Oscar Pistorius sentenced for murder

Smileless , no it doesn't prove his explantation is true or not. She was shot, he fired the gun, this is all I know it true

Yes Anniebach "she was shot, he fired the gun", but he said he didn't know she was in the bathroom and I don't believe him and neither did the court. She wasn't just shot, she was shot several times. Do you think his murder conviction was wrong?

Smileless, if I judge him and sentence him as you and others here have done I will say manslaughter and hospital not prison . Because the man has become a successful athlete it doesn't mean he is not a damaged man. Many people who kill are damaged

Smileless, how many miscarriages of justice in this country have you been actively involved in?

I haven't been actively involved in any (though I don't know what that's got to do with anything) and I would say there have been far too many sadly Anniebach. For me the miscarriage of justice in this case is the lenient sentence he's received.

So you're saying then that the murder conviction was wrong.

By the way, there is nothing unusual about successful children supporting their parents financially in a country where there is no social welfare system. So it would not be unusual for the late Reeva to have been sending her parents money.

No I am not saying it was the wrong., I have no access to his medical files. All I am saying is I cannot agree with the views expressed here - he put on an act, walking on his amputated legs was sickening etc. He may have no remorse, he may have deep remorse, i don't know, no one does . He has been judged in a court of law for the crime , I think it wrong to judge him on his disability or his ability to overcome it to the extent he has . I have thought about what may have brought about the tragedy but I don't know

Thanks for clearing that up Anniebach. I'm not judging "him on his disability or his ability to overcome it to the extent he has" it would be wrong to do so.

It was just as wrong for his disability to be used to illicit sympathy from the court and I did find his walk on his amputated legs sickening. Not because he's unfortunate to have them, but because it was done to show his vulnerability, his presumed inability to cope with a prison sentence.

What of Reeva's vulnerability as she coward in the corner of the bathroom while his bullets ripped into her defenseless body?

he has been found guilty of the shooting has he not

Yes, but he hasn't received the sentence he should have received. He was sentenced as a young white, wealthy, disabled and world renowned athlete when he should simply have received the sentence that befitted his crime.

In my opinion he got off lightly, very lightly indeed; he'll probably be out in 3 years.

Smileless, there is no difference in physical disability to mental disability being put forward as a defence . Do you find it sickening when mental illness is put forward in defence?

Smileness he hasn't received the sentence you think he should receive, he has received the sentence the judge thinks he should receive .

His physical disability is not the reason he did what he did. If a mental disability is used as a defense it's because it's believed to have prevented the perpetrator of a crime from knowing that what they were doing was wrong, or prevented them from having the ability to use good judgement.

He didn't kill Reeva because he was disabled, he killed her because he's a murderer.

Yes, the sentence the judge thought he should receive as a young white, wealthy, disabled and world renowned athlete. She even stated after passing sentence that she would be available if the defense wished to make an appeal.

How do you know his disability had nothing to do with what happened ? Are you claiming you know a disability cannot affect the mind? You do not know

His defense wasn't that his disability had affected his mind, it was that he heard what he thought to be a burglar, thought Reeva was in bed beside himand fired blindly into the bathroom in, what would it have been, 'self defense'.

I don't know anymore than you Anniebach and I'm not pretending that I do. I'm expressing my opinion and stating my reasons for having that opinion.

And I am expressing my opinion

I'm actually quite surprised that the manslaughter sentence was overturned in favour of murder, tbh. Pistorius cannot deny that he killed Reeva, but maintains that he did so by accident. It's difficult to prove otherwise. Oscar shot at someone. That person turned out to be Reeva. It's impossible for anyone to know -apart from Oscar-whether he intended to kill her. There are all sorts of factors to take into account, such as whether he fired in self-defence, thinking there was an intruder in the bathroom. Impossible to prove whether the "murder" was premeditated. The only person who knows that is Oscar himself. It's up to the judge to weigh up all the evidence and to pass sentence accordingly.

And she would have done so with every intention of passing an appropriate sentence, knowing that she was doing so under the critical glare of the public who were baying for blood.

Just so gettingonabit ,

Yes I know you are Anniebach but tell me that I don't know when I am merely expressing my opinion and no as much or as little as you do.

Well sadly gettingonabit I can't help but think the leniency of the sentence was due to the "critical glare of the public" not all of whom were "baying for blood". I was surprised that a verdict of manslaughter was ever considered appropriate.

I agree with you Smileless and so did the SA Appeal court. They were three senior judges and they said Judge Masipa got it wrong. What I can't understand is why it was then referred back to her for a new sentence. Why didn't the Appeal court sentence him or instruct Judge Masipa? It seems to me she has got it wrong twice.

smileless the minimum sentence for murder in SA is 15 years. A judge can take into account mitigating factors, which is what she did. The burden of proof for murder is high, as it should be. It must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. I'm guessing that she found it impossible to prove that Oscar killed Reeva in cold blood, so went for the minimum sentence she could, taking into account other mitigating factors.

So it may look "lenient" to random members of the public. But it's up to the judge, not random members of the public, to decide what's fair.

I'm in complete agreement with you gagagran. It seemed inconceivable to me too that sentencing was passed back to Judge Masipa and I think she's got it wrong twice too.

Yes, I'm fully aware of all that you've said gettingonabit, it is up to the Judge, it's such a shame that she got it wrong again, a shame for Reeva and her family. My brother is a retired solicitor and was also disappointed with the sentence; a man whose whole working life was in Law, not just a random member of the public.

Still agreeing with you Smileless. I chatted to my SA friend. She said none of her family believe he is innocent and in fact the words ‘hot headed, conceited, lying ……..’ were used. She also said that she would imagine Reeva shouted out/screamed, as you would, as it hurts, when first bullet hit. Yet he went on and on. And that at his first trial, witnesses said they heard them arguing loudly earlier. Would also like to remind his supporters, that the ‘ship’ of whether he is actually guilty, has sailed. He has been found guilty of murder. It’s the sentence that is too lenient in the eyes of many. And I’ll say once again, imagine if it were your son/daughter/grandchild. I wonder if his athletic achievements, disability, and subsequently, having a hard time in jail, would then apply. There has been a travesty of justice.

Yes breeze a travesty of justice. Let's just hope he serves the full 6 years, not nearly enough of course but to serve less would be a crime.

And him serving the six years will make your life happier? The threat of gang rape if carried out will be justice because he deserved it?