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

[mrjitty]

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

to put it another way - perhaps you can articulate how you an experienced shooter can intentionally shoot someone without foreseeing the possibility of death?

The sorts of scenarios I can understand would be

1. The true hunting accident type of scenario

2. Defensive fire when i simply shoot in panic to keep someone away

But where I shoot with the intention to hit the victim?

I have handled enough guns in my time to know intrinsically that they very well might die.

So I'd be interested for you to explain how the verdict makes sense?

 

[JuneBug67]

Feel free to go.

You, and everybody else, feel free to put your money where your mouth presumably is about caring for truth and justice and have a REAL conversation about the evidence surrounding the minutes during which the crime happened.

 

[4MrsB]

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:

I was also SHOCKED when she stated this. I let out an audible gasp.

What is with this judge? She seems so concerned with OP & how he'll handle prison (for apparently less than a year), his "lost" money & income, etc. Then says the statement mention above ....how the Steenkamp's suffered, especially financially (something close to that). They lost their beloved daughter. That was the appropriate "especially" to highlight. I found it insulting. GOOD GRIEF!

 

[lithgow1]

For which he's going to prison. The mob though gets off.

That's right - I've not had such a good time since we drove that Frankenstein dude from the castle. Really JuneBug for all your talk of rationality don't you think you are being a little over the top with all this talk of pitchforks and mobs. With media the way it is these days idiots of all stripes have a platform for their views no matter how warped or hypocritical their world view. Just take a look at Carl Pistorius' twitter account.

 

[mirage1]

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.

you, and everybody else, feel free to put your money where your mouth presumably is about caring for truth and justice and have a REAL conversation about the evidence surrounding the minutes during which the crime happened

Would love to.
Before we even get to the smashed door, we still need to explain the major discrepancy in Oscars version right at the beginning of his fair tale, if you are actually interested in a serious discussion and not just pick and chose the easier stuff that suits your position. Could you address my post in the previous thread?



http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-10-Day-46-sentencing&p=11096870#post11096870

 

[lithgow1]

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.

Yes I would care to accuse an innocent person of premeditated murder but I don't think he is innocent and the crime scene photos combined with his many lies and evations show that enough that i don't believe I am falsely accusing. You put all your innocence eggs in the one basket as far as I can see. Can the defence's timeline still not be essentially accurate but OP still lying about firing through that door without knowing who was there?

But anyway, let's talk about ammo if you care to. What's your take on that acquital?

 

[pandax81]

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.

With respect, you are mistaken.

From the judgment: "The accused had intention to shoot at the person in the toilet". I don't see how it can get any clearer than that!

 

[jay-jay]

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.

Wow, just Wow.

That is an extremely superior attitude to take, junebug, I don't believe that you know any more than anyone else does, so no need to be quite so condescending about other people and what they believe.

 

[pandax81]

to put it another way - perhaps you can articulate how you an experienced shooter can intentionally shoot someone without foreseeing the possibility of death?

The sorts of scenarios I can understand would be

1. The true hunting accident type of scenario

2. Defensive fire when i simply shoot in panic to keep someone away

But where I shoot with the intention to hit the victim?

I have handled enough guns in my time to know intrinsically that they very well might die.

So I'd be interested for you to explain how the verdict makes sense?

Well, I'm not the court, I didn't make that finding let alone agree to it, and I never said its findings made sense. My point was the judgment was clear on the fact that he intended to shoot the person, and that this on its own does not necessarily constitute murder, that's all.

 

[jay-jay]

You, and everybody else, feel free to put your money where your mouth presumably is about caring for truth and justice and have a REAL conversation about the evidence surrounding the minutes during which the crime happened.

What do you think we have been dong all these months? :facepalm:

 

[Giles]

Judge Greenland is calling Masipa's sentence today as outstanding, masterful and balanced.

He doesn't think she focused enough on the issue of 'deterrent' and would have favoured a slightly longer sentence.

 

[LemonMousse]

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.

Fine. I agree. No more talking about smashed in doors.

Let's talk about the screams. The four people who heard a man AND a woman screaming and yelling at the same time.

Let's talk about the startling coincidence that no one who identified a lone voice described it as female or screaming.

What's the answer to that? Mass hysteria?

Simplest explanations based on few assumptions tend to be correct.

Ergo...a female screamed, a man yelled and then a man cried.

Sounds like murder to me.

 

[mister happy]

I was also SHOCKED when she stated this. I let out an audible gasp.

What is with this judge? She seems so concerned with OP & how he'll handle prison (for apparently less than a year), his "lost" money & income, etc. Then says the statement mention above ....how the Steenkamp's suffered, especially financially (something close to that). They lost their beloved daughter. That was the appropriate "especially" to highlight. I found it insulting. GOOD GRIEF!

Right on. I got to the point where it was hard to even look at this mopey dopey judge.

 

[Madeleine74]

I'm thankful he's getting some prison time, at least. No, it's not long enough, but that's simply because of the parole laws that will allow him to potentially be out in 10 months on "house confinement." Masipa should have taken that into account and given him 10 to 12 years for a sentence. But, it is what it is and we knew it wouldn't be long enough. I really did think the most jail time she would give him would be 1 or 2 months, if she gave him any, and frankly I was expecting him to get none.

Sad day all around for Reeva and her parents, but nothing can bring her back and a CH conviction paved the way for a lighter sentence, which we all knew.

 

[4MrsB]

Oh Donald...you're such a horses a$$. I agree with your point, but couldn't you state it without juvenile name calling with regards to a Judge?

DONALD TRUMP TWEET:
Oscar Pistorious will likely only serve 10 months for the cold blooded murder of his girlfriend. Another O.J. travesty.The judge is a moron!
4:18 AM - 21 Oct 2014

 

[mrjitty]

With respect, you are mistaken.

From the judgment: "The accused had intention to shoot at the person in the toilet". I don't see how it can get any clearer than that!

Yes - but with respect this is much more explicit.

“In the present case, the aim was to shoot the intruder,” Masipa said.

So how do you believe this can be reconciled with the verdict?

 

[Hope4More]

<modsnip>

Personally, I hope judges everywhere are inspired by Judge Marsipa. Her courtroom was dignified and respectful of all parties, and her rulings exquisitely balanced. I'm impressed.

Five years for OP. Long enough for him to be punished and yet also to remake his life. Reeva's parents thought the sentence just. That should be enough to quiet the howls for blood. If not, that speaks to the howlers themselves, not to the question of justice.

 

[cottonweaver]

Judge Greenland is calling Masipa's sentence today as outstanding, masterful and balanced.

He doesn't think she focused enough on the issue of 'deterrent' and would have favoured a slightly longer sentence.

Indeed. Many of the legal commentators like Cliff Alexander on OScar Channel reckoned 10 would be harsh, 8 about right, 5 a possibility, but one he did not think was right due to public interest aka deterrent.

 

[LemonMousse]

I think this sentence will prove to be very important if there's an appeal.

He intended to shoot the intruder.
But he didn't intend to kill the intruder...because he thought Reeva was in bed?

Nope. Makes no sense no matter how you look at it.

 

[SallyLu]

Let our thoughts and prayers go to Reeva's parents today. I hope they can find some peace.



On a side note - I didn't realize that June was English until yesterday.