egafd.com

Pistorius was acquitted of pre-meditated murder of Steenkamp and the lesser murder charge of dolus eventualis.

In South African law, this charge - also known as common-law murder - applies if the accused knew they might kill someone but still went ahead with their course of action.

The BBC's Pumza Fihlani, who followed the athlete's trial, says the prosecution's grounds for appeal may lie with how the judge interpreted dolus eventualis.

The judge's critics have argued that dolus eventualis includes the possibility of meaning to kill one person and ending up killing another, our correspondent says.

We will see.......

David Johnson wrote:

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


And he could have been given no prison sentence at all, or only a suspended one, as has happened in other cases of culpable homicide in South Africa.

"And he could have been given no prison sentence at all, or only a suspended one, as has happened in other cases of culpable homicide in South Africa."

True.

But the point I am making is that it would have been possible for him to have been sentenced to 18 years imprisonment for the two offences he was judged to be guilty of.

So given the serious nature of the offences e.g. pumping bullets into a locked bathroom without issuing any warning and setting off a firearm in a crowded restaurant, a sentence of 5 years appears rather lenient in the circumstances.

David Johnson wrote:

> So given the serious nature of the offences e.g. pumping
> bullets into a locked bathroom without issuing any warning


But why would he have issued a warning? According to the judge Pistorius hadn't forseen that he would harm anyone, so it's illogical to say he should have issued a warning.

If Pistorius had forseen (in the judge's opinion) that he would harm anyone by shooting into the bathroom then the judge would have found him guilty of murder.

The crime that Pistorius was convicted of is clearly not the one that David Johnson thinks he was convicted of. The serious offence that David Johnson thinks Pistorius was convicted of is called murder.

Pistorius was actually convicted of culpable homicide - which means that in the judge's opinion it hadn't occurred to him that he might harm someone.

"But why would he have issued a warning? According to the judge Pistorius hadn't forseen that he would harm anyone, so it's illogical to say he should have issued a warning."

You appear to be getting very confused, James. You need to read the verdict in more detail.

Pistorius admitted that he believed that there was an intruder in the locked bathroom who posed a threat to both himself and Reeva Steenkamp.

The judge found him guilty of culpable homicide based on his reckless and negligent pumping of four bullets into a locked room. As the judge herself commented, in reaching that decision, Ristorius could have picked up his phone and called the police or security, He could have run to his balcony and screamed for help. Or indeed he could have shouted a warning believing as he did that there was an intruder in the locked bathroom.

Clearly it is not illogical in any way to state that he should have issued a warning alongside other potential options.

He did none of these - hence the reckless and negligent criticisms as part of the culpable homicide conviction.

"If Pistorius had forseen (in the judge's opinion) that he would harm anyone by shooting into the bathroom then the judge would have found him guilty of murder."

You appear to be going round in circles. I have already explained to you twice the difference between murder and culpable homicide in terms of "foreseeing the results of your actions". Why are you repeating to me something I have already told you about twice? Even if he had not foreseen the consequences, he could have carried out a number of different options as the judge herself remarked.

"The crime that Pistorius was convicted of is clearly not the one that David Johnson thinks he was convicted of. The serious offence that David Johnson thinks Pistorius was convicted of is called murder. "

Once again, this is laughable. I have already stated a number of times that he was guilty of culpable homicide and that this crime can result in a sentence of 15 years in South African law. I understand completely the offence that Pistorius was convicted of. Re-read the thread.

"Pistorius was actually convicted of culpable homicide - which means that in the judge's opinion it hadn't occurred to him that he might harm someone."

Again stop repeating back to me, what I have already stated more than once. I know he was convicted of culpable homicide.

I notice you completely fail to address why Pistorius got 5 years for two offences for which he could have got 18 years under South African law. Rather lenient eh, James?.

James, if you do reply to this post, unless you have something new in it, I won't reply because it is pointless just repeating to you the points which you use to state back to me as if they are "revelatory".

David Johnson wrote:

> You appear to be getting very confused, James. You need to
> read the verdict in more detail.
>
> Pistorius admitted that he believed that there was an intruder
> in the locked bathroom who posed a threat to both himself and
> Reeva Steenkamp.


Ha, David Johnson is a joker!

Pistorius admitted this did he?

You mean Pistorius CLAIMED that he believed that there was an intruder
in the locked bathroom.

And you're calling me confused!

David Johnson wrote:

> Clearly it is not illogical in any way to state that he should
> have issued a warning alongside other potential options.


It may not be illogical to you but it is illogical to most people. We will see whether the court of appeal finds it illogical or not.

You clearly have a lof of faith in the judge's reasoning, but we will see how the court of appeal regards her/your logic.

David Johnson wrote:

> I notice you completely fail to address why Pistorius got 5
> years for two offences for which he could have got 18 years
> under South African law. Rather lenient eh, James?.


You noticed wrong.

I agreed with Sam Slater that it was lenient, but not extraordinarily so.

I also commented later that he could well have been given a suspended sentence, which is often given in cases of culpable homicide.

He was only found guilty of 'negligence' after all.

Comparing actual sentences to maximums is largely irrelevant anyway. In this country for example the maximum sentence for grievous bodily harm is life imprisonment, but the usual sentence is 5 years.

I think the issue of maximum sentences is confusing you greatly. It's rare that criminals are given the maximum sentence they could be given or anything like it.

I'm afraid even desperate pedantry is not going to help you.

"You clearly have a lof of faith in the judge's reasoning, but we will see how the court of appeal regards her/your logic."

Again you appear to be completely confused. I am merely explaining to you the judge's verdict not stating whether I have a "lot of faith in the judges's reasoning.

For the final time, inherent in culpable homicide is negligence. The judge's view was that Pistorius in his actions showed negligence by firing into the locked bathroom without for example, shouting for help from the balcony, phoning the poiice etc. etc.