jilly
Registered User
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2004
- Messages
- 7,989
- Reaction score
- 53
So true. Better said than me. Like "the untouchables"!!
Oscar Pistorius - Sentencing - 7.6.2016
- Thread starter Greater Than
- Start date
- Status
So true. Better said than me. Like "the untouchables"!!
cottonweaver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,010
- Reaction score
- 31,033
Thanks for all the great links that posters have supplied on the aftermath of Masipa's sentencing.
I've just caught up with the last ten or so pages and some very interesting reading on here, so cheers.
PS. Prime suspect , you have reminded me in that post. to go back and watch the movie Gaslight - years since I saw it- just bookmarked it.
I've just caught up with the last ten or so pages and some very interesting reading on here, so cheers.
PS. Prime suspect , you have reminded me in that post. to go back and watch the movie Gaslight - years since I saw it- just bookmarked it.
Pistorius says that his disability was never an issue growing up
There you have it , in his own words..........
It's been very useful for him in this trial to use to gain sympathy though, he's such a fraud.
JudgeJudi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 10,620
- Reaction score
- 31,357
White, rich and male is ultimate get-out-of-jail card
The ludicrous, laughable "extension" of the original sentence of 5 years (of which he only served a year before leaving for luxurious house arrest), could turn into a mere 52 weeks more of incarceration - despite his conviction being upgraded to murder and despite the fact that murder is supposed to come with a 15-year sentence in SA.
He would have gotten more time if he had stopped to steal his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp's phone before he killed her. Or at least he would have, if he had been black and poor and a nobody. There's a distinct possibility that he may only actually serve one year of this sentence before returning to his comfortable house arrest.
He believes his public needs him. In a ludicrous TV interview before his sentencing, OP said piously: I would like to believe that if Reeva could look down upon me that she would want me to live that life. ********. If Reeva is looking down on him, she's more likely to be thinking, "Why did you have to kill me, you murdering *advertiser censored*!"
This is a tale of privilege. Not just of white privilege, but of celebrity privilege, male privilege, the privilege of wealth and position and stardom. And it stinks.
The primary concern of Masipa was for OP and his suffering. "The life of the accused will never be the same," she said. Unlike Reeva who has no life.
"He is a fallen hero who has lost his career and been ruined financially," she said. Unlike Reeva's family who have lost a daughter and sister and are ruined in every way imaginable.
Masipa said, "He cannot be at peace".
You'd almost wish that there was an afterlife from which Reeva could return to haunt her killer. Because this didn't come out of the blue. Despite the crocodile tears, the woe-is-me, the nauseating self-pity, the attention-seeking vomiting, the pseudo remorse, Oscar Pistorius was well-known for his temper, for his love of guns, for his recklessness, for his belief that the rules didn't apply to him. This was also a man who had a history of violent abuse.
Despite all the evidence showing that he was a deluded, jealous, angry, selfish, misogynistic, lying, paranoid, spoilt and violent young man, Masipa chose not to believe what the rest of us concluded - that there had been a fight that night between OP and Reeva and that he knew damn well who was behind that door when he fired those four shots.
Just imagine if an ordinary black man, or even a white woman, behaved as OP did. If we heard in court that they were jealous, unstable, violent, addicted to guns, prone to abusing their partners. And if we saw them being evasive, hysterical, making contradictory statements - which only the kindest of us would not call blatant self-serving lies - would we find excuses for their crime? Would we give them the benefit of the doubt even if we found them to be a "poor and contradictory witness" as Masipa did? Of course we wouldn't!
If it was an unknown black man, there would be little surprise or interest, just a mandatory life sentence. If it was a woman there would be salacious condemnation of her character, much debate and discussion about women who kill and a mandatory life sentence.
So, while race matters, celebrity, privilege and gender matter more. It may be a white man's world, but if you're wealthy and famous enough, then it can be your world too.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/c...e-is-ultimate-getoutofjail-card-34870670.html
The ludicrous, laughable "extension" of the original sentence of 5 years (of which he only served a year before leaving for luxurious house arrest), could turn into a mere 52 weeks more of incarceration - despite his conviction being upgraded to murder and despite the fact that murder is supposed to come with a 15-year sentence in SA.
He would have gotten more time if he had stopped to steal his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp's phone before he killed her. Or at least he would have, if he had been black and poor and a nobody. There's a distinct possibility that he may only actually serve one year of this sentence before returning to his comfortable house arrest.
He believes his public needs him. In a ludicrous TV interview before his sentencing, OP said piously: I would like to believe that if Reeva could look down upon me that she would want me to live that life. ********. If Reeva is looking down on him, she's more likely to be thinking, "Why did you have to kill me, you murdering *advertiser censored*!"
This is a tale of privilege. Not just of white privilege, but of celebrity privilege, male privilege, the privilege of wealth and position and stardom. And it stinks.
The primary concern of Masipa was for OP and his suffering. "The life of the accused will never be the same," she said. Unlike Reeva who has no life.
"He is a fallen hero who has lost his career and been ruined financially," she said. Unlike Reeva's family who have lost a daughter and sister and are ruined in every way imaginable.
Masipa said, "He cannot be at peace".
You'd almost wish that there was an afterlife from which Reeva could return to haunt her killer. Because this didn't come out of the blue. Despite the crocodile tears, the woe-is-me, the nauseating self-pity, the attention-seeking vomiting, the pseudo remorse, Oscar Pistorius was well-known for his temper, for his love of guns, for his recklessness, for his belief that the rules didn't apply to him. This was also a man who had a history of violent abuse.
Despite all the evidence showing that he was a deluded, jealous, angry, selfish, misogynistic, lying, paranoid, spoilt and violent young man, Masipa chose not to believe what the rest of us concluded - that there had been a fight that night between OP and Reeva and that he knew damn well who was behind that door when he fired those four shots.
Just imagine if an ordinary black man, or even a white woman, behaved as OP did. If we heard in court that they were jealous, unstable, violent, addicted to guns, prone to abusing their partners. And if we saw them being evasive, hysterical, making contradictory statements - which only the kindest of us would not call blatant self-serving lies - would we find excuses for their crime? Would we give them the benefit of the doubt even if we found them to be a "poor and contradictory witness" as Masipa did? Of course we wouldn't!
If it was an unknown black man, there would be little surprise or interest, just a mandatory life sentence. If it was a woman there would be salacious condemnation of her character, much debate and discussion about women who kill and a mandatory life sentence.
So, while race matters, celebrity, privilege and gender matter more. It may be a white man's world, but if you're wealthy and famous enough, then it can be your world too.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/c...e-is-ultimate-getoutofjail-card-34870670.html
JudgeJudi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 10,620
- Reaction score
- 31,357
<RSBM>
There you go. No doubt this explains her very lenient sentence as it will be a "very long time" for OP as well. Poor diddums.
If there's an NPA appeal, no doubt when she leaves the "instabilities" her ludicrous sentence has caused will have been erased by the SCA.
There you go. No doubt this explains her very lenient sentence as it will be a "very long time" for OP as well. Poor diddums.
If there's an NPA appeal, no doubt when she leaves the "instabilities" her ludicrous sentence has caused will have been erased by the SCA.
Marfa Lights
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2014
- Messages
- 682
- Reaction score
- 0
And such a nut job. He may not have been found mentally incapacitated, but from reading Sam Taylor's mom's book, he has been emotionally unstable for a long time.
Always been able to turn on the waterworks too.
Not sure how it works in S.A. I am surprised Roux did not sue Sam Taylor's mom for libel-- to intimidate and punish her if for no other reason.
JudgeJudi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 10,620
- Reaction score
- 31,357
Interesting that. Henke is the black sheep of the Pistorius clan. He stood by OP during the trial but he was not prepared to break the law for his son. He has to be admired for that. On the other hand, Aimée and Carl broke the law but the family hold them near and dear.
Sorry folks, Im going off on a rant here, but I just have to.
Why Henke is the black sheep of the family and why the family have distanced themselves from him.
On 3 March 2013, 2 weeks after OP murdered Reeva, Henke said that he and other members of his family owned a total of 55 guns because they couldnt rely on the police to protect them against criminals. He laid the blame for SAs violent crime rates, which are among the highest in the world, on the ANC-led state.
But Arnold, Henke's brother and Oscar's uncle, said "Oscar Pistorius' family is deeply concerned about the comments made by Oscar's father, Henke Pistorius, to the Telegraph about the family using its weapons to defend themselves against crime in South Africa, and especially about his comments that the ANC government is not willing to protect white South Africans," he said in a statement released through the family's official PR machine, run by former Sun editor Stuart Higgins.
"Oscar and the rest of the Pistorius family distances itself from the comments. Henke's interview with the newspaper was unapproved by our media liaison team. The comments don't represent the views of Oscar or the rest of the Pistorius family."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...rom-fathers-comments-on-the-ANC-and-guns.html
Well surprise, surprise. This had absolutely nothing to do with Henkes comments about the family owning 55 guns. It was all about Henke blaming the ANC government. Would it be cynical to assume that the fact that the family have armoured vehicle dealerships and government contracts be behind this statement? How dare Henke speak out without the approval of their PR machine. So the family effectively banished him, as did Oscar. Although he has another reason, to wit his dad wont lie about giving him the illegally held ammunition.
When OP was involved in the nightclub brawl with Jared Mortimer, Mortimer said He even pulled out his phone to show me pictures of armoured cars. He said My family owns SANDF [South Africa National Defence Force]. Zuma works for us. Ill piss on Zuma'. Of course the family denied this, but they would, wouldnt they.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/oscar-pist...ntrue-insist-tormented-runners-family-1456882
Arnold said that contrary to Henkes claim, the family owned firearms "purely for sport and hunting purposes". In my book, shooting elephants for their skulls is anything but sport. Uncle Theo had a game reserve, a veritable gold mine, with international tourists paying up to R600 000 to shoot an elephant. The bush camp was decorated with elephant skulls. Read this article to see how members of the Pistorius family treat extremely poor black people. Its just sickening. As for the guns, are they seriously trying to suggest all these weapons are for sport and hunting when it's extremely common for white people to carry guns for self-protection? Right.
http://city-press.news24.com/News/Oscar-Pistorius-uncle-booted-off-land-20150628
I feel a bit better now that's off my chest.
So much wrong with this article.... Eg
The opening paragraph doesn't appear to mention that most legal experts have interpreted the sentence as a minimum of three years in prison, (presumably followed by parole/CS rather than 'freedom')
The next point re stealing a phone before killing his girlfriend would have resulted in a longer sentence is unclear, but serves as a dramatic comparison point to emphasise the writer's disapproval re the current sentence. The writer seems also to take issue with the idea of anyone (or perhaps just Pistorius) living in comfort under house arrest. Is it her belief then that people should only be eligible for house arrest if the place they are to stay is uncomfortable/poor, (so house arrest is not for richer inmates?!)
Pretty sure he hasn't said 'his public needs him'. The writer criticises him for daring to say he would like to think Reeva wouldn't want him in prison long term, then suggests herself what Reeva is more likely to want/say. She does the very thing Pistorius is criticised for doing: presuming to know what Reeva would 'more likely' think.
The usual opinions then follow, using the more definite 'is' and 'was' rather than verbs more reflective of an opinion: 'seems' 'appeared'. This, coupled with the emotive repetition of 'unlike...', contrasting Pistorius's perceived suffering/ruin with the profound loss of Reeva and her family, as if to suggest Masipa didn't care/consider the Steenkamps' loss. (despite actually spelling out the impact on the family, their close bond with their daughter etc)
The following paragraph than calls for him to be haunted(!!) (no RIP for Reeva here then), before labelling tears as 'crocodile', vomiting as 'attention seeking' and remorse as 'pseudo', with no explanation of why she believes this to be the case.
Dangerous claims shortly follow: addicted to guns? Violent? prone to abusing partners? Where was evidence to that effect tested in a court of law? Swallowing down and regurgitating untried media gossip is not an especially balanced approach.
Finally the claim that had this been a black man or a woman who had killed a partner in such circumstances, both would have been given mandatory life sentence. Again, nothing concrete to support this claim, just the certainty of opinion. Where is the list of cases of black men and women deemed to have killed their partner under the mistaken belief they were being attacked by someone else, serving these mandatory life sentences? Interestingly though , in comparison with this particular case, Mdunge is a black man who was allowed to plead CH when he shot and killed his wife thinking she was an intruder. Wholly suspended sentence.
IMO, this kind of article embodies much of what has been wrong about the media coverage of this whole trial process.
Masipa on Mdunge - (-at sentencing for ch)
In the matter of the State v Siyabonga Mdunge (RC777/12 Regional Court Pietermaritzburg), the accused and the deceased were sleeping at their home when at about 00:30 the accused was awoken by a noise as if a window was opening. He thought a burglar was trying to get into the house. Fearful for his life he grabbed his firearm from his bedside pedestal drawer and made his way to the entrance of the room. He could hear the noise coming from the bathroom. Slowly he made his way to the bathroom door to investigate. As he reached the bathroom door it suddenly opened. Startled and afraid for his life, he discharged his firearm thinking that the person who opened the door was a burglar. That person, however, was not an intruder, but his wife. He rushed her to hospital, but it was too late.
The accused in Mdunge was arrested for murder, but entered a plea and sentence agreement with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) in terms of section 105A of the Criminal Procedure Act. In terms of the agreement, the National Prosecuting Authority accepted a plea of guilty to culpable homicide. The National Prosecuting Authority agreed to the following sentence in the plea and sentence agreement:
It is agreed that a just sentence in all the circumstances shall be that the accused is sentenced to 8 years imprisonment which is wholly suspended for a period of five years on the following conditions:
1. The accused is not again convicted of murder or assault or any other offence of which assault is an element during the period of suspension.
Again, counsel for the defence argued that the facts in the Mdunge case had a striking similarity to those in the present case. I disagree. It is so that in both cases the accused were reacting to a noise they interpreted as someone entering their home. The huge distinguishing feature was that in the Mdunge case someone, that is the deceased, did open the door, whereas in the present case no such thing happened. This fact as well as the additional factors already referred to above, would make the present case so serious that a suspended sentence would not be appropriate in my view.
So is Masipa's eyes WHAT was the significance of the door not opening?
She did not elaborate!
In the matter of the State v Siyabonga Mdunge (RC777/12 Regional Court Pietermaritzburg), the accused and the deceased were sleeping at their home when at about 00:30 the accused was awoken by a noise as if a window was opening. He thought a burglar was trying to get into the house. Fearful for his life he grabbed his firearm from his bedside pedestal drawer and made his way to the entrance of the room. He could hear the noise coming from the bathroom. Slowly he made his way to the bathroom door to investigate. As he reached the bathroom door it suddenly opened. Startled and afraid for his life, he discharged his firearm thinking that the person who opened the door was a burglar. That person, however, was not an intruder, but his wife. He rushed her to hospital, but it was too late.
The accused in Mdunge was arrested for murder, but entered a plea and sentence agreement with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) in terms of section 105A of the Criminal Procedure Act. In terms of the agreement, the National Prosecuting Authority accepted a plea of guilty to culpable homicide. The National Prosecuting Authority agreed to the following sentence in the plea and sentence agreement:
It is agreed that a just sentence in all the circumstances shall be that the accused is sentenced to 8 years imprisonment which is wholly suspended for a period of five years on the following conditions:
1. The accused is not again convicted of murder or assault or any other offence of which assault is an element during the period of suspension.
Again, counsel for the defence argued that the facts in the Mdunge case had a striking similarity to those in the present case. I disagree. It is so that in both cases the accused were reacting to a noise they interpreted as someone entering their home. The huge distinguishing feature was that in the Mdunge case someone, that is the deceased, did open the door, whereas in the present case no such thing happened. This fact as well as the additional factors already referred to above, would make the present case so serious that a suspended sentence would not be appropriate in my view.
So is Masipa's eyes WHAT was the significance of the door not opening?
She did not elaborate!
JudgeJudi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 10,620
- Reaction score
- 31,357
I think it's one of the things that made the Pistorius case on the CH /DE border rather than a more straightforward CH. Mdunge fired once, and the fact that the door was opening provides a rational albeit mistaken basis for believing an attack was beginning. Pistorius fired four times (so on that alone should receive a steeper sentence than Mdunge). He also preempted the door opening. on his version he thought he heard it opening and reacted, but as the door didn't open, it was another mistake. Since the door didn't actually open, there was a much less/no rational basis to believe an attack has started. Hence a custodial sentence.
Pistorius reacted to a sound without waiting for visual confirmation of a) the door opening and b) an intruder appearing and c) the intruder having deadly intent towards him. Mdunge waited for a) before firing, but not b) or c).
cottonweaver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,010
- Reaction score
- 31,033
RSBM
I presume Hazy, re PPD, TM meant that OP was not vulnerable to attack when he fired, OP was under not threat whatsoever......
Anyway IDK why OP's champions have continually brought up the Mdunge case up, when it's clear from the 2014 document that they already have to hand, that she did NOT equate the two cases. They were different.
When I hear Mdunge's name I feel like one of those old Senate buffers in the film Mr Smith goes to Washington.
The cases have similarities. They don't equate.
No two cases are the same. References keep getting made to the Mdunge case because it is one of the few recent examples of someone killing someone else under the mistaken impression that it was an intruder.
cottonweaver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,010
- Reaction score
- 31,033
Good point.
Highlighting how she seems to make a mess, causing strife/social upset whenever she gets to practice.
Presume she has had no more cases since 2014? IDK and I haven't been looking so I'm only guessing.
Saw she was on the international speech circuit, was over in the UK, last year.
Maybe after-dinner speeches - comedy value - could be an option.
Not quite Tony Blair style and certainly not as lucrative.
cottonweaver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,010
- Reaction score
- 31,033
Nothing new, from one of your links , pasted in last few days here
http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...to-exceptionalism-and-privilege/#.V4FTvpMrI6h
Worth quoting again IMO
http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...to-exceptionalism-and-privilege/#.V4FTvpMrI6h
Worth quoting again IMO
cottonweaver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,010
- Reaction score
- 31,033
Grant's 9th July tweet ( in resp to some Pistorian called susi,)
I found interesting. ie. that he is at pains to demonstrate that he has NOT been commenting on the case.
A respondent was trying to claim he had done so.
BIB that he feels he has to rebut , rather than just let it go, that I find intriguing.
Naturally I accept it could just be me & confirmation bias effect
https://twitter.com/JamesGrantZA
I found interesting. ie. that he is at pains to demonstrate that he has NOT been commenting on the case.
A respondent was trying to claim he had done so.
BIB that he feels he has to rebut , rather than just let it go, that I find intriguing.
Naturally I accept it could just be me & confirmation bias effect
https://twitter.com/JamesGrantZA
The fact that the door did not open as per Justice leach meant that his belief he was under attack was not rational as it was not made on a factual basis ( the door opening)
Throwing out PPD meant his thoughts alone weren't good enough.
Your points b,c and d are just window dressing to support your opinion.
http://europe.newsweek.com/oscar-pistorius-sentence-win-white-privilege-478736?utm
Another good article
Another good article
cottonweaver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,010
- Reaction score
- 31,033
Thanks Hazy
Also- if this doesn't strike as an expression of "white privilege", need to take the cotton wool out of your ears.
glad the author picked up on that
It made for uncomfortable listening, for me, when I was hearing Pastor Nel describe how OP could help the poor kids with sports.
( Kind of stuff I would read from Victorian, Christian missionaries. Yikes) It's not the stuff that many whites would tolerate, let alone black SAfricans.
Furthermore:
This isn't going to go away.
...but an Appeal on this sentence will create an alternative metaphor.
There was no point d)!!
And BIB - didn't I say that? The discussion was about Masipa's original sentence, not the SCA, but I even specifically wrote 'much less/no rational basis' to reflect what I thought might reflect Masipa's thinking ('much less') at the original trial AND the SCA at the appeal ('no').
Points b and c aren't window dressing... it's my understanding of why the Mdunge sentence was different to the original Pistorius sentence. Yes- of course my opinion. But a key part of my explanation, so not window dressing, no.
- Status