Discussion in 'Other Sports' started by skatefan, Feb 14, 2013.
Has it been reported when the police were finally called, and when they arrived?
On the BBC News this morning, talk about twists and turns for the Pistorius family ...
I thought that the cricket bat issue had been dealt with, ie to smash down the toilet door, so I was shocked to read this item http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ricket-bat-shown-extensive-head-injuries.html
does anyone have any further news about this?
Do have in mind, it's the Daily Mail which is a terrible, unreliable rag.
Because some are dangerous to society and/or a serious flight risk and others aren't.
Before you make a snarky remark like that, try to understand that different countries have different laws, different ways of looking at things. You can't apply the laws of your country- whatever it may be- to a case in South Africa.
Yeah, that's why I wondered whether it's being reported elsewhere, not good for Pistorius if the story is true.
What really bothers me about the whole tragic incident is that regardless of who had actually locked themselves in the toilet, surely, surely, it was a completely OTT attack on whoever was in there? Pistorius hadn't been attacked by the person if it was an intruder, no one was threatening his life, so for him to deliberately shoot and kill someone through a door rather than ring the Police immediately is just wrong.
Wasn't it stated in court during the bail hearing that there were no other injuries on Reeva other than the gunshot wounds? I am sure if there were head injuries from the cricket bat that would have be brought up by the prosecution to ensure he didn't get bail and to further solidify their charge of pre-meditated murder.
Excuse me? I posted a general question as part of our ongoing discussion, and you respond with this very obvious point and a wink. And now, you further suggest that I need to understand something that I - and everyone else in this thread - quite clearly do understand. Give us all some credit please.
But onward. Prancer makes a good point that confessions don't always mean that the person actually did it - and given that forced confessions at the hands of interrogators are sometimes an issue, it does make sense.
I also see the points of flight risk and danger to others as several other posters pointed out. However, in doing some searches on this topic, I found many cases of people accused of brutal and multiple crimes - murder and sexual assault, including against children - where the bail was granted, and that puzzles me.
As for Oscar, it doesn't appear that the prosecution was able to show any risk to society other than their unsubstantiated suggestions of a history of domestic violence, and the terms of bail, and his fame, would certainly make it difficult for him to flee.
There is a set procedure for bail in most countries, as in South Africa. I followed the trial on the Guardian's live blog, and the judge set it out really well. I'm sorry, I'm on a dodgy computer so can't link it properly, but here you are: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blo...-live-coverage#block-5127807fb5791e976a3e6a21
Basically, it will depend on whether or not there are previous convictions which show a propensity for violence, anything else which shows that propensity for violence, anything to suggest a flight risk, or a risk to the life of the defendant.
Some people are released on bail for horrible crimes because they lack the criminal history to show a propensity, and also at their age you would expect them to have already committed a violent crime or violent behaviour if they had the propensity. Others might be remanded on a lesser charge, such as theft, if they have a history of previous convictions, failure to turn up in court and history of committing crimes while on bail.
Don't forget that jail is expensive to society, so unless the defendant poses a serious risk, it's actually better for them to be elsewhere. Also, bail is often conditional on visiting a police station, or attending some kind of community programe, or even having a curfew.
I'm not an expert on law enforcement or penal systems either, and I'm sure practices vary between jurisdictions.
But my general understanding is that the purpose of jails is to hold suspects until arraignment, and if necessary (e.g., flight risk, danger to the public) until trial, whereas the purpose of prisons is to punish convicted offenders. So they're not interchangeable and not overseen by the same authorities, although jail time can sometimes be credited toward prison sentences. But in principle jail time serves practical purposes for the police rather than punitive purposes for the inmates. (I'm sure the inmates' experience is that it's plenty punitive.) Jails aren't really designed to hold people for long periods of time, which leads to problems when the court system is backed up.
Definitely not in every jurisdiction. In the UK, the term is used interchangeably.
"Custody" refers to a period of detention before trial, whereas "imprisonment" is after sentencing...but they both normally occur in a prison/jail. Prison is the more common term in the UK.
My understanding is that it's the same in South Africa, although Pistorius was remanded in a police station before the bail hearing exceptionally because of his status, and there were fears for his safety in prison.
Edited to add - I did a little research, and your description is right for the US, but definitely not the UK or South Africa.
Also, some countries (like the UK) would never allow bail to a murder suspect, but clearly South Africa does.
Sounds like you're using "jail" to refer to holding cells in a police station.
ETA: Nevermind. Just followed up on *Jen*'s comments, and you are most definitely correct. Just one more thing I learned from FSU.
I don't know about everywhere, but here, "jail" does refer to temporary holding cells, although not at the police station; "prison" is for long-term incarceration.
The security provisions and living conditions are quite different. I'd much rather be in jail than prison.
It was, although I haven't seen a direct quote from the police. If you search on google, you'll see two phrases, "no defensive wounds," and "no signs of assault."
The Pistorius family is going to become very familiar with the different legal definitions of murder: http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/24/world...brother/index.html?eref=igoogledmn_topstories
And in this interview, the man who identified Reeva's body says there was no sign that she had been assaulted with a cricket bat:
Mr Myers, who identified Miss Steenkamp's body, told the Daily Telegraph that he was "surprised" by reports that she had been assaulted with a cricket bat.
"When I identified Reeva, I saw no indication of that", he said. "The first I knew about it was when I read it in the papers. I do not know where that came from".
He doesn't have much good to say about Oscar, but I wonder how much of that is after the fact.
Myers was concerned enough that he had a talk with Pistorius about his behavior, so it would seem that he saw some bad signs even before the killing.
I don't know if Oscar Pistorius is familiar with old romantic songs or not. But if he feels as shattered and brokenhearted as he looked at the bail hearings, I hope that he'll never have to hear what I heard today on the Easy Listening Channel. The song was, of course, "My Funny Valentine". As I sang along, I realized that the final sentiment in that lyric line would be absolutely gut-wrenching for someone who really cared deeply about her.
"Stay, little Valentine...stay.
Each day is...Valentine's Day..."
I thought your whole post posed an interesting question, but here's a thought with respect to the part I quoted and bolded. Although he admitted "killing" her he did not admit being a "killer". I think it's similar (although, of course not identical) to someone who admits "killing" in self defense but not to being a "killer." So I think there are three possibilities: premeditated murder, a killing in which he is found somewhat legally responsible and must do prison time, and a verdict which involves no prison time (either guilty on a lesser charge with no sentence or a not guilty verdict). I am no expert on the SA legal system, but even so, I think the distinction between admitting to killing and admitting to being a killer is an important one.
Accidental killing usually do not get jail time. He is in trouble for illegally owning a gun though so he might serve time for that.
Here's an interesting article:
Thanks for sharing Rafter - this paragraph at the end has me
Now that all the stories about his hot-temperedness and jealousy are coming to light, I guess some points in the CNN article are spot-on. It's not a surprise he's in this situation.
There is a police brutality and South African violence link in that article that I found interesting. I have noted a parallel to American gun culture and South African, and have wondered if the history of racial animosity instigates it in both countries.
South Africa's post-apartheid culture does seem to be a culture of crime and violence. And it's sad that they are living this way - the stories of robbery, rape and murder are frightening. But the only link between this, Oscar and Reeva is that it gave him easier access to a gun. I think this would have ended badly even without guns factored in. It's more about domestic violence and specifically, violence towards women.
I haven't read these; in the US, media has cooled down a bit. I'll go check CNN and the UK news sites. Thanks.
The level of crime of violence is a result of rampant inequality and the number of people living in poverty. Isn't SA the country with the most unequal wealth distribution in the world?
So they say.
A judge has ruled that Oscar can leave the country to compete - although no firm dates set yet.
Wow, if that's not preferred treatment I don't know what is.
While this article says he has no plans to compete anytime soon, his lawyers got every restriction they had appealed lifted:
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/28/cou...ign=Salon_Daily Newsletter (Premium)_7_30_110
Amanda Knox needs to hire his legal team.
I would guess that being one of the most famous athletes in SA works to his benefit.
I'm kind of shocked actually, can't help but wonder if he will try to flee, nah he's got too much family in South Africa.
It's not like he's realistically going to flee. Innocent until proven guilty. I see nothing wrong with allowing him to continue competing, if he so wished.
It depends on the probability of a long prison sentence though, doesn't it? If this is high, he might decide to spend his life in another country instead.
Surely the judge considered all this...
I just doubt the fact that someone else accused of murder but with less means than Pistorius would be allowed to leave the country.
He's too well known to just disappear so he's not a flight risk, and he needs to travel to earn a living. Despite the rush to convict him in the tabloids he is innocent until proven guilty - especially given the incompetence and corruption of the S African police.
Why? WHY? Why would he EVER want to go back to that house though?
I guess he doesn't actually want to go live there but it is his home and he may want to get possessions from it. He may also want to talk through his defence with his lawyers - and showing them step by step what he did that night.
He may believe that an item that could have been used in the case against him has not yet been identified as such by detectives, or perhaps wasn't even located, and he wants to remove that item from his house.
Separate names with a comma.