I was a little surprised when I heard the Pistorius verdict the other day. However, the culpable homicide one makes sense. The evidence does not prove, beyond reasonable doubt, malice aforethought. That he discharged a weapon without first identifying his target isn’t so much negligence as criminal incompetence and he should never have been allowed to hold such a weapon in the first place if he couldn’t control his inability to shoot indiscriminately. The man is the worst kind of gun-nut, who uses it as a prop for his inadequacies.
But, it ain’t murder, no matter how the race mongers and extreme feminists might like it to be. The court was not satisfied with the state’s case so went for the correct verdict. Pistoruis is certainly guilty of killing an innocent woman and he certainly deserves a stiff sentence. But it ain’t murder.
Today, we have a clearer understanding of what justice means for certain groups of people, which is to say that justice can mean far too little. Judge Thokozile Matilda Masipa has found Pistorius guilty of culpable homicide rather than premeditated murder. Hers is a verdict that raises the question – what does a man have to do to be found guilty of murdering a woman?
Oh, please, please, let me… He has to be proved to have committed murder beyond reasonable doubt. Pistoruis wasn’t proved so, so he wasn’t. Because, wait for it, wait for it, the state did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was premeditated. Gosh, it really is that simple. Still, we can always expect the morons over at the Guardian to turn every case into a matter of race or sex even when there is no evidence of either. And, of course, if it’s a white man it must be murder even if we don’t have the evidence. The dangly bits between his legs and the colour of his skin are proof enough for these vile people.
We know, because of details that emerged after she was killed, that Steenkamp and Pistorius had volatile moments in their relationship. We know Pistorius had a penchant for modern weaponry. We know a woman is dead, and still what we know is not enough.
Quite so. We do not know that it was premeditated. Therefore, the culpable homicide verdict was the correct one and justice has been served. The bastard is going to prison after all.
What makes this all the more offensive is how Pistorius has, essentially, framed his defence as a fear of blackness. By evoking an unseen intruder he has exploited the complex and fraught racial history of South Africa to help justify his crime.
Er, because in a predominantly black country, had there been an intruder, the likelihood of his skin being black would be fairly high. So what we have here is the usual Guardianista race mongering. And, in turning this trial and its verdict into a soapbox to peddle race hatred and misandry, the Guardian’s CiF manages once again to scale the dizzy heights of the sewage filled gutter.
one wonders if the victim had been male and white and Pistorious had been female and black would the commentators make the same stupid comments. My guess is not, and if she had shot him I dare say she would have walked away scot free with a defence of self protection from domestic violence. Seems to me a double standard,
Something I have been moaning and whinging about for a lonnng time.
The thing that mystified me most was how a man used to handling guns could discharge a Koch pistol in a restaurant by mistake. Has the dickhead never heard of a safety catch?
I remember a case in Texas a few years back where a tourist knocked on a door to ask for directions and was shot through the door. The guy wasn’t even charged as I remember. Texas law allows this so don’t go on a Texas fly drive without a good map.
I agree with you that OP was guilty of manslaughter. The premeditation case was clearly unproven.
You summed it up with the word “dickhead”. Clearly he was not fit to be in possession of a firearm. If you are going to carry, learn how to use it properly and be of a fit mind such that you know how to exercise restraint and are able to do so. And, if you point it, only do so when you have decided to kill your target and never before.
Regarding the restaurant incident, there’s the other safety rule that people who’ve only ever seen guns in Hollywood movies won’t know about – unless there’s a good reason, keep your finger outside the trigger guard even if you’re sure the safety’s on.
I know that even as a Brit who’s just happened to have spent a few months in Alabama and South Carolina. Pistorious was clearly psychologically unfit to own a firearm in the first place
I know that even as a Brit who’s only ever read Tom Clancy novels… 😉
It may have been the right verdict in law but a couple of things puzzled me. 1. surely the first thing any man would do on suspecting an intruder would to wake his partner and tell her they may have an intruder and to stay where she was while he investigated? 2. who locks a toilet door when there are just the two of you in the house? if the intruder was safely behind a locked door and you had a gun why not call the security you had in the protected area? If I had to make a guess it would be a row and she locked herself in the toilet and he lost his apparently volatile temper. I doubt he intended to kill her and he may have fired accidently as it seems he was not as competent with guns as we were led to believe. This may not have been premeditated murder but murder nevertheless. I doubt he will serve any time for it.
Me.
No, that’s the very definition of manslaughter-or in South African law, culpable homicide.
Way back when all this first hit the headlines, one of my colleagues at work asked, off the cuff: “Well then – did he murder her or didn’t he?” My answer then was the same view as I still hold, and it proved to be right: “I absolutely believe that he did murder her, but I also absolutely believe that he won’t be convicted of it.” That said, I think it was, legally, the correct outcome – there really wasn’t sufficient evidence to prove premeditation. But insufficient evidence of a crime doesn’t mean that that crime wasn’t committed – it means just what it says on the tin: insufficient evidence.
Damn! I should have put a bet on it!
Yup. Precisely.
What astonishes me is that Pistorius was permitted to have a licence to keep a pistol for self defence, when clearly he is not a fit person to be entrusted with a firearm. Why wasn’t his permit revoked after the restaurant incident? I know a few ordinary gun owners in South Africa and they are having their guns confiscated, because new weapons laws are being implemented. Presumably rich guys are exempt from the gun-grabbers?
I have several historic/antique South African pistols, which were rescued from destruction and exported to the UK, where it is still legal to collect historic guns.
On balance of probabilities, I think Pistorius is guilty of murder, but I’d agree that there wasn’t enough evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt.