Black- and Whitelist » Incognito and two teammates engaged in

Judge Masipa returned to Court on Friday and convicted Oscar Pistorius on the charge of culpable homicide. The conviction seemed all but a certainty on Thursday, when she declared Pistorius was negligent before adjourning for the day. "Pistorius had time to think and consider his actions. Im satisfied his actions werent that of a reasonable person," the judge said. "He acted too hastily and used excessive force. His conduct was negligent." When considering culpable homicide, the question to ask is whether a reasonable person would have acted as the accused did. In convicting Pistorius, Judge Masipa concluded that he did not act reasonably and that a reasonable person would have called for help rather than charge down the hall and fire four shots through a locked bathroom door at 3am. Prison Time and Sentencing The legislation does not provide for specific prison time for culpable homicide. Rather, the sentencing is discretionary, although its not unusual to see prison time in South Africa of 5 to 15 years for this type of crime. The next step is a sentencing hearing to be held on October 13. At the hearing, each side will present their arguments as to appropriate jail time. The prosecution, led by Gerrie Nel, will seek to convince the Judge that Pistorius should spend 15 years in jail, while Pistorius lawyer, Barry Roux, will argue that no jail time is warranted. While some are of the view that Pistorius could completely avoid jail, that seems unlikely. Expect a minimum of 5 years and probably closer to 10 years. However, this trial has been filled with surprises, so another one would not be completely unexpected. No Conviction on Murder: A Grave Error Is Made Speaking of surprises, Judge Masipa found Pistorius not guilty of murder. In order to make out this charge, the prosecution had to establish that Pistorius intended to kill someone – Steenkamp or the intruder. Thats right – its still murder if it could be shown that Pistorius intended to kill anyone that night. Perhaps it could be argued that the requisite intent to kill Steenkamp was not established. Its a tough argument to make given the totality of the evidence but still an argument that could made with a certain level of credibility. The reasoning would go something like this: Pistorius did not know it was Steenkamp in the bathroom so he therefore could not form the necessary intent to kill her. However, on the point of killing anyone, the Judge committed an error of law when she concluded that Pistorius did not commit murder. Specifically, Pistorius should have been found guilty of murder because its still murder in South Africa if he intended to kill anyone. This legal concept of intent, which holds people responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their actions, is called dolus eventualis. By his own account, after he heard the intruder, Pistorius grabbed his gun, removed the safety, charged down the narrow hallway to the bathroom, and without any words of warning, fired four shots through a locked door into a very small toilet cubicle. Every decision from grabbing the gun to firing the shots with deadly hollow point black tallon bullets was conscious and intentional. He did not fire just once clumsily or accidentally, or yell out to the intruder. He deliberately and intentionally fired four shots in quick succession with great precision through the toilet door. The evidence strongly supports the conclusion that Pistorius believed that there was a person behind the door, foresaw that his gunshots would kill that person and nevertheless persisted. Indeed, he fired because he believed there was someone behind the door. Thats murder. How did Judge Masipa come to a different conclusion? Well it seems that she concluded Pistorius did not intend to kill anyone because Steenkamp was asleep in his bed. Theres an obvious disconnect in that logic, and it seems as though Judge Masipa was focused exclusively on whether Pistorius believed Steenkamp was still in his bed. This constitutes a misapplication of the law, which opens the door for an appeal by the prosecution. Indeed, it would not be a surprise to see Judge Masipas decision appealed. Philip Rivers Jersey . Finlands Kari Lehtonen made 26 saves to lead Dallas over the Phoenix Coyotes 2-1 Saturday night. He received plenty of help from the Stars defence and got goals from Ray Whitney and Russias Valeri Nichushkin. Melvin Ingram Chargers Jersey . The Extreme Heat Policy was enacted at Melbourne Park just before 2 p.m. Thursday, suspending all matches on outer courts until the early evening and requiring the closure of the retractable roofs at Rod Laver and Hisense arenas before play could continue on the show courts. http://www.chargersauthenticofficialonli...ersey.html.Best moustache: How can we not give this to Lanny McDonald? Check out the duster for yourself. Nasir Adderley Jersey . - Zac Leslie scored two goals and assisted on two more, and Justin Nichols made 34 saves as the Guelph Storm blanked the Kitchener Rangers 6-0 in Ontario Hockey League action on Sunday. Junior Seau Jersey . The moves were the first punitive steps taken by the Dolphins since a report on the NFLs investigation of the case was released last week. Investigators found that guard Richie Incognito and two teammates engaged in persistent harassment directed at tackle Jonathan Martin, another offensive lineman and an assistant trainer.Phoenix, AZ - The Oakland Athletics have reportedly avoided arbitration with Josh Reddick and have signed the outfielder to a one- year contract. The As website reported Reddick, who was scheduled for his arbitration hearing Wednesday, settled foor a $2.dddddddddddd7 million salary for the 2014 season. He was reportedly asking for $3.25 million, while the As countered with $2 million. Reddick is coming off a season in which he hit .226 with 12 homers and 56 RBI in 114 games. ' ' '