South African State Prosecutors Say They Will Appeal Oscar Pistorius' Verdict And ...

[ladybirder]

Sentence for the manslaughter of Reeva Steenkamp. I'm pleased to hear this as I think the verdict should have been murder, not pre-meditated, but murder. You don't fire 4 bullets through a door into a very small space and not know there is a major chance you will kill that person.
I can hear Mikey groaning from here.
But it is the right decision don't you think?

[Zeuhl]

/You don't fire 4 bullets through a door into a very small space and not know there is a major chance you will kill that person./

You have hit on the exact reason for the judgement; a 'major chance' is not a certainty of killing whoever is on the other side.

If the claim 'I didn't mean to kill them' is sustainable with the fact of the 4 rounds fired (within the realms of Reasonable Doubt) then murder is not proven. Firing 4 random shots through a closed door, one of which hits someone in the head could be considered different to say, taking aim at someone's chest and firing 4 times.

[chaptazbru2]

I certainly do think it is the right decision, but I have a gut feeling it won't make any difference unfortunately. I think he should serve at least 10 years !

[ludwig]

I think it's right that they look at it again. I doubt there'll be any change though.

[andy-hughes]

I would agree with all the preceeding posts.

[mikey4444]

Groan, groan !

[agchristie]

The judge took a very long time considering the facts and listening to so much testimony.

The sentence almost gives credence to whether she saw the wood for the trees.

[douglas9401]

Rich and famous person does something bad, gets caught bang to rights, tries every twist and trick to get away with it and in the end gets a token sentence.
It was ever so.
Jeez, it's worse than the 45% whinge.

[EDDIE51]

Anyone like to take a guess how much a black South African would have got in exactly the same situation? My guess is the maximum 'Life'.

[mikey4444]

To be honest, I am up to here with Pistorius. If this appeal is allowed, he could be out free before any result is forthcoming, given the glacial speed that SA law seems to work. I agree with agchristie here.....whether we agree with My Lady Judge or not, nobody can say that she wasn't thorough in her job.

[EDDIE51]

ladybirder it was never possible for there to be a 'murder' verdict . It was culpable homicide (manslaughter) or accidental killing (or a similar charge)
He had pleaded guilty to causing her death before the trial started.
A murder charge would have been thrown out of court and he would have walked free. There was never evidence of 'intent to kill' so a murder charge was not a possibility.

[EDDIE51]

^^ does he get freed again while the hearing is on?

[mikey4444]

eddie...please NO !

[Zeuhl]

On the plus side, they haven't charged Reeva with negligently getting in the way of the bullets.

[ladybirder]

Eddie, as I understood it, these were the charges he faced (copied from the DT website).

Verdict What it means Sentence
Premeditated murder: Intended and planned to unlawfully kill Reeva Steenkamp, or an intruder
Mandatory life term - 25 years before parole


Common-law murder
Unlawfully intended to kill in the heat of the moment but without "malice aforethought". Either: Shot door intending to kill, or knew someone might be killed and still fired gun
Minimum of 15 years up to 20 years, at judge's discretion

Culpable homicide (manslaughter)
No intention to kill. Takes into account disability, but actions negligent and not in keeping with a reasonable person
Maximum of 15 years, possibly between seven and 10 years

Discharging a firearm in public
Two counts for allegedly firing a gun through a car sunroof and discharging a gun at a restaurant
A fine or up to five years - for each charge

Illegal possession of ammunition
In possession of .38 bullets for which he has no licence
A fine or up to 15 years

Sorry it hasn't copied very well, lost the structure, but you get the gist.

[Zeuhl]

Indeed LB

hence Culpable homicide (manslaughter)

because (whether he did or not) there was no evidence that he intended to kill.

but his actions were negligent and not in keeping with a reasonable person

[ladybirder]

Gerrie Nel said OP's gross negligence bordered on 'intent' and I'm inclined to agree.

South African criminal lawyers have expressed shock that Masipa found Pistorius could not have foreseen that someone would die when he fired the shots and the verdict should have been Common Law Murder, which I guess is what they'll go for at the appeal.

Brilliant article in the DT at the weekend on how the verdict and sentence would have been so different if it had been Reeva who had shot Oscar under the same circumstances.

[Zeuhl]

LB

all very dubious

'bordered on 'intent' - so NOT intent then, just bordering on it LOL

/ shock that Masipa found Pistorius could not have foreseen that someone would die when he fired the shots /

that's only OK if you can argue that it is impossible to fire 4 rounds through that toilet door and NOT kill someone inside

i think it is very likely to do that and either wound or miss them completely

unless there was a witness who could state OP 'took careful aim' at the part of the door he knew Reeva was behind.
or a witness who heard him shout 'i'm going to kill you' immediately before firing

[jourdain2]

I remain convinced that he knew she was behind that door and shot to kill her. The only alternative is that he is so unbalanced as to see threats anywhere, which makes him a potential homicidal maniac. The rest is legal twittering (and -in that country- a few brown envelopes).

[Canary42]

I don't buy this "no evidence he intended to kill her" argument. He took a loaded gun and discharged it at her FOUR TIMES from close range - he must have intended to kill her.

[ladybirder]

Zeuhl, we know all four shots he fired hit her. He knew the layout of that room. If I fired four shots through a door into a tiny room at such close range I wouldn't expect the person inside to not be dead. It was foreseeable.

Mikey I'm not saying she wasn't thorough, she was, but Judge Masipa's decision drew criticism from some legal experts who said she had made an error in her interpretation of a legal concept that holds a person accountable for the foreseeable consequences of their actions.

So we'll see what happens at the Appeal. I wonder what her family feels at the thought of having to go through it all again.