Oscar Pistorius guilty of culpablehomicide

A judge found Oscar Pistorius guilty of culpable
homicide, the South African term for
unintentionally — but unlawfully — killing a
person.
The verdict comes a day after Judge Thokozile
Masipa cleared Pistorius of murder in the killing of
his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp — but he could
still end up behind bars.
The maximum prison sentence for culpable
homicide is 15 years.
Sentencing could be weeks away and will come
after more legal argument.
The verdict also dealt with three other charges, all
weapons-related.
He was found not guilty of two — a car sunroof
shooting incident and illegal possession of
ammunition at his house. B

The judge found Pistorius guilty of the third: a
charge involving a shooting at a restaurant.
In a shooting from a car’s sunroof, Judge
Thokozile Masipa said the state failed to prove its
case beyond a reasonable doubt. She said she
didn’t find the state’s witnesses persuasive,
saying the the pair’s version of events differed too
much.
In another shooting at a restaurant, she said the
state had proven its case. Pistorius, she said, was
trained in the use of guns and should not have
asked for the gun at the restaurant, let alone
handle it.
In the third, Pistorius was found not guilty of an
ammunition charge. Masipa saids the state failed
to introduce evidence that proved he intended to
possess the ammunition
Masipa, who has presided impassively for months
over the high-profile trial, finally let the world
know what she has been thinking on the first day
of reading her verdict Thursday.
Pistorius did not intend to kill Steenkamp, Masipa
said, accepting his defense that he thought
someone had broken into his house and that he
believed he was defending himself.
Pistorius, 27, has always admitted firing the
bullets that killed his girlfriend Steenkamp, then a
29-year-old cover model about to turn reality TV
star. He pleaded not guilty to murdering her in his
home on Valentine’s Day last year, claiming that
the killing was a tragic mistake.
But in grabbing his gun and heading toward the
supposed threat, Pistorius “acted too hastily and
used excessive force,” Masipa ruled Thursday.
“His conduct was negligent,” and not what a
reasonable man would do in the circumstances —
not even a disabled one, she said before
adjourning for the day.
Defense arguments that his upbringing “in a
crime-riddled environment and in a home where
the mother was paranoid and always carried a
firearm” might explain his conduct that night, but
“it does not excuse the conduct,” Masipa said.
“The accused had reasonable time to reflect, to
think and to conduct himself reasonably,” she
said. “I am not persuaded that a reasonable
person with the accused’s disabilities in the same
circumstances would have fired four shots into
that small toilet cubicle.”
Though she did not formally pronounce Pistorius
guilty of culpable homicide, her statements from
the bench essentially added up to a definition of
the crime, said CNN legal analyst Kelly Phelps.
There is no minimum sentence for culpable
homicide in South African law, so it will be up to
the judge to decide his sentence if that is her
verdict. Sentencing takes place in a separate
phase of the trial that can come weeks after the
verdict.
Masipa found Pistorius not guilty Thursday of
murder, premeditated or otherwise.
She said the prosecution had failed to prove its
case that Pistorius and Steenkamp argued on the
night of the killing, and that the Olympic track star
then shot her in a rage.
Masipa was not persuaded by the testimony of
neighbors who said they heard shouting,
screaming and shots.
The neighbors’ stories do not match the timings
on phone records the night of the killing, she
concluded, saying: “Technology is more reliable
than human perception and human memory.”
She also said she believes media coverage
contaminated testimonies, and that state
witnesses were in and out of sleep the night of the
killing.
She knocked down other key aspects of the
state’s case: the fact that Steenkamp took her
phone and locked herself in the bathroom
allegedly out of fear for her safety, phone
messages between the couple that showed some
rocky patches, and stomach contents that might
suggest the victim ate later than Pistorius said.
Pistorius could be seen crying at times during the
reading of the lengthy verdict.
The victim’s parents, Barry and June Steenkamp,
sat expressionless a row behind and across the
court from the man on trial for killing their
daughter. Her father bowed his head as he heard
about his daughter’s fatal wounds.
Pistorius’ uncle and aunt, sister and brother also
attended the hearing in the packed courtroom —
the latter in a wheelchair from a car accident.
The Olympian’s trial in the death of his model and
law graduate girlfriend started six months ago,
transfixing the world with graphic details of how
he fatally shot Steenkamp.
*************************************************************************************************************
Earlier post
Murder trial: Oscar Pistorius learns fate today
Oscar Pistorius on Thursday wept in court as he
was cleared of the murder of his girlfriend Reeva
Steenkamp, Skysports reports.
But the paralympian will today find out whether he
is guilty of manslaughter.
Judge Thokozile Masipa told Pretoria High Court
there was ‘no doubt’ when Pistorius fired his gun
‘he acted unlawfully’, and she will rule whether he
is guilty of the lesser charge – known as culpable
homicide in South Africa – over the 29-year-old
model’s death.
At the end of Thursday’s hearing, she found the
athlete had acted ‘negligently, ‘too hastily’ and
used ‘excessive force’ while failing to take steps
to avoid the resultant death.
Judge Masipa stopped short of giving an actual
verdict on manslaughter – which carries a
maximum sentence of 15 years in prison – and
adjourned proceedings for the day.
Earlier, she cleared Pistorius of both premeditated
and second-degree murder, telling the trial ‘there
are not enough facts’ to support the prosecution
case that he had intended to kill Ms Steenkamp.
The judge said the charge of premeditated murder
relied on ‘circumstantial evidence’ from the state,
adding: “The State has not proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of
premeditated murder. There are just not enough
facts to support such a finding,” she said.
Pistorius was charged with one count of murder,
two of illegally discharging a firearm – which is
unrelated to Ms Steenkamp’s death – and one of
illegally possessing ammunition.
The 27-year-old, his head down and shoulders
shaking, was visibly distressed and wept in court
as the judge recounted the events of Valentine’s
Day last year.
The prosecution had suggested Pistorius stormed
down his bedroom corridor after his frightened
girlfriend in a jealous rage and deliberately shot
her through the toilet door.
It had pushed for a verdict of premeditated murder
which carried a sentence of 25 years in prison.
The double amputee sprinter has insisted he was
terrified and felt excessively vulnerable due to his
disability and shot Steenkamp in a tragic accident,
believing her to be an intruder.
South Africa has no jury system so Judge Masipa
is deciding on the verdicts herself with the help of
two assessors.
Proceedings began earlier in the day with the
judge outlining the facts of the case before the
testimonies of each of the 37 witnesses who gave
evidence at the six-month murder trial. Some 21
witnesses testified for the prosecution and 16 for
the defence.
The judge described Pistorius as a ‘poor and
evasive witness’ who was initially composed, then
‘contradicted himself’ under cross examination.
She said claims by the defence that police
contaminated evidence and removed items from
the crime scene ‘paled into insignificance’ while
also rejecting claims by the prosecution that the
relationship between Pistorius and Ms Steenkamp
was ‘on the rocks’ and counter claims by the
defence that they were ‘a loving couple’.
“In my view, none of this evidence from the State
and defence proves anything,” she said. “Normal
relationships are dynamic and unpredictable most
of the time, while human beings are fickle.”