Oscar Pistorius - Sentencing - 6.13.2016 #2

[geevee]

If she does give him the full 15 year minimum (minus what he's already served) can he appeal that sentence and possibly be allowed to stay on mansion-bond until the appeal comes up?

 

[aftermath]

If OP didn't have a gun would he have confronted an alleged intruder?

Highly unlikely I think.

There are zero records of him confronting noises without a GUN. Note that his first reaction was to get his GUN.

The fact he had a GUN and was trained in its use suggests that it was this that drove him MORE than his disability.

His disability has nothing to do with why he says he thought there was an intruder. He thought it because of the alleged noise.

What's it called when you kill someone who hasn't made a threat against you?

I agree that he probably wouldn't have confronted the ' intruder ' without the gun. But a whole different set of options and decisions would have materialised.

But SA allows guns for home defence, so the gun offered the security to make him feel less vulnerable, certainly, but not invulnerable. And not less vulnerable than an able bodied man with a gun.
He reached for the legal home defence firearm just like many of his able bodied counterparts have done /would do when faced with (what they think is) an intruder.

Breaking into a house in the first place could be interpreted as an attack /threat. Add to that the highly publicised crime rate and number of aggravated home invasions in SA and you might have some idea of why he may have interpreted the ' intruder ' as a threat.

His disability made him more vulnerable. This, in turn, may well have made him more sensitive to over-interpreting the perceived threat. Who is more likely to fire a gun prematurely.. Someone frightened and ultra -aware of his additional vulnerability caused by his significant disability , or someone frightened and able bodied? His disability - on his version - is key to his reaction/overreaction.

What is it called when you kill someone you thought was posing a deadly threat but wasn't? Probably CH
What is it called when you kill someone you thought was a threat but who you couldn't rationally have interpreted as a deadly threat?
DE - according to the SCA.

 

[cottonweaver]

If she does give him the full 15 year minimum (minus what he's already served) can he appeal that sentence and possibly be allowed to stay on mansion-bond until the appeal comes up?

Yes to the first question geevee, for the second I would guess no.

His team would need to have that appeal already written for immediate submission surely?
So IMO it means on the 6th he will be going down those steps to jail whilst they get any such appeal together.

ie. don't quote me as I'm not qualified to say.

 

[Viper]

Yes to the first question geevee, for the second I would guess no.

His team would need to have that appeal already written for immediate submission surely?
So IMO it means on the 6th he will be going down those steps to jail whilst they get any such appeal together.

I agree. The cases I've read are convicts appealing their sentences from prison. There is a small exception that the judge can give the convict time to get their affairs in order before reporting to prison, but that wouldn't be long in OPs case, he just needs to tell the maid to store his old Nike stuff.

He's literally gone from Riches to rags. No McClarren super car, no house, no Armani wardrobe (that fits anymore), etc...

 

[cottonweaver]

A poster has put this on another forum

Tells us what we already know : Oscar Pistorius is not a victim

http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/the-o...ously-20160701

 

[Trotterly]

If OP didn't have a gun would he have confronted an alleged intruder?

Highly unlikely I think.

There are zero records of him confronting noises without a GUN. Note that his first reaction was to get his GUN.

The fact he had a GUN and was trained in its use suggests that it was this that drove him MORE than his disability.

His disability has nothing to do with why he says he thought there was an intruder. He thought it because of the alleged noise.

What's it called when you kill someone who hasn't made a threat against you?

Once Masipa accepts he believed there was an intruder we have witnesses hearing OP screaming in terror. Hardly consistent with someone driven with anything but self preservation.

Masipa will sentence on this basis.

 

[Hazy]

So. If agreed that OP only went forward because he had a GUN then his fight/flight instinct had sweet FA to do with his disability alone.

This therefore cancels out his vulnerability due to disability by a large margin.

Gotta keep highlighting this GUN loaded with deadly black talon bullets!!!!!!

 

[44ALLAN]

In short, he's depressed because he's forced to live with the consequences of committing a very serious crime. Do you think that this depression warrants a shorter sentence?

You mention that he's depressed because his appeal to the Constitutional Court was unsuccessful, but, IMO, he should be thanking his lucky stars that, thanks to Masipa's confusion, he managed to escape a finding of dolus directus.

I'm not saying he's not depressed, but one thing that struck me about his interview was how well-rested he looked - I found myself idly wondering if he'd had a facial. Reeva's father, on the other hand, needs no words to convey his suffering - it's written all over the poor man's face.

I honestly think he's too thick to realise what it's all about and they don't want him anywhere near the stand where he can mess up again.
The man comes across as a complete ignoramus IMO.
Spoilt brat with the intelligence of a man in his early teens and that's being kind.
I've watched the 'interview' and it beggars belief that these people have the gall to allow him to do that after what he's done to Reeva and her poor family and friends.
Beggars belief it really does. Cold blooded family without doubt looking after their own.
I bet their bedroom doors are locked at night with the alarms on tho !!!!

Nel went as far as he could in the sentencing hearing by asking the idiot to get on the stand and tell his story but it was never going to happen.
Problem now is that Masipa is a total patsy and this is going to end in severe tears/heartache and condemnation from the world once again.
Law of the land or not she should be on gardening leave for sentencing she's way past her bedtime IMO.
5 years hard time reduced by what he's done then house arrest etc etc etc..........................................

Hope I'm wrong.
This whole thing really stinks.

 

[44ALLAN]

Maybe a 15 year sentence will aide your recovery.



I hope all goes well with your operation

Thanks Hazy appreciated.

There is no way on gods earth Masipa is going to give him 15 year without concessions IMO.
Time off/work in the community etc etc + house arrest...................riots are forthcoming believe me lol

 

[44ALLAN]

I really don't need to look at them again. Sadly, they change nothing in terms of the context of the shooting. They don't indicate why he picked up the gun or why he fired - they show us the terrible consequences.

The photos are indeed horrific, however he isn't going to be sentenced for the photos. Did the photos of Visagie's dead daughter impact on the decision not to charge him? Did the photos of Mdunge's pregnant wife help decide his verdict and sentence? Crime scene photos of victims are terribly distressing to look at. They can however show us things: the consequences of a set of actions, and clues as to the nature of the crime. Nothing in the photos of Reeva Steenkamp suggest that Pistorius meant for her (or anyone) to die. Hopefully though, they will -as Barry Steenkamp wished- act as a deterrent, making others think before even picking up a gun let alone firing one.

Pistorius isn't going to be sentenced for how broken her poor father is either. (if she hadn't been so loved by her parents, or if her father hadn't made such a heartbreaking testimony, would that mean Pistorius shouldn't serve as much time?)

He could have fired once, but he didn't. He could have checked for Reeva, but he didn't. He could have done all number of things differently. However, he couldn't be 'less disabled '. And of course being disabled doesn't give him carte blanche to open fire at people - that's why he was prosecuted and found guilty of CH then DE. But it does provide important context as to what might have led him to take that course of action. It's part of an explanation, not an excuse.

The context of the shooting IMO is......................several ear witnesses heard Reeva screaming if not pleading for her life as he chased her/hounded her /scared the living daylights out of her before he finally executed her.
You obviously think they were all mistaken and I value your opinion but I don't agree with it one iota.

 

[yozzdi]

This is likely been discussed in this forum but I have never heard it discussed in the case. Perhaps those more familiar with the case could let me know if and when it was discussed.

Is this all correct?.....

When Oscar heard the noise he said "Reeva call the police." And that's it. If you just said to somebody "call the police" they would reply to you and say "and say what??". So no one would say to somebody to just call the police; they would either expect an answer or follow it up with the reason to call the police. So were expected to believe that he just said call the police and got no answer and expected that she was calling the police even though he didn't tell her what to tell the police. Did the
lawyers ever bring that up and ask OP about that?

 

[soozieqtips]

This is likely been discussed in this forum but I have never heard it discussed in the case. Perhaps those more familiar with the case could let me know if and when it was discussed.

Is this all correct?.....

When Oscar heard the noise he said "Reeva call the police." And that's it. If you just said to somebody "call the police" they would reply to you and say "and say what??". So no one would say to somebody to just call the police; they would either expect an answer or follow it up with the reason to call the police. So were expected to believe that he just said call the police and got no answer and expected that she was calling the police even though he didn't tell her what to tell the police. Did the
lawyers ever bring that up and ask OP about that?

BIB - hi, yes it was discussed. Most of us couldn't understand why he didn't wait for her to respond. Of course, he knew she couldn't respond because he knew she wasn't there. We're expected to believe that after Reeva asked "Can't you sleep, baba" - she never made another sound until she was screaming for her life. Not a word when he 'asked' her to call the police, no response when he 'whispered in a low tone' for her to get down low, and even stranger, no reaction to the noise that scared OP so much he had to arm himself, chase it down and shoot 4 times.

 

[soozieqtips]

Welcome back Ms SQT

Hiya soozie, great to see you.

snipped

Thank you :smile:

I can't believe I'll miss the sentencing. It's been great to be around as and when things happen with this case. Any idea if Masipa will simply read out the sentence with a brief explanation of how she arrived at it, or will it be like her lengthy judgement which we're not even sure she wrote herself? If she's going to give him a light sentence, I hope she lays out in great detail why she thinks it's appropriate that someone guilty of murder, lying and aggressive behaviour in prison deserves to be treated any differently to anyone else.

She can't base anything on the fake hobble.

 

[cottonweaver]

snipped

Thank you

I can't believe I'll miss the sentencing. It's been great to be around as and when things happen with this case. Any idea if Masipa will simply read out the sentence with a brief explanation of how she arrived at it, or will it be like her lengthy judgement which we're not even sure she wrote herself? If she's going to give him a light sentence, I hope she lays out in great detail why she thinks it's appropriate that someone guilty of murder, lying and aggressive behaviour in prison deserves to be treated any differently to anyone else.

She can't base anything on the fake hobble.

Hi, shame you will miss it.
We'll put real time updates on here as we always do, as Zweibel doesn't seem to be around. ( I was going to miss it but some plans have been rescheduled so I will now see it. )

I can't find a sentn. transcript as IDT it exists.

Here is the old link to the vid for CH sentn. It's ages since I have watched it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEVL2zZCyKo

The video running time is 1.5 hrs. - IDK how much of that is her reading it but it'll take her a while to read it out before she :escape: , I presume 6th won't be any different. She talks pretty slowly, she has to explain it all. No need for any tea breaks :coffeews:

With this case, her part in it, being so controversial . :trainwreck: I am sure it will run to the same number of pages, if not more. As it's taken her 3 weeks, it better be good!

No assessors to sit next to her this time as she reads it out. :doorhide:

After the ITV plea, Im not sure the court staff will be passing any buckets or hankies to the deadly boy-man.:chillout:

Why the fulsome use of the silly emojis? In the meantime, I'm trying to use up all the more obscure WS emojis that we've never really used here, before I'm done with this charade. It's not that I don't take this crime seriously, but there are other aspects which are a bit of a joke! ( You can only use 5 per post, so feel free to help me out anyone. )

 

[cottonweaver]

One for the person that matters in this case.

Summerstrand beach, N. Mandela Bay, apparently where Reeva wanted to have her ashes scattered like her grandfather before her.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...inting-Reeva-Steenkamp-premonition-death.html

 

[JudgeJudi]

Yes to the first question geevee, for the second I would guess no.

His team would need to have that appeal already written for immediate submission surely?
So IMO it means on the 6th he will be going down those steps to jail whilst they get any such appeal together.

ie. don't quote me as I'm not qualified to say.

On 6 July Masipa will sentence him for murder. Once convicted and sentenced he should be taken to prison immediately even if the defence lodge an appeal immediately. With Masipa on the bench, who knows what is possible.

 

[cottonweaver]

This is worth listening to - checked it out this morning.
It's Lisa & Nick giving their thoughts on Day 3 of sentencing in an audio recording..

https://shakedowntitle.com/2016/06/24/oscar-pistorius-sentencing-hearing-day-3-june-15/


About 15 mins- 20 mins of in-court personal impressions of the Oscar that maybe you didn't see during the live broadcast.
I think the witness Nick is very watchful & perceptive of the "out-takes." Oscar's body language, reactions facial expressions, and his mass hugging of almost everyone as a big show, the "old lady" fans who cry on cue the moment starts his pity walk.

It starts just after the intro music.
Thanks to them for sharing their impressions with us.

 

[4MrsB]

This is likely been discussed in this forum but I have never heard it discussed in the case. Perhaps those more familiar with the case could let me know if and when it was discussed.

Is this all correct?.....

When Oscar heard the noise he said "Reeva call the police." And that's it. If you just said to somebody "call the police" they would reply to you and say "and say what??". So no one would say to somebody to just call the police; they would either expect an answer or follow it up with the reason to call the police. So were expected to believe that he just said call the police and got no answer and expected that she was calling the police even though he didn't tell her what to tell the police. Did the
lawyers ever bring that up and ask OP about that?

I agree with you...this was a very important point, that I don't believe was addressed during trial. Perhaps it was lightly touched on, but I just don't remember them discussing it. I believe Nel would have had fun with this one...easily exposing it as a lie by OP, after just a few questions.

If he did...I would love to know when, what day...I will go back and listen to it, as it would have to be entertaining...OP would be squirming.

As you said....no one shouts to their "guest" in the middle of the night "call the police", and that person doesn't have a few questions.
Call the police, .... and tell/ask them what exactly?
(How much are this year's tickets to the policeman's ball?)

Who would think the person wouldn't ask WHY? Or some question pertaining to this "directive"?
IF NO RESPONSE...You would think:
(A) they didn't hear me
or
(B) where is she, somethings wrong.
That's it...one of those two choices.

I believe a person trying to protect a loved one, as OP says he was...would ALSO include a directive as to what to do. i.e...."stay there", "get down", "go onto the balcony and call from there", etc. Also adding the important point that there was an intruder in the bathroom. Otherwise, how can you keep the one you say you're protecting, safe? They are clueless, as they don't know what's going on.

While getting his gun, he had plenty of time & close proximity to warn Reeva with what was happening. Warning with what the danger was, would aid in keeping your loved one safe.

Just another poorly made up lie....makes no sense.
Not sure why Nel didn't drill OP with this...and if he did, please let me know what day of trial that was...I must watch. Thanks.

 

[cottonweaver]

Hi Mrs B & Yozzdi,
yes Nel made a huge deal of the implausibility of Reeva being struck dumb throughout the sequence in O's version.
Just as he made a big deal about the implausibility of his version, in totality, with all the other unbelievable elements.

He added that to his mosaic of strong circumstantial evidence and the crucial aspects of the Crime Scene incl "Photo 55",( the fans, curtains, duvet on the floor )

He didn't phrase his incredulity in exactly the same words as we have on early threads here in 2014, as yozzdi & Mrs B. says but he made enough of Reeva's silence at "call the police" for an experienced High Court judge to make a reasonable inference IMO .

 

[JudgeJudi]

<RSBM>

I agree with you...this was a very important point, that I don't believe was addressed during trial. Perhaps it was lightly touched on, but I just don't remember them discussing it. I believe Nel would have had fun with this one...easily exposing it as a lie by OP, after just a few questions.

If he did...I would love to know when, what day...I will go back and listen to it, as it would have to be entertaining...OP would be squirming.

As you said....no one shouts to their "guest" in the middle of the night "call the police", and that person doesn't have a few questions.
Call the police, .... and tell/ask them what exactly?
(How much are this year's tickets to the policeman's ball?)

Who would think the person wouldn't ask WHY? Or some question pertaining to this "directive"?
IF NO RESPONSE...You would think:
(A) they didn't hear me
or
(B) where is she, somethings wrong.
That's it...one of those two choices.

Just another poorly made up lie....makes no sense.
Not sure why Nel didn't drill OP with this...and if he did, please let me know what day of trial that was...I must watch. Thanks.

I&#8217;ve addressed this point a number of times in the past. Reeva was never told why she should ring the police, so the conversation would go something like this:

Hello, is that the police?
No, I don&#8217;t know how you can help me.
My boyfriend has just asked me to ring you.
I don&#8217;t know why, but I do know that I have to do what I&#8217;m told.
Okay then. Bye.