1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Oscar Pistorius verdict changed to murder

Discussion in 'Personal' started by midnight_angel, Dec 3, 2015.

  1. midnight_angel

    midnight_angel Senior commenter

    So South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal have overturned the previous verdict of manslaughter.
    Personally, I am happy about this. Not because it will be a deterrent to other men, considering killing their girlfriends, as some women's right groups have been claiming (according to the linked article), but because I don't think his original punishment justified the crime committed.

    Justice Leach makes a lot of sense.

  2. Dragonlady30

    Dragonlady30 Star commenter

    I'm inclined to agree and the 'defence' that he might be attacked in prison because of his disability seemed to be clutching at straws.

    The whole case is disquieting on so many levels.
  3. grumpydogwoman

    grumpydogwoman Star commenter

    midnight_angel likes this.
  4. RedQuilt

    RedQuilt Star commenter

    I followed the original trial and feel that the judge's argument today made more sense than those from before. It persuaded me anyway.
    midnight_angel likes this.
  5. felltogroundinberkeleysquare

    felltogroundinberkeleysquare Established commenter

    I beg to disagree.

    I think Oscar is a totally "wrecked" person, who may have psychiatric problems, which are as yet undisclosed. When you have no lower legs from being a child it is bound to influence you, and he was situated to make something of that, becoming a disabled running hero. Maybe his life should have been a bit quieter, but he or those around him wanted him to achieve.

    Of course the detail of the law treats everyone the same, but this is a man with issues he has dealt with all his life, and no-one can know what actually went through his mind that night but him. I guess the publicity of his success in running may have gone to his head, along with the paranoia of his disability as competing forces, so whilst I hate the injustice done to the victim who did not deserve that, I think the verdict in the trial was the right one, and it should be left alone.
  6. felltogroundinberkeleysquare

    felltogroundinberkeleysquare Established commenter

    In that context, I once had a probationer who was in his late teens, who had lost a leg suddenly, and it ruined his life. He turned into an alcoholic, and committed many petty offences which is why he was on my books, but my sympathy went out to him. To see a young man distorted by inexplicable fate turning that way is totally understandable, but I am glad to say I saw him around many years later coping with his lot, and apparently happy.
  7. artboyusa

    artboyusa Star commenter

    He's a mess and the case is a mess too. I don't think he meant to kill her. I think he was reckless and stupid but I'm not sure its 'murder' as most would understand it but is it manslaughter either? Mess.
  8. sparkleghirl

    sparkleghirl Star commenter

    I believe that in the heat of the moment he did mean to kill her and I'd call it murder, but when he was distraught afterwards, I believe that was genuine. It's a very sad story all round.
  9. HelenREMfan

    HelenREMfan Star commenter

    Whilst I know that life on S Africa can hold more threat than most of us have here - to fire a gun into a bathroom of your house as he did was reckless and not at all necessary. How on earth could he go around with a gun not having checked on the whereabouts of his partner? Could he really have got up out of bed and not realised she wasn't in the bed? All those questions would have me think the original verdict was too lenient.
    midnight_angel likes this.
  10. monicabilongame

    monicabilongame Star commenter

    Verdict changed to murder. Good.
    Was he threatened in any way by the 'intruder'? No.
    Was he violent toward current and previous girlfriend? Yes.
    Mental problems? Quite possibly.
    Arrogant and entitled? Most definitely.
    Over-acting at its worst during the trial? Absolutely.
    midnight_angel likes this.
  11. Middlemarch

    Middlemarch Star commenter

    He clearly meant to kill whoever was in that bathroom, by firing four shots at quite close range. That he claims he didn't know it was Reeva in there is irrelevant - he shot to kill.

    The claim that he'd suffer in prison is laughable - it applies to a fair few people for a range of reasons.
    RedQuilt likes this.
  12. grumpydogwoman

    grumpydogwoman Star commenter

    Er, shoot several rounds into a tiny bathroom? Oops, sorry. It was just a warning. Didn't think anyone would get hurt.

    Do me favour! I don't care how tough a time he had as a child/adult or space alien.
  13. artboyusa

    artboyusa Star commenter

    Shooting to kill is meaningless. Everyone should shoot to kill. There's no point in shooting to miss, is there? Anyone who'd ever fired a gun has been trained never point it or fire it at anything you don't intend to kill. But some people do forget.

Share This Page