Formerly
media-feted South African runner Oscar Pistorius just got away with
murder, mostly.
The
judge bought his story. His very tall tale, that is. A tale that
flies in the face of the facts- except as the judge sees them. Of
course, she had to discard most of the facts in the process, as she
explained from the bench.
The
judge, Thokozile Matilda Masipa, is one of the few people on earth
who believes Pistorius' claim that he thought a phantom intruder (who
apparently screams like a terrified woman) locked himself in
Pistorius' bathroom, leaving Pistorius no choice but to fire four
shots through the locked door (instead of, say, calling the security
detail in his walled community, or calling the police, or banging on
the door and demanding to know who was in there). Obviously he had
chased his terrified girlfriend, the very unlucky-in-love Reeva
Steenkamp, into the bathroom, mostly likely at gunpoint.
Pistorius
was living in a walled community, with security guards, who he could
have summoned if a Spiderman-like “intruder” had locked himself
in Pistorius' bathroom, as he claimed.
The
judge actually claims to believe his ridiculous story that he thought
his girlfriend, who locked herself in a bathroom to escape him, was
an intruder. Why he thought there was an intruder locked in his
bathroom is unexplained. The judge explicitly discarded the
witnesses' evidence of hearing a woman screaming in terror from his
apartment, as she explained from the bench. She actually claimed the
evidence supported Pistorius' absurd alibi!
Pistorius
executed his girlfriend in a rage, firing four shots through the
bathroom door after she locked herself in there to try and protect
herself from his murderous fury.
Judge
Masipa opined: "I
am of the view that the accused acted too hastily and used excessive
force. In the circumstances, it is clear that his conduct was
negligent."
Thus Pistorius was
guilty of “culpable homicide,” which South African law defines as
killing through negligence, not intent. So like if you were laying
bricks and one accidentally fell on someone and they died, you'd be
guilty of that. Pistorius murdering his girlfriend was just a
careless accident. He shouldn't have been shooting that gun
through a door, that's all.
This
verdict is so bad that even a prominent South African defense
attorney bemoaned it, saying “It sends a terrible message about how
we tolerate crime in South Africa. The message is that you can just
kill someone and get away with it.” (Martin Hood.) [1]
Oscar
Pistorius, formerly the subject of much adoring puffery in U.S. media
(and presumably elsewhere) based on the fact that he's missing his
lower limbs and runs competitively on special leg extensions that
give him an unfair advantage over people with natural legs, was
finally revealed as a violent, self-centered, egotistical lout when
he murdered his girlfriend. (His prior history of violent assaults
was previously covered up in the U.S. media, at least. Somehow even a
bright “media spotlight” doesn't reveal things in plain sight
that contradicts the stories concocted by cynical media
propagandists.) [2]
Pistorius
has a violent history, including firing a gun in a restaurant and a
number of violent assaults. Finally went “all the way” and
murdered his girlfriend. The incident in the restaurant happened in
2013, the year before he murdered his unlucky girlfriend. (He has a
history of violence against women.) That should have been a warning
sign. But Pistorius was protected by celebrity privilege. The court
got around to convicting him of firing that shot in the restaurant.
He's
not off the hook entirely. Basically the judge found him guilty of
negligence for firing a gun through his locked bathroom door. This
constituted “culpable homicide” since someone died. For that, he
could get a maximum 15 years in prison- or a minimum of “community
service” (wonder what “service” he could do for any
community!).
Now
his lawyers are arguing for release on bail pending sentencing. (And
maybe there will be appeals, and more freedom on bail for Pistorius.)
This
judge, obviously a fool, was previously the subject of a puff-piece
in the New York Times. Guess she's not as smart
as they made her out to be. [3]
I
was afraid Pistorius would worm his way out of it. Every time I
thought about the case until now, I had a twinge of anxiety that he'd
get off. Now my fear has come to pass. It pays to have money, to buy
sharp lawyers who are good at muddying waters and obfuscating
reality. Skilled sophists who can cloud men's (and women's) minds
with their mendacious narratives and legal legerdemain.
The
judge dismissed the prosecution's evidence, dismissed
the witnesses' testimony to hearing arguing, female screams,
and then gunshots. Instead she chose to believe Pistorius'
unbelievable claim that he thought there was an intruder locked in
his bathroom. Even though she herself opined from the bench that he
was a poor and evasive witness. She even pronounced from the bench
that because a defendant is “untruthful, does not mean he is
guilty.” But LADY, if you think he is UNTRUTHFUL, why are you
BELIEVING his CLAIM that he THOUGHT an INTRUDER was in his bathroom!
You believe him to be untruthful, but you take
his word on that, with NO EVIDENCE AT ALL to substantiate his claim!!
What
the judge did was ignore the actual evidence and accept
Pistoriius' baseless claim, in order to get him off the hook. What a
bitch.
Well,
one thing this shows is that having female judges in no way
guarantees justice for female crime victims. Here's a young woman
obviously murdered by a violent boyfriend, and he gets off despite
overwhelming evidence against him- and all he had to do was make a
nonsensical claim that was contradicted by the actual evidence. And
white racists and male sexists can point to this and claim (falsely)
that it proves black women aren't qualified to be judges. That makes
this awful verdict damaging in more ways than one.
If
that cretinous judge doesn't sentence him to 15 years, she's
disgusting. I have a bad feeling she's not going to.
In
South Africa, the average person in the street had no trouble seeing
Pistorius' guilt. A well-(over?)educated judge was able to have the
wool pulled over her eyes. Contrary to her assertions in court, the
evidence DID prove he knowingly murdered his girlfriend.
Preposterously, she asserted that the evidence supported his
ridiculous story! No it didn't,
lady.
It
didn't.
1]
South Africa isn't the only country where you can get away with
murder- if you're a celebrity and/or rich. The U.S. is another such
place. Murderers who got away with it in the U.S. include O.J.
Simpson, Robert Blake, Claus von Bulow, and Robert Durst. Durst
actually murdered a neighbor for no reason, cut his body into pieces,
and strewed the chunks of flesh and bone along a beach. At trial he
pleaded self-defense, and a Texas jury acquitted him!
Texas! Where they regularly send innocent
people to death row! Go figure! Durst also murdered his wife years
ago and wasn't even charged for that crime.
2]
Pistorius was born missing the leg bones below the knees, so his
lower legs were amputated in infancy. This allowed him to grow up
adapting to that condition and he pursued a career as a professional
runner. The media loves concocting stories of people “overcoming
handicaps to excel,” which is supposed to prove, what? That
physical limitations aren't really limiting? That people can do
anything they want if they are just determined enough? It's bullshit
of course, but it's catnip for media propagandists who love promoting
those concepts. These attitudes have an implied corollary: that any
failure is the fault of the individual, that society doesn't hold
people back, that existing power structures can't be blamed for the
individual's condition in life since anything can be overcome with
pluck and grit.
That
also was one of the tropes in the New
York Times
puff piece on the judge, how she “overcame” apartheid. Except the
one in a million who can manage to beat the odds and find a way to
maneuver around an oppressive system or crippling life conditions
DOESN'T PROVE that “anyone can do it.” It proves just
the opposite-
that very few
can do it!
3]
The judge is a black woman who lived under apartheid. Does she
subconsciously see Pistorius as some kind of underdog, like she was?
Does she subconsciously resent pretty white women, like the model
Pistorius murdered? Probably not. For now, it's a mystery to me how
she could get it so wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment