Oscar Pistorius to be released on parole in August

by Original Quill Wed Jun 10, 2015 6:57 pm

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

by Major Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:27 pm

Oscar knew it was Reeve in that toilet.

by Tommy Monk Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:28 pm

I never believed his waffle.

He is guilty of murder... regardless of who the victim was.

by Original Quill Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:33 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I never believed his waffle.

He is guilty of murder... regardless of who the victim was.

That was the ruling of the appellate court today. Regardless of who, it was murder to shoot anyone.

Absolutely correct.

by Tommy Monk Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:34 pm

That's what I said from the start.

by Original Quill Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:36 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:That's what I said from the start.

I know you did. Good on you, as the Australians say. Laughing

by Major Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:37 pm

With loaded gun in hand it gave him the upper hand so he could have called her name.

by Syl Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:48 pm

I think he knew damn well there was no intruder....he lost it, shot through the door knowing she was in the bathroom, killed her, and regretted it ever since.

by Tommy Monk Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:52 pm

I also believe he knew it was her...

by Tommy Monk Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:00 pm

And I don't think he regretted it for her sake at all... only for his own sake as he quickly realised how much shit was gonna be coming his way... then he went into his default excuse and sniveling mode which usually got him out of trouble as a spoiled disabled child...

by Raggamuffin Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:33 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

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.

We know there wasn't a burglar - he said he thought the person in the bathroom was a burglar, so I don't understand your point about that.

One neighbour said she heard them arguing. Others said they heard screams or wailing, which was probably Pistorius when he realised what he had done.

by Original Quill Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:48 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

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.

We know there wasn't a burglar - he said he thought the person in the bathroom was a burglar, so I don't understand your point about that.

If you know there was no burglar, end of story. But his supposition was that there was a burglar in his mind. The whole defense theory was that his frame-of-mind was of there being another person in the home. If we know it's a lie, stop indulging it...that's my point. Criminals lie to avoid responsibility. He intended to murder Re'eva...end-of.

Raggamuffin wrote:One neighbour said she heard them arguing. Others said they heard screams or wailing, which was probably Pistorius when he realised what he had done.

In a jury trial, that would have been allowed to go to the jury. Which is legalese for, it should have been taken into account. The judge took the position that, because it was equivocal evidence, she could discount it. You can ponder over it, but you can't discount it.

It should have been given equal weight in evaluating Oscar's actions. Burglar? Or argument with girlfriend? What other evidence of either is there? No burglar emerged; but, ahah, here are some neighbors who claim they heard an argument.

That's the way you deliberate. The judge took it off course when she discounted the evidence completely. Fortunately, the appellate court said, 'so what...he wasn't entitled to pull the trigger in any event. It by-passed the issue.

by Raggamuffin Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:59 pm

Original Quill wrote:

If you know there was no burglar, end of story. But his supposition was that there was a burglar in his mind. The whole defense theory was that his frame-of-mind was of there being another person in the home. If we know it's a lie, stop indulging it...that's my point. Criminals lie to avoid responsibility. He intended to murder Re'eva...end-of.

What? Of course I know there was no burglar - I knew that as soon as I read about the shooting because I knew that it was Reeva who had been shot. The issue of whether there was an actual burglar or not is irrelevant. Pistorius said he thought there was a burglar in the house at the time - before he realised it was Reeva in the toilet and that he had shot her.

by Raggamuffin Thu Dec 03, 2015 9:00 pm

Original Quill wrote:

In a jury trial, that would have been allowed to go to the jury. Which is legalese for, it should have been taken into account. The judge took the position that, because it was equivocal evidence, she could discount it. You can ponder over it, but you can't discount it.

It should have been given equal weight in evaluating Oscar's actions. Burglar? Or argument with girlfriend? What other evidence of either is there? No burglar emerged; but, ahah, here are some neighbors who claim they heard an argument.

That's the way you deliberate. The judge took it off course when she discounted the evidence completely. Fortunately, the appellate court said, 'so what...he wasn't entitled to pull the trigger in any event. It by-passed the issue.

I don't know why the judge discounted the evidence of the one neighbour who said she heard an argument. I'll look into it.

by Original Quill Thu Dec 03, 2015 9:11 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

If you know there was no burglar, end of story. But his supposition was that there was a burglar in his mind. The whole defense theory was that his frame-of-mind was of there being another person in the home. If we know it's a lie, stop indulging it...that's my point. Criminals lie to avoid responsibility. He intended to murder Re'eva...end-of.

What? Of course I know there was no burglar - I knew that as soon as I read about the shooting because I knew that it was Reeva who had been shot. The issue of whether there was an actual burglar or not is irrelevant. Pistorius said he thought there was a burglar in the house at the time - before he realised it was Reeva in the toilet and that he had shot her.

I understand your point. No sense in arguing the matter...we agree. There was no burglar, but there was the allegation that Oscar thought there was a burglar. Was that allegation true? Did he think that? I don't believe it.

Why? Because what evidence exists to support it? No one else saw a burglar. No one heard a burglar. There was no sign of forced entry. Nothing! Nothing at all in the way of corroborative evidence to support his frame-of-mind.

I believe he concocted the story to excuse himself.

by Original Quill Thu Dec 03, 2015 9:15 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

In a jury trial, that would have been allowed to go to the jury. Which is legalese for, it should have been taken into account. The judge took the position that, because it was equivocal evidence, she could discount it. You can ponder over it, but you can't discount it.

It should have been given equal weight in evaluating Oscar's actions. Burglar? Or argument with girlfriend? What other evidence of either is there? No burglar emerged; but, ahah, here are some neighbors who claim they heard an argument.

That's the way you deliberate. The judge took it off course when she discounted the evidence completely. Fortunately, the appellate court said, 'so what...he wasn't entitled to pull the trigger in any event. It by-passed the issue.

I don't know why the judge discounted the evidence of the one neighbour who said she heard an argument. I'll look into it.

I believe the judge took the position that, since the was evidence was equivocal--that is, it was uncertain--that it should be thrown out altogether. That is not the proper was to handle equivocal evidence. It should not have been thrown out, but it should have been weighed...indeed, as the burglar theory was weighed.

by Tommy Monk Thu Dec 03, 2015 9:30 pm

Rags, regardless of his claims about whether he thought he was murdering a burglar or his girlfriend... he was still INTENTIONALLY MURDERING SOMEONE!!!

And is therefore guilty of murder!

His story about thinking it was a burglar etc, is not a viable legal defence against a murder charge if it had really been a burglar... and is not a viable form of defence when it turns out to not be burglar either!!!

It doesn't matter who he claims to have thought he was murdering...

by Original Quill Thu Dec 03, 2015 9:36 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Rags, regardless of his claims about whether he thought he was murdering a burglar or his girlfriend... he was still INTENTIONALLY MURDERING SOMEONE!!!

And is therefore guilty of murder!

His story about thinking it was a burglar etc, is not a viable legal defence against a murder charge if it had really been a burglar... and is not a viable form of defence when it turns out to not be burglar either!!!

It doesn't matter who he claims to have thought he was murdering...

Correct. I believe Raggs is arguing the case as if the appellate opinion had yet to come down. It's a good exercise.

by Raggamuffin Thu Dec 03, 2015 9:38 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Rags, regardless of his claims about whether he thought he was murdering a burglar or his girlfriend... he was still INTENTIONALLY MURDERING SOMEONE!!!

And is therefore guilty of murder!

His story about thinking it was a burglar etc, is not a viable legal defence against a murder charge if it had really been a burglar... and is not a viable form of defence when it turns out to not be burglar either!!!

It doesn't matter who he claims to have thought he was murdering...

Yes Tommy, he's still been convicted of murder - I just found it interesting that the appeal court did not reject his claim that he thought it was a burglar in the toilet.

by Raggamuffin Thu Dec 03, 2015 9:40 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Rags, regardless of his claims about whether he thought he was murdering a burglar or his girlfriend... he was still INTENTIONALLY MURDERING SOMEONE!!!

And is therefore guilty of murder!

His story about thinking it was a burglar etc, is not a viable legal defence against a murder charge if it had really been a burglar... and is not a viable form of defence when it turns out to not be burglar either!!!

It doesn't matter who he claims to have thought he was murdering...

Correct. I believe Raggs is arguing the case as if the appellate opinion had yet to come down. It's a good exercise.

I was also wondering if he might get a lesser sentence than if he had been convicted of specifically murdering Reeva in cold blood.

by Tommy Monk Thu Dec 03, 2015 10:22 pm

Evening rags, is irrelevant as far as verdict is concerned... and his waffle should never have got in the way of him getting a guilty verdict before...

As far as the law is concerned... it was murder in all the possible scenarios...

a) He thought it was a burglar, and it turned out to be a burglar... = murder

b) He thought it was a burglar and it turns out to be his girlfriend... = murder

c) He thought it was his girlfriend and it was his girlfriend... = murder

by Raggamuffin Thu Dec 03, 2015 10:35 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Evening rags, is irrelevant as far as verdict is concerned... and his waffle should never have got in the way of him getting a guilty verdict before...

As far as the law is concerned... it was murder in all the possible scenarios...

a) He thought it was a burglar, and it turned out to be a burglar... = murder

b) He thought it was a burglar and it turns out to be his girlfriend... = murder

c) He thought it was his girlfriend and it was his girlfriend... = murder

It might be relevant to Reeva's friends though if they thought that he deliberately threatened her and then shot her after she escaped to the toilet. After all, a lot of people on this forum think that.

by Irn Bru Thu Dec 03, 2015 10:41 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Evening rags, is irrelevant as far as verdict is concerned... and his waffle should never have got in the way of him getting a guilty verdict before...

As far as the law is concerned... it was murder in all the possible scenarios...

a) He thought it was a burglar, and it turned out to be a burglar... = murder

b) He thought it was a burglar and it turns out to be his girlfriend... = murder

c) He ~~thought~~ knew it was his girlfriend and it was his girlfriend... = murder

That's how the judge thought as well - obviously

by Tommy Monk Thu Dec 03, 2015 10:53 pm

A lot of people think that all over the world...

Personally, I don't think the words and excuses of a murderer should be given any credibility...

Especially when the victims words cannot be heard at all...!!!

The facts remain... and was murder regardless of who the victim turned out to be or who he claims to have thought he was murdering... was still murder of someone as far as correct verdict is concerned.

However the story he spun might have influence over the sentencing given...

by Original Quill Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:20 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Correct. I believe Raggs is arguing the case as if the appellate opinion had yet to come down. It's a good exercise.

I was also wondering if he might get a lesser sentence than if he had been convicted of specifically murdering Reeva in cold blood.

The confusion, I believe, is over the concept of transferred intent. The defense team tried to set up a scenario where Oscar thought it was a burglar, and intended to shoot the burglar. The fact that Re'eva was killed meant that Oscar's intent was transferred from the person he wanted to kill, to Re'eva. The fact of the transfer cloaks the action in mistake.

But the point of the appellate court was that, had he killed the burglar he would have been guilty of murder anyway. So the transfer mistake is irrelevant.

The appellate court analysis assumes the burglar, but says it makes no difference. The defense was hoping that the court would rule that because Oscar did a bad thing, but the putative burglar would have been a bad guy, the two would cancel each other out.

Now you are asking if the fact that Oscar thought it was burglar doesn't cancel out a stiffer sentence...same persuasion as the defense, just applied to a different part of the case (sentencing rather than liability). But the malice in Oscar's heart doesn't change, just because the victim changes. It was equally wrongful to kill the putative burglar.

The policy aim of the court is, you shouldn't try to kill someone in any event. The wrong you did is equally grave, no matter that the victim changed.

by Syl Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:28 pm

Shooting at someone who has entered your property illegally presumably by force (the burglar scenario) has to be worse than shooting your innocent girlfriend who you have just gotten out of bed from surely. (the fact)

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:31 pm

Syl wrote:Shooting at someone who has entered your property illegally presumably by force (the burglar scenario) has to be worse than shooting your innocent girlfriend who you have just gotten out of bed from surely. (the fact)

Do you mean the other way round?

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:33 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I was also wondering if he might get a lesser sentence than if he had been convicted of specifically murdering Reeva in cold blood.

The confusion, I believe, is over the concept of transferred intent. The defense team tried to set up a scenario where Oscar thought it was a burglar, and intended to shoot the burglar. The fact that Re'eva was killed meant that Oscar's intent was transferred from the person he wanted to kill, to Re'eva. The fact of the transfer cloaks the action in mistake.

But the point of the appellate court was that, had he killed the burglar he would have been guilty of murder anyway. So the transfer mistake is irrelevant.

The appellate court analysis assumes the burglar, but says it makes no difference. The defense was hoping that the court would rule that because Oscar did a bad thing, but the putative burglar would have been a bad guy, the two would cancel each other out.

Now you are asking if the fact that Oscar thought it was burglar doesn't cancel out a stiffer sentence...same persuasion as the defense, just applied to a different part of the case (sentencing rather than liability). But the malice in Oscar's heart doesn't change, just because the victim changes. It was equally wrongful to kill the putative burglar.

The policy aim of the court is, you shouldn't try to kill someone in any event. The wrong you did is equally grave, no matter that the victim changed.

I think it might make a difference re sentencing. If the court believes that Pistorius thought he was shooting a burglar in a panic, that's still murder, but it's not as bad as following his girlfriend to the loo and deliberately shooting her through the door just because of an argument. I think there's more malice in the latter scenario.

by Syl Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:49 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:Shooting at someone who has entered your property illegally presumably by force (the burglar scenario) has to be worse than shooting your innocent girlfriend who you have just gotten out of bed from surely. (the fact)

Do you mean the other way round?

Yep...she got out of bed first. Rolling Eyes

by Original Quill Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:05 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

The confusion, I believe, is over the concept of transferred intent. The defense team tried to set up a scenario where Oscar thought it was a burglar, and intended to shoot the burglar. The fact that Re'eva was killed meant that Oscar's intent was transferred from the person he wanted to kill, to Re'eva. The fact of the transfer cloaks the action in mistake.

But the point of the appellate court was that, had he killed the burglar he would have been guilty of murder anyway. So the transfer mistake is irrelevant.

The appellate court analysis assumes the burglar, but says it makes no difference. The defense was hoping that the court would rule that because Oscar did a bad thing, but the putative burglar would have been a bad guy, the two would cancel each other out.

Now you are asking if the fact that Oscar thought it was burglar doesn't cancel out a stiffer sentence...same persuasion as the defense, just applied to a different part of the case (sentencing rather than liability). But the malice in Oscar's heart doesn't change, just because the victim changes. It was equally wrongful to kill the putative burglar.

The policy aim of the court is, you shouldn't try to kill someone in any event. The wrong you did is equally grave, no matter that the victim changed.

I think it might make a difference re sentencing. If the court believes that Pistorius thought he was shooting a burglar in a panic, that's still murder, but it's not as bad as following his girlfriend to the loo and deliberately shooting her through the door just because of an argument. I think there's more malice in the latter scenario.

When it comes to malice, the focus should be on his actions, not any external circumstances. The malevolence of a burglar, versus the innocence of a girlfriend, shouldn't play into the analysis anymore than her beauty, or sympathy for his disability. They are extraneous to the issue of his wrongdoing.

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:00 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Do you mean the other way round?

Yep...she got out of bed first.

I meant - did you mean that shooting someone who has entered your property illegally is not as bad as shooting your innocent girlfriend? You said that shooting a burglar is worse.

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:02 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I think it might make a difference re sentencing. If the court believes that Pistorius thought he was shooting a burglar in a panic, that's still murder, but it's not as bad as following his girlfriend to the loo and deliberately shooting her through the door just because of an argument. I think there's more malice in the latter scenario.

When it comes to malice, the focus should be on his actions, not any external circumstances. The malevolence of a burglar, versus the innocence of a girlfriend, shouldn't play into the analysis anymore than her beauty, or sympathy for his disability. They are extraneous to the issue of his wrongdoing.

It's more to do with the planning aspect. Even if he only planned to shoot her for a few minutes, or deliberately followed her in order to shoot her, that's more premeditated that shooting someone he thought was a burglar.

by Original Quill Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:25 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

When it comes to malice, the focus should be on his actions, not any external circumstances. The malevolence of a burglar, versus the innocence of a girlfriend, shouldn't play into the analysis anymore than her beauty, or sympathy for his disability. They are extraneous to the issue of his wrongdoing.

It's more to do with the planning aspect. Even if he only planned to shoot her for a few minutes, or deliberately followed her in order to shoot her, that's more premeditated that shooting someone he thought was a burglar.

Again, the law does not widen the purview of the question to take into account extraneous things like the object of the shooting. The emphasis is on the subject...the mind of the shooter.

The law considers the reasonableness of the actions of the shooter, regardless of the object. Was it reasonable to shoot someone you don't know? 'Who the object was' is only in the imaginings to the shooter. It might have been a burglar, but it might well have been Auntie Kate, come round for early tea. Or, as it turned out, it might be your girlfriend.

You don't want to incorporate imaginings into a legal analysis. Or else, you'll have all sorts of excuses...I thought it was goblins under my bed! Keep it on the up-'n-up by requiring a person to be reasonable under all circumstances.

by Syl Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:35 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

Yep...she got out of bed first.

I meant - did you mean that shooting someone who has entered your property illegally is not as bad as shooting your innocent girlfriend? You said that shooting a burglar is worse.

I said the whole post arse upwards didn't I....teach me to be doing three things at once. Rolling Eyes

Yes Rags....I meant shooting his innocent girlfriend is a lot worse than shooting an intruder who has broken in.

Both are murders, one is unforgivable the other may be understandable.

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:40 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I meant - did you mean that shooting someone who has entered your property illegally is not as bad as shooting your innocent girlfriend? You said that shooting a burglar is worse.

I said the whole post arse upwards didn't I....teach me to be doing three things at once.
Yes Rags....I meant shooting his innocent girlfriend is a lot worse than shooting an intruder who has broken in.

Both are murders, one is unforgivable the other may be understandable.

I agree with you Syl, which is why I think that the sentence might have been more if the appeal court decided that he did deliberately murder Reeva.

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:44 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's more to do with the planning aspect. Even if he only planned to shoot her for a few minutes, or deliberately followed her in order to shoot her, that's more premeditated that shooting someone he thought was a burglar.

Again, the law does not widen the purview of the question to take into account extraneous things like the object of the shooting. The emphasis is on the subject...the mind of the shooter.

The law considers the reasonableness of the actions of the shooter, regardless of the object. Was it reasonable to shoot someone you don't know? 'Who the object was' is only in the imaginings to the shooter. It might have been a burglar, but it might well have been Auntie Kate, come round for early tea. Or, as it turned out, it might be your girlfriend.

You don't want to incorporate imaginings into a legal analysis. Or else, you'll have all sorts of excuses...I thought it was goblins under my bed! Keep it on the up-'n-up by requiring a person to be reasonable under all circumstances.

The mind of the shooter is exactly what I'm talking about. There's a difference between shooting someone who broke into your house (or thinking that's who you shot), and deliberately going to the bathroom and shooting your girlfriend because of an argument. The verdict doesn't really mean that he intended to kill the person in the loo, it means that he could reasonably have expected that they would die as a result of him shooting through that door. That could mean a difference in the sentencing.

by Syl Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:50 pm

The two different scenarios would completely alter the intent, which should determine the sentence.
It's daft if it doesn't really.

by Original Quill Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:55 pm

Syl wrote:The two different scenarios would completely alter the intent, which should determine the sentence.
It's daft if it doesn't really.

It's easy to forget...a beautiful, and alive young woman was murdered. If society doesn't require people to be disciplined by reason, then we can expect to see a lot more of this kind of thing.

by Syl Fri Dec 04, 2015 7:03 pm

Especially if the punishment is one size fits all.

by Original Quill Fri Dec 04, 2015 7:54 pm

Syl wrote:Especially if the punishment is one size fits all.

Equal justice under the law is one of the paramount goals of our system. As soon as you start making exceptions for extraneous matters, judges will start finding leniency for their cronies and family members. We have already seen VP Cheney get off for his war crimes, all because of who he is.

Do we want to create a special set of rules for special people? I don't think so. A guy kills a totally innocent, beautiful woman...and we want him to get off because he and his lawyer conjure up a fantasy persona burglar to stand in as a bad guy? The law is not that stupid.

by Tommy Monk Fri Dec 04, 2015 10:42 pm

Which is worse...?

Murdering your girlfriend in an argument/fit of rage/moment of madness/crime of Passion etc, and admitting it...?

Or murdering your girlfriend in an argument/fit of rage/moment of madness/crime of Passion etc, and then making up a bullshit story to try to get away with it...!?

by Original Quill Sat Dec 05, 2015 12:50 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Which is worse...?

Murdering your girlfriend in an argument/fit of rage/moment of madness/crime of Passion etc, and admitting it...?

Or murdering your girlfriend in an argument/fit of rage/moment of madness/crime of Passion etc, and then making up a bullshit story to try to get away with it...!?

Gd. point.

by Syl Sat Dec 05, 2015 3:19 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:Especially if the punishment is one size fits all.

Equal justice under the law is one of the paramount goals of our system. As soon as you start making exceptions for extraneous matters, judges will start finding leniency for their cronies and family members. We have already seen VP Cheney get off for his war crimes, all because of who he is.

Do we want to create a special set of rules for special people? I don't think so. A guy kills a totally innocent, beautiful woman...and we want him to get off because he and his lawyer conjure up a fantasy persona burglar to stand in as a bad guy? The law is not that stupid.

I don't want him to get off....I think he should be inprisoned for a long time, proper jail, not his uncles house.

I am arguing that it's a lot worse to deliberately shoot your innocent girlfriend in cold blood than it is to shoot a burglar who has broken in your house.
I don't for one minute believe he ever thought there was anyone in the bathroom BUT his girlfriend.

The OJ Simpson farce is what you end up with when you create special rules for special people....which makes one think that sometimes the law is very stupid indeed.

by Original Quill Sat Dec 05, 2015 3:52 pm

OJ is a different kind of case. OJ denied the allegations, and the police corruption and misconduct lent credibility to his defense. As a result, the jury acquitted him.

All of the discussion about Oscar is inside the assumption that there was, indeed, a burglar. In fact, tommy is right...the allegation of a burglar is an added smokescreen to an already heinous act. The only reason the appellate court indulged the presumption of a burglar was to show that it did not rise to the level of a valid defense, anyway.

But focusing in on the supposition of a burglar, what you are saying is that the putative burglar's life is worth less than Re'eva's life. Without detracting from the beautiful Re'eva, I question the whole notion of a hierarchy of value to peoples lives.

Since the burglar was fictitious anyway, why not suppose he was an unemployed family man, the father of ten children, in a family where the youngest was dying of brain cancer. He has just learned that there is a miracle drug that can cure his little daughter's cancer, but it costs far more than he can afford. In an heroic effort to save the little girl, he opts to break into the affluent home in an upscale neighborhood. He is shot and killed by the greedy homeowner, who would deny the valiant burglar's efforts to save his innocent young daughter. Now we know the high value of the beautiful Re'eva, but can we say that the heroic burglar's life is worth any less?

The appellate court had to entertain the idea of a burglar as it was a part of the defense case. But it didn't have to get into judgments about the character and quality of the hypothetical man. Nor did it have to engage in judgments as to which activity is worth more: murder of your girlfriend or murder of an unknown stranger engaged in illegal activity. It simply focused on Oscar's actions, and the unreasonableness of his recklessness in pulling the trigger when he knew, or should have known it would result in severe injury or death.

by Syl Sat Dec 05, 2015 4:08 pm

Original Quill wrote:OJ is a different kind of case. OJ denied the allegations, and the police corruption and misconduct lends credibility to his defense.

All of the discussion about Oscar is inside the assumption that there was a burglar. In fact, tommy is right...the allegation of a burglar is an added smokescreen to an already heinous act.

But focusing in on that, what you are saying is that the putative burglar's life is worth less than Re'eva's life. Without detracting from the beautiful Re'eva, I question the whole notion of a hierarchy of value to peoples lives. Since the burglar was fictitious anyway, let's suppose he was an umployed family man, the father of ten children, in a family where the youngest was dying of brain cancer. He has just learned that there is a miracle drug that can cure his little daughter, but it costs far more than he can afford. In an heroic effort to save the little girl, he opts to break into the affluent home in an upscale neighborhood. Now we know the high value of the beautiful Re'eva, but can we say that the heroic burglar's life is worth any less?

The appellate court had to entertain the idea of a burglar as it was a part of the defense case. But it didn't have to get into judgments about the character and quality of the hypothetical man.

I mentioned OJ because you asked if we wanted to create a special set of rules for special people.
OJ would not have gotten off if he had been an ordinary man in the street......he was treated as special, just as Pistorious has been.

I agree the burglar story was a smokescreen.....does anyone doubt that....apart from the judge in the original trial?

But if we are talking about a hypothetical burglars life being less than an innocent womans life (her beauty, age, style has nothing to do with it) yes, I think if the burglar is hurt whilst carrying out the act that's his bad luck.
The sob story added to the drama, but ultimately if we commit bad acts we take the risk of being hurt.

by Original Quill Sat Dec 05, 2015 4:26 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:OJ is a different kind of case. OJ denied the allegations, and the police corruption and misconduct lends credibility to his defense.

All of the discussion about Oscar is inside the assumption that there was a burglar. In fact, tommy is right...the allegation of a burglar is an added smokescreen to an already heinous act.

But focusing in on that, what you are saying is that the putative burglar's life is worth less than Re'eva's life. Without detracting from the beautiful Re'eva, I question the whole notion of a hierarchy of value to peoples lives. Since the burglar was fictitious anyway, let's suppose he was an umployed family man, the father of ten children, in a family where the youngest was dying of brain cancer. He has just learned that there is a miracle drug that can cure his little daughter, but it costs far more than he can afford. In an heroic effort to save the little girl, he opts to break into the affluent home in an upscale neighborhood. Now we know the high value of the beautiful Re'eva, but can we say that the heroic burglar's life is worth any less?

The appellate court had to entertain the idea of a burglar as it was a part of the defense case. But it didn't have to get into judgments about the character and quality of the hypothetical man.

I mentioned OJ because you asked if we wanted to create a special set of rules for special people.
OJ would not have gotten off if he had been an ordinary man in the street......he was treated as special, just as Pistorious has been.

I agree the burglar story was a smokescreen.....does anyone doubt that....apart from the judge in the original trial?

But if we are talking about a hypothetical burglars life being less than an innocent womans life (her beauty, age, style has nothing to do with it) yes, I think if the burglar is hurt whilst carrying out the act that's his bad luck.
The sob story added to the drama, but ultimately if we commit bad acts we take the risk of being hurt.

I disagree that OJ was a case of special rules for special people. The 'special rules/special people' case would be VP Richard Cheney, about whom, when his assistant Scooter Libby was convicted of violations of the Espionage Act, the jury asked why wasn't his boss up for charges..where is he?. Cheney was never charged.

OJ was acquitted by a jury of his peers, primarily because a corrupt LAPD lied from the stand, and it was shown in the testimony of Det. Mark Fuhrman. The reason why many people think OJ was a 'special rules/special people' case is that the jury was predominately black...and people are apt to have unkind opinions of black decisions. But blacks are not privileged; a sitting vice-president is privileged.

You are still indulging in your hierarchy of value among people. If I am guilty of the murder of two people: Sister Teresa and Attila the Hun, should I receive a lesser sentence for putting down the Hun? Courts don't want to get into questions of which crime was more laudable, for fear of rewarding any wrongdoing.

by Syl Sat Dec 05, 2015 4:50 pm

I concede that you know and remember more about the OJ Simpson trial than I do, so I will bow to your better knowledge and memory re that one.

I am not putting a value on people, I am saying the way a person acts determines how others act towards them...and that should be taken into consideration..

If a nun was robbing or threatening someone, and old Attila was sat quietly minding his own business, it's understandable that someone would defend themselves against the nun.....if she got hurt that's her fault.

by Original Quill Sat Dec 05, 2015 5:08 pm

But clearly Oscar was the culprit...he murdered someone. Now we are in the position of asking if he should be treated more leniently because, as he perceived it, the victim was a bad guy. He did murder someone...it's just the victim has changed (in his defense).

The court isn't going to indulge in evaluating victims. If I'm shooting at a sign post illegally, should the law distinguish whether the sign post was old, or new and shiny? Or even if the sign post was misplaced? It doesn't matter because the focus is on the perpetrator and his wrongdoing...nothing else.

by Syl Sat Dec 05, 2015 5:33 pm

Yes he murdered someone.
What was the intent?

To protect himself and his partner?...he believed an intruder had broken into his home and he feared for his life. People are allowed to protect themselves and their property.

In a fit of rage he lost it because his defenceless girlfriend had displeased him in some way.

It's not a case of evaluating the 'victim'.......it's a case of understanding the motive, which should determine the sentence he is given.

by Original Quill Sat Dec 05, 2015 6:40 pm

Syl wrote:People are allowed to protect themselves and their property.

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

Syl wrote:It's not a case of evaluating the 'victim'.......it's a case of understanding the motive, which should determine the sentence he is given.

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

by Raggamuffin Sat Dec 05, 2015 8:18 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:People are allowed to protect themselves and their property.

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

Syl wrote:It's not a case of evaluating the 'victim'.......it's a case of understanding the motive, which should determine the sentence he is given.

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.

by Sponsored content