Ahh... there was a bit more to the trial than that, Valley. If anybody can come up with anything more than a throwaway line that he's "getting away with it 'cos he's famous" then you may have something. But you haven't.
to be fair dragon, asking a layman to analyse the outcome of this trial is the equivalent of asking vincent tan to advise a surgeon on how to perform heart surgery. its far, far more complicated than most people think, and why the the person passing judgement has studied and practiced the law for many years to be in that position.
Agreed, Swamp - there are times when jury trials work but there's a lot to be said for judge-led trials imo. This particular judge has impressed me - very logical and very sound, stripping away emotion just as she should. If she doesn't convict him tomorrow of culpable homicide then I'll change my mind.
Strange how they do not have juries in South Africa? Maybe the verdict would have been different then. Beyond reasonable doubt still applies though.
Seen this on the Sunderland board, Roses are red, violets are glorious but don't try and surprise Oscar Pistorius .
No don't. I think the jury system was dispensed with in South Africa because of racial bias on juries musty - I'm sure I read that somewhere. Jury trials are a lottery imo - sometimes common sense prevails but sometimes it only takes a few nutjob jurors on the same jury to cause mayhem. They say the strength of a jury is collective common sense but how many people do you know who haven't got any common sense at all? I can think of a few. I actually think you're on safer ground with a judge because of the training and experience that goes with it. Maybe a panel of three.
I actually think you're on safer ground with a judge because of the training and experience that goes with it. Maybe a panel of three. Or if you are a big celebrity who can afford the best lawyers.......that man has got away with murder and whatever he gets now is no way near enough....his girlfriends family must feel cheated as money and status rules again...
as i expected. he never provided a credible account of how his mindset and actions fitted that of a RP, plus gave different explanations when pressed: 1) shot without thinking 2) shot in fear of his life only pistorius himself truly knows what happened that day, and anyone saying he got off as he's a celebrity just doesn't know how the legal system works. they can afford the better representation but thats it. people that keep saying that need to know the distinction between legal and moral justice.
The most important fact of all this is that Reena is dead. The verdict on what happened will not change that fact. All this is about how long a sentence he will get. Whether it was intentional or not - if you shoot a gun in someones direction - what do you expect to happen ??? It just doesn't sit quite right that he could possibly end up spending his sentence under house arrest or even a fine !!! Remember the drink drive advert that said "if you drink and drive, whatever happens is no accident" The same can be said for shooting a gun - whatever happens is no accident.
Well there are extremes here aren't there Stereo - you're comment is lacking in legal accuracy. No offence. The judge has already said it wasn't an accident. The court has correctly found on the evidence, bearing in mind the judge has to be sure of guilt, that he shot and killed the person behind the door believing it to be someone else but also being negligent in doing so because there were other options open to him - retreating away, calling the police and so on. The judge had to do that because although circumstantial evidence can be powerful, in the absence of other corroborating facts to support the Prosecution's assertion that he knew it was Reeva, coupled with a plausible explanation from the defendant (which wasn't completely destroyed by said Prosecution) she was left with no alternative because the defendant in any civilised country has to be given the benefit of the doubt. The range of sentence is very wide but I'll be surprised if he doesn't go down for a considerable period of time. If he doesn't the Judge has then got it wrong imo. Don't forget he breached gun laws by having that gun and illegal ammuniton in the house anyway - a clear aggravating factor. I always thought Pistorius was a bit of a twat to be honest but he's finished now and although what happened to Reeva was shocking more than one family has been destroyed by this idiot.
That is very true and is one of the reasons we don't have true justice in the world. But it's fact that famous people often have money, can afford better lawyers and therefore have more chance of being found no guilty, whether they are or not. A poor person can afford the fees to make such a robust defence. You mostly get what you pay for. I think celebrities also have an advantage because often people just can't believe they'd do something so bad. It's been proven many times that juries don't only judge the facts, as they are supposed to do. There was a program on years ago where the viewers got to vote for guilty or not guilty. What the viewers didn't realize is that the exact same version of the facts were shown to everyone, but in different parts of the country they showed different defendants. I can't quite remember, but I think one was a typically respectable, clean shaven man in a suit, while the other was a scruffy looking git that looked more like your stereotypical criminal. Views were told to find guilty or not based only on the facts. The scruffy man was found guilty by a much larger percentage of people. I guess the same would be true about a well-presented celebrity. They are not your typical criminal so probably get the benefit of any doubt from the majority of people. Same with family. Many refuse t believe a family member did wrong even if they are caught red-handed.
