Oscar Pistorious Appeal Failure,

Oscar Pistorius, the Paralympic athlete who shot his girlfriend dead after mistaking her for a burglar, will be released under house arrest after 10 months in prison, it has been confirmed.

The 28-year-old athlete will be released from Kgosi Mampuru II Prison in central Pretoria in just over two months, on August 21.

The parents of Reeva Steenkamp, the law graduate he shot dead through a locked bathroom door on St Valentine’s Day 2013, condemned the decision, saying his early release sent out the wrong message about taking a life.

“They were shocked because not even 10 months have passed and he will be eligible for parole in August already,” Tania Koen, a lawyer for Barry and June Steenkamp, said.

At first, Pistorius will live under virtual house arrest at his uncle’s home in Pretoria’s upmarket Waterkloof suburb, expected to check in with a parole officer frequently and allowed only to leave the house to go to work or to run the occasional errand.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/11659554/Oscar-Pistorius-recommended-for-parole-in-August.html

What do you bet he's being released because it's too much to care for a disabled person? Nothing against the disabled, but it is a fact that they get favorable commitment terms in prisons and jails because it's too much a bother, and too expensive to keep them

That poor woman he killed. She had even planned a surprise for him, but she got the surprise instead.

I feel the same way. Beautiful woman...lovely person. He's just a ruined personality, spoiled to the hilt.

But South African society just keeps on spoiling him.

Way to go SA! Way to show that you mustn't kill people!

rich and famous again i guess

Obviously, I didn't know the lady, but I cried for her. She sounded like a real nice person.

Actually, I'm not sure what's worse - her being shot deliberately or being shot because he thought she was a burglar.

I cry for her parents their only daughter it must be aweful for them .

If this was an accident as he says then only he knows and he will have to live with his guilt if he is lying .

Why is he being let out so early?

Tommy Monk wrote:Why is he being let out so early?

Some weird rule in SA where someone only has to serve one sixth of their sentence or something.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Why is he being let out so early?

Some weird rule in SA where someone only has to serve one sixth of their sentence or something.

Whatever the rule, he is being let out at the earliest possible time owing to his disability. Unfortunately, disabled people cost some ten times as much to house and secure, meaning that they receive preferential treatment over the rest of us when it comes to release. Prisons don't want to spend money.

Again, this prick gets privileged treatment.

The prosecution are appealing anyway, so he could be back inside in future.

I simply can't understand what happened. Any sensible person would have called out to see who was in the bathroom, and then Reeva would have replied. It was reckless in the extreme to just shoot through the door.

maybe it is because of his disability he needs a lot of care for his stumps daily .

I don't believe for a minute his mistook Re'eva for a burglar. It was cold-blooded murder, performed by someone who has been coddled all his life and believes it is his right to do such a heinous act.

They're not going to let him out now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-33987669

I should think so too. It was absurd that he only had to serve 10 months in prison for a 5-year sentence.

Raggamuffin wrote:They're not going to let him out now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-33987669

I should think so too. It was absurd that he only had to serve 10 months in prison for a 5-year sentence.

I saw that. Good sense prevailed.

Could someone explain why, if he wanted to end the relationship why did he just tell her it was over? why would he deliberatly murder her?

nicko wrote:Could someone explain why,    if he wanted to end the relationship why did he just tell her it was over? why would he deliberatly murder her?  

He didn't - not officially anyway. He mistook her for a burglar.

nicko wrote:Could someone explain why,    if he wanted to end the relationship why did he just tell her it was over? why would he deliberatly murder her?  

Maybe he didn't want the relationship to end or perhaps he did but couldn't bear the thought of her with someone else.  He wanted his cake and eat it?

nicko wrote:Could someone explain why,    if he wanted to end the relationship why did he just tell her it was over? why would he deliberatly murder her?  

Low self-esteem, nick.  He didn't want to end the relationship; he was afraid she would want to end the relationship.

A beautiful woman is very powerful, if you look at it in those terms.  She becomes very important in the eyes of others.  Her attractiveness intimidated him.  Deep down, next to her he felt inadequate.  For people like that, physical violence is a substitute.  They feel they are righting the balance, even though the imbalance is really coming from inside himself--those feelings of inadequacy.

That's where the physical abuse syndrome comes from.

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:Could someone explain why,    if he wanted to end the relationship why did he just tell her it was over? why would he deliberatly murder her?  

Low self-esteem, nick.  He didn't want to end the relationship; he was afraid she would want to end the relationship.

A beautiful woman is very powerful, if you look at it in those terms.  She becomes very important in the eyes of others.  Her attractiveness intimidated him.  Deep down, next to her he felt inadequate.  For people like that, physical violence is a substitute.  They feel they are righting the balance, even though the imbalance is really coming from inside himself--those feelings of inadequacy.

That's where the physical abuse syndrome comes from.

Sad in so many ways Quill

You're all assuming that he murdered her?

feelthelove wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Low self-esteem, nick.  He didn't want to end the relationship; he was afraid she would want to end the relationship.

A beautiful woman is very powerful, if you look at it in those terms.  She becomes very important in the eyes of others.  Her attractiveness intimidated him.  Deep down, next to her he felt inadequate.  For people like that, physical violence is a substitute.  They feel they are righting the balance, even though the imbalance is really coming from inside himself--those feelings of inadequacy.

That's where the physical abuse syndrome comes from.

Sad in so many ways Quill

Yes...and I should feel the sadness for each and every victim, but this one really pissed me off, FTL. I'm angry at how he was coddled, and how he twisted that coddling into feelings of superiority. True...compensatory feelings of superiority, but nevertheless they led to killing that beautiful woman.

It was so needless...so unfair.

Raggamuffin wrote:You're all assuming that he murdered her?

Unquestionably. He admits it.

His defense was mistake, not I didn't do it.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:You're all assuming that he murdered her?

Unquestionably.  He admits it.

His defense was mistake, not I didn't do it.

He didn't admit murder, he said he mistook her for a burglar. Murder would mean that he shot her knowing it was her in there.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Unquestionably.  He admits it.

His defense was mistake, not I didn't do it.

He didn't admit murder, he said he mistook her for a burglar. Murder would mean that he shot her knowing it was her in there.

Yes, he admits the act.  The defense of mistake is used in just such situations.

Frankly, I didn't believe him.  The evidence was too strong against him.  He knew she was not in bed next to her; any rational person would have concluded that it was her in the bathroom, or at least accounted for her before recklessly shooting off his gun.  It was that carelessness for which he was convicted of manslaughter.  Again, I personally think the evidence shows it was premeditated murder and I think that if a jury had the case, he would have been convicted of murder.

He got away with murder in the truest sense of the word.

nicko wrote:Could someone explain why,    if he wanted to end the relationship why did he just tell her it was over? why would he deliberatly murder her?  

I think he killed her on purpose out of anger during a very heated argument.

I think he fired the shot, knowing it was her.

It was shots fired Eddie... not a single shot...

Tommy Monk wrote:It was shots fired Eddie... not a single shot...

Yes I know, which makes it far worse as he had every intent to hit his target and left nothing to chance.

Well I'm surprised - Oscar Pistorius has now been found guilty of murder. I've always said that his actions were very reckless, regardless of who he thought was in the bathroom. Even if he had thought it was a burglar, he could still have handled the situation without shooting through the door. This seems to be the grounds for the change in verdict rather than the appeals court deciding that he deliberately shot Reeva.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-34993002

The new verdicts rests on the issue of dolus eventualis - ie, whether Pistorius could reasonably assumed that shooting through a door would kill whoever was in there.

The minimum sentence for murder is 15 years, but I don't know if that's 15 years in prison or only a few years with the rest on license.

Reeva's mother says she's got justice for her daughter, and respect for Reeva and all women. However, of course the court still didn't say that he deliberately killed Reeva in cold blood, so yes, she's got justice but in a strange kind of way - ie, that Pistorius didn't actually know who he was shooting at, but shouldn't have done it anyway. Therefore, the court appears to accept that he didn't actually know it was Reeva in the bathroom - something which many people find hard to believe.

http://news.sky.com/story/1599031/june-steenkamp-weve-got-justice-for-reeva

Raggamuffin wrote:Reeva's mother says she's got justice for her daughter, and respect for Reeva and all women. However, of course the court still didn't say that he deliberately killed Reeva in cold blood, so yes, she's got justice but in a strange kind of way - ie, that Pistorius didn't actually know who he was shooting at, but shouldn't have done it anyway. Therefore, the court appears to accept that he didn't actually know it was Reeva in the bathroom - something which many people find hard to believe.

http://news.sky.com/story/1599031/june-steenkamp-weve-got-justice-for-reeva

Well, the thing she didn't get was that his anger was really focused at Re'eva. I think we all know that this was an argument between a totally spoiled prat and a beautiful woman. The diminution of his self-esteem actually fed off of her beauty and popularity.

We didn't get to air that part of it. We had to assume his story. But even assuming his story, he was guilty. That's a good thing.

I watched the trial and found it fascinating.
I do believe he knew Riva was in the bathroom and I do believe he intended to shoot her when he fired.
I also believed his remorse. I think the red mist descended and he murdered her, then instantly regretted what he had done.
He must be a very manipulative man to keep up the act though.

I could never understand why Rivas parents could take payment from him after their daughter was dead. He should be the last person they wanted anything off.

Just heard this... good news!

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Reeva's mother says she's got justice for her daughter, and respect for Reeva and all women. However, of course the court still didn't say that he deliberately killed Reeva in cold blood, so yes, she's got justice but in a strange kind of way - ie, that Pistorius didn't actually know who he was shooting at, but shouldn't have done it anyway. Therefore, the court appears to accept that he didn't actually know it was Reeva in the bathroom - something which many people find hard to believe.

http://news.sky.com/story/1599031/june-steenkamp-weve-got-justice-for-reeva

Well, the thing she didn't get was that his anger was really focused at Re'eva.  I think we all know that this was an argument between a totally spoiled prat and a beautiful woman.  The diminution of his self-esteem actually fed off of her beauty and popularity.

We didn't get to air that part of it.  We had to assume his story.  But even assuming his story, he was guilty.  That's a good thing.

We don't know any of that though. For all we know, his story might have been true - that he thought it was a burglar. The point is that the new murder conviction is still not proof that he meant to deliberately kill Reeva. I don't know if that will make a difference to the sentence

Syl wrote:I watched the trial and found it fascinating.
I do believe he knew Riva was in the bathroom and I do believe he intended to shoot her when he fired.
I also believed his remorse. I think the red mist descended and he murdered her, then instantly regretted what he had done.
He must be a very manipulative man to keep up the act though.

I could never understand why Rivas parents  could take payment from him after their daughter was dead. He should be the last person they wanted anything off.

I don't know if he intended to kill Reeva, but I always thought that his extremely reckless behaviour warranted a stiffer sentence. Let's just say he didn't know Reeva was in there, and he really thought it was a stranger. Why didn't he call out and ask who was in there? Why didn't he say he had a gun and they should stay where they are until he called the police?

I do find it bizarre that it didn't appear to occur to him that it was probably Reeva, but I can't say for sure that I think he knew it was her.

Poor Reeva had gone over that night with a Valentine gift for him - she asked on Twitter what others had up their sleeve for Valentine's day. That was very poignant.

I cant understand why, if he really thought a stranger was in the bathroom, he would not have checked that Reeva was still in bed.
I suspect he knew very well she was not.

I didn't know about the Valentine gift, I don't remember that being mentioned in court.

I read (could have been true or not) that she was afraid of him and wanted to end the relationship, he had a history of being violent with his girlfriends.
His ex girlfriend gave this interview just before the verdict came in last year.

She looks remarkably like Reeva.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/ex-girlfriend-how-oscar-pistorius-terrorised-4206556

Syl wrote:I cant understand why, if he really thought a stranger was in the bathroom, he would not have checked that Reeva was still in bed.
I suspect he knew very well she was not.

I didn't know about the Valentine gift, I don't remember that being mentioned in court.

I read (could have been true or not) that she was afraid of him and wanted to end the relationship, he had a history of being violent with his girlfriends.
His ex girlfriend gave this interview just before the verdict came in last year.

She looks remarkably like Reeva.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/ex-girlfriend-how-oscar-pistorius-terrorised-4206556

I remember there was the question of whether he was actually in bed or not just before the shooting, and they concluded that he wasn't wearing his legs when he fired through the door, so he probably was in bed.

The Valentine's issue was mentioned at the trial, and I just thought it was terribly sad that she'd gone over there all excited about it and ended up dead. If she was afraid of him and wanted to end it, would she have gone to all that effort for Valentine's day? He hadn't opened her card and gift before the shooting because it was a bit early.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/10767887/Reeva-Steenkamps-Valentine-message-to-Oscar-Pistorius-I-think-today-is-a-good-day-to-tell-you-that-I-love-you.html

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:I watched the trial and found it fascinating.
I do believe he knew Riva was in the bathroom and I do believe he intended to shoot her when he fired.
I also believed his remorse. I think the red mist descended and he murdered her, then instantly regretted what he had done.
He must be a very manipulative man to keep up the act though.

I could never understand why Rivas parents  could take payment from him after their daughter was dead. He should be the last person they wanted anything off.

I don't know if he intended to kill Reeva,

Stop right there!  I know he intended to kill Re'eva.  His problem is his lack of self-esteem.  He has been so spoiled that his fight for self-esteem has been allowed to eclipse his impulse-control.  He is so warped that he thinks a gun is a legitimate tool of dispute.  No question...he is guilty of a criminal intent.

Raggamuffin wrote:but I always thought that his extremely reckless behaviour warranted a stiffer sentence. Let's just say he didn't know Reeva was in there, and he really thought it was a stranger. Why didn't he call out and ask who was in there? Why didn't he say he had a gun and they should stay where they are until he called the police?

Bullshit.  This is just a whiny kid, making up excuses after-the-fact.

Raggamuffin wrote:I do find it bizarre that it didn't appear to occur to him that it was probably Reeva, but I can't say for sure that I think he knew it was her.

Every bullshit story has it's holes in it.  That's how you and I know it's bullshit.  But a jury has to put up with all possibilities, no matter how implausible.

Raggamuffin wrote:Poor Reeva had gone over that night with a Valentine gift for him - she asked on Twitter what others had up their sleeve for Valentine's day. That was very poignant.

I grieve for that woman too.  She should have seen the early signs and run like hell.  But she, too, was probably in a mindset to feel sorry for the poor lad without legs.

Classic story: how evil skulks behind sympathetic human emotions!

Quill, how do you "know" that he intended to kill Reeva? The shooting happened in the early hours of the morning, and it's likely that he was indeed in bed because he wasn't wearing his legs. Are you saying that they were arguing in bed beforehand, and he threatened her, so she escaped to the bathroom?

I don't think there was any pity on her part. After all, his lack of legs didn't stop him did it? He wasn't really even disabled.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:I cant understand why, if he really thought a stranger was in the bathroom, he would not have checked that Reeva was still in bed.
I suspect he knew very well she was not.

I didn't know about the Valentine gift, I don't remember that being mentioned in court.

I read (could have been true or not) that she was afraid of him and wanted to end the relationship, he had a history of being violent with his girlfriends.
His ex girlfriend gave this interview just before the verdict came in last year.

She looks remarkably like Reeva.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/ex-girlfriend-how-oscar-pistorius-terrorised-4206556

I remember there was the question of whether he was actually in bed or not just before the shooting, and they concluded that he wasn't wearing his legs when he fired through the door, so he probably was in bed.

The Valentine's issue was mentioned at the trial, and I just thought it was terribly sad that she'd gone over there all excited about it and ended up dead. If she was afraid of him and wanted to end it, would she have gone to all that effort for Valentine's day? He hadn't opened her card and gift before the shooting because it was a bit early.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/10767887/Reeva-Steenkamps-Valentine-message-to-Oscar-Pistorius-I-think-today-is-a-good-day-to-tell-you-that-I-love-you.html

Well people are complex, she could have bought the card and present for any number of reasons.
I suppose no one but the two of them knew the exact state of their relationship, and she isn't here to tell.
She did write that she was sometimes scared of him, and her mother says she thought Reeva was about to end their relationship.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/people/oscar-pistorius/58642/reeva-steenkamp-the-life-and-death-of-a-rising-star

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, how do you "know" that he intended to kill Reeva? The shooting happened in the early hours of the morning, and it's likely that he was indeed in bed because he wasn't wearing his legs. Are you saying that they were arguing in bed beforehand, and he threatened her, so she escaped to the bathroom?

I don't think there was any pity on her part. After all, his lack of legs didn't stop him did it? He wasn't really even disabled.

How do I know?  Re-read my post.  I know because of the "holes" in his story.  Like I said, you and I can be real.  Only a jury, or a jurist needs to be so circumspect.

Whether you call it "pity on her part" or latitude because of his disability, he's still a whole mind...who was spoilt rotten.  His mother spoiled him, and thereafter people just gave him to much indulgence. He gained a false sense of the world.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, how do you "know" that he intended to kill Reeva? The shooting happened in the early hours of the morning, and it's likely that he was indeed in bed because he wasn't wearing his legs. Are you saying that they were arguing in bed beforehand, and he threatened her, so she escaped to the bathroom?

I don't think there was any pity on her part. After all, his lack of legs didn't stop him did it? He wasn't really even disabled.

How do I know?  Re-read my post.  I know because of the "holes" in his story.  Like I said, you and I can be real.  Only a jury, or a jurist needs to be so circumspect.

Whether you call it "pity on her part" or latitude because of his disability, he's still a whole mind...who was spoilt rotten.  His mother spoiled him, and thereafter people just gave him to much indulgence.  He gained a false sense of the world.

So what do you think happened? Do you agree that they were in bed before the shooting?

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I remember there was the question of whether he was actually in bed or not just before the shooting, and they concluded that he wasn't wearing his legs when he fired through the door, so he probably was in bed.

The Valentine's issue was mentioned at the trial, and I just thought it was terribly sad that she'd gone over there all excited about it and ended up dead. If she was afraid of him and wanted to end it, would she have gone to all that effort for Valentine's day? He hadn't opened her card and gift before the shooting because it was a bit early.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/10767887/Reeva-Steenkamps-Valentine-message-to-Oscar-Pistorius-I-think-today-is-a-good-day-to-tell-you-that-I-love-you.html

Well people are complex, she could have bought the card and present for any number of reasons.
I suppose no one but the two of them knew the exact state of their relationship, and she isn't here to tell.
She did write that she was sometimes scared of him, and her mother says she thought Reeva was about to end their relationship.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/people/oscar-pistorius/58642/reeva-steenkamp-the-life-and-death-of-a-rising-star

I'm a bit wary of anything her mother says. She has published a book about it,which will make money, and that makes me question her credibility.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well people are complex, she could have bought the card and present for any number of reasons.
I suppose no one but the two of them knew the exact state of their relationship, and she isn't here to tell.
She did write that she was sometimes scared of him, and her mother says she thought Reeva was about to end their relationship.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/people/oscar-pistorius/58642/reeva-steenkamp-the-life-and-death-of-a-rising-star

I'm a bit wary of anything her mother says. She has published a book about it,which will make money, and that makes me question her credibility.

Well it wasn't only her mother, but I know what you mean.

I still don't get why she took money off him during the trial.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

How do I know?  Re-read my post.  I know because of the "holes" in his story.  Like I said, you and I can be real.  Only a jury, or a jurist needs to be so circumspect.

Whether you call it "pity on her part" or latitude because of his disability, he's still a whole mind...who was spoilt rotten.  His mother spoiled him, and thereafter people just gave him to much indulgence.  He gained a false sense of the world.

So what do you think happened? Do you agree that they were in bed before the shooting?

I believe the evidence. They were arguing, and knew the whereabouts of each other at all times. Oscar has no impulse-control, and ultimate took his gun and murdered Re'eva. He was sane, if spoilt, and he intended to murder her.

Al the nonsense about a burglar is a story concocted to avoid responsibility.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So what do you think happened? Do you agree that they were in bed before the shooting?

I believe the evidence.  They were arguing, and knew the whereabouts of each other at all times.  Oscar has no impulse-control, and ultimate took his gun and murdered Re'eva.  He was sane, if spoilt, and he intended to murder her.

Al the nonsense about a burglar is a story concocted to avoid responsibility.

There was no evidence that they'd been arguing. There was no evidence that he meant to kill her - that's why he wasn't convicted of murder, and still hasn't been convicted of murder on the grounds that he meant to kill Reeva specifically.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I believe the evidence.  They were arguing, and knew the whereabouts of each other at all times.  Oscar has no impulse-control, and ultimate took his gun and murdered Re'eva.  He was sane, if spoilt, and he intended to murder her.

Al the nonsense about a burglar is a story concocted to avoid responsibility.

There was no evidence that they'd been arguing. There was no evidence that he meant to kill her - that's why he wasn't convicted of murder, and still hasn't been convicted of murder on the grounds that he meant to kill Reeva specifically.

That there was an argument: neighbors heard them arguing.  The Court discounted that evidence; I would not have discounted it. This is a context kind of case...it depends upon the context. Was there an argument, providing motive for the shooting? Or, was there a burglar, providing motive for the shooting? Direct evidence of the argument was most probative of the context. It was prejudicial error in my mind to exclude it.

That he meant to kill her: that is a state-of-mind question, for which there is never evidence unless there is an admission.  You infer state-of-mind from the evidence.  It is clear that there were only two people in that home.  If he shot at all, he intended to kill the only other person present.

Today's ruling says that his actions were reprehensible under any circumstances.  I'm just saying, for myself, I know what those circumstances were.  There was no one else present.