Oscar Pistorius convicted of homicide in girlfriend's killing

Oscar Pistorius, who was cleared of murder in the killing of his girlfriend, was convicted Friday on the lesser charge of culpable homicide.

After a grueling trial, Judge Thokozile Masipa accepted the athlete’s defense that he mistook Reeva Steenkamp for an intruder. But she found that he was negligent when he fired four shots into the door of a toilet cubicle where the 29-year-old model had locked herself in the early hours of Valentine’s Day last year.

LATimes

For a minute yesterday i though he was going to walk free due to his fame and fortune, crying and vomiting during the trial seemed to me like acting on his part.

Masipa convicted Pistorius of recklessly discharging a firearm in a public place, over an incident at a crowded restaurant, Tashas.

Pistorius said the gun went off in his hands. But the judge said he should not have asked to handle a gun in a crowded place, and she accepted the evidence of witnesses that he was warned that the weapon was loaded.

If the man is innocent of not i dont know, I'm not a judge either, but it seems in most of the world there is a law for us and there is a law for rich and famous. By the other hand i think if you are famous some prosecutor may want to do a name of themselves out of you.

the culpable homicide charge is 15 years maximum without a minimum over there, lets see how much he gets. If he intended to kill her I can see him pulling a OJ and being in Jail not too long after his realize from this crime. Once you think you beat the system you only get more clumsy.

In the mean time the girl is dead and will remain dead for ever, I hope the ones that capitalize on this circus are happy with their new found $$ and I'm this is over, I cannot understand how governments allow trials to become a mediatic events, as this or Michael Jackson trial

The funny thing about mankind is that they are so lost that they even think their written Law is above God's Law.

Obviously the man is not going to be free in this or his next live. Neither will his seed be free.

When the definitions are considered it seems obvious that Pistorius's intention wasn't scaring, it was serious injury or worse.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Verdict What it means

Sentence

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

Common-law murder - acquitted
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) - guilty
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 - guilty of restaurant charge, acquitted over sunroof incident
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 - acquitted
In possession of .38 bullets for which he has no licence
A fine or up to 15 years

This:

Culpable homicide (manslaughter) - guilty
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

...you need to define your terms better.
"Culpable homicide" has an entirely different inference to the "homicide" that you have in the OP's title.

No, he was found guilty of Culpable Homicide, not Homicide.

At least strive for some form of accuracy in your post title, OP, and less sensationalism.

To the ones complaining about the title, news titles have to be copied from source for easier find, the title was copied from the source at the time of posting, they have made several change to the article including the title. if you pass the title and read the source all the information you need is there.

Its funny how you people complain so much, now it may do a world of difference to you people but the truth is the girl is dead and she will remain like that because the guy shoot her in the face, as it was found he did nothing to prevent her death

a reply to: Indigent Oh, really. Gee he wasted a lot of time, all because he had money and notoriety. And commoner , this case would have been decided in two weeks approx., he looked as guilty as bush did when he opened his mouth

a reply to: Indigent

I am a great believer in things happening in three's.

And here we have:

Charlie getting shot of Princess Diana, OJ getting shot of his wife and Pistorius and his lady. Hopefully we won't have any more of the so-called big and famous.

Looks like everybody received their money. He might not do one day in jail.
How is anyone so scared in their own home, that they hear someone in the bathroom and pull out a gun and start shooting the place up, instead of saying: "honey, is that you?" It's a BS story and he pulled it off. Unbelievable.

He didn't have a leg to stand on.

I feel he was guilty of this:

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

I do not think Reeva Steencamp received any justice.

My opinion is that he was raging & shot her in the heat of the moment. Then thought, " OMG! What have I done"? I think even though he shot her, he still loves her & grieves her - which explains his anguish during the trial.

originally posted by: nerdyclutzyblonde
I feel he was guilty of this:

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

I do not think Reeva Steencamp received any justice.

My opinion is that he was raging & shot her in the heat of the moment. Then thought, " OMG! What have I done"? I think even though he shot her, he still loves her & grieves her - which explains his anguish during the trial.

I think pure fear explains his behavior during the trial. His ability to hire lawyers more skilled than the prosecutor likely got him a reduced sentence. His disability helped, too. Nothing explains the jury except stupidity.

a reply to: Tangerine

There wasn't a jury.

edition.cnn.com...

Why is Pistorius facing a judge rather than a jury trial?
South Africa abolished jury trials in 1969, while the country was under apartheid, due to fears of racial prejudice by white jurors. Pistorius is being tried in Pretoria by Thokozile Matilda Masipa -- the second black woman appointed to the bench since apartheid ended.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: Tangerine

There wasn't a jury.

edition.cnn.com...

Why is Pistorius facing a judge rather than a jury trial?
South Africa abolished jury trials in 1969, while the country was under apartheid, due to fears of racial prejudice by white jurors. Pistorius is being tried in Pretoria by Thokozile Matilda Masipa -- the second black woman appointed to the bench since apartheid ended.

You're right, of course. I misspoke. Substitute jury stupidity with judge stupidity.