Oscar Pistorius: The Sentence

Status
Not open for further replies.
marine1 said:
Exactly, and we have sen what a slimy person he is. No ways is he broke. not by a long shot. Surprised the prosecution never investigated this
Click to expand...
Now that you mention it...

Well the judge sketched a very bleak picture of everything Oscar lost and having no income....sponsors withdrawing, losing his home etc.
 
Replay said:
Now that you mention it...

Well the judge sketched a very bleak picture of everything Oscar lost and having no income....sponsors withdrawing, losing his home etc.
Click to expand...

You have to consider that they would never had made it look like he was still massively loaded.

He needed to look broke to generate sympathy... and then also his money would have been a problem for him in prison, lots of opportunities for exploitation.
 
MickeyD said:
.........“He is a little bit tired and tense but the chaplain went to talk to him,” said Monama today.
Click to expand...

I suspect that the chaplain is just one of the circling vultures that recognizes that OP has a lot more assets (including a rumoured property in Europe) than the defense claimed in court. Where religious brainwashing is concerned OP might be vulnerable.
 
Chris said:
I was originally in the camp that thought he was legally guilty of murder but I have changed my opinion that with the facts presented, the learned judge applied herself correctly. Eusebius has no law degree and thinks outrage on Twitter and Facebook is somehow proof that the judge erred.

Note I still think he is guilty of murder although not from a legal point of view but rather from a layman's understanding of murder.
Click to expand...

You need a law degree to ask the legal question, but you need philosophy to apply the facts of the case against the legal question. Eusebius has philosophy degree, and he rightly argues that Masipa failed to apply the legal question to the case, i.e she was philosophially clueless. It's useless to be a lawyer/judge if you are bad at the art of argumentation, and I think Masipa has proven herself to be bad.
 
rza said:
You need a law degree to ask the legal question, but you need philosophy to apply the facts of the case against the legal question. Eusebius has philosophy degree, and he rightly argues that Masipa failed to apply the legal question to the case, i.e she was philosophially clueless. It's useless to be a lawyer/judge if you are bad at the art of argumentation, and I think Masipa has proven herself to be bad.
Click to expand...

You are talking rubbish. Masipa has more education and experience than both rza and Eusebius put together. The whole reason we have a judge in this matter is because it requires interpretation and knowledge. If there was one single correct answer we wouldn't need a judge would we? We could just put all the evidence into a computer and get the answer calculated. Cases are not clear cut. You might disagree with her and her judgement may be open to debate but in the end she decides based on what she knows and her interpretations
 
joelus said:
You are talking rubbish. Masipa has more education and experience than both rza and Eusebius put together. The whole reason we have a judge in this matter is because it requires interpretation and knowledge. If there was one single correct answer we wouldn't need a judge would we? We could just put all the evidence into a computer and get the answer calculated. Cases are not clear cut. You might disagree with her and her judgement may be open to debate but in the end she decides based on what she knows and her interpretations
Click to expand...

Exactly what are you disagreeing with? The fact that philosophy plays a role in law?
Eusebius didn't argue that the judge didn't understand the law, instead he correctly alluded that she quoted the law correctly. Nobody argues that the judge didn't understand the law! All people are arguing is that she failed the philosophical test - she failed to apply the facts of the case correctly in relation to the legal question, i.e. she failed the argumentation test. The question then is whether Eusebius is qualified to comment on the judge's incorrect argumentation? My answer is that he is a philosophy lecture at best and a very good debater, so he is very qualified to comment.
 
joelus said:
You are talking rubbish. Masipa has more education and experience than both rza and Eusebius put together. The whole reason we have a judge in this matter is because it requires interpretation and knowledge. If there was one single correct answer we wouldn't need a judge would we? We could just put all the evidence into a computer and get the answer calculated. Cases are not clear cut. You might disagree with her and her judgement may be open to debate but in the end she decides based on what she knows and her interpretations
Click to expand...

It's rza...
 
rza said:
Exactly what are you disagreeing with? The fact that philosophy plays a role in law?
Eusebius didn't argue that the judge didn't understand the law, instead he correctly alluded that she quoted the law correctly. Nobody argues that the judge didn't understand the law! All people are arguing is that she failed the philosophical test - she failed to apply the facts of the case correctly in relation to the legal question, i.e. she failed the argumentation test. The question then is whether Eusebius is qualified to comment on the judge's incorrect argumentation? My answer is that he is a philosophy lecture at best and a very good debater, so he is very qualified to comment.
Click to expand...

You can debate it all you like, what you can't do is assert that you are right and she is wrong, unless you are another judge. It's her job to decide the right judgement, legally, philosophically and moraly.
 
marine1 said:
But she could have made a grave error and thats not impossible is it?
Click to expand...

True, the very fact that we have an appeals system acknowledges that even Judges can make errors or come to different conclusions.
 
marine1 said:
But she could have made a grave error and thats not impossible is it?
Click to expand...

Maybe she could have, but only another judge can make that decision and only after studying all the evidence and precedents as she did. The rest of us have to accept her judgement is correct even if we disagree with it
 
joelus said:
You can debate it all you like, what you can't do is assert that you are right and she is wrong, unless you are another judge. It's her job to decide the right judgement, legally, philosophically and moraly.
Click to expand...

Of course I'm not a judge, but does it mean we can't debate issues we are not involved in professionally? I don't think you are a judge either yet you are debating the same issue. All we are saying is that she did a bad job philosophically, and Eusebius is qualified to call her on that since that is his area of expertise. It's rare for judges to lack argumentation skills, but it's not rare for one to misapply the law to the case as Masipa did hence appeals succeed. So we are not defaming Masipa, we are just saying she got her argumentation wrong.
 
joelus said:
Maybe she could have, but only another judge can make that decision and only after studying all the evidence and precedents as she did. The rest of us have to accept her judgement is correct even if we disagree with it
Click to expand...

I'm not the accused nor the complainant, so I have no reason to accept her argumentation since I think it's wrong.
 
This is one time I agree with Sharia Law, hand Oscar over to Reeva's family...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X