The judge also dismissed much of the testimony of witnesses and the prosecution's case saying, “In my view, none of this evidence, from the state or defense, proves anything, she said. “Normal relationships are dynamic and unpredictable sometimes.” This was in response to the neighbors who said they heard arguing earlier in the night.
To me, this is the kind of verdict when you have a jury, and not a verdict when decided solely by a judge.
After coming back from a lunch break, the judge suddenly adjourned for the day before announcing her verdict on the only remaining charge of what we would call manslaughter. Even if he is convicted, I wonder how much of a sentence the guy will get. This is definitely not a day for justice, but will definitely be a night to watch Nancy Grace.
They have got to be kidding…
ReplyDeleteI dont know enough about this but he killed somebody, whether it was accidental or not, and he should be in prison for something. Involuntry Manslaughter at the very least. If not 2nd degree murder.
ReplyDelete@sandybrook - If someone breaks into your home though, at least in the US, you can kill them without facing charges. The question in this case is whether or not he truly believed the person in the bathroom was an intruder & not his girlfriend.
ReplyDeleteWell we will never know that. He has to live with it.
ReplyDeleteNo justice for Reeva and her family.
ReplyDeleteI feel like he's guilty as heck from whatever I've read about it.
ReplyDeleteThis just proves once again if you're famous you can get away with anything including murder.
ReplyDeleteIt's odd that the judge declared him innocent after calling him out on all of the inconsistencies in his testimony. It seemed pretty clear that he intentionally killed her.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWe live in a trigger happy world. The whole shoot first ask questions later mentality is fucked up. If you honestly believe you're in danger couldn't you shoot to injur and then call the police? Why shoot multiple times? His story doesn't make sense and this is all so wrong.
ReplyDeleteThis is vile....and that judge has such a strong solid history of intolerance to violence towards women..I am stunned....
ReplyDeleteOT:that other A hole Kanye west was rushed to a Sydney hospital for a "migraine": here in the states we call it a "kardashian"
Tricia- kanye no better than kk water seeks its own level.
DeleteI think he was messed up on all kinds of substances, specifically roids. He was paranoid and his sense of reality was distorted. I think the sports community needs to do more to address their performance enhancing drug problem. It's a sad situation all around. Lives have forever been ruined.
ReplyDeleteOh look, judges in South Africa can be bought off, too.
ReplyDeleteAfter this and prior incidents which PROVE an escalating 'carelessness' involving guns, if that judge doesn't at least find him guilty of manslaughter and sentence him appropriately - he supposedly thought Reeva was lying in bed next to him and yet did nothing to alert of warn her which I find extremely questionable - then she should be thrown off the bench and run out of town.
ReplyDeleteThis murderous bastard dodged the bullet with his name on it. Shameful.
ReplyDeleteI guess we can only hope that if hes still free when the final verdict is announced he lives his life the same way Casey Anthony does here. A virtual prisoner living in constant fear of retaliation. No friends, no family.
ReplyDeleteAwww to be rich and white in South Africa reminds me of the days of Apartheid.....
ReplyDeleteGood... as long as the verdict pisses you all off. I didn't realize how many criminal experts were on this site.
ReplyDeleteErin B: This is a common misunderstanding - the castle doctrine doesn't work that way in most US states. Generally speaking, you cannot kill someone with impunity just for breaking into your house - you must believe that your own life is in imminent danger. A person's uninvited presence in your domicile is not enough to justify homicide in most states. You must know that the intruder is armed, or they must be beating you, etc. Given that the supposed "intruder" was in the bathroom, Pistorius would almost certainly be convicted of at least negligent homicide here because he could not see if the person he was shooting at was armed, they were not actively engaged in causing him harm nor were they about to, etc. There are a few states with so-called "stand your ground" or "make my day" laws, but the number of those is actually very small.
ReplyDeleteLet's just assume he actually thought there was an intruder in his house. Why wouldn't he notice she wasn't in bed before blindly shooting into the bathroom? I can't say I'm surprised by this verdict but if he totally gets off, I hope he's hounded for the rest of his life...
ReplyDeleteawesome avi erindipity! love Dorothy and the gals.
ReplyDelete------
I cant believe he was found innocent.
Jordan, I suppose you are against gun control, and victims like Reeva are just collateral damage in the interest of protecting your right to shoot at will on a paranoid whim, the very definition of cowardice.
ReplyDeleteMaxxy, Jordan is a troll. Just ignore them it's easier.
DeleteSouth Africa's answer to the OJ Simpson case. Hopefully this man suffers the same karma OJ has suffered.
ReplyDeleteTrue that. I just couldn't let the notion pass that shoot first ask questions later is ever a good idea.
ReplyDeletei don't think we have to be criminal experts to recognize a piece of crap when we see one.
ReplyDeleteErin B is wrong, erindipity is correct. It depends on the the state. In TX, if someone is trespassing, you can kill them w/o even asking them to leave.
ReplyDeleteHere in NJ it is Equal Force. If someone breaks into your house carrying a knife, and you shoot them, you will be going to jail for murder and will be sued. Same if they had a baseball bat and you stab em. To be safe, you need a throwaway gun or plenty of land to bury em on.
Just go to Wikipedia & check out the Castle Doctrine states.
DeleteAlaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania & Wisconsin all have absolute Castle Doctrine laws.
No retreat is required within your dwelling & use of deadly force is permitted with no prosecution permitted of the home owner & renter or other lawful occupant. In those states.
Illinois specifically prohibits suing any lawful dweller from being sued.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#States_with_a_castle_law
Maxxy: Are you dumb enough to think he wouldn't have killed her if he didn't have a gun?
ReplyDeleteJordan has a friend. How nice.
ReplyDelete@Maxxy: If I am wrong, then please answer the question: Do you think he wouldn't have killed her if he didn't have a gun?
ReplyDeleteI don't know Jordan from a hole in the wall, but I can spot dumb and narrow minded views pretty easily.
I just researched this and now don't completely agree with Enty's assessment that it was "definitely not a day for justice". It's not over yet.
ReplyDeleteOther excerpts from Judge Masipa:
"That, however, is not the end of the matter," Masipa said, pausing for lunch before returning briefly to begin considering the notion of "culpable homicide" - similar to a manslaughter charge in the U.S.
She told the court that there was "no reason nor explanation" why Pistorius didn't call for help if he suspected an intruder and why he instead picked up a loaded gun.
"In the circumstances, it is clear that his conduct was negligent," she said, then abruptly adjourned court for the day. The verdict will continue on Friday.
Remember, there are times when the prosecution simply doesn't make a good enough case. It can seem like a slam dunk to those of us watching from outside, but the judge and the jury are to make their decisions based only on what is presented by the prosecution. Bad prosecutors can lose what seem like obviously guilty cases.
ReplyDeleteOur local prosecuting attorney is so bad he couldn't have gotten Bin Laden convicted in New York City.
Agree with this, too bad it's so far down.
DeleteI always thought the premeditated murder charge was a huge reach. I have always wondered why the prosecution went for that instead of the low hanging negligent homicide charges.
ReplyDelete@maxxy, I think what @Count was trying to say was he would have killed her anyway, gun or no gun. (Note: I am not pro-gun at all.)
ReplyDelete@HudsonJoe, I wondered about that, too. It didn't seem premeditated, more like dude was strung out and violent. Unless taking steroids counts as premeditation, it really does seem like they were reaching.
@Seven, that's what I interpreted also, thanks.
ReplyDeleteSorry guys, just trying to speak generally about how the US might differ from their laws. I'm certainly no expert. I'm not in a legal profession by any means. I was thinking of a case recently from my home town where a homeowner shot & killed a drunk guy on his porch who went to the wrong house. The guy was unarmed & the homeowner was indoors but rather than call 911, the homeowner shot & killed the man. He was not convicted of anything.
ReplyDeleteI only meant to say that for Pistorius, the case seems to boil down to his state of mind & intent which we'll never know.
Its important to remember the judge or jury has to deliberate and rule on the EVIDENCE PROVIDED. If prosection or defense did not do a good job, the judge or jury cant fill in the gaps, they hv to soley go on evidence presented. For example, not to pick and old scab, in oj's trial there was missing blood, and a broken chain of evidence. So not without reasonable doubt his blood may hv been planted on bloody sock. No i and zillions of others dont believe that, but a jury cant speculate; the bloods unaccounted fir, it COULD hv happened. Anyway, i dont know laws in south africa, in they hv reasonable doubt. He seems guilty, but i cldnt say with 100% sureness.
ReplyDelete@liddy-agree 100%
ReplyDeleteJust tried to make a funny at kimyes expense....cuz they are all migraines in my world that-band of idiots...
This is a monumental travesty of Justice. I feel sick about it for the family of the victim.
ReplyDeleteUnfuckingreal. But if she had shot and killed him while in fear for her life during an episode of domestic violence, bet the judge would have locked her up for life. R.I.P., Reva and all the innocents who were victims of domestic violence. And prayers that all who are suffering now find the strength to get out and start over. Where there's life, there's hope.
ReplyDeleteThat all said, I do agree with everyone who said the "premeditated" charge was a huge tactical error.
DeleteBased on the summary it looks like the Judge is going to find him guilty of negligent homicide.
ReplyDeleteI hope Reeva haunts the shit out of him - pulls some Poltergeist moves or something
ReplyDeleteHe did it
The prosecution didn't prove premeditation, simple as that.
ReplyDeleteThe judge's closing statements (e.g. "The accused acted too hastily and used excessive force") indicate that she's going to find him guilty of the lesser charge (which carries a maximum sentence of 15 years).
I am clearly an outsider, so please excuse any ignorance on my part, but South Africa and the U.S.A. seem to share a culture of fear, making guns seem necessary for protection or even survival. Don't you think this is a form of mass hysteria?
ReplyDeleteWhen you shoot through a door, YOU KNOW you are going to cause great bodily injury and or death. Negligence is like leaving your gun in a non secure location, and a kid picks it up and fires it. This is a disgusting verdict. That Judge didn't give a damn about the beautiful WHITE woman victim. We saw this in the OJ case, where mostly black women let OJ get away with killing a beautiful white woman and a white man.
ReplyDeleteI haven't been following any of the trial or the killer dude or the dead girl. So while I feel sad for the victims family, this shit is boring as fuck. Lol
ReplyDeleteI would like to hear from someone with a legal background that sat through the entire trial and see if they agree with judge's ruling.
ReplyDeleteYoj, i don't know about South America, but in the USA the right to keep and bear arms has been enshrined in the Constitution for over 200 years. This predates any "culture of fear" that might or might not be present today.
ReplyDeleteWell said, Bug Eyes.
ReplyDelete@0_0
ReplyDeleteOoooookay, I don't want to step on any toes here.
I am aware of the content of the second amendment. It's creation was influenced by the seventeenth-century English Bill of Rights, in that the right to bear arms was a codicil to the right to self-defense. Starting with the 1920 Firearms Act, the sale and possession of certain firearms has been restricted under UK law. Constitutions are living things, they evolve to reflect the changing experiences and priorities of the society they protect.
My comment regarding the climate of fear was not an attack on your right as American citizens to possess a firearm, but rather a question as to why you feel you need to.
Yoj, for me, I have been a victim and won't EVER allow it to happen again, to me or my children. It's nice that you and others here seem to think that we live in a safe, orderly world where violence can't ever happen to you, but that's not reality. If you choose to rely on others for your safety, that's cool, but there are bad people out there and I'm not willing to trust others to that extent. If someone broke into my home, I would shoot them until the gun was empty and do my damn best to kill them. Actions have consequences, sometimes not the ones you want, but when you commit crimes sometimes you pay with your life. I'm certainly not going to ask them why they're there or "shoot to wound" (sorry but that is totally idiotic and anyone who says that must have zero experience with firearms outside of what they've seen from Hollywood), I will remove the threat and never apologize for it.
ReplyDeleteConstitutions do evolve, as do laws. The US has made it easier to get concealed carry in most of the states and have relaxed gun laws. SOMEONE is voting for this, so apparently the American people want less restrictions on their right to self-defense. You rarely if ever hear about the times guns save lives, but the media makes damn sure to tell you every time some thug gets himself killed committing a crime and then paint the guy as a poor innocent lamb that was a victim of some evil gun owner's uncontrollable desire to just cold-bloodedly murder someone. Yeah right.
So basically, if you don't like guns, don't own one. Nobody is forcing you to own one and if you aren't a thug piece of crap your likelihood of getting shot is almost zero. However you do NOT have the right to tell others that they can't have the most basic right of all, the right to defend themselves. All of these other "rights" people screech about, yet nobody seems to care about that one. Unreal.
What I want to know is why do non Americans seem to have such strong opinions on our Second Amendment? You don't have guns, nobody here cares how many of you are victims of crime, or about your laws or anything, so why do you care about ours? Do it your way, and we'll do it our way.
@astra worthington
ReplyDeleteThank you for your candour, astra. I apologize for causing offence, such was not my intention. I was genuinely seeking to understand.
It's total BS that he was in any kind of fear. His story is so bad even the Judge said he was a terrible witness. His story is a concoction, he starts shooting blindly and doesn't notice that his girlfriend is not asleep next to him in the bed? Bull. She had her cell phone in there, she was going to call someone, they had been fighting, and he killed her rather than let her call for help.
ReplyDeleteYoj, sorry if I come across as an ass, that's not my intention. I know it's probably hard to understand some of our ways in the States. When I went to the UK I was confused at a lot of the stuff you guys do, so I can see where you're coming from.
ReplyDeleteI mostly just get pissed at people who are determined to gut yet another part of the Bill of Rights because they don't like or understand guns. I'm talking about Americans, ones who will (rightfully) complain about the Patriot Act, and other freedom destroying stuff, but turn right around and want to restrict the rights they have a problem with.
What American's can't understand is the climate of fear in South Africa among whites - fear of black South Africans.
ReplyDeleteThat might put Oscar Pistorius's actions in a different frame. Not to mention he couldn't run, or even walk, without his prostheses on so he might have felt especially vulnerable when he thought he heard intruders.
White Fear in South Africa
@astra worthington
ReplyDeleteNot at all, astra. I understand that it's a sensitive subject. I find it difficult to strike the right tone online and sometimes I come across as self-righteous.
Not having any American friends, I thought I'd ask CDaN readers about an issue that I'm curious about and I do appreciate your responding.
Just in time for 2016 Olympic qualifyer too.
ReplyDelete