Trial Discussion Thread #59 - 14.21.10, Day 48 ~ sentencing~

[lithgow1]

BIB Same here :winkaway:

Every time I wonder if it is my lack of understanding english, or lack of intelligence - just some posts are SOOOO weird. Just see his last one . . . eternity :waitasec:

@carlpistorius : Buddy, your self righteousness or money wont save you @realDonaldTrump - time to consider eternity.

No Paul_1900 it's not your lack of anything - all the lacking is with Carl Pistorius.

 

[IndianSummer]

She also clearly thought Reeva was not worthy of any respect as all she could find to say was that "she was good in front of a camera". I thought that was very telling.

Seriously?!
That's horrible

I need to walk away from the iPad!

 

[patCee]

IPC: Pistorius cannot compete for 5 years
Despite a possible early release, Pistorius will only be able to compete after 5 years. PRETORIA - The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has confirmed to EWN Sport that the earliest Oscar Pistorious will be allowed to compete is 2019.

So looks as though nowhere to go now for OP.

Apologies if this, from the IPC has already been posted.

 

[mister happy]

I know most of us are appalled to hear that OP might serve only 10 months behind bars. However, according to Roux's calculations, even if Masipa gave the maximum 15 year sentence, OP would be out in 30 months! The whole thing is crazy.

Well, I just hope Nel is correct, and OP will serve at least a third of his sentence in prison. Whew.

i assume the 1/6th is due to the sentence being 5 years... anything more and it would have been 1/2. is this correct?
if so, masipa has used the system to be lenient rather than balanced. imo.

so 5 years for ch bordering on eventualis [her words]
3 years [albeit suspended] for tashas. and concurrent.

how does the tasha's sentence ever come into play?

BBM. Okay, now I have a clearer understanding of why folks are upset with Masipa's sentence. I thought the 1/6 calculation applied to even a maximum 15 year sentence. I was wrong. Did ol' Masipa play a sneaky game of hide the ball? :juggle:

 

[mrjitty]

So Masipa seems to have given ammunition to a state appeal by making it clear that she has found OP did intend to shoot the person behind the door

So this either means she has made an error of law, or the SC is going to have to clarify that the mistake as to identity makes this not murder.

But then weirdly - if he intentionally shot an actual intruder behind the door - it would have been murder

 

[4MrsB]

I think from Masipa's oratory this morning, and reading between the lines, she knows what really happened but still failed to act appropriately in giving him a huge sentence.

I don't know. J.Masipa sure seemed genuinely convinced that due to OP's actions right after shooting & then since that time - OP is heartbroken, Reeva was truly the "love of his life", so remorseful, etc. (She mentioned numerous times; Oscar trying to resuscitate Reeva, his crying, his psych treatments put on hold due to vomiting, etc etc.) She bought his "act" hook, line & sinker and used it to support his version that it was accidental.

To me it seemed so transperant. So over the top, it had to be acting/OP playing the part. (Also, with all her experience with DV and abused woman, doesn't she realize lots of abusers regret their actions immediately after they inflict the damage on other person?)

I found it odd that a seasoned judge would buy the over the top theatrics put on by OP.

 

[redheart]

Must be quite a view from that high horse of yours JuneBug up on the elevated moral high ground you seem to think you and you alone occupy.

Ugh, yes.

And not just moral ground, intellectual too! The many brilliant legal minds who have opposing views must really just be "thick".

 

[IndianSummer]

Arnold says the worst part was how the truth became irrelevant to the state. He says prosecutors tried to make the premeditated murder puzzle fit.

http://ewn.co.za/Features/oscarpistorius/live-blog

Pot calling kettle .....

That entire family has victim mentality

JMO

 

[Paul_1900]

She also clearly thought Reeva was not worthy of any respect as all she could find to say was that "she was good in front of a camera". I thought that was very telling.

There was something else which made me quiver. Along the lines of . . . Steenkamps . . how they suffered . . . especially financially . .

Kim Martin made it VERY clear that they all are people NOT into money at all - total opposite the Pistorii clan !

I really don't get it how much she is capable of getting things wrong :dunno:

 

[pandax81]

So Masipa seems to have given ammunition to a state appeal by making it clear that she has found OP did intend to shoot the person behind the door

So this either means she has made an error of law, or the SC is going to have to clarify that the mistake as to identity makes this not murder.

But then weirdly - if he intentionally shot an actual intruder behind the door - it would have been murder

Um... that's not murder. It was always a clear finding in the judgment too.

 

[cottonweaver]

Society at micro level, made up of communities of people. Society is you and me and the person next to you, connected to you at a most fundamental level. We, they make up society.

Maybe you speak for yourself and your "community", mine is definitely not like that.

Indeed isn't WS one of those? I truly don't see a great deal of the "...rolling ignorance, indifference and potential for violence of all sorts just underneath" in the majority of posters in this forum.
As Masipa reminds - judicial distinction between public interest and public opinion.

 

[pandax81]

On this at least, I'm with Arnold. The sheer number of people around the world infecting comment sections, discussion forums and social media with their inability to comprehend and or accept the exculpating evidence that made the state case for premeditated murder such a tenuous mess of a failure is stunning. Even killers can experience injustice and self indulgent mob behaviour that approaches and at at times breaches a certain kind of social sickness. Pistorius should be punished for what he did, not the for the general thickness, inattention and self righteousness of the public at large.

Lois, is that you?

 

[4MrsB]

BIB - really demeaning to mention that while neglecting to mention her law degree. "Good in front of a camera" is a real putdown. That wasn't what made up the entire person, yet the way Masipa described her, she was just eye candy and not much else.

That's what I thought. How dare she not mention such an outstanding & difficult achievement of Reeva's. With Masipa being a lawyer, then a judge, I thought she would relate and it would be mentioned loud & clear. But she didn't even touch on it. ......very telling IMO. Shameful Masipa.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Yes, I know - the verdict. But what about the sentencing? If the verdict gets changed (dolus eventualis) it will go back to Masipa for a new sentence.
The sentencing is not going to be appealed - the verdict is.

Which ever of the two courts hears the appeal, that is the court that will change the sentence if it deems it appropriate. It will not go back to Masipa.

 

[JuneBug67]

Lois, is that you?

Yeah, you caught me. I'm Lois Pistorius from Ontario, Canada.

 

[mrjitty]

Um... that's not murder. It was always a clear finding in the judgment too.

How is it possible for OP to have intentionally shot the person in the toilet without having foreseen the possibility of their death?

This point was certainly not clear in the judgement - that is precisely why an appeal is on the cards

First it was not clear what exactly was held

1. Did he intentionally shoot? HELD YES

2. Did he intend to shoot the person? UNCLEAR WHAT WAS HELD (UNTIL TODAY)

3. If he did intend to shoot the person, how was it that he did not foresee the possibility of death? UNCLEAR WHAT WAS HELD

Instead we just have this weird finding that he did not intend to kill reeva or anyone else for that matter.

Puzzling to say the least.

In any event - it is hard to see how any sentient adult, let alone one with extensive firearms experience, can intentionally shoot someone without foreseeing death.

 

[lithgow1]

The only thing I'd like to see from my 'high horse' is even one person anywhere cares that they might be raising their voice and pitchfork unjustly. I can't, after months and countless attempts, even have a sensible and just conversation about a smashed in door. People far prefer their safe, comfortable, certain righteousness.

Well I would like someone to step away from that door and have a sensible and just discussion about the many other aspects of this case that you seem to step around - the crime scene photos, the ludicrous story of OP's (from the waking up to him pumping the bullets through the door), the text messages leading up to the killing, the escalating reckless behaviour in the months leading up to the crime, the many legal minds who find Masipa's reasoning confusing at best and deeply problematic for the law going forward at worst (on BOTH charges - no-one can figure out how she came to the ammo ruling but every drug dealer and gun runner and holder of stolen goods now has a precedent to go by).

Let's just look at that minor charge for a moment can we - what do you think of her analogy likening his having ammunition he had no permit for in HIS safe in HIS house to someone finding a gun on the street and on their way with it to the police station? You talk a lot about logic and reasoning so would you like to explain to me the reasoning there? Not just to me but to the majority of the South African legal fraternity?

 

[Interested Bystander]

I don't know. J.Masipa sure seemed genuinely convinced that due to OP's actions right after shooting & then since that time - OP is heartbroken, Reeva was truly the "love of his life", so remorseful, etc. (She mentioned numerous times; Oscar trying to resuscitate Reeva, his crying, his psych treatments put on hold due to vomiting, etc etc.) She bought his "act" hook, line & sinker and used it to support his version that it was accidental.

To me it seemed so transperant. So over the top, it had to be acting/OP playing the part. (Also, with all her experience with DV and abused woman, doesn't she realize lots of abusers regret their actions immediately after they inflict the damage on other person?)

I found it odd that a seasoned judge would buy the over the top theatrics put on by OP.

I think we need to remember that Judge Masipa was a social worker before she took up law. You saw how OP's social worker functioned. I think Masipa is still half wearing her old "hat".

 

[JuneBug67]

Well I would like someone to step away from that door and have a sensible and just discussion about the many other aspects of this case that you seem to step around - the crime scene photos, the ludicrous story of OP's (from the waking up to him pumping the bullets through the door), the text messages leading up to the killing, the escalating reckless behaviour in the months leading up to the crime, the many legal minds who find Masipa's reasoning confusing at best and deeply problematic for the law going forward at worst (on BOTH charges - no-one can figure out how she came to the ammo ruling but every drug dealer and gun runner and holder of stolen goods now has a precedent to go by).

Let's just look at that minor charge for a moment can we - what do you think of her analogy likening his having ammunition he had no permit for in HIS safe in HIS house to someone finding a gun on the street and on their way with it to the police station? You talk a lot about logic and reasoning so would you like to explain to me the reasoning there? Not just to me but to the majority of the South African legal fraternity?

The door is the key witness to the ACTUAL SHOOTING EVENT. It and the other evidence about the actual minutes of the crime speak so loudly, and people don't like what it says so they stick their heads in the ground and shout through sand about text messages and crime scene photos. Would you care if you were falsely accusing him of premeditated murder? That is a serious question.

 

[Paul_1900]

Arnold says the worst part was how the truth became irrelevant to the state. He says prosecutors tried to make the premeditated murder puzzle fit.

http://ewn.co.za/Features/oscarpistorius/live-blog

In my view the truth became irrelevant the moment OP went to sit in the witness box. . . wait . . much earlier on. The moment after the shots, when he was desperately trying to make up a story that would get him out of his trouble.

Initially I was giving him a huge portion of benefit of doubt, he used it up with incredulous speed. Like many I am not sure what really happened, but I am sure he was lying. Thinking very hard about it, considering all the evidence - I could not find any convincing explanation that would make this an "accident"