Pistorius

I wonder if Oscar Pestorius has really thought through his bad loser rant?

He is effectively saying that a runner can gain an unfair advantage from his/her 'blades', making them a better runner than they should be. By saying this he has surely just undermined all his arguments over recent years insisting on being allowed to run in able-bodied events? Because the logical follow-on from this is surely that it might give them an unfair advantage over able-bodied athletes, and might even make them a better runner than they would have been with normal legs.

And if it is possible to gain an advantage from some sorts of prosthetics, given the corruption, drug-taking etc, that is rife in top sporting events ,how long before someone has completely medically unnecessary surgical enhancements to make them more competitive? There are already suggestions that the Chinese are pretty much genetically engineering swimmers for the able-bodied Olympics.

I see he has apologised for making the rant but not for the content. A very sore loser, the other guys prosthetics were perfectly legal even if they are higher than his. Pestorius has his at that height as he wanted to compete in the Olympics and that was the tested height. If he wants to have his higher he can if he goes through the testing again.

Still don't think he should have been allowed to run in both olympics

I see he has apologised for making the rant but not for the content. A very sore loser, the other guys prosthetics were perfectly legal even if they are higher than his. Pestorius has his at that height as he wanted to compete in the Olympics and that was the tested height. If he wants to have his higher he can if he goes through the testing again.

 

Still don't think he should have been allowed to run in both olympics

Agreed; Pistorius wants to have his cake and eat it.

The other fella did look really tall though.

Would be interested to see the stats, ie his time for the last 100m.

I wonder if Oscar Pestorius has really thought through his bad loser rant?

 

He is effectively saying that a runner can gain an unfair advantage from his/her 'blades', making them a better runner than they should be. By saying this he has surely just undermined all his arguments over recent years insisting on being allowed to run in able-bodied events? Because the logical follow-on from this is surely that it might give them an unfair advantage over able-bodied athletes, and might even make them a better runner than they would have been with normal legs.

 

 

And if it is possible to gain an advantage from some sorts of prosthetics, given the corruption, drug-taking etc, that is rife in top sporting events ,how long before someone has completely medically unnecessary surgical enhancements to make them more competitive? There are already suggestions that the Chinese are pretty much genetically engineering swimmers for the able-bodied Olympics.

I think the point is that Pistorius has worked with the IAAF to ensure that the length of his "legs" doesn't provide him with an advantage over able-bodied people.

The Brazilian that beat him has only had his "legs" ok'd by the governing body for paralympics - which obviously has less strict rules.

Pistorius was wrong to say what he did when he did. He has released a statement this morning saying exactly that and congratulating the winner.

But his point last night was valid. He was 8m clear, doing 10m/sec and the guy closed the distance over 50m.

You could see it looked wrong but was obviously valid under the current rules.

Still don't think he should have been allowed to run in both olympics

This!

His rant is a bit like an able bodied athlete moaning about another able bodied athlete having an advantage for having longer legs (although of course an able bodied athlete doesn't have the option of changing his/her legs!).

Key thing here for me is that Pistorius is entitled to have similar blades to the Brazilian... he uses his blades because they are IAAF approved, but there is nothing to stop him using longer blades in the Paralympics. All rather silly IMO, a bit like a Formula 1 team complaining that another teams front wing is better than their own, and not recognising that they could use the same wing if they wanted to/had the ability to develop it.

I was listening to someone who knows all about these blades. He said that the length of the blades is related to the athlete's centre of gravity. He said that if an athlete has blades that are disproportionally long to his / her centre of gravity, he or she is more likely to fall over than to complete the race.

I think there should be a level playing field for these athletes I rhino petireous comments were ill timed. He is right to question it as abled athletes questioned petireous Unfair advantage. There are other less abled questioning the classification of others . Even the organisers got it wrong by giving the wrong gold and silver to two athletes . Instead of giving the gold and silver to the correct winners they produced another gold and silver to give to the true winners while the other two kept their medals . Also only a quarter of the winners are being tested for drugs as there are two many to screen . There are many who are looking for parity with abled athletes . It's a shame for all those taking part that these issues were not resolved before the start of the games as it deflects away from the true spirit of the Paralympics

I think the point is that Pistorius has worked with the IAAF to ensure that the length of his "legs" doesn't provide him with an advantage over able-bodied people.

 

The Brazilian that beat him has only had his "legs" ok'd by the governing body for paralympics - which obviously has less strict rules.

 

Pistorius was wrong to say what he did when he did. He has released a statement this morning saying exactly that and congratulating the winner.

 

But his point last night was valid. He was 8m clear, doing 10m/sec and the guy closed the distance over 50m.

 

You could see it looked wrong but was obviously valid under the current rules.

They looked longer yes, and he did overtake strongly down the straight (as Pistorius usually does to others btw) BUT, if you look at a replay he was striding very quickly ..more paces per minute than pistorius .. so the issue was not simply the length of his stride, which is presumably all that the length of the blades affects.

The trouble is, once the paralympics stopped just being therapy for the disabled competitors and started being treated as high level competitive sport, all the boundaries, classifications, rules, etc, came under strain. The whole thing went badly wrong a few years back when the spanish put in a team of 'learning disabled' players ..who weren't. How could those gits live with themselves?

Good points ken and I forgot about the Spanish cheats

Not guilty of murder

Not guilty of murder

Can't believe this verdict. The prosecution really c*cked their case up.

Irrespective of whether he really believed that there was an intruder in the house, he knew she was there and shot through the door without knowing who was behind it. Wouldn't you check? If he gets away with manslaughter it I beyond joke. Her family must be devastated.

Seems pretty obvious to me that without knowing for certain he would hit the person on the other side of the door, whomever they were, he couldn't be guilty of murder.

He can still get 15 years for Common-law murder, which is intent to kill in the heat of the moment moment without "malice aforethought" if they decide he meant to kill or that someone might be killed if he shot at the door, which sounds pretty much the definition of the situation.

Helpful chart on the BBC website :

Verdict What it means Sentence

Premeditated murder Intended and planned to unlawfully kill Reeva Steenkamp, or an intruder Mandatory life term - 25 years before parole

Common-law murder Unlawfully intended to kill in the heat of the moment but without "malice aforethought". Either: Shot door intending to kill, or knew someone might be killed and still fired gun Minimum of 15 years up to 20 years, at judge's discretion

Culpable homicide (manslaughter) No intention to kill. Takes into account disability, but actions negligent and not in keeping with a reasonable person Maximum of 15 years, possibly between seven and 10 years

Discharging a firearm in public Two counts for allegedly firing a gun through a car sunroof and discharging a gun at a restaurant A fine or up to five years - for each charge

Illegal possession of ammunition In possession of .38 bullets for which he has no licence A fine or up to 15 years

Anyway, he's er, dodged a bullet and doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Seems pretty obvious to me that without knowing for certain he would hit the person on the other side of the door, whomever they were, he couldn't be guilty of murder.

 

He can still get 15 years for Common-law murder, which is intent to kill in the heat of the moment moment without "malice aforethought" if they decide he meant to kill or that someone might be killed if he shot at the door, which sounds pretty much the definition of the situation.

 

Helpful chart on the BBC website :

 

Verdict What it means Sentence

Premeditated murder Intended and planned to unlawfully kill Reeva Steenkamp, or an intruder Mandatory life term - 25 years before parole

Common-law murder Unlawfully intended to kill in the heat of the moment but without "malice aforethought". Either: Shot door intending to kill, or knew someone might be killed and still fired gun Minimum of 15 years up to 20 years, at judge's discretionCulpable homicide (manslaughter) No intention to kill. Takes into account disability, but actions negligent and not in keeping with a reasonable person Maximum of 15 years, possibly between seven and 10 yearsDischarging a firearm in public Two counts for allegedly firing a gun through a car sunroof and discharging a gun at a restaurant A fine or up to five years - for each charge

Illegal possession of ammunition In possession of .38 bullets for which he has no licence A fine or up to 15 years

He has been found not guilty on ALL murder charges, the last charge (Which he will be found guilty of IMO) is culpable homicide

I think he's getting at least 7 years under culpable homicide - could be 7-15 depending on how feasible the judge thinks his story is, could be 15-20 if she decides he intended to kill, whomever it was behind the door.

He has been found not guilty on ALL murder charges, the last charge (Which he will be found guilty of IMO) is culpable homicide

Didn't realise that they'd ruled out all possibility of murder (based on the definitions above I'd have though "knew someone might be killed" would have covered it) but yeah, still coming to the same conclusion about 7-15 years.

My immediate thought was it's OJ all over again, but when you look at the detail....

The prosecution has failed to prove his intent.

Personally I suspect he did it intentionally, but only the two of them know - there is no proof.

So that judgement is probably a fair ruling with the evidence.

If however he is cleared of the other charges then there is a big question mark over the whole thing.

I expect him to be found guilty on the other charges and jailed, hopefully for a long enough term so that most reasonable people think that some justice has been served.

Didn't realise that they'd ruled out all possibility of murder (based on the definitions above I'd have though "knew someone might be killed" would have covered it) but yeah, still coming to the same conclusion about 7-15 years.

Yep, he clearly intended to do someone serious harm. Fire a gun at someone and there is a good chance they will be seriously injured.

What I cant get my head around is that if I hear a noise at night and my wife isn't in bed with me I assume she is making the noise. I don't think that the argument issue needed to be proved. There was an even chance that the person in the bathroom was Reeva.

Thought that the prosecuting counsel played it like it was an American court room TV drama and was very poor.

My immediate thought was it's OJ all over again, but when you look at the detail....

 

The prosecution has failed to prove his intent.

Personally I suspect he did it intentionally, but only the two of them know - there is no proof.

So that judgement is probably a fair ruling with the evidence.

 

If however he is cleared of the other charges then there is a big question mark over the whole thing.

I expect him to be found guilty on the other charges and jailed, hopefully for a long enough term so that most reasonable people think that some justice has been served.

This. Pistorius seems very emotionally volatile. I can well imagine him getting into a row with her and firing in rage through the door then regretting it. That is the most likely explanation but its not beyond all reasonable doubt.

Shocking that he has got off. It was so obviously murder.

Another victory for money over justice.

My immediate thought was it's OJ all over again, but when you look at the detail....

 

The prosecution has failed to prove his intent.

Personally I suspect he did it intentionally, but only the two of them know - there is no proof.

So that judgement is probably a fair ruling with the evidence.

 

If however he is cleared of the other charges then there is a big question mark over the whole thing.

I expect him to be found guilty on the other charges and jailed, hopefully for a long enough term so that most reasonable people think that some justice has been served.

Well put. The missing element is intent. You can't convict on "of course he meant to kill her, it's obvious". The prosecution couldn't prove he intended to kill her, therefore, not murder.

His recklessness as to the impact of his actions will no doubt be enough to prove guilt for culpable homicide and this alone carries significant sentencing powers. Together with the firearms charges, I imagine he will be given a lengthy sentence. Not that it'll ever be enough for those who have decided on his guilt by picking up bits and pieces here and there.

I love a bit of pestorius on my pasta!

My immediate thought was it's OJ all over again, but when you look at the detail....

 

The prosecution has failed to prove his intent.

Personally I suspect he did it intentionally, but only the two of them know - there is no proof.

So that judgement is probably a fair ruling with the evidence.

 

If however he is cleared of the other charges then there is a big question mark over the whole thing.

I expect him to be found guilty on the other charges and jailed, hopefully for a long enough term so that most reasonable people think that some justice has been served.

Well put. The missing element is intent. You can't convict on "of course he meant to kill her, it's obvious". The prosecution couldn't prove he intended to kill her, therefore, not murder.

 

His recklessness as to the impact of his actions will no doubt be enough to prove guilt for culpable homicide and this alone carries significant sentencing powers. Together with the firearms charges, I imagine he will be given a lengthy sentence. Not that it'll ever be enough for those who have decided on his guilt by picking up bits and pieces here and there.

WHy the question mark over his intent? What else his intention of firing his gun through into the bathroom where his girlfriend is?

South African foreplay can seem odd, and slightly primitive to outsiders sometimes.

South African foreplay can seem odd, and slightly primitive to outsiders sometimes.

:lol:

WHy the question mark over his intent? What else his intention of firing his gun through into the bathroom where his girlfriend is?

Exactly. Amazingly these are the judges own words:

"The accused had the intention to shoot at the person behind the door, not to kill."

I'm not sure you how you are supposed to shoot someone 4 times, with dum dum bullets, from close range, and not intend to kill.

You need an imagination of a 12 year old to believe Pistorius' account of what happened. If you hear a noise in the night (and we all have) the first thing anyone does is wake their partner.

Rich white boy gets away with murder in South Africa, I'm not sure why I'm even surprised.

 

Rich white boy gets away with murder in South Africa, I'm not sure why I'm even surprised.

http://www.sickipedia.org/celebrities/oscar-pistorius/absolutely-shocking-news-from-south-africa-white-man-arrested-for-1436091

Exactly. Amazingly these are the judges own words:

 

"The accused had the intention to shoot at the person behind the door, not to kill."

 

I'm not sure you how you are supposed to shoot someone 4 times, with dum dum bullets, from close range, and not intend to kill.

 

You need an imagination of a 12 year old to believe Pistorius' account of what happened. If you hear a noise in the night (and we all have) the first thing anyone does is wake their partner.

 

Rich white boy gets away with murder in South Africa, I'm not sure why I'm even surprised.

He's clearly guilty.

Surely pistoriphobia?

Exactly. Amazingly these are the judges own words:

 

"The accused had the intention to shoot at the person behind the door, not to kill."

 

I'm not sure you how you are supposed to shoot someone 4 times, with dum dum bullets, from close range, and not intend to kill.

 

You need an imagination of a 12 year old to believe Pistorius' account of what happened. If you hear a noise in the night (and we all have) the first thing anyone does is wake their partner.

 

Rich white boy gets away with murder in South Africa, I'm not sure why I'm even surprised.

I think there's certainly a fine margin between 2nd degree murder and culpable homicide (manslaughter) in this case. But maybe the judge is looking at it from the perspective that there would be far less leeway for a prolonged and expensive appeal process with culpable homicide which still carries a 7-15 years jail sentence time in SA. Maybe he'll get an upper end of that.

If Amanda Knox had got a culpable homicide sentence she'd be in prison now, rather than studying at a US university with zero chance of extradition for the appointed retrial.

Surely pistoriphobia?

hmm yeah, sh*t meme, thats more like an std he's given you which then makes him want to kill you to destroy the evidence.

And he's got away with another one!B

oth people in the car said he shot the gun through the sunroof, but because they gave a different location and had slightly different stories (obviously, if the girl's version was correct and the driver was implicit he wouldn't have admitted so) there is not sufficient evidence to find guilty.... apparently.

Fook me, no wonder crime is high in SA!

And cleared of possession of ammunition....that he had in his possession.

Add in the judge saying that the accused wasn't to know that he might kill someone if he emptied four rounds into the small room that they were in, and despite the guilty verdict this morning as expected, some might observe that the whole thing has not been a great advert for what most reasonable people might regard as justice.

So then, to get away with murder shoot the victim behind a closed door then call 911 and show lots of remorse and pray for the victim in front of lots of witnesses. Simples

And cleared of possession of ammunition....that he had in his possession.

 

 

Add in the judge saying that the accused wasn't to know that he might kill someone if he emptied four rounds into the small room that they were in, and despite the guilty verdict this morning as expected, some might observe that the whole thing has not been a great advert for what most reasonable people might regard as justice.

I don't think the prosecution helped themselves by failing to discredit the defences timeline and instead just attacking Oscar. The ammunition as I understand it was something to do with intent. In a similar manner to if you found a gun and stored it, in a legal sense you can't be said to be in possession of the ammo unless you intend to use it. As this couldn't be proven then he can't be found guilty.

And cleared of possession of ammunition....that he had in his possession.

 

 

Add in the judge saying that the accused wasn't to know that he might kill someone if he emptied four rounds into the small room that they were in, and despite the guilty verdict this morning as expected, some might observe that the whole thing has not been a great advert for what most reasonable people might regard as justice.

That is the hardest thing, for me, to get my head around. How can anyone not know that firing 4 rounds of dum-dum bullets through a toilet door would kill a person they believed to be inside the toilet?

Also, I can understand that a person may accidentally fire one round, possibly even two, but not FOUR!!

He literally has got away with murder.

I work for the CPS and we would be very unhappy with this verdict. The prosecutor had a lot to work with but often stumbled over his words. At other times he seemed to be playing to the gallery and way over confident. The thing for me is that she was 3 metres away when he said that he called for her to call the police but she didn't respond whilst behind the toilet door. Not a word. When the prosecutor made that point he got his wording wrong and it lost its impact. Pistorius was used to handling guns and would have known what the effect of shooting dum dum bullets through the door would have on whoever was on the other side. There was evidence that he has a quick and hot temper. There was evidence of jealousy. The prosecution will be very unhappy about the way they handled this case.

I work for the CPS and we would be very unhappy with this verdict. The prosecutor had a lot to work with but often stumbled over his words. At other times he seemed to be playing to the gallery and way over confident. The thing for me is that she was 3 metres away when he said that he called for her to call the police but she didn't respond whilst behind the toilet door. Not a word. When the prosecutor made that point he got his wording wrong and it lost its impact. Pistorius was used to handling guns and would have known what the effect of shooting dum dum bullets through the door would have on whoever was on the other side. There was evidence that he has a quick and hot temper. There was evidence of jealousy. The prosecution will be very unhappy about the way they handled this case.

The judge used some very definite language about believing his story about his girlfriend being in the bedroom, that was another area of extreme dubiousness that wasn't successfully explored.

He did get done for basically "knowing shooting a door with a person on the other side might kill them", so some of your point about knowing the effect of shooting the bullets has already influenced the decision.

I work for the CPS and we would be very unhappy with this verdict.

If the CPS had been prosecuting they'd have dropped the job after the PCMH.

It just seems odd that after describing his evidence as contradictory and unreliable, the Judge has still accepted his version of events as the truth, on EVERY count.

To the layman it appears that he has won every 50:50 decision in the trial, and several that were 25:75 against.

Maybe he's just a lucky man.

PS anyone else got a forum stalker who likes to follow them around all threads disagreeing with everything?

Not seem him yet today, he'll be here in a minute....

If the CPS had been prosecuting they'd have dropped the job after the PCMH.

Nonsense.

(You sound like one of the embittered policemen who get upset when we have to drop a case when they don't produce the evidence we have been promised)

The judge used some very definite language about believing his story about his girlfriend being in the bedroom, that was another area of extreme dubiousness that wasn't successfully explored.

 

He did get done for basically "knowing shooting a door with a person on the other side might kill them", so some of your point about knowing the effect of shooting the bullets has already influenced the decision.

I wonder if a jury would have found not guilty of murder. The judge seemed to give him a great deal of benefit of the doubt over a number of issues.

He did get done for basically "knowing shooting a door with a person on the other side might kill them", so some of your point about knowing the effect of shooting the bullets has already influenced the decision.

He didn't though, that's what he was found innocent of. In the judges bizarre words " "Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door - let alone the deceased - as he thought she was in the bedroom,"

The judge is basically saying that even if it was an intruder in the toilet he didn't forsee and accept the possibility that he would kill him. Utterly bonkers considering he fired 4 (closely grouped) dum dums into a small toilet at near point blank range. And this is someone who was videoed shooting the same bullets into melons and watching them explode.

The Judge's summing up was bizarre.

South Africa is just a weird place

I wonder if a jury would have found not guilty of murder. The judge seemed to give him a great deal of benefit of the doubt over a number of issues.

I still don't understand this, I'd much rather have a case tried by people with decades of legal experience.