egafd.com

Sam Slater wrote:

> My thoughts on this are clear. The 'mistake' the judge was
> referring to wasn't 'mistakenly killing someone/anyone' but
> mistakenly killing Reeva.


Yes, exactly right.

Although to be fair to the judge, the state never argued that Oscar was responsible for killing someone/anyone. The prosection case was specifically that Oscar intended to kill Reeva.

Some people are arguing that the judge got into something of a muddle on this point, but I believe the prosection were at fault for not simply arguing that whoever was behind the door was the murder victim.

"The judge decided that while Pistorius ought to have known there was a chance he could kill Reeva by shooting into the bathroom (meaning culpable homicide), it doesn't mean he must have known if his defense was that he thought she was behind him in bed, in a totally different direction to where he was aiming and firing."

I have already stated the exact same thing by defining the difference between culpable homicide and murder in South African law.

I suspect the confusion lies with your good self, Sam.

[quote]Although to be fair to the judge, the state never argued that Oscar was responsible for killing someone/anyone. The prosection case was specifically that Oscar intended to kill Reeva. [/quote]

Exactly.

"David just gets confused when it comes to my posts which I put down to his desperation in trying to undermine everything I say due to his long-standing stance that I'm someone who needs knocking down a peg or two."

Please get away from this over-emotional sense of "victimhood" that you appear obsessed with.

If I disagree with your post, I explain why. Simple as that. If people do not agree with me, like James or Max. Fine. I reply to them addressing what appears to be the reasons for their disagreement. If James still thinks I am talking complete nonsense. Fine. We agree to differ.

You do not seem able to cope with that, hence your refusal to even reply to me.

As David points out, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with me.

There is, though, a difference in that he doesn't go around the forums telling people about Max's or James' past indiscretions and fallings out an attempt to cause rifts between those forumites like he does me. David does not take sides with other forumites on subjects he doesn't even agree with that forumite on, purely as a political move (your enemy's enemy is your friend) against Max or James.....only with me (see gun thread with Robches for details).

So as you can see, while David is right, he's being -yet again- purposely disingenuous. A trait he cannot seem to shake off.

And, as you all know, the reason I won't reply to any of his posts is that he has refused to apologise for offending me re Liverpool supporters, implying I didn't give a fuck about them dying, and has nothing to do with me being unable to respond to any of his points. He's had plenty of opportunity and time to apologise and because he hasn't one can only assume it is David who really doesn't want me to respond. He is just taking advantage of having the opportunity to criticise me knowing I won't come back directly at him. Again, he's being disingenuous. Deceiving people seems to be second nature to the man.

Yes and I suspect that horrible, nasty Robches hasn't acquiesced to your reguest that he should apologise to you over the last thread in which he discussed guns to you.

People are so horrible to you, aren't they? No wonder you complain!

David Johnson wrote:

> " So is this fixable on appeal?"
>
> No idea.


The answer is that if the prosecution feel that the judge made the wrong decision based on a wrong finding of fact it cannot be corrected by appealing. However if the prosecution feel that the judge made the wrong decision based on a wrong application of the law then a correction by the court of appeal is possible.

This is because the judge's finding of fact is final, but her application of the law can always be contested.

BREAKING NEWS:

SA prosecutors says they are appealing Oscar Pistorius' conviction and sentence for the killing of Reeva Steenkamp.

Thanks for the clarification.

I am not surprised that the Pistorius team are appealing the conviction. All we appear to know at the moment is that it is "over a question of law".

Although my initial comment was that the sentence seemed ridiculously lenient by UK standards, I also suspect that the sentence for a culpable homicide verdict was lenient by South African standards.

The judge said Pistorius "failed to take any steps to avoid the death",[ "acted too hastily and used excessive force" and his actions were clearly negligent in pumping bullets into a closed bathroom.

He could have got 15 years for this charge under South African law.

In addition he was found guilty of discharging a firearm in a restaurant which further emphasised his rashness with weapons and could have resulted in an additional 3 years tacked on to the 15 years. Instead the sentence is to run concurrently with the culpable homicide sentence.

This seems somewhat lenient given what he might have ended up with for such a serious case as this.