Oscar Pistorious Appeal Failure,

First topic message reminder :

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

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Within limits.  They are only allowed to do what is 'reasonably necessary' to protect themselves.  Oscar went outside of what was 'reasonably necessary'.



Right.  It's a state of mind defense.  But the focus is on the shooter...what was his state of mind?  

He said that his state of mind was one in which he thought someone had broken into his house. The court has not disagreed with that. That didn't give him the right to shoot the perceived burglar, but it does mean that his motive was completely different to one where he deliberately shot his girlfriend.

If you believe him.  The court has not agreed with the burglar theory either.  I think tommy's point is the correct one here...it is either evidence of a fearful state-of-mind, or an cheap attempt at avoidance. If the court believes the latter, it could be detrimental for Oscar.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He said that his state of mind was one in which he thought someone had broken into his house. The court has not disagreed with that. That didn't give him the right to shoot the perceived burglar, but it does mean that his motive was completely different to one where he deliberately shot his girlfriend.

If you believe him.  The court has not agreed with the burglar theory either.  I think tommy's point is the correct one here...it is either evidence of a fearful state-of-mind, or an cheap attempt at avoidance.  If the court believes the latter, it could be detrimental for Oscar.

The appeal court have changed the verdict on the grounds of dolus eventualis, which suggests that they do not think he deliberately targeted Reeva. I agree though that if they do think that Pistorius knew it wasn't a burglar, it could be detrimental to him, and he could get a longer sentence. That's what I've been saying to you for the past several posts.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If you believe him.  The court has not agreed with the burglar theory either.  I think tommy's point is the correct one here...it is either evidence of a fearful state-of-mind, or an cheap attempt at avoidance.  If the court believes the latter, it could be detrimental for Oscar.

The appeal court have changed the verdict on the grounds of dolus eventualis, which suggests that they do not think he deliberately targeted Reeva. I agree though that if they do think that Pistorius knew it wasn't a burglar, it could be detrimental to him, and he could get a longer sentence. That's what I've been saying to you for the past several posts.

You've got that wrong.  The appellate court did not have to deal with the question of what Oscar actually believed about who he was shooting.  Because, even if he did believe it was someone other than Re'eva, he was guilty of murder by shooting anyone.  Dolus eventualis simply means "...legal intention, which is present when the perpetrator objectively foresees the possibility of his act causing death and persists regardless of the consequences."  That is sufficient to find someone guilty of murder.

The appellate court left alone the question of whether Oscar actually was telling the truth regarding his supposed perception of a burglar.  The court was able to bypass that question by saying, in essence, it makes no difference.  By choosing to shoot, Oscar knew he was going to kill someone.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The appeal court have changed the verdict on the grounds of dolus eventualis, which suggests that they do not think he deliberately targeted Reeva. I agree though that if they do think that Pistorius knew it wasn't a burglar, it could be detrimental to him, and he could get a longer sentence. That's what I've been saying to you for the past several posts.

You've got that wrong.  The appellate court did not have to deal with the question of what Oscar actually believed about who he was shooting.  Because, even if he did believe it was someone other than Re'eva, he was guilty of murder by shooting anyone.  Dolus eventualis simply means "...legal intention, which is present when the perpetrator objectively foresees the possibility of his act causing death and persists regardless of the consequences."  That is sufficient to find someone guilty of murder.

The appellate court left alone the question of whether Oscar actually was telling the truth regarding his supposed perception of a burglar.  The court was able to bypass that question by saying, in essence, it makes no difference.  By choosing to shoot, Oscar knew he was going to kill someone.

I haven't got it wrong. The appeal court clearly don't necessarily disbelieve his story that he thought it was a burglar in there. They simply took the view that he should have foreseen that he would kill whoever was in there by shooting through the door. If they believed that he deliberately fired through the door in order to kill Reeva, the issue of dolus eventualis wouldn't have come up.

Raggamuffin wrote:If they believed that he deliberately fired through the door in order to kill Reeva, the issue of dolus eventualis wouldn't have come up.

Yes, it would have come up. Because the defense team raised it.

What the appellate court did was say, it doesn't matter. They only raised it to dismiss it...to point out that it is irrelevant.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If they believed that he deliberately fired through the door in order to kill Reeva, the issue of dolus eventualis wouldn't have come up.

Yes, it would have come up.  Because the defense team raised it.  

What the appellate court did was say, it doesn't matter.  They only raised it to dismiss it...to point out that it is irrelevant.

If they believed that he deliberately shot Reeva through the door, they would have said so IMO.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, it would have come up.  Because the defense team raised it.  

What the appellate court did was say, it doesn't matter.  They only raised it to dismiss it...to point out that it is irrelevant.

If they believed that he deliberately shot Reeva through the door, they would have said so IMO.

They didn't have to say what they believed re: an irrelevant question. They side-stepped the issue by saying the result would have been the same anyway.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If they believed that he deliberately shot Reeva through the door, they would have said so IMO.

They didn't have to say what they believed re: an irrelevant question.  They side-stepped the issue by saying the result would have been the same anyway.

Why side step it at all? There's no evidence that they thought he was lying about who he thought was in the bathroom.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

They didn't have to say what they believed re: an irrelevant question.  They side-stepped the issue by saying the result would have been the same anyway.

Why side step it at all?

For efficiency and economy. Most legal opinion writers try to be brief and to the point. In the practice of law, every minute is costing someone money. If you spend a second on something that doesn't matter, you are being wasteful. Besides, irrelevant matters unnecessarily confuse.

Raggamuffin wrote:There's no evidence that they thought he was lying about who he thought was in the bathroom.

There was no need to raise it, hence no evidence about it.

The judge also rejected the argument that Pistorius had acted in self-defence.

He said that the athlete's life was not in danger at the time of the shooting, as Pistorius did not know who was behind the door or if they posed a threat.

The judge added that Pistorius did "not take that most elementary precaution of firing a warning shot".

Clearly, the appeal court does accept that Pistorius believed there was a burglar in there. It would make no sense for him to fire a warning shot if he was deliberately trying to kill Reeva.

We'll see when he's sentenced. I still say that he would get longer if they believed that he deliberately followed Reeva and shot through the door in order to kill her.

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

Raggamuffin wrote:

The judge also rejected the argument that Pistorius had acted in self-defence.

He said that the athlete's life was not in danger at the time of the shooting, as Pistorius did not know who was behind the door or if they posed a threat.

The judge added that Pistorius did "not take that most elementary precaution of firing a warning shot".

Clearly, the appeal court does accept that Pistorius believed there was a burglar in there. It would make no sense for him to fire a warning shot if he was deliberately trying to kill Reeva.

Not at all clear. The appellate court did not address the matter. As your article states:

BBC News wrote:Pistorius always maintained that he believed there was an intruder in the house but the judge said that the identity of the person behind the door was "irrelevant to his guilt".

Since it was irrelevant, the court did not address it.

Raggamuffin wrote:We'll see when he's sentenced. I still say that he would get longer if they believed that he deliberately followed Reeva and shot through the door in order to kill her.

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

Perhaps. But since it is irrelevant, the lower court would have to re-engage the issue. My bet is the court will leave it alone. Or, the court might say it is uncertain. But if the court makes any positive ruling upon any new facts, it reopens the possibility for an appeal by either side. Why go there?

The appeal court did address those points. Did you not read what I just quoted?

I don't think it's irrelevant when it comes to sentencing. However, I can't keep on saying the same thing to you Quill. You think what you want to think, but don't bother telling me I'm "wrong". You know I don't actually believe you know that much about the law anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:The appeal court did address those points. Did you not read what I just quoted?

You didn't quote anything. You just trailed your post with a cite to the BBC, which I did read and I actually quoted from it...above.

Can you provide the precise language where the court addressed "those points" (as I did where the court said the issue was "irrelevant")? Frankly, I don't believe the court did address it and I'd like to see what you are referring to.

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think it's irrelevant when it comes to sentencing. However, I can't keep on saying the same thing to you Quill. You think what you want to think, but don't bother telling me I'm "wrong". You know I don't actually believe you know that much about the law anyway.

It's not a matter of right or wrong when prognosticating what the court will do at sentencing. I've made my case; you've made yours. I've said I think the court will stay away from it, in order to avoid further appellate issues. Relax and know what you are doing...it's guessing.

Who cares what you believe about me? That is not the issue, and I am impervious to your opinion. Stay on track.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The appeal court did address those points. Did you not read what I just quoted?

You didn't quote anything.  You just trailed your post with a cite to the BBC, which I did read and I actually quoted from it...above.

Can you provide the precise language where the court addressed "those points" (as I did where the court said the issue was "irrelevant")?  Frankly, I don't believe the court did address it and I'd like to see what you are referring to.

Thus not only did he not know who was behind the door, he did not know whether that person in fact constituted any threat to him. In these circumstances, although he may have been anxious, it is inconceivable that a rational person could have believed he was entitled to fire at this person with a heavy calibre firearm, without taking even that most elementary precaution of firing a warning shot (which the accused said he elected not to fire as he thought the ricochet might harm him).

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/oscar-pistorius-appeal-justice-eric-leachs-judgement-full-1531812

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think it's irrelevant when it comes to sentencing. However, I can't keep on saying the same thing to you Quill. You think what you want to think, but don't bother telling me I'm "wrong". You know I don't actually believe you know that much about the law anyway.

It's not a matter of right or wrong when prognosticating what the court will do at sentencing.  I've made my case; you've made yours.  I've said I think the court will stay away from it, in order to avoid further appellate issues.   Relax and know what you are doing...it's guessing.

Who cares what you believe about me?  That is not the issue, and I am impervious to your opinion.  Stay on track.

You stay on track. You're very fond of telling people they're "wrong" just because they have a different opinion to you. Drop the arrogant attitude and maybe more threads would stay on track.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's not a matter of right or wrong when prognosticating what the court will do at sentencing.  I've made my case; you've made yours.  I've said I think the court will stay away from it, in order to avoid further appellate issues.   Relax and know what you are doing...it's guessing.

Who cares what you believe about me?  That is not the issue, and I am impervious to your opinion.  Stay on track.

You stay on track. You're very fond of telling people they're "wrong" just because they have a different opinion to you. Drop the arrogant attitude and maybe more threads would stay on track.

Raggs, you are being defensive.  And...you are changing the subject.  This is not about me, so why raise it?

We were talking about Oscar Pistorius, and whether his alleged frame-of-mind will play into his sentencing.  First, it's a question of fact if he had that frame-of-mind.  Second, does the court feel it is a factor?  

My guess is, the court will not raise it because it creates another appealable issue.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You stay on track. You're very fond of telling people they're "wrong" just because they have a different opinion to you. Drop the arrogant attitude and maybe more threads would stay on track.

Raggs, you are being defensive.  And...you are changing the subject.  This is not about me, so why raise it?

We were talking about Oscar Pistorius, and whether his alleged frame-of-mind will play into his sentencing.  First, it's a question of fact if he had that frame-of-mind.  Second, does the court feel it is a factor?  

My guess is, the court will not raise it because it creates another appealable issue.

You always make it about someone else, and then when they reply, you say it's not about you. Try being less arrogant in your posts. Don't sit there saying that someone is "wrong" - just accept that they have a different view to you.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Raggs, you are being defensive.  And...you are changing the subject.  This is not about me, so why raise it?

We were talking about Oscar Pistorius, and whether his alleged frame-of-mind will play into his sentencing.  First, it's a question of fact if he had that frame-of-mind.  Second, does the court feel it is a factor?  

My guess is, the court will not raise it because it creates another appealable issue.

You always make it about someone else, and then when they reply, you say it's not about you. Try being less arrogant in your posts. Don't sit there saying that someone is "wrong" - just accept that they have a different view to you.

We were discussing Oscar and his motives.

When you calm down we can continue to discuss it. Right now you are too excited.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You always make it about someone else, and then when they reply, you say it's not about you. Try being less arrogant in your posts. Don't sit there saying that someone is "wrong" - just accept that they have a different view to you.

We were discussing Oscar and his motives.

When you calm down we can continue to discuss it.  Right now you are too excited.

We can continue when you decide to be less arrogant. Let me know when that happens.

Looks like all this is a moot point. An appeals court has found him guilty of murder:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34993002

Lurker wrote:Looks like all this is a moot point. An appeals court has found him guilty of murder:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34993002

Yes, we were just discussing whether his imaginings (that there was a burglar) would figure into the sentencing.

He has been found guilty of Reeva's murder, therefore I doubt they think his claim of shooting at a burglar stands up.  I can't see how they would find him guilty of her murder if they believed his story about a burglar.  It would have stood as manslaughter.

sassy wrote:He has been found guilty of Reeva's murder, therefore I doubt they think his claim of shooting at a burglar stands up.  I can't see how they would find him guilty of her murder if they believed his story about a burglar.  It would have stood as manslaughter.

I agree.

Original Quill wrote:

sassy wrote:He has been found guilty of Reeva's murder, therefore I doubt they think his claim of shooting at a burglar stands up.  I can't see how they would find him guilty of her murder if they believed his story about a burglar.  It would have stood as manslaughter.

I agree.

You do? You've been talking all the way through this thread about dolus eventualis, which was the main issue. Have you changed your tune?

sassy wrote:He has been found guilty of Reeva's murder, therefore I doubt they think his claim of shooting at a burglar stands up.  I can't see how they would find him guilty of her murder if they believed his story about a burglar.  It would have stood as manslaughter.

The point is that they found him guilty of murder because he should have known he would kill the person by shooting through the door, regardless of whether he knew it was Reeva or not.

Listen people... stick to the facts... don't get drawn into the rabbit hole of confusion by following the misdirectional waffle from pistorius and his team of twisty-turny bullshit masters...


It doesn't matter who was in the toilet... all that matters is the fact that he admits to knowing that someone was in there, and that he shot at them through the closed door from a position of safety, ie safe distance and not under direct physical attack...


If in the unlikely event that it did turn out to be burglar then it would still have been murder!!!



Intended killing of burglar is murder.

Intended killing of girlfriend is murder.

Intended killing of anyone is murder!


Unless you are under direct physical attack and in fighting for your own life in defence with the killing of attacker being the only way to successfully defend yourself.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Listen people... stick to the facts... don't get drawn into the rabbit hole of confusion by following the misdirectional waffle from pistorius and his team of twisty-turny bullshit masters...


It doesn't matter who was in the toilet... all that matters is the fact that he admits to knowing that someone was in there, and that he shot at them through the closed door from a position of safety, ie safe distance and not under direct physical attack...


If in the unlikely event that it did turn out to be burglar then it would still have been murder!!!



Intended killing of burglar is murder.

Intended killing of girlfriend is murder.

Intended killing of anyone is murder!


Unless you are under direct physical attack and in fighting for your own life in defence with the killing of attacker being the only way to successfully defend yourself.

Nobody has claimed that it wasn't murder, except perhaps Sassy - in the event that he shot a burglar.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Listen people... stick to the facts... don't get drawn into the rabbit hole of confusion by following the misdirectional waffle from pistorius and his team of twisty-turny bullshit masters...


It doesn't matter who was in the toilet... all that matters is the fact that he admits to knowing that someone was in there, and that he shot at them through the closed door from a position of safety, ie safe distance and not under direct physical attack...


If in the unlikely event that it did turn out to be burglar then it would still have been murder!!!



Intended killing of burglar is murder.

Intended killing of girlfriend is murder.

Intended killing of anyone is murder!


Unless you are under direct physical attack and in fighting for your own life in defence with the killing of attacker being the only way to successfully defend yourself.

Nobody has claimed that it wasn't murder, except perhaps Sassy - in the event that he shot a burglar.

No, I said from the beginning he knew it was Reeva and shot her on purpose, don't know where you got that idea.

I mean in the event that he thought he shot a burglar.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nobody has claimed that it wasn't murder, except perhaps Sassy - in the event that he shot a burglar.

No, I said from the beginning he knew it was Reeva and shot her on purpose, don't know where you got that idea.

He has been found guilty of Reeva's murder, therefore I doubt they think his claim of shooting at a burglar stands up. I can't see how they would find him guilty of her murder if they believed his story about a burglar. It would have stood as manslaughter.

You said that if they accepted he thought it was a burglar it would have stood as manslaughter. Well they have accepted that he thought it was a burglar, and they still changed the verdict to murder. You think that shouldn't have happened in the event that he thought he shot a burglar - that's where I got it from.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:

No, I said from the beginning he knew it was Reeva and shot her on purpose, don't know where you got that idea.

He has been found guilty of Reeva's murder, therefore I doubt they think his claim of shooting at a burglar stands up.  I can't see how they would find him guilty of her murder if they believed his story about a burglar.  It would have stood as manslaughter.

You said that if they accepted he thought it was a burglar it would have stood as manslaughter. Well they have accepted that he thought it was a burglar, and they still changed the verdict to murder. You think that shouldn't have happened in the event that he thought he shot a burglar - that's where I got it from.

Then I didn't word it well enough.  I have never thought they he thought it was a burglar.  I also believe that if the court determined he thought is was a burglar they would have to find him guilty of manslaughter as he would have felt in danger.  I also haven't seen that they do agree he thought it was a burglar.  Whatever, I think he knew he was shooting at Reeva and should have been found guilty of murder in the first place.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:



You said that if they accepted he thought it was a burglar it would have stood as manslaughter. Well they have accepted that he thought it was a burglar, and they still changed the verdict to murder. You think that shouldn't have happened in the event that he thought he shot a burglar - that's where I got it from.

Then I didn't word it well enough.  I have never thought they he thought it was a burglar.  I also believe that if the court determined he thought is was a burglar they would have to find him guilty of manslaughter as he would have felt in danger.  I also haven't seen that they do agree he thought it was a burglar.  Whatever, I think he knew he was shooting at Reeva and should have been found guilty of murder in the first place.

They've basically said it doesn't matter whether he thought it was a burglar or not, he should have known that he would kill whoever was in there by shooting through the door - dolus eventualis.

It's all in the report I posted on this thread somewhere.

Doesn't matter who was in toilet or who he claims to have thought was in toilet... he still used unjustified aggressive and knowingly lethal force against them... not self defence in any legal way.

As tommy said:

Tommy Monk wrote:Intended killing of burglar is murder.

Intended killing of girlfriend is murder.

Intended killing of anyone is murder!

Unless you are under direct physical attack and in fighting for your own life in defence with the killing of attacker being the only way to successfully defend yourself.

About as clear as you can get.

South Africa's highest court has rejected Oscar Pistorius's right to appeal against his conviction for the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3475036/Oscar-Pistorius-s-appeal-against-murder-conviction-DISMISSED-South-Africa-s-highest-court.html#ixzz41rKsQV8Y
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Bet his kneez went to jelly when he heard that.

Bleedin murderer.

Good.

Does this mean he will actually go to prison in April? All this messing about giving him bail is just putting it all off.

Dependz on which newz media you go on.

I read 15 years this morning.

I agree....good.
He murdered that girl, he does not deserve his freedom.

Good ruling... should get a lot longer than 15 years.

Another "Good!" here too.

I was beginning to despair he'd ever serve any punishment.

The first trial was a failure for justice.


Glad common sense eventually prevailed.

Would this have happened if he hadn't been let out so early after the first sentence? I can't remember the timeline now.

I don't think it matters whether he intended to murder her or not - it was too lenient for such a reckless act.

Raggamuffin wrote:Would this have happened if he hadn't been let out so early after the first sentence? I can't remember the timeline now.

I don't think it matters whether he intended to murder her or not - it was too lenient for such a reckless act.

I agree but I do think the intention was there even if it was spur of the moment

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Would this have happened if he hadn't been let out so early after the first sentence? I can't remember the timeline now.

I don't think it matters whether he intended to murder her or not - it was too lenient for such a reckless act.

I agree but I do think the intention was there even if it was spur of the moment

I think the court of appeal took the view that it didn't matter who he thought was in the loo, he should have known that shooting through the door would kill them, so it was murder.

Yes I know and I'd say that was pretty accurate.
Let's hope he does some serious time for it.

If proper justice had happened in the first place then he wouldn't have been let out after such a short time.

And it is right what you say Raggs, and what I said all along... strip away all his waffle about who he says he thought was in the toilet behind the locked door and you are left with the fact that he knew someone was in there and he chose to shoot and kill them in cold blood!


And that is murder!


All the rest of his waffle is irrelevant as well as being totally unbelievable too!