this was a very important point, that I don't believe was addressed during trial. Perhaps it was lightly touched on, but I just don't remember them discussing it. I believe Nel would have had fun with this one...easily exposing it as a lie by OP, after just a few questions.
If he did...I would love to know when, what day...I will go back and listen to it, as it would have to be entertaining...OP would be squirming.
As you said....no one shouts to their "guest" in the middle of the night "call the police", and that person doesn't have a few questions.
Call the police, .... and tell/ask them what exactly?
(How much are this year's tickets to the policeman's ball?)
Who would think the person wouldn't ask WHY? Or some question pertaining to this "directive"?
IF NO RESPONSE...You would think:
(A) they didn't hear me
or
(B) where is she, somethings wrong.
That's it...one of those two choices.
Just another poorly made up lie....makes no sense.
Not sure why Nel didn't drill OP with this...and if he did, please let me know what day of trial that was...I must watch. Thanks.