Oscar Pistorius

[fred41]

Fred, if you make the assumption that he's innocent but stupid, isn't the pain of living out his life knowing he killed his lover, punishment enough? Why throw a jail term on top of that?

Because you can't make the assumption that he has a conscience that would torture him like that.
Drunk drivers often feel bad too...but often they still do some jailtime.


Not to mention , if he really loved or cared about her well being that much...I think at the least he would have said...."Psssst,honey..you okay?"

[fred41]

......BTW...interesting sequence of posts just a while ago:

[Dino Velvet]

Pistorius keeps being a smart-ass referring to the male prosecutor as "My lady" then scratches his head wondering why the fella is so aggressive in his questioning.

[Stavros]

No Dino, it is the convention in a South African court room when the presiding judge is a woman to refer to her as 'My lady' much as in an English court one might say, 'My lord' when referring to the presiding judge. The remarks are made to the judge not the barrister.

He is either a good actor or he is genuinely in distress, I actually find it hard to listen to. And what happened to the cricket bat?

[Dino Velvet]

No Dino, it is the convention in a South African court room when the presiding judge is a woman to refer to her as 'My lady' much as in an English court one might say, 'My lord' when referring to the presiding judge. The remarks are made to the judge not the barrister.

He is either a good actor or he is genuinely in distress, I actually find it hard to listen to. And what happened to the cricket bat?

I know. I read about it before making the post. Still sounds odd over Radio America. Judge Judy would think someone is being dismissive of her and she's the greatest judge in the land having a TV show to prove the point.

All the court shows on TV I wonder who the judge will be in the upcoming Uncoupling Court.

[Stavros]

Incidentally there is no jury in this trial, so My Lady is going to be making a momentous decision when the time comes. Has America been informed about the case against Shirin Dewani? Fascinating case.

[Dino Velvet]

Incidentally there is no jury in this trial, so My Lady is going to be making a momentous decision when the time comes. Has America been informed about the case against Shirin Dewani? Fascinating case.

I can't speak for America but I am not familiar.

I know this is something we take for granted in 2014 but Google Search sure makes life easier. I found this and read it. http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/...-african-trial

Give me your take, Stavros.

[broncofan]

Because you can't make the assumption that he has a conscience that would torture him like that.
Drunk drivers often feel bad too...but often they still do some jailtime.


Not to mention , if he really loved or cared about her well being that much...I think at the least he would have said...."Psssst,honey..you okay?"

Even if it wasn't an intentional killing, in many jurisdictions in the U.S. we have negligent homicide statutes. I don't know if they do in South Africa.

But I've seen a statute that defines criminal negligence as grossly deviating from the standard of care a reasonable person would show. And gross negligence which was really recklessness in disguise as, "consciously disregarding a known risk".

I think an argument can be made that he had a criminally culpable mindset even if it was not intentional (intent being defined as having knowledge of the facts and purpose to kill despite that knowledge).

[broncofan]

Drunk drivers often feel bad too...but often they still do some jailtime.

Not to get too far afield, but I think they don't do enough time. People with five drunk driving charges can't get more than two years jail time for their sixth drunk driving charge in some states.

One difference is that in negligent homicide there's often language about ignoring an "unjustified" risk. The reason is that if you are taking a risk by drinking and driving there is no utility...whereas if you are negligent with a firearm, you might claim you have a lawful and useful purpose...even if the risk far exceeds the likelihood of benefit.

[Winkle]

Going by his latest testimony of what happened. He heard the bathroom window slide shut, he whispered to Reeva to call the police and got his gun. Reeva didn't respond. Then he shouts to Reeva call the police, she doesn't respond. He shouts at the so called burglar Reeva still doesn't respond. Then he shoots.

Why didn't he verify where she was when she failed to respond twice? let alone look to see where she was while he was getting his gun? surely instinctually her whereabouts would be priority. Why didn't she respond when he shouted at the bathroom door before he started shooting?

What he's saying so far doesn't add up, saga continues....