Support NeoGAF

[Deaf Spacker]

Link.

Not guilty of the murder of Reeva Steenkamp.

Guilty of culpable homicide.

Count 2: the sunroof incident – not guilty.

Count 3: the restaurant shooting – guilty.

Count 4: illegal possession of ammunition – not guilty.

He faces up to fifteen years in prison.

The judge allowed Pistorius to remain on bail ahead of sentencing which is to take place on 13 October.

South Africa's prosecuting authority said it was "disappointed" Pistorius was not convicted of murder but said it would wait until after sentencing to decide whether to appeal.

The Olympic and Paralympic athlete Oscar Pistorius has been found guilty of culpable homicide for the fatal shooting of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.

The guilty verdict on the manslaughter charge, a day after the judge Thokozile Masipa cleared him of murder, means Pistorius could receive anything from 15 years in prison to a suspended sentence, which would potentially allow the double amputee a chance to resurrect his sporting career. The court will resume for sentencing at a later date.

Masipa said on the first day of delivering her verdict that it was clear Pistorius acted unlawfully in opening fire at his home, but she cleared him of the murder charges, for which she said the evidence was “purely circumstantial”.

Masipa said a “reasonable person” would not have fired four shots into the toilet cubicle, and that Pistorius acted “too hastily and used excessive force. In the circumstances, it is clear his conduct was negligent.”

Pistorius has said he mistook Steenkamp for an intruder when he shot four times through a locked bathroom door, killing her almost instantly.

He was cleared of firing a firearm through a sunroof and of illegal possession of ammunition, but found guilty of illegally discharging a firearm in a crowded restaurant in January 2013, weeks before Steenkamp’s death.

In closing arguments, Barry Roux, lead counsel for the defence, said the starting point for this trial should have been a charge of culpable homicide, rather than murder. Masipa made it clear that, although the state did not have to prove a motive for murder, there was no evidence in front of the court to say that Pistorius wanted to kill Steenkamp.

But her interpretation that a reasonable person would have foreseen that shooting four times through the door would kill the person behind it – but to clear Pistorius because he did not foresee this – is likely to spark much debate and criticism.

I'll update the OP with more info as I get it.

 

[Juicy Bob]

Poor Reeva.

Hopefully this goes some way to giving the Steenkamp family a sense of justice.

 

[Loomba]

What's the maximum on that in South Africa?

 

[Deaf Spacker]

What's the maximum on that in South Africa?

Fifteen years in prison.

 

[ostrichKing]

What's the maximum on that in South Africa?

I think I heard 15...but he's likely to get nowhere near that much...possibly even just house arrest...have no idea how the judge felt he couldn't have known he could kill someone after shooting 4 shots through a door to a bathroom where he felt someone might be there...

 

[dose]

What's the maximum on that in South Africa?

Culpable homicide (manslaughter)
- No intention to kill. Takes into account disability, but actions negligent and not in keeping with a reasonable person
- Maximum of 15 years, possibly between seven and 10 years

 

[Lucius86]

As I mentioned in the other thread, this was for me the only logical conclusion, despite my gut feeling is that it was common-law murder. There just was not enough evidence to prosecute towards that verdict.

This has been fascinating to follow.

 

[Mastadon]

What's the likely sentence for the other crime he was found guilty of?

 

[Feorax]

I think I heard 15...but he's likely to get nowhere near that much...possibly even just house arrest...have no idea how the judge felt he couldn't have known he could kill someone after shooting 4 shots through a door to a bathroom where he felt someone might be there...

The question being asked was whether he intended to kill Reeva specifically, not just some random intruder.

The prosecution couldn't prove that beyond reasonae doubt. That's why he's been found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder.

 

[ostrichKing]

As I mentioned in the other thread, this was for me the only logical conclusion, despite my gut feeling is that it was common-law murder. There just was not enough evidence to prosecute towards that verdict.

This has been fascinating to follow.

Strongly disagree...

I agree you can't find him guilty of premeditation based on the evidence, but the secondary dolus eventualis murder charge should have been a slam dunk. It's hard to believe that he couldn't have known that shooting 4 bullets through a bathroom door after admitting he thought someone was in there could kill someone.

 

[ostrichKing]

The question being asked was whether he intended to kill Reeva specifically, not just some random intruder.

The prosecution couldn't prove that beyond reasonae doubt. That's why he's been found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder.

Not true...premediation is the question if he intended to kill her specifically...the dolus eventualis murder charge could have easily stuck...all the prosecution had to prove was the he had knowledge that by shooting through the door he could have killed someone....

EDIT: According to South African law, intent in the form of dolus eventualis means it is enough to find someone guilty of murder if the perpetrator objectively foresees the possibility of his or her act causing death and persists regardless of the consequences.

 

[kmag]

The Judge's position doesn't seem to make any sense.

To say that interpret that a reasonable person would have foreseen that shooting four times through the door would kill the person behind it, but to then clear Pistorius because he did not foresee that shooting would kill the person (dolus eventualis)

 

[liquidtmd]

Strongly disagree...

I agree you can't find him guilty of premeditation based on the evidence, but the secondary dolus eventualis murder charge should have been a slam dunk. It's hard to believe that he couldn't have known that shooting 4 bullets through a bathroom door after admitting he thought someone was in there could kill someone.

Someone BBC News is talking to currently has pretty much said exactly the same thing

 

[Cammington]

Strongly disagree...

I agree you can't find him guilty of premeditation based on the evidence, but the secondary dolus eventualis murder charge should have been a slam dunk. It's hard to believe that he couldn't have known that shooting 4 bullets through a bathroom door after admitting he thought someone was in there could kill someone.

I agree, you can't prove that he wanted to kill Reeva that night however if you discharge a firearm on the suspicion that someone is hiding behind the door once, let alone four times you are intending to kill what or whoever is behind there.

 

[kmag]

He'll probably be sleeping in his own bed for the next couple of months until sentencing.

 

[ostrichKing]

The Judge's position doesn't seem to make any sense.

To say that interpret that a reasonable person would have foreseen that shooting four times through the door would kill the person behind it, but to then clear Pistorius because he did not foresee that shooting would kill the person (dolus eventualis)

Yeah...I really think there might be a strong case for an appeal here. Incredibly confusing decision.

 

[King_Moc]

Strongly disagree...

I agree you can't find him guilty of premeditation based on the evidence, but the secondary dolus eventualis murder charge should have been a slam dunk. It's hard to believe that he couldn't have known that shooting 4 bullets through a bathroom door after admitting he thought someone was in there could kill someone.

Exactly. It's utterly ridiculous to think otherwise.

 

[Deaf Spacker]

He'll probably be sleeping in his own bed for the next couple of months until sentencing.

Yup.

We will probably not see sentencing today.

Given the two convictions, it is likely that Pistorius will have to reapply for bail (which could happen today), since he will potentially be more of a flight risk. There will then be an adjournment, probably for a few weeks, before further arguments and sentencing.

Pistorius also has the option to appeal the convictions, so could potentially remain at liberty for months while that process takes place.

 

[xbhaskarx]

It seemed pretty clear to me that it was murder, but it's a celebrity who can afford a decent lawyer, so I'm shocked he's getting any jail time.

He'll probably be sleeping in his own bed for the next couple of months until sentencing.

Crazy... how is he not a flight risk when he has money and is looking at 15 years in prison?

 

[ostrichKing]

It seemed pretty clear to me that it was murder, but it's a celebrity who can afford a decent lawyer, so I'm shocked he's getting any jail time.

I agree...his story that he thought she was in bed still when there might be an intruder in the house makes no sense.

 

[Qvoth]

totally forgot he shot 4 times to the bathroom
how big was the bathroom though?

i knew he was going to end up with manslaughter

 

[syllogism]

Not true...premediation is the question if he intended to kill her specifically...the dolus eventualis murder charge could have easily stuck...all the prosecution had to prove was the he had knowledge that by shooting through the door he could have killed someone....

EDIT: According to South African law, intent in the form of dolus eventualis means it is enough to find someone guilty of murder if the perpetrator objectively foresees the possibility of his or her act causing death and persists regardless of the consequences.

No, he has to have subjectively foreseen the possibility. If it can only be said he objectively should have foreseen it, then it's a culpable homicide.

It seemed pretty clear to me that it was murder, but it's a celebrity who can afford a decent lawyer, so I'm shocked he's getting any jail time.



Crazy... how is he not a flight risk when he has money and is looking at 15 years in prison?

As someone who followed the trial very closely, I think it is very likely that he did not intend to murder Steenkamp.

 

[ostrichKing]

totally forgot he shot 4 times to the bathroom
how big was the bathroom though?

i knew he was going to end up with manslaughter

Not large (you can see schematics online)...none of what he said makes sense. I'm completely baffled by this verdict.

 

[kmag]

totally forgot he shot 4 times to the bathroom
how big was the bathroom though?

i knew he was going to end up with manslaughter

Very small. It was essentially a narrow rectangle with a toilet and a sink. It was a essentially a cubicle in the corner of a large bathroom with a bath, shower and vanity.

 

[dose]

totally forgot he shot 4 times to the bathroom
how big was the bathroom though?

Tiny. It's the small room at the top/top left.

 

[ostrichKing]

No, he has to have subjectively foreseen the possibility. If it can only be said he objectively should have foreseen it, then it's a culpable homicide.

As someone who followed the trial very closely, I think it is very likely that he did not intend to murder Steenkamp.

You think subjectively, he didn't understand that shooting 4 bullets into a door of a locked bathroom that he thinks is occupied could kill the occupier? Really? I've been following very very closely, and I'm baffled that anyone would be think his story makes any sense at all. He really didn't check on his wife before getting out of bed, grabbing his gun, and tracking down an "intruder"?

 

[Qvoth]

Tiny. It's the small room at the top/top left.

hahahaha, he shot 4 times there and there's no intent to kill?
fuckin lol

 

[kmag]

No, he has to have subjectively foreseen the possibility. If it can only be said he objectively should have foreseen it, then it's a culpable homicide.

As someone who followed the trial very closely, I think it is very likely that he did not intend to murder Steenkamp.

He fired 4 shots into blindly into a tiny enclosed space he knew someone was in. Whether it was Steenkamp or a burglar he intended to kill them when he chose to fire. It's the obvious outcome of his action.

His story that he didn't know it was Steenkamp may pass the definitive proof test but it's not exactly particularly if at all plausible.

 

[syllogism]

You think subjectively, he didn't understand that shooting 4 bullets into a door of a locked bathroom that he thinks is occupied could kill the occupier? Really? I've been following very very closely, and I'm baffled that anyone would be think his story makes any sense at all. He really didn't check on his wife before getting out of bed, grabbing his gun, and tracking down an "intruder"?

I think a very good case can be made for dolus eventualis, but at the same time I'm not sure if the minimum sentence of 15 years would be appropriate here, if he thought he was shooting at an intruder in his bathroom, in particular in South Africa.

 

[ostrichKing]

I think a very good case can be made for dolus eventualis, but at the same time I'm not sure if the minimum sentence of 15 years would be appropriate here, if he thought he was shooting at an intruder in his bathroom, in particular in South Africa.

It's the law though for dolus eventualis...and to me it's very clear that at very least is what he should have been found guilty for. I don't see how his story makes any sense though...seems entirely implausible.

 

[xbhaskarx]

As someone who followed the trial very closely, I think it is very likely that he did not intend to murder Steenkamp.

Following the trial very closely doesn't mean you can't be gullible.

 

[syllogism]

Following the trial very closely doesn't mean you can't be gullible.

There is a very clear consensus among legal professionals and journalists who followed the trial that most facts point towards my conclusion. Indeed, even the prosecution moved away from the premeditated murder of Steenkamp as the trial progressed.

 

[DBT85]

There is a very clear consensus among legal professionals and journalists who followed the trial that most facts point towards my conclusion. Indeed, even the prosecution moved away from the premeditated murder of Steenkamp as the trial progressed.

The issue is with this big trials is that even if the judge had found him not guilty on all charges, the public and the media made their minds up months ago.

 

[gofreak]

Judging by the sky feed, they're arguing about bail right now.

 

[ostrichKing]

There is a very clear consensus among legal professionals and journalists who followed the trial that everything points towards my conclusion. Indeed, even the prosecution moved away from the premeditated murder of Steenkamp as the trial progressed.

There is also a strong consensus that he should have been found guilty of the dolus charge though too. The premeditation charge from most coverage I've watched is do to lack of air tight circumstantial evidence, which is hard to prove in a case like this with basically no eye witnesses, and the few that heard things can't always be 100% trusted. So it comes down to how plausible is his story. Though I strongly believe he purposely killed her, I can see how it could be hard to convict on that charge. His story just makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

[robertsan21]

Strongly disagree...

I agree you can't find him guilty of premeditation based on the evidence, but the secondary dolus eventualis murder charge should have been a slam dunk. It's hard to believe that he couldn't have known that shooting 4 bullets through a bathroom door after admitting he thought someone was in there could kill someone.

THIS!

There is something about oscar that just doesnt sit right with me, he is involved in a few shootings and end up killing his GF. There is obviously more to him than we know. Hopefully he gets 15 years.

It´s hard to buy his story about not knowing she was in the toilette.

 

[Browny]

Any offers on an over-under on how many years he'll serve?

I'll start the bidding at 2.

 

[ostrichKing]

Any offers on an over-under on how many years he'll serve?

I'll start the bidding at 2.

I think it depends on the appeals...I really think they might win an appeal and he'll then serve minimum 15.

Basically, the judge said she believed he thought his wife was in bed, so he couldn't have known he could have killed her. However, that is NOT what the law is...the law is, could he have known that the shots have killed ANYONE in the bathroom, and even by his own admission, he was shooting to stop the intruder he thought was in the bathroom. Her explanations didn't make anything more clear...

 

[Dead Man]

How long until the tin foil hats start saying it was bribery but the judge wanted to leave the appeal open to ensure he was sentenced correctly after appeal? What? No, that's not foil on my head.

 

[Ikuu]

Surely it wasn't the smartest idea to just give out the address when the trial is being broadcast on TV.

 

[liquidtmd]

Her explanations didn't make anything more clear...

Thats my biggest problem yesterday and today.

Legal arguments from prosecution over the last six months - I understood, made sense in context of Law

Legal arguments from defence over the last six months - I understood, made sense in context of Law

Summary from Judge yesterday and today outside of the dismissal of premeditated - eeeehhhhhh?

 

[Mastadon]

Phisheep posted this in the previous thread, which I found quite interesting:

The judge is quite right that there isn't enough evidence to support direct intent to murder, whether premeditated or not.

The prosecution weren't necessarily wrong to charge it - it seems to me that the prosecution told the right sort of story but were hoping to get evidence from Pistorius during the course of the trial, which he never gave.

There are two curious things about the judgment so far:

1) the apparent misinterpretation of the law on indirect intent (dolus eventualis), where I take SA law to be pretty well identical to English law given that the judge cited a text by Glanville Williams. The identity of the victim should not be relevant.

2) the reliance placed on Pistorius's own version of events, particularly as regards intent and as regards his fear that there was an intruder (which the judge said she had "no reason to doubt")

Taken together, these two things seem calculated to ensure that (a) no appeal by the defence will succeed, and (b) that no appeal by the defence will even be made owing to the high risk that the murder charge will be resuscitated on the grounds of dolus eventualis and that the appeal would thus backfire.

If this is games-playing then it is games playing with a purpose. Couple this with the abrupt adjournment today and I fully expect that Pistorius will be in jail tomorrow, as there will be sufficient time following the final verdict (of culpable homicide) to hear applications for and to deny bail.

 

[Moff]

As someone who followed the trial very closely, I think it is very likely that he did not intend to murder Steenkamp.

I did not, would you mind explaining that? ist a tiny room isnt it? why would he even shoot in there if not to kill?
did he know it was his girlfriend in there at that point?

 

[ostrichKing]

I did not, would you mind explaining that? ist a tiny room isnt it? why would he even shoot in there if not to kill?
did he know it was his girlfriend in there at that point?

His story was that he was scared there was an intruder, he assumed (this is where it falls apart for me) that she was in bed with him (cause, if I'm deathly scared there may be intruder- naturally I won't wake up my girlfriend next to me- that would make too much sense), got his gun, yelled at the presumed intruder in the bathroom and then shoots 4 shots rapidly into the door of a tiny bathroom (according to the judge, not knowing that that could kill someone)...

EDIT: Almost forgot...also decided to not call the private security that could have come to help...no...lets get the gun and start shooting.

EDIT: And, according to the law, it doesn't matter if he thought she was in there...if he knew he could have killed someone with his 4 shots, he should have been found guilty of the dolus eventualis charge.

 

[Slayer-33]

Did anyone ask this guy why he stopped at 4 shots? What made him so sure that he got who he got in there? What assured him that he was safe? Yeah he totally scrambled out of bed to somehow get his gun without knowing that his gf wasn't in bed. What a bunch of horse shit.

Fucking murderer.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

I'm doubting he'll do much time in jail.

 

[OldRoutes]

Did anyone ask this guy why he stopped at 4 shots? What made him so sure that he got who he got in there? What assured him that he was safe? Yeah he totally scrambled out of bed to somehow gets his gun without knowing that his gf wasn't in bed.

Fucking murderer.

I think he heard her scream.

 

[Slayer-33]

I think he heard her scream.

The poor woman locks her self in the bathroom away from this lunatic just to get murdered and now this guy possibly basically walks away from real punishment. It's such a damn shame.

No justice here man

 

[News Bot]

Shot four times into a tiny cubicle and "didn't have an intent to kill"?

I suppose if I cluster bomb a house I don't have an intent to kill either.

 

[ostrichKing]

I think he heard her scream.

He said he didn't hear her say anything when he yelled at the "intruder" and didn't hear her scream or make any sound when he shot her...