Oscar Pistorius - 6 years for murder

[caz]

I don't get it. What's the point of having a 15 year minimum sentence for murder if some people can get away with 6?

They explained it was Oscar's first offence and he was unlikely to re-offend - presumably until he comes out and his next girlfriend pisses him off - er - goes to the loo and is mistaken for an intruder. The implication is that her behaviour was the trigger and all other women would have been/will be completely safe with him.

Yep, an arrogant spoiled celeb with a drug and booze habit and a penchant for firearms? The girls will be safe as houses when he comes out in a couple of years, full of humility and remorse.

Love,

Caz
X

[GUT]

I don't get it. What's the point of having a 15 year minimum sentence for murder if some people can get away with 6?

They explained it was Oscar's first offence and he was unlikely to re-offend - presumably until he comes out and his next girlfriend pisses him off - er - goes to the loo and is mistaken for an intruder. The implication is that her behaviour was the trigger and all other women would have been/will be completely safe with him.

Yep, an arrogant spoiled celeb with a drug and booze habit and a penchant for firearms? The girls will be safe as houses when he comes out in a couple of years, full of humility and remorse.

Love,

Caz
X

I suspect there was a discount for double jeopardy and allowance for the time he'd already served. Together with him having completed offender courses during his incarceration, but I don't understand how they can call the 15 years the minimum sentence.

[Steadmund Brand]

let's face it.. he didn't have a leg to stand on..... too soon?

Steadmund Brand

[Robert]

Seems like a very soft sentence to me.

[Ginger]

We are no longer ruled by law, but are instead ruled by men. We have gotten here, in large part, by subscribing to the idea that "fair play" isn't achieved by having the same, inflexible rules for all, but rather by wise elites tailoring the rules to provide the outcomes that they, in their enlightened benevolence, desire.

And FWIW, while I don't think the evidence was sufficient to convict the man, sentencing still should have followed the law.

[Mayerling]

let's face it.. he didn't have a leg to stand on..... too soon?

Steadmund Brand

Possibly too soon....but I challenge you to find a similar case to compare with it on it's merits toe to toe!

To me it is not a matter of laws tailored for men v. women regarding victims. It is a case that shows how the law is bent for the rich and famous everywhere.

Jeff

[Pcdunn]

To me it is not a matter of laws tailored for men v. women regarding victims. It is a case that shows how the law is bent for the rich and famous everywhere.

Jeff

Certainly! Just look at the trial of O.J. Simpson to see another example.

[Mayerling]

Certainly! Just look at the trial of O.J. Simpson to see another example.

Damn straight there. Same with Robert Blake's trial.

[caz]

And FWIW, while I don't think the evidence was sufficient to convict the man, sentencing still should have followed the law.

Hi Ginger,

The evidence was overwhelming for the killing of his partner. His original sentence for manslaughter was 5 years I believe, in which case only twelve months have been added now the verdict has changed to murder.

Even assuming Oscar genuinely believed Reeva had been beside him in bed when he got up and took his gun to the bog (as we know happens all the time ), it begs the question why he didn't hear anyone scream or even cry out when he fired the first shot through the door. His defence was presumably that she made no recognisable sound or he would have realised his mistake and not fired another three shots. The fact that he did so (whether Reeva got the chance to cry out or not) would suggest to me the intention to kill whoever was behind that door, and that is the definition of murder. At the very least he didn't care if that person was fatally wounded, as long as they couldn't fight back. Had he only been trying to frighten a supposed intruder, would he really have fired again and again on hearing only silence from within?

When you think about it, the intruder scenario is just about the only defence he could have tried on in the situation, short of admitting he had lost his fragile temper (again) when Reeva locked herself in the loo.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mayerling]

Hi Ginger,

The evidence was overwhelming for the killing of his partner. His original sentence for manslaughter was 5 years I believe, in which case only twelve months have been added now the verdict has changed to murder.

Even assuming Oscar genuinely believed Reeva had been beside him in bed when he got up and took his gun to the bog (as we know happens all the time ), it begs the question why he didn't hear anyone scream or even cry out when he fired the first shot through the door. His defence was presumably that she made no recognisable sound or he would have realised his mistake and not fired another three shots. The fact that he did so (whether Reeva got the chance to cry out or not) would suggest to me the intention to kill whoever was behind that door, and that is the definition of murder. At the very least he didn't care if that person was fatally wounded, as long as they couldn't fight back. Had he only been trying to frighten a supposed intruder, would he really have fired again and again on hearing only silence from within?

When you think about it, the intruder scenario is just about the only defence he could have tried on in the situation, short of admitting he had lost his fragile temper (again) when Reeva locked herself in the loo.

Love,

Caz
X

Funny thing is variants of this "accidental" killing scenario have worked in the past, and left lingering questions every time.

In the first decade of the 20th Century, the father of future baseball great Ty Cobb was shot and killed when he entered his own home through a window on the ground floor after midnight. Mr. Cobb Sr., a school teacher, had become suspicious of his wife's nocturnal behavior when he was away, and returned home prematurely to see what was going on, but got shot and killed as "a burglar". The police arrested Mrs. Cobb, but she was able to convince the jury that it was a tragic accident. So she was acquitted. However, Ty never believed it was an accident. Further, he suspected his mother covered-up for the real culprit, her lover, who decided to get rid of the father with a convenient "accident". In all the years left to Mrs. Cobb (she died in the 1930s), her famous son refused to have anything to do with her. It has been suggested that Ty Cobb's infamously bad temper and sportsmanship on the baseball diamond (he was infamous for attacking people who annoyed him with catcalls, or for spiking opposition players with sharpened cletes on his shoes when stealing bases) was due to his soured disposition - he had been very close to his father.

The other case that comes to mind happened a year after my birth, and not too far from my home in Queens. In 1955 Mr. William Woodward, a wealthy and prominent socialite, was shot and killed in his mansion out in Long Island by his wife, a former show girl. She claimed it was an accident, and a grand jury did support this - but few others have. The Woodwards were having marriage problems, and it is possible Mr. Woodward was looking into divorce. There had been a series of burglaries in the neighborhood of where they were living, and Mrs. Woodward claimed that she thought her husband was the burglar, shooting him in the dark. The story still reverberates in upper class circles to this day. In the 1980s Dominick Dunne made it the basis of his novel "The Two Mrs. Grenvilles" (the other one is the victim's society mother). It was later turned into a 1987 television mini-series movie of the same name starring Claudette Colbert (her last film role) and Ann-Margaret. Most people still wonder if it was a tragic accident.

Jeff

[Pcdunn]

Another is the story from 1978 of the Aspen, Colorado death of skier Vladmir "Spider" Sabich. His girlfriend, French actress Claudine Longet, claimed the gun went off accidentally. She was arrested and tried, convicted of negligent homicide, required to pay a small fee and served 30 days of her own choosing, mostly on weekends.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudine_Longet

[John Wheat]

Six years for murder he'll be out in four. Not bad for murder and I bet he's segregated from other prisoners, so they can't get at him. Anyone else would get atleast 15 years. It's a joke.

[Ginger]

Hi Ginger,

The evidence was overwhelming for the killing of his partner. His original sentence for manslaughter was 5 years I believe, in which case only twelve months have been added now the verdict has changed to murder.

Even assuming Oscar genuinely believed Reeva had been beside him in bed when he got up and took his gun to the bog (as we know happens all the time ), it begs the question why he didn't hear anyone scream or even cry out when he fired the first shot through the door. His defence was presumably that she made no recognisable sound or he would have realised his mistake and not fired another three shots. The fact that he did so (whether Reeva got the chance to cry out or not) would suggest to me the intention to kill whoever was behind that door, and that is the definition of murder. At the very least he didn't care if that person was fatally wounded, as long as they couldn't fight back. Had he only been trying to frighten a supposed intruder, would he really have fired again and again on hearing only silence from within?

When you think about it, the intruder scenario is just about the only defence he could have tried on in the situation, short of admitting he had lost his fragile temper (again) when Reeva locked herself in the loo.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz:

Perhaps it's that I'm an American, but shooting an intruder until you're sure he no longer presents any possible threat seems a very reasonable and prudent course of action to me. If the intruder dies as a result, that's his own fault.

The real question is whether he knew that his girlfriend was behind the door. I think he probably did, and I think that he probably planned the murder in advance. "Probably" should not be enough to convict a man, though. I just don't see where the case against him was proven.

[caz]

Hi Caz:

Perhaps it's that I'm an American, but shooting an intruder until you're sure he no longer presents any possible threat seems a very reasonable and prudent course of action to me. If the intruder dies as a result, that's his own fault.

Yes, Ginger, it may well be an American thing - and South African? It's sad that in these countries the fear of intruders is so great (and presumably so real) that it is used to justify the personal ownership and use of firearms. People who have lives and jobs and decent places to live are not generally inclined to break into other people's property unless they are called Raffles.

The real question is whether he knew that his girlfriend was behind the door. I think he probably did, and I think that he probably planned the murder in advance. "Probably" should not be enough to convict a man, though. I just don't see where the case against him was proven.

Here in the UK I believe I'm right in saying that you can only use reasonable force against an intruder, and shooting to kill (or shooting without knowing or caring about the consequences) would count as murder, or attempted murder, no matter who the victim was or why they were there. Oscar either knew it was Reeva, and murdered her in cold blood (or rather hot blood, if he suddenly 'lost it', as he is known to do on occasion when he doesn't get his own way) or he didn't know or care who was behind that door and shot to kill first and ask questions later. As the door was locked from the inside at the time he could have kept to one side and warned whoever was inside to leave immediately via the bathroom window (I think that's the way Oscar claimed an intruder would have entered) or face being shot if they tried to unlock or open the door. Reeva would then have replied, "You daft sod, it's me. I'm just having a poo". And Oscar would have sighed with relief, "Phew, that was a close one". Happens all the time here in Sidmouth.

Have a nice - and gun safe - weekend all!

Love,

Caz
X

[Geddy2112]

I think that he probably planned the murder in advance. "Probably" should not be enough to convict a man, though.

However it has been proven, he was found guilty. The question here is not about his guilt it's the length of his punishment. He murdered someone and found guilty of it and in my eyes should be in prison for the rest of his natural life not 4-6 years..