Pistorius trial.

[cee-dee]

I see it's all being strung out again?

Over here, after a verdict, people are often "remanded for reports" and a date for sentencing is often a month later. Once done, there's no rambling like they're doing in SA.

It seems they're almost doing the reports live in Court?

[**bustysinclaire**]

---

@joe_bloggs* wrote:

Something tells me if it had been a poor black farm worker accused of the same crime the outcome would have been very different

---

I don't think that myself, as the Judge is black herself.

I haven't watched the whole episode, what I did watch today though was the accused being sentenced and the Judge in my honest opinion has done a very hard but good job.  She has looked at the justice system in her own country and weighed up the evidences and come to a conclusion accordingly, as far as I can see she has not been swayed by just opinion of rich or poor etc.

We have seen a very irresponsible man who plays with guns get punished.

[fallen-archie]

Something tells me that any poor able bodied person breaking in to the property was at risk of being shot, on the other hand had this been a poor limbless black would he have been in a property worth breaking into?

[tommy.irene]

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and to express it - doesn't stop it being a presumptive one though 🙂

---

Isn't it presumptive to assume another person's opinion is presumptive in that one person can never know exactly what another person knows?

[fallen-archie]

In the law of evidence, a presumption of a particular fact can be made without the aid of proof in some situations. The types of presumption includes a rebuttable discretionary presumption, a rebuttable mandatory presumption, and an irrebuttable or conclusive presumption. The invocation of a presumption shifts the burden of proof from one party to the opposing party in a court trial. Presumptions are sometimes categorized into two types: presumptions without basic facts, and presumptions with basic facts. In the United States, mandatory presumptions are impermissible in criminal cases, but permissible presumptions are allowed.

[sir_arthur_strebe-grebling]

The irony is that Oscar Pistorius will wake up this morning and there really will be a burglar using his toilet.

[cee-dee]

Looks like we're to be treated to a re-run all over again?:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29786011

[sir_arthur_strebe-grebling]

But South Africa has returned to normal, with three black men killing another, this time the captain of the national football team.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29785772

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@sir_arthur_strebe-grebling wrote:

But South Africa has returned to normal, with three black men killing another, this time the captain of the national football team.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29785772

---

. . . . . . and if Senzo Meyiwa had shot the intruders through a door he'd have probably got 5 years with some demanding a tougher sentence!

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

You are overlooking a crucial difference.

In one scenario, multiple armed intruders were in the room with the occupants (which included a small child).  In the other, an intruder, maybe or maybe not armed, was at best a figment of the imagination and at worst a concoction to cover up a hot-tempered murder.

I don't think 5 yrs is too short, BTW.  I do think 10 mths, in a single room (as it was referred to, not "cell"), in a hospital wing is, especially when these conditions were negotiated in advance of the sentence being delivered ... and in advance of the judge piously intoning "We cannot have one law for the rich and famous and one law for the poor".  Are we to believe then that every person convicted of manslaughter and given a 5 yr sentence is afforded these concessions? 

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@**caution**opinion_ahead wrote:

You are overlooking a crucial difference.

In one scenario, multiple armed intruders were in the room with the occupants (which included a small child).  In the other, an intruder, maybe or maybe not armed, was at best a figment of the imagination and at worst a concoction to cover up a hot-tempered murder.

I don't think 5 yrs is too short, BTW.  I do think 10 mths, in a single room (as it was referred to, not "cell"), in a hospital wing is, especially when these conditions were negotiated in advance of the sentence being delivered ... and in advance of the judge piously intoning "We cannot have one law for the rich and famous and one law for the poor".  Are we to believe then that every person convicted of manslaughter and given a 5 yr sentence is afforded these concessions? 

---

The crucial difference is that OP took preemptive action to prevent what he thought were intruder/intruders from getting into the area where he and his girlfriend were.

In the case of Senzo Meyiwa he did not have this opportunity to take action and ended up dead!

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

---

@**caution**opinion_ahead wrote:

You are overlooking a crucial difference.

In one scenario, multiple armed intruders were in the room with the occupants (which included a small child).  In the other, an intruder, maybe or maybe not armed, was at best a figment of the imagination and at worst a concoction to cover up a hot-tempered murder.

I don't think 5 yrs is too short, BTW.  I do think 10 mths, in a single room (as it was referred to, not "cell"), in a hospital wing is, especially when these conditions were negotiated in advance of the sentence being delivered ... and in advance of the judge piously intoning "We cannot have one law for the rich and famous and one law for the poor".  Are we to believe then that every person convicted of manslaughter and given a 5 yr sentence is afforded these concessions? 

---

The crucial difference is that OP took preemptive action to prevent what he thought were intruder/intruders from getting into the area where he and his girlfriend were.

In the case of Senzo Meyiwa he did not have this opportunity to take action and ended up dead!

---

That's inaccurate.   The OP said he took preemptive action to prevent what he said he thought was an intruder.

You said if Meylwa had shot dead one or more of the actual armed intruders in his actual room that some of us unreasonable posters here would be baying for him to be jailed and complaining about the shortness of the sentence.  I'm saying the two situations were not comparable.  One person was in actual danger of the being killed (and, indeed, was).  The other had an overactive imagination and a short fuse and a gun to hand.  Your implication that some posters here would not be able to see the difference is quite illuminating on your take, not theirs.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@**caution**opinion_ahead wrote:

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

---

@**caution**opinion_ahead wrote:

You are overlooking a crucial difference.

In one scenario, multiple armed intruders were in the room with the occupants (which included a small child).  In the other, an intruder, maybe or maybe not armed, was at best a figment of the imagination and at worst a concoction to cover up a hot-tempered murder.

I don't think 5 yrs is too short, BTW.  I do think 10 mths, in a single room (as it was referred to, not "cell"), in a hospital wing is, especially when these conditions were negotiated in advance of the sentence being delivered ... and in advance of the judge piously intoning "We cannot have one law for the rich and famous and one law for the poor".  Are we to believe then that every person convicted of manslaughter and given a 5 yr sentence is afforded these concessions? 

---

The crucial difference is that OP took preemptive action to prevent what he thought were intruder/intruders from getting into the area where he and his girlfriend were.

In the case of Senzo Meyiwa he did not have this opportunity to take action and ended up dead!

---

That's inaccurate.   The OP said he took preemptive action to prevent what he said he thought was an intruder.

You said if Meylwa had shot dead one or more of the actual armed intruders in his actual room that some of us unreasonable posters here would be baying for him to be jailed and complaining about the shortness of the sentence.  I'm saying the two situations were not comparable.  One person was in actual danger of the being killed (and, indeed, was).  The other had an overactive imagination and a short fuse and a gun to hand.  Your implication that some posters here would not be able to see the difference is quite illuminating on your take, not theirs.

---

No I did NOT!

Read what I wrote again - here it is -

". . . . . . and if Senzo Meyiwa had shot the intruders through a door he'd have probably got 5 years with some demanding a tougher sentence!"

[upthecreekyetagain]

The court accepted that OP thought it was an intruder in the bathroom - that's why the decision was not one of murder.  It's no point arguing that the verdict was wrong unless or and until an appeal against it is made - the same argument as in the Ched Evans case.

On that basis the sentence would have been the same had it been an intruder.

We do not have the same perception in this country of armed intruders entering our homes as they do in South Africa where it would appear to be relatively common.

[tommy.irene]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

---

@sir_arthur_strebe-grebling wrote:

But South Africa has returned to normal, with three black men killing another, this time the captain of the national football team.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29785772

---

. . . . . . and if Senzo Meyiwa had shot the intruders through a door he'd have probably got 5 years with some demanding a tougher sentence!

---

Why would he have got 5 years.. they were armed...its a pity he didnt have a gun to shoot them with..

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

The court accepted that OP thought it was an intruder in the bathroom - that's why the decision was not one of murder.

---

Indeed.  And 5 yrs is a reasonable term for manslaughter in these cirs. 

But your presumption that some of us would want a person who shot an actual intruder, who was armed and not alone, jailed for the same term or longer is unreasonable as the two situations are not comparable.  One involved perceived menace (at best), the other actual.  One involved an innocent unarmed bystander getting killed, the other would involve the death of an armed intruder.

[electric*mayhem*band]

Meanwhile, back in Pretoria's Kgosi Mampuru prison...In possibly 10/24 months, will we see Pistorious embarking on the usual round of celebrity TV/Radio chat shows to publicise his book, and will there be a film of his life story, starring  Zebedee as the discreditted athlete ?

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@**caution**opinion_ahead wrote:

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

The court accepted that OP thought it was an intruder in the bathroom - that's why the decision was not one of murder.

---

Indeed.  And 5 yrs is a reasonable term for manslaughter in these cirs. 

But your presumption that some of us would want a person who shot an actual intruder, who was armed and not alone, jailed for the same term or longer is unreasonable as the two situations are not comparable.  One involved perceived menace (at best), the other actual.  One involved an innocent unarmed bystander getting killed, the other would involve the death of an armed intruder.

---

I think you are missing the point - OP took preemptive action in order not to end up in the situation that Senzo Meyiwa found himself in.

Presumably if SM had been in a position to do so and had shot the intruders before they were in a position to pose a real threat he would have faced a manslaughter charge as well.

Precisely what I originally posted and you appeared to take exception to.

". . . . . . and if Senzo Meyiwa had shot the intruders through a door he'd have probably got 5 years with some demanding a tougher sentence!"

In the case of OP it ended in the tragic death of his girlfriend, in the case of SM it would have saved his life.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

Why would we be demanding a tougher sentence for someone who shot an actual armed intruder?  How is this comparable to shooting an unarmed bystander where no intruder is involved, never mind worse?

Had Pistorius shot an armed intruder, he probably would not have stood trial at all.  He did stand trial because there was no intruder and whether his explanation was justified needed to be examined. 

[fallen-archie]

It must be extremely difficult to judge a case like this given the nature of crime in the country. South Africa remains a dangerous place in city and suburbs, gun crime is so common that even when your house is surrounded by a huge electrified fence and numerous other deterrents it could be you that's targeted next, this gives credence to those who carry a gun for self defence and a perfect environment in which to commit the perfect crime were you to be that way inclined.