in particular as he grew and excelled in his career. this impact on others worldwide cannot be ignored, but it ought to be put into perspective. as counsel pointed out if a sports man was approached for assistance it would not be clever and not to be involved as such involvement enhances one's career. the seriousnesses of the offenses, the accused was found guilty of two offenses, both very serious. in respect of the charge in count one the accused was

convicted of culpable homicide. counsel for the state correctly said negligence in this matter is gross negligence. on his own version the accused knew that there was someone behind the door. he heard the window slide open. he heard the toilet door slam shut. he heard a noise coming from the inside of the toilet. it would have been different if he had just heard a noise and assumed that something, maybe a stray animal was in the toilet. in this instance the evidence shows he thought an intruder was behind the door. using a lethal weapon, a loaded firearm the accused fired not one, but four shots

into the toilet door. it is so that in his evidence he said he would have fired higher if his intention was to kill and this court accepted that. however, it does not change the fact that he knew the facts above and the toilet was is a small cubicle and that there was is no room for escape for the person behind the door. what is also significant is that the accused had been trained in the use of and in the handling of firearms. in my view, all that is very aggravating. mitigating factors are in the following. the accused is a first offender and remorseful. although counsel suggested that the apology to the parents of the deceased may

not have been genuine as it was made in open court, this court accepts the evidence that the accused had earlier attempted to apologize privately to the deceased parents, but they were not ready so the attempt failed. this court accepts as a mitigating factor the conduct of the accused after the indent which indicated that the accused wanted the deceased to leave. i also do not agree with the state counsel that because mental and physical vulnerability of the accused was taken into consideration in reaching a decision on judgment it cannot be taken into consideration for purposes of sentence. vulnerability of a person

forms part of his or her personal second senses. it ought to be considered together with other relevant sections during the sentencing procedure. in mitigation counsel for the defense referred to the accused and compromised emotional and depressed state. he sought to argue that some media reports about the accused had made the accused a victim to the exent it that the actual punishment for the crime would do little to alleviate the ill effect caused by such reports. much as i agree with counsel for the state that media reports can affect a person only if he or she follows such reports. it is affect that negative media reports about someone

may affect his or her reputation, his or her career or prospects there of, this would happen whether or not that person was personally exposed to such reports. i have taken note of only that fact and not the details and the merits of the allegations in the media report. the interest of society. the interest of society demand that those who commit crimes be punished and in deserving cases that they be punished severely. as counsel for the defense correctly submitted, we ought to differentiate between what is in the public interest and what society wants.

society cannot always get what they want as courts do not exist to win popularity contests, but exists solely to dispense justice. what may appear to be justice to the uninformed general public, however, may not necessarily be justice. the general public may not even know the difference between punishment and vengeance. a distinction that is very important when a court is exercising its sentencing function. fortunately regardless of the level of understanding among the general public, south africa has a constitutio which applies to everyone and which protects everyone including is that who trans

agrees the laws. trangress the laws. as a country we have a long -- we have long moved from dark ages that is the era of the quote, an eye for an eye, close quote to a modern era of balancing the relevant sectors. reteretribution from the legal point of view is not the same as vengeance. it has yielded ground to other purposes of punishment and karg, 1961 volume 1, sa23capital a in brackets stated the following at 2 through 6 capital a to capital c.

i quote, while the deterrent effect of punishment has remained as important is a ever it is i think correct to say that the rete trough -- retributive aspect is the aspect of prevention and correction. that is no doubt a good thing. but the element of retribution is historically important and is by no means absent from the modern approach. it is not wrong that the natural indig nation of entrusted person and the community at large should receive some recognition in the sentences that courts impose. and it is not irrelevant to

bear in mind that if sentences for serious crimes are too lenient the administration of justice may fall into repute and persons may be taking the law in their own hands. naturally righteous anger should not cloud judge meant close quote. it is impossible to deal with the interest of society without reference to the deceased and her family. at the time the deceased met her death she was young, vivacious and full of life. talking about the deceased mrs. martin painted a picture of a promising young woman who

cared deeply for family, full of hope for the future and who lived life to the full. while giving evidence it was object you that mrs. martin still felt the pain of the lo of someone -- the loss of someone dear to her. this pain reflects the pain of the family of the deceased. she spoke of the deceased parents who are not coping very well without their daughter,y specially financially. the loss of life cannot be reversed. nothing i say or do today can reverse what happened on 14 february 2014 to the deceased and to her family. hopefully this judgment on

sentence shall provide some sort of closure for the family and for all concerned so that they can move on with their life. conclusion. there is a delicate balance between the crime, the criminal and the interest of society. the extent of the negligence in culpable homicide cases lays an important role in coming to an appropriate sentence which should neither be too severe nor too light. in essence this is no nxumalo nxumalo1982 volume 3sa, 856 capital a in brackets. i hillary phrase that, at -- i

will rephrase that 861 capital g to capital h, ja stated the following, it seems to me that in determining an appropriate sentence in such cases the basic criterion to which the court mu mu -- must have regard is the degree of culpability or blame worthiness exhibited by the uh could youd in -- accused in committing the negligent act. relevant to such culpability or blame worthiness would be the extent of the accused deviation from the norms of reasonable conduct in the second senses and the foresee built of the consequences of the accused negligence. at the same time, the actual consequences of the accused

negligence cannot be disrecorded disrecorded -- disregarded close quote. counsel referred this court to a number of cases where found guilty of culpable homicide. in my view none of these cases are on point. they -- there are, however, two cases that i need to deal with. one is the state -- this is foster in brackets case number 125/2009 in the high court close bracket. in that case the accused fired a shot at the roof of the zozo on the premises believing that there was an intruder who endangered the life of a

12-year-old grandson of his helper. however, the shot went through the window frame and struck him who must have been standing just behind the window. the shot struck him on the forehead and he died almost instantly. the accused version in that case was that he was hoping to scare the intruder out and his decision was made in a haste. it was in fear against the background of his own conscience and anxiety about intruders. when the accused saw him lying on the floor he broke down the wooden door which had been

bolted from the inside and tried to resuscitate the child. the paramedics arrived and found the accused trying to resuscitate him. the accused was trying, in vain resuscitate him. he was arrested the same night and charged with murder. the court in that case found the accused did not fire with gross negligence into areas where there might be people. he fired at an angle which was lower than that which he intended. in respect of remorse from the accused, the court noted the following, i quote, mr. foster was beside himself with grief,

grief, pain and remorse to the extent that the police brought in a trauma counselor to the cells to try to help him. it is now almost two years later and he's still clearly in a state of post traumatic shock. i have never before seen an accused person as devastated and remorseful as he is. he has had therapy, initially apparently from someone connected to his church, but since may 2010, from a psychologist to whom he was referred by his legal representative, closed quote. a few months after this incident, that's the incident in the matter, he resigned from the

job as she felt she could no longer work and live in the place where hapuso died to dreadfully. i, again, quote from the courts. she rejected offers of help in the possible trust fund to set up -- i'd like to rephrase that. she rejected offers of help and a possible trust fund set up to help her or to educate members of the family. and she asked that nothing o of the sort be done. she's in great emotional pain at present and said that she thought that her pain would never end, closed quote. in imposing sentence, the court found that, i quote, the court

should strike for balance between the interest of society, the interest of the accused and the seriousness of the offense. a sentence which overemphasizes one element, dot, dot, dot, cannot be balanced, and it is likely to be a wrong sentence. finally, in imposing a sentence, a court should be merciful. this means that it should sentence the accused with a full appreciation for human frailties and for the accused. the accused own particular circumstancest the time of the offense.

where the offense is one of negligence, i believe this is particularly the case for ordinary every day people who are not criminals are capable for the kind of negligence that has tragic and life-long consequences. a court should strive to keep such a person out of prison where this is possible. as i've said, the loss of an innocent life is almost always serious and society tends to be even more shocked when the victim is a child, as here. members of the child's family are particularly badly affected. i have considered the needs of society, and i believe these would be best served by its knowing and seeing that mr. foster is donating some of his time to the service of other less privileged people, closed quote.

the court further said the following. i quote, it is being done two purposes, to try to show society and his family that mr. foster is being punished albeit relatively lightly, for what he has done and secondly, to assist mr. foster to interact with need for people and to help him to find some form of emotional equilibrium while doing so. i have decided that the appropriate sentence in this case is one of three years imprisonment, suspended completely for five years on condition that firstly he's not again convicted of culpable homicide caused by an assault and committed during the period

of imprisonment and secondly, that he performs 300 hours of community service over one year, which comments running on the date of the sentence, dot dot dot. he's to be placed under the supervision of mr. phillip hall. mr. hall will decide upon the work which mr. foster is supposed to do in assisting the rotary club in any of the various charitable undertakings which it engages in, closed quote. counsel for the accused

submitted that similarities were in this case as the foster case. he said the accused by discharging four shots into the door created a more dangerous situation. he argued that on the other hand, mr. foster did not suffer from the disabilities and vulnerability of the accused in the present case. and that the slow benefit of the disability and vulnerability. it is clear that the facts in foster are dissimilar to the facts in the present case. it is so that, like foster, the accused was reacting to a perceived threat and that soon after the incident, he, like the accused in the foster matter,

tried to resuscitate the deceased and that he was very emotional and suffers for trauma, even 18 months after the incident. however, there are a number of important distinguishing features. one, in the foster matter, the accused did not know that there was a person behind the door. in the present case, the accused did. he stated that after he had had the bathroom window slide open, and the slamming of the door, the noise or movement in the toilet confirmed to him that there was someone in the toilet. two, in the foster case, only one shot was fired and it had been aimed above the roof, not

into the door. the accused in the present case deliberately fired four shots into the door. three, in the foster matter, the aim was to frighten away the intrude intruder, in the words of the accused. in the present case, the aim was to shoot the intruder. four, in the foster matter, if there had been an intruder on the premises, he might have had an opportunity to flee or escape the harm or death. in the present case, the opposite is true. the toilet was a small cubicle, an intruder would not have -- would have had no room to maneuver or to escape. and what is more, the accused knew this fact.

five, the accused was trained in the use of firearms and intend to be a collector. in my view, a high degree of responsibility would be required from such a person. although it is so that in the foster case, the accused did not suffer from the disabilities and vulnerabilities of the accused, i find that that fact regardless of degree of negligence in this matter is such that the sentence as suggested by the two would not be appropriate considering the circumstances in the matter.

in the matter of the state, spelled m-d-u-n-g-e, in brackets, capital "r," capital c-777-12, original court, closed bracket. the accused and the deceased were sleeping at their home when at about 12:30 a.m., the accused was awoken by a noise as if a window was opening. he thought a burglar was trying to get into the house. fearful for his life, he grabbed his firearm from his bedside pedestal drawer and made his way to the entrance of the room. he could hear the noise coming from the bathroom.

slowly, he made his way to the bathroom door to investigate. as he reached the bathroom door, it suddenly opened. startled and afraid for his life, he discharged his firearm, thinking that the person that opened the door was a burglar. that person, however, was not an intruder but his wife. he rushed her to hospital, but it was too late. the accused in mdunge was arrested for murder but entered a plea and sentence agreement with the national prosecuting authority, in brackets npa, closed brackets. capital 1 of the criminal procedure. in terms of the agreement, the national prosecutor authority

accepted a plea of guilty to culpable homicide. the national prosecuting authority agreed to the following sentence in the plea and sentence agreement. i quote, it is agreed that a just sentence in all the circumstances shall be that the accused is sentenced to eight years imprisonment, which is wholly suspended for a period of five years on the following conditions. one, the accused is not again convicted of murder or assault or any other offense in which assault is during the period of suspension, closed quote. again, counsel for the defense argued that the facts in the

mdunge case had a striking similarity to those in the present case. i disagree. it is so that in both cases, the accused were reacting to a noise they interpreted as someone entering their home. the huge distinguishing feature was that in the mdunge case, someone, the deceased, did open the door. which in the present case, no such thing happened. this fact as well as the additional factors already referred to above would make the present case so serious that a suspended sentence would not be appropriate in my view.

for a very good reason, an appropriate sentence should neither be too light nor too severe. the former might cause the public to lose confidence in the justice system and people might be tempted to take the law into their own hands. on the other hand, the letter might break the accused and the result might be just the opposite of what the punishment set out to do. which ultimately is to rehabilitate the accused and to give him an opportunity, where possible, to become a useful member of society once more. i have considered all the evidence placed before me and all the submissions and arguments by counsel.

i have weighed all the relevant factors. the purposes of punishment and all forms of punishment, including restorative justice principles. i have also taken into account the seriousness of the offense, which led to the death of the deceased. the personal circumstances of the accused and the interest of society. i have taken the particular circumstances of the accused at the time of the offense into account. having regard to the circumstances in the matter, i am of the view that a noncustodial sentence would send a wrong message to the community. on the other hand, a long

sentence would also not be appropriate either as it would lack the element of mercy. a sentence cannot be said to be appropriate without the feelings of mercy for the accused and hope for his reformation. [ cs-1994 skecr-584-a 58 j to 589 b ] i am mindful, however, of the fact that true mercy has nothing to do with weakness or modeling sympathy for the criminal. but it is an element of justice. [ cs v. 1972, volume 3, 611 at

614 ] in connection to the conviction of couldn't the three, i have taken into account that no one was hurt, though the offense was a serious one, especially in the setting of a restaurant, i do not believe that the degree of negligence in respect of this count, count three justifies a sentence of direct imprisonment. mr. pistorius, please rise.

the following is what i consider to be a sentence that is fair and just, both to society and to the accused. count one, culpable homicide. the sentence imposed is the maximum imprisonment of five years, imposed in terms of section 2761-i of the criminal procedure x, number 51 of 1977. two, on couldn't the two, 120, subsection 3b of the firearms control, number 60 of 2000, the sentence imposes three years imprisonment wholly suspended

for five years on condition that within the period of suspension the accused is not found guilty of a crime where there is negligence involving the use of a firearm. paragraph three, the sentence in count one and the sentence on count three shall run concurrently. you may be seated, mr mr. pistorius. is there anything i need to know before the court adjourns? >> no, my lady. i indicated to court that i would address the court. i've had a look at section 103 of the act. >> yes. >> section 103 automatically, as

soon as -- >> which act are we talking about? >> the arms examination act, section 103. >> which one? >> arms and ammunition act. >> 1969. >> 60 of 2000. >> have i got the citation incorrectly? >> the accused was convicted of convening this act, act 20 -- 60 of 2000. >> 60 of 2000 but what is the name of the act? >> it's the firearms control act. >> i thought so. >> yes. >> thank you. >> section 103 of that act, my lady, in terms of section 103, if -- unless the court

determines otherwise, a person becomes unfit to possess a firearm if convicted of "f," any other crime or offense or commission in which the firearm was used or handled by any participant in the offense. that in itself declares the accused unfit. >> in other words, it's automatic. >> in section 103, my lady, a court which is contemplated in subsection 1 as by the determination contemplated in that subsection or as made a declaration in subsection 2 must note the writing of that conviction, determination or declaration. my lady, i have now, in practice, as soon as the court will sign the judgment on the form that we use, that is then to be complied with.

my lady, subsection 103-4 indicates that the court will order the immediate search and seizure of competencier is five cats, licenses and so forth. i don't think it's necessary in this instance, my lady. i'm sure we will be able to sort it out with the defense that that be handed in immediately. in terms of what i indicated i will study and inform the court of, i think the court has done what the court should do and we've now reached the end of the case. >> thank you very much. yes. >> i agree with that, my lady. we've already indicated that in any event, there will be no submissions to the contrary. and we will cooperate with the state in making available all the certificates. he does not want to possess a firearm. we'll put that in the record. >> thank you very much. anything else? >> nothing else. >> nothing.

>> before i adjourn, i just wish to thank counsel again once more. i know i already thanked you but i wish to thank you and your team. i wish to thank all the court officials who have assisted me in this matter and all the staff who was assisting me in this matter. and i wish to thank the gallery. it was not an easy matter. but in general, i was very pleased with the conduct of everyone involved. thank you. court will adjourn.

>> thank you, ladies and gentlemen. >> and the judge has just rendered her sentence on oscar pistorius, the double amputee better known as the blade runner, sentencing him to five years, maximum of five years in prison on count one, which is culpable homicide and on couldn't the two, on the gun charge for negligence, three years suspended. she stated to the court that she was weighing all the factors, taking into account the seriousness of the offense, the personal circumstances of the accused and stated, quote, i am of the view that a noncustodial

sentence would not be appropriate and a long sentence would not be merciful. she went on to remind the court, i am mindful that true mercy has nothing to do with sympathy for the criminal but deals with justice. she spoke very lengthy, citing other cases similar to that of oscar pistorius but also talking about in those particular cases there was not a disability involved and there was not someone behind a door in a toilet cubible with shot being fired right into that door. this morning's long-awaited sentence by the way follows a highly publicized trial that began more than seven months ago and garnered international attention. pistorius testified during that trial that he mistook steenkamp for a nighttime intruder when he shot her through a toilet cubible door in his home on valenti valentine's day of 2013. the 29-year-old model was hit in the arm, head and hip with

hollow point bullets. the presiding judge ruled last month that he acted negligently and with excessive force. the 27-year-old pistorius was also convicted of unlawfully firing a gun in a restaurant just weeks before steenkamp's death and during his sentencing hearing last week, pistorius's chief defense lawyer called social workers and psychologist to the stand. they testified that the athlete had suffered significantly already, both emotionally and financially. pistorius's defense team also claimed that south african prisons cannot cater for his disability and prosecutors argue pistorius must go to prison because of what they called the horrific nature of steenkamp's death. we go now to pretoria, south africa. bring us up to date. i was watching pistorius as the sentence was rendered. he seemed to look as though he expected this. >> reporter: it rather looks

that way, doesn't it? there was very little reaction from any member of the family, amy, his sister was consoled by someone. what's interesting is that immediately the judge left the room and the television cameras were switched off immediately. oscar pistorius was escorted di cells underneath this court. there are steps directly in the court about ten feet from me. he had no chance to say anything consequenceal to his family. i see his brother has been allowed to go down into the holding cell to talk to him. there is a kind of a stunned silence on the steenkamp side. they're not in tears, but they do not look that upset. i think they're kind of pleased that there are some closure to this, that we do indeed have a

sentence, that he's getting jail time. from here -- i'm sorry, one other thing, the defense did not appeal the sentence which is one more reason why i think we can agree that they were expecting this. >> yes. >> five years is not a very strong sentence. the judge could have sentenced him to quite a lot more. i think she did say that she will take into account the fact that he's a first offender and indeed, he could have got a lot more and it's possible that he could be out in anything from a sixth to half of the time served for good behavior. he may not be inside that jail for very long at all. >> you were talking about reeva steenkamp's family and the judge talked about reeva steenkamp prior to rendering the sentence. she wanted to say she was vivacious, lived life to the full and showed is a life of

promise. hopefully as she went on to say to the family, this sentence will bring some closure to the family. i bring that up because you were observing the family and how they responded to the sentence. the judge went on to describe reeva steenkamp as someone who could ignite anybody to feel good about their life, a successful model, a happy person who showed great promise. she even helped her parents financially at times when they had medical problems. and so she was always that kind of person who showed a lot of joy, a lot of promise, and the judge rightly saying that she was hoping that the sentence would bring the family a sense of closure. do you think the family expected this kind of sentence as well? >> i think so. it's very difficult to tell. certainly, as i said, i'm looking across to them now. they're not more than 15 feet from me. there's no real shaking of heads

as we had in other parts of this judgment and in other parts of this trial. they're looking composed. they're not in tears. i think it is, as the judge suggested it would be, once again, kelly, there's real close your here. if you look, there's a huge group of people gathered around the steenkamps. the father, who was standing up, you'll recall that he had a stroke since his daughter's death. he's now gone to sitting down but he doesn't look that fed up. and the mother is standing up, talking to family members, talking to supporters. the myers family around the parents. you may refresh reeva steenkamp moved up here from port

elizabeth and stayed with the myers. she was staying with the myers at the time of her death. they are actually to pass by me now. they really do not look that bothered. >> one thing i was struck by with the judge, she was upset and stated it in the court today prior to the sentencing, saying she was feeling a sense of unease on her part as she listened to witnesses testify about the accused vulnerability, speaking of oscar pistorius being a double amputee. she was basically stating or defending the court system as well as the corrections system, stating that the corrections system was capable of handling oscar pistorius and his disability, yet taking some issue with the defense and other people who had testified on behalf of the defense that oscar pistorius could not spend any time in a corrections facility in south africa because they were ill prepared to handle

someone of his disability. do you think she was making a point, no matter what a person's disability is, when they commit a crime, justice will be served? >> yes, i think so. and just right now, the lawyer for the steenkamps has just told a reporter standing just by me here, i was just within earshot while listening to your question, that the family always wanted justice and they feel that justice was served in this case. >> justice indeed being served. i want to remind everyone who may just be tuning in right now that we are talking about oscar pistorius, the man better known as the blade runner who was able to compete against able-bodied people without a disability, able body athletes even on the olympic field of track. the judge sentencing oscar pistorius for the death of his girlfriend, reeva steenkamp,

sentencing him on count one, culpable homicide, to five years maximum and three years suspended on negligent use of a firearm. and so we have moved now from an era of eye to eye as the judge says, paul, we are justice, not vengeance. do you think that was served today? >> yes. i wonder whether south africa will be happy with the sentence. it's quite interesting that the judge actually agreed with the prosecution that although it was indeed culpable homicide, that in the judge's word she agreed with the prosecution that the sentence went very close to -- sorry, the crime culpable homicide, was right at the end close to -- which is murder. that is why i feel more than any

other reason, having sat here for 49 days over 7 months, i think that is why a custodial sentence, a jail sentence, has been handed down. now, the prosecution, however, has 14 days to appeal. during the summing up of the closing arguments, harry nell, who's known popular as you might know as the pitbull, harry nell, chief prosecutor, did say twice that he felt that the culpable homicide sentence basically was not fair. so i think we cannot -- i think we really can anticipate within the next 14 days that the prosecution, that is the national prosecuting authority, the government authority and nell will come back to a court and will put an appeal in, that they will try and overturn the

sentence of couplible homicide, that they will try and have the offense upgraded to murder. now, that is if it goes to appeal, they cannot argue on the facts of the case. they can argue about the judge's interpretation of those facts if you see my point. >> i see your point exactly. >> yes. whether she interpreted case law correctly and indeed, just looking now at the defense attorney, he's been down to the cells. and he's just come up. he's looking really grim faced, actually, shaking his head. he's embracing now carl pistorius, the brother. it's actually the biggest emotion we've seen in this courtroom so far. i think he's saying to him body language is telling me, kelly, that he's saying to him that he did the best he could.

kelly, i think it's -- >> all right, paul. >> there are police going down to the cells. yes, good on. >> we thank you for your reporting. paul tisley reporting from pretoria, south africa. we want to wrap this up by letting you know, oscar pistorius, the blade runner sentenced to five years, three years suspended for negligence. much more on this story on "fox & friends." that's coming up at the top of the hour. we now go to "the five" already in progress. >> they diagnosed me with a brain tumor. >> you have to be strong. you don't give up.

>> attitude is everything. you have to fight.

time for one for thing. here's mine. greg's secret to time for one more thing. here's mine. greg's secret to happiness! definition of true happiness in life is never to get into things that you can't get out of. like this little fellow here, if

you take a look. he overestimated the size of the hole and underestimated the size of his butt. who hasn't been there, whether it's leases or relationships or dinner parties. or jeans. you got to be able to have a way out of things. now luckily he did get through that hole. >> what was that thing. >> a hamster t. lo sterhamster. >> it looked like a mouse. >> always buy a bigger size. that's the moral of the story. all right, dana. >> that was a mouse. >> i don't know. i'm not a rodent expert. >> i want to do a recommendation. >> yes. >> senator udall in colorado if you need a good book to read, i recommend "glass jaw" by eric denzenhal. i highly recommend it. it is a no baloney way to look at the state of the industry and its trajectory and it takes

these cliches that we should no longer use. >> he would like it. >> he's stolen my thing. >> like get ahead of the story. >> i hate him. >> very good book. i highly recommend it. >> eric? >> adrian and i had the very good fortune to spend time with steve wynn and his lovely wife andria. he's a great american success story, very involved in the political landscape. here's a quick little video i took. >> selfie video. check it out. we're having a great time. what a great place at the wynn resort. you're a great patriot. >> this is good. >> loving it. >> that's great. >> this is fun. >> he's self-made billionaire, man. great guy. >> my advice is, don't have selfies that close. that's all i'm saying. >> my arm is only that long. >> i saw too much of him.

where are we? beckel. >> am i up? >> yes, you are. >> don't be so excited. >> thank you. talk about having a bad day yesterday, the global news weather, mike sobel had a guest, his name was ripple. take a look at this. ripple is invited on to do a calm weather forecast. watch this. >> ripple wants to play. no. minus 3 in grand prairie. temperature is 4 at lloyd -- he broke -- 17 on sunday. we'll be back with more many just a moment. >> wow. >> rough day at the office. >> you know, i don't like that. you know, would you go do the weather at a dog park? that's just stupid. kimberly. >> oh, my gosh. >> i hope this isn't about royalty. >> it is. so can we get the weather guy out? what's going on here?

okay. in other royal news, guess what? they have a due date for the baby. the second royal baby. very exciting. due in april. they just made the announcement that the duchess of cambridge will be delivering her second child then. very excited about it. you know it, i will definitely cover it when it happens. right, craig? >> you know what i just realized? >> what? >> you really don't like the royals. >> the giants are playing the royals. >> that's amazing. >> these are the only royals i like. we're united on this. >> i meant those royals. >> i understand. >> okay. set your dvr so you never miss an episode of "the five." special report is up next. it is tuesday, october 21st, a fox news alert. just moments ago oscar pistorius sentenced to five years in prison for shooting and killing his model girlfriend last year.

we are live with the breaking details. and a warning before you get behind the wheel, your air bag could explode. the government now urging over 5 million drivers to take action immediately. what you need to know. monica lewinsky speaking publicly for the first time about her affair with president clinton. >> i fell in love with my boss. >> her new mission now to combat cyberbullying. "fox & friends first" starts right now. ♪ get on your feet ♪ get up and make it happen ♪ get on your feet >> good morning to you. get on your feet, you are watching "fox & friends first" on this tuesday morning. certainly glad to have you join us. i'm heather childers.

let's get right to that fox news alert, oscar pistorius heading to prison for five years. >> the sentence handed down moments ago in south africa, bringing the month's to an end. >> the judge in south africa says theon custodial sentence would send the wrong message to society but two long would lack mercy. he was given a maximum of five years in prison. there was not any immediate reaction on either side. there will be a combination of house arrest and community service. the judge proceeceded the sente with a very long consideration for both sides concerned. she spoke about the need for balance where the accused can hope to be rehabilitated but where society is also served. if justice does not seem