International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Trials and Errors (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=106)
-   -   Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=285175)

MikeG 3rd December 2015 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by katy_did (Post 11010054)
.......I do wonder whether he'll appeal.....

It is my reading that the only appeal he has left is to the constitutional court, and the only grounds for that would be that some human rights law has been breached during the trial. Legal experts have said that there appears to be no such case to even answer, so, if they are right, he won't be appealing because he can't.

MikeG 3rd December 2015 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11010016)
Well no, the state of the bladder proves Pistorius' story. No woman fleeing a threat sits and urinates.

It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong. It is irrelevant. When he fired through the door, no matter who he thought was behind that door, then he was committing murder.

katy_did 3rd December 2015 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 11010069)
It is my reading that the only appeal he has left is to the constitutional court, and the only grounds for that would be that some human rights law has been breached during the trial. Legal experts have said that there appears to be no such case to even answer, so, if they are right, he won't be appealing because he can't.

There are some tweets from one of the legal commentators, David Dadic, which seem to suggest he may have some kind of case:

Quote:

4 - constitutional appeals are very hard to come by- I've only done 2 in 17 years - but I think he may have an argument- was his trial fair?

5 - Constitution calls for a fair trial - did the TV coverage allow for that? were witnesses intimidated by seeing Nel on tv?

7 - and again I really believe they have the finances to launch that appeal and I think n face value they have grounds to at least be heard.
Aislinn Laing then tweeted "Wonder if Judge Leach didn't perhaps nod to the open door to Constitutional Court appeal with ref to media glare?" and Dadic replied "Roux also mentioned it in his closing, at trial / sentence, it was always on the cards".

Presumably the argument would be that the trial being televised breached his right to a fair trial. To me that does seem like a reasonable argument because of the emphasis placed on him being a "poor witness".

ETA: Dadic also suggested the sentence might be a factor in whether they appeal, and that if he gets, say, three years real time they might not bother. It's a minimum fifteen, but presumably that can be suspended.

newyorkguy 3rd December 2015 05:02 AM

To my understanding, unlike Stand Your Ground states in the U.S., apparently in South Africa the standard for the use of deadly force is not what the defendant claims to have believed but the 'reasonable person' standard. Would a reasonable person have believed that the use of deadly force was absolutely necessary in this situation to protect themselves from imminent serious injury or death? Being that Pistorius, at best, did not who was in the bathroom or why, that no threats had been made, that he had the means to safely escape the apartment, that he had the means to summon police, I would think the answer is no: a reasonable person would have thought there were many alternatives besides using deadly force.

The other part was the judge's bizarre -- because that's what it was -- finding that someone who fires four shots through a door at a person on the other side could in no way foresee this action would be likely to kill the person on the other side of the door. That finding seemed incomprehensible.

katy_did 3rd December 2015 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 11010102)
To my understanding, unlike Stand Your Ground states in the U.S., apparently in South Africa the standard for the use of deadly force is not what the defendant claims to have believed but the 'reasonable person' standard. Would a reasonable person have believed that the use of deadly force was absolutely necessary in this situation to protect themselves from imminent serious injury or death? Being that Pistorius, at best, did not who was in the bathroom or why, that no threats had been made, that he had the means to safely escape the apartment, that he had the means to summon police, I would think the answer is no: a reasonable person would have thought there were many alternatives besides using deadly force.

No, the reasonable person test applies to culpable homicide - it's an objective test. That's why Pistorius was convicted of culpable homicide, because a reasonable person would have known that the force he used was excessive. Murder, on the other hand, depends on the person's beliefs and state of mind at the time, it's a subjective test. A person needs to have the necessary criminal intention to murder. If Pistorius believed there was an intruder and that his life was in danger from the intruder at the moment he shot, that's likely to be culpable homicide rather than murder (because he believed the shooting was lawful, hence lacked the necessary criminal intention).

Sergei Walankov 3rd December 2015 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 11010017)
You really should look up the Confirmation Bias fallacy.

I don't expect he'd find anything if he did. Biases and fallacies are quite different things.

Guybrush Threepwood 3rd December 2015 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sergei Walankov (Post 11010134)
I don't expect he'd find anything if he did. Biases and fallacies are quite different things.

?

icerat 3rd December 2015 06:12 AM

well I'm one who accepted Pistorius could be telling the truth, but I have no particular problem with this verdict. I understand the reasoning both behind the initial decision and this one and without sitting in the court and not being a South African legal expert, have to leave it to those experts.

Puppycow 3rd December 2015 06:15 AM

Justice prevails, thank Ed.

LondonJohn 3rd December 2015 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by katy_did (Post 11010112)
No, the reasonable person test applies to culpable homicide - it's an objective test. That's why Pistorius was convicted of culpable homicide, because a reasonable person would have known that the force he used was excessive. Murder, on the other hand, depends on the person's beliefs and state of mind at the time, it's a subjective test. A person needs to have the necessary criminal intention to murder. If Pistorius believed there was an intruder and that his life was in danger from the intruder at the moment he shot, that's likely to be culpable homicide rather than murder (because he believed the shooting was lawful, hence lacked the necessary criminal intention).


Yes, but the court still has to decide whether this alleged "belief" was honestly held.

Example: I am walking down the street with a knife in my pocket when another man (whom I don't know and have never met before) approaches me walking in the other direction. As the man nears me, he reaches into his own pocket (it later transpired that he was reaching for his mobile phone). I pull out my knife and stab the man once in the heart, killing him. I might try to claim in court that I genuinely believed the man was reaching for a deadly weapon with which to assault me, and that therefore my own knife attack on him was justifiable self-defence. While this is a subjective test, the court can still decide that I am lying about what I claim to have believed, and thus convict me of murder.

And likewise, the judges in the Pistorius case are entitled to conclude that he is lying when he claims to have been acting in terrified self-defence. In fact, the confused and contradictory nature of Pistorius' defence and his various conflicting statements lends real weight to the prospect that Pistorius was making stuff up to try to avoid facing the harshest verdict and punishment. He contradicted himself on what he said he heard from behind the door, and whether he really believed the door was opening as he took aim to shoot.

katy_did 3rd December 2015 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonJohn (Post 11010346)
Yes, but the court still has to decide whether this alleged "belief" was honestly held.

Example: I am walking down the street with a knife in my pocket when another man (whom I don't know and have never met before) approaches me walking in the other direction. As the man nears me, he reaches into his own pocket (it later transpired that he was reaching for his mobile phone). I pull out my knife and stab the man once in the heart, killing him. I might try to claim in court that I genuinely believed the man was reaching for a deadly weapon with which to assault me, and that therefore my own knife attack on him was justifiable self-defence. While this is a subjective test, the court can still decide that I am lying about what I claim to have believed, and thus convict me of murder.

And likewise, the judges in the Pistorius case are entitled to conclude that he is lying when he claims to have been acting in terrified self-defence. In fact, the confused and contradictory nature of Pistorius' defence and his various conflicting statements lends real weight to the prospect that Pistorius was making stuff up to try to avoid facing the harshest verdict and punishment. He contradicted himself on what he said he heard from behind the door, and whether he really believed the door was opening as he took aim to shoot.

Well yes, clearly it does. In this case, the court must have decided it to be reasonably possible Pistorius believed he was shooting at an intruder, but not reasonably possible he believed his life was in danger at the time. Which, as I said above, is certainly quite a fine judgment to make.

Masipa really screwed up by not making the straightforward, and likely appeal-proof ruling that Pistorius did foresee he would kill the person behind the door, but that he believed that person was an intruder and that his life was in danger from the intruder. Instead she got bogged down by arguing he didn't foresee he would kill anyone - she likely meant he didn't foresee he would unlawfully kill anyone, but unfortunately for Pistorius that's not what she wrote....

The Atheist 3rd December 2015 11:06 AM

Now that justice has finally been served in this case any discussion of Pistorius' innocence should be moved to CT, because injustice, it is not.

Rolfe 3rd December 2015 05:09 PM

Don't start that. The whole point of this forum area was to allow discussion of differing views about legal decisions without somebody who was so sure of their rectitude shouting "CT is thataway ----->"

Jeffrey MacDonald is a hell of a lot more obviously guilty than Pistorius, and that thread's still there.

The Atheist 3rd December 2015 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rolfe (Post 11011318)
Don't start that. The whole point of this forum area was to allow discussion of differing views about legal decisions without somebody who was so sure of their rectitude shouting "CT is thataway ----->"

Rectitude has nothing to do with it, it's based on fact, exactly as the Appeal Court judges have ruled.

In short: Oscar Pistorius guilty: He knew someone was in there. He shot to kill. And that is murder.

It just doesn't come any simpler than this case. The original judge made a legal error in not using that simple formula above. Any disagreement with that is both spurious and contrarian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rolfe (Post 11011318)
Jeffrey MacDonald is a hell of a lot more obviously guilty than Pistorius, and that thread's still there.

Never heard of him.

Rolfe 3rd December 2015 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 11011372)
Rectitude has nothing to do with it, it's based on fact, exactly as the Appeal Court judges have ruled.

In short: Oscar Pistorius guilty: He knew someone was in there. He shot to kill. And that is murder.

It just doesn't come any simpler than this case. The original judge made a legal error in not using that simple formula above. Any disagreement with that is both spurious and contrarian.


I agree and yet don't agree at the same time.

I thought Pistorius was going to be convicted of murder at the original trial, on exactly these grounds. If you look at the first part of the thread you'll find me saying so. In this I pray in aid a friend who is a Scots lawyer who spends much of his time in South Africa, whose business partner is a South African policeman. That was his opinion too.

However, when the verdict was announced I saw that point of view too. And my SA-resident lawyer friend wasn't fulminating about it. It seems to hinge on whether Pistorius's own state of mind should be the deciding factor, or whether it should be based on the reaction of a normal reasonable person.

I think Pistorius was lying about his state of mind. I think it's likely that he knew it was Reeva behind the door, but even if he didn't, he intended to kill whoever it was. I think this schtick about being afraid for his life is so much eyewash. But that's just my opinion. I could see the possibility that a judge believed it couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt that he didn't act out of a genuine (if irrational) fear for his life.

So I think it's more debatable than you present it as, even though I agree with your conclusions.

I think Samson is plain wrong, is partisan, and appears not to understand the issues in the case. Nevertheless, this forum area was set up as a space where people could discuss differing opinions about court judgements without fear of being consigned to Conspiracy Theories for the crime of disagreeing with a verdict. I'd like it to stay that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 11011372)
Never heard of him.


Try the front page of the subforum. The thread (tedious and boring as it is) is currently active and has MacDonald's name in the title.

The Atheist 3rd December 2015 08:02 PM

Fair enough - well put.

trustbutverify 3rd December 2015 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by icerat (Post 11010163)
well I'm one who accepted Pistorius could be telling the truth, but I have no particular problem with this verdict. I understand the reasoning both behind the initial decision and this one and without sitting in the court and not being a South African legal expert, have to leave it to those experts.

It was and is difficult for me to understand how the defendant could discount the obvious possibility that the reason his bathroom was mysteriously occupied was that the other person staying in his home was using it. I saw nothing in his defense that reasonably indicated why he felt that possibility was beneath consideration.

I think he murdered his girlfriend because he was enraged with her.

Metullus 3rd December 2015 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trustbutverify (Post 11011609)
It was and is difficult for me to understand how the defendant could discount the obvious possibility that the reason his bathroom was mysteriously occupied was that the other person staying in his home was using it. I saw nothing in his defense that reasonably indicated why he felt that possibility was beneath consideration.

I think he murdered his girlfriend because he was enraged with her.

Kinda where I was in the beginning.

The Atheist 3rd December 2015 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trustbutverify (Post 11011609)
I think he murdered his girlfriend because he was enraged with her.

I think that's pretty much what everyone thought.

The guy she was getting involved with was a forward, I think. Hard to blame Oscar if that was the case. Imagine losing a woman as beautiful as Reeva to a bloke who's slower than you with your legs off.

TofuFighter 4th December 2015 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trustbutverify (Post 11011609)
It was and is difficult for me to understand how the defendant could discount the obvious possibility that the reason his bathroom was mysteriously occupied was that the other person staying in his home was using it. I saw nothing in his defense that reasonably indicated why he felt that possibility was beneath consideration.

I think he murdered his girlfriend because he was enraged with her.


I don't think it's inconceivable that in the state of just waking up, and fearing an intruder, he might have believed his girlfriend to have been in the bed next to him. Those are not conditions that promote the most sensible reactions.
I don't know what his level of confidence is when not on his prosthetics, or whether he is generally rational at all, but it seems fairly clear that he has some emotional issues. Whether those stem in part from his having lived a life different from most people, I can't say.

That Pistorius moved towards the 'threat' seems normal to me. I don't think I would just try to hide, as Nel suggested a reasonable man would do. When i hear a noise in my house, i don't sit in my bedroom and wait, I go to see what it might be, and I don't think that's unusual at all. I don't think it would be any different of i had a gun.

If Steenkamp didn't respond to his shouting, there would obviously be no further clue that it was her in there. Pistorius could have thought it was an intruder, and might have thought it was an intruder who was armed. This is why I am unclear as to how he could have been adjudged to know that his (and Steenkamp's) life was not under threat.

In general, I had the overall impression that Pistorius was angry and arrogant. He seemed to have a fantasy of using his weapon, liked the idea of an armed combat situation, and that he might have wanted to use his gun in a situation like that. This strengthens the notion for me that he thought he was shooting at someone who wasn't Steenkamp. Did he intend to kill that person? very likely. Did he know that there was no threat to him? I can't see that.

The above being said, it's no secret that the media can make people appear different than they are. I am not sure that my impression of his personality is accurate, and I think people are much more likely to lean towards 'feeling' he was guilty because he was an ******* and because his girlfriend was beautiful.

As a south african, it's possible that I have all manner of bias. I know what it's like to be attacked, I know the general state of having to be alert. I may not want Pistorius to appear representative. As far as i'm concerned, the courts must make their decision, and that must be that. I am scornful of people who "know" that he is either guilty or innocent, because in the simplest terms, there will never be certainty.

The Atheist 4th December 2015 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TofuFighter (Post 11011825)
I am scornful of people who "know" that he is either guilty or innocent, because in the simplest terms, there will never be certainty.

Except, the way the law is written in RSA - and NZ and UK - is that using known deadly force for an indirect threat is murder, so there is certainty.

The only questionable part is whether or not he knew it was Reeva in the bathroom. But since he's been convicted of murder, it's not much of an issue now anyway.

Samson 4th December 2015 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 11011839)
Except, the way the law is written in RSA - and NZ and UK - is that using known deadly force for an indirect threat is murder, so there is certainty.

The only questionable part is whether or not he knew it was Reeva in the bathroom. But since he's been convicted of murder, it's not much of an issue now anyway.

Atheist, I have absolutely no doubt he believed he was shooting a dangerous intruder in a dangerous country. He should be managed as a citizen, not a criminal.

Paris
Texas

Understand fear and the distortions.

Sideroxylon 4th December 2015 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11011859)
Atheist, I have absolutely no doubt he believed he was shooting a dangerous intruder in a dangerous country. He should be managed as a citizen, not a criminal.

Paris
Texas

Understand fear and the distortions.

Evidence he had to believe he had a dangerous intruder?

erwinl 4th December 2015 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11011859)
Atheist, I have absolutely no doubt he believed he was shooting a dangerous intruder in a dangerous country. He should be managed as a citizen, not a criminal.

Paris
Texas

Understand fear and the distortions.

Samson,

Even if it all happened as Pistorius said and even if he truely thought he and Steenkamp were in danger, he still, according to SA law, committed murder and should face the consequences for that. Being mistaken in once's perception of the situation should not be a path to not having to face the consequences of actions taken.

trustbutverify 4th December 2015 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11011859)
Atheist, I have absolutely no doubt he believed he was shooting a dangerous intruder in a dangerous country. He should be managed as a citizen, not a criminal.

Absolutely no doubt, huh?

lionking 4th December 2015 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11011859)
Atheist, I have absolutely no doubt he believed he was shooting a dangerous intruder in a dangerous country. He should be managed as a citizen, not a criminal.

Paris
Texas

Understand fear and the distortions.

Your doubt means nothing. He is a murderer by definition and beyond doubt. Deal with it.

TofuFighter 4th December 2015 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 11011839)
Except, the way the law is written in RSA - and NZ and UK - is that using known deadly force for an indirect threat is murder, so there is certainty.

The only questionable part is whether or not he knew it was Reeva in the bathroom. But since he's been convicted of murder, it's not much of an issue now anyway.

It's not much of an issue now. It's a certainty that he was convicted. It's not a certainty that he intentionally murdered someone.

Rolfe 4th December 2015 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 11011717)
I think that's pretty much what everyone thought.


According to Bob Black, my SA-resident friend, that's what most of the population of SA thought at the time.

I've just emailed him to ask him about the reasoning behind the latest decision. He's a QC, and familiar with both SA law and this case, so he should have some informed input.

I'm a little unclear about the points of law. I thought the original verdict was based on the crucial test being Pistorius's actual beliefs and frame of mind at the time. That while many people might believe that his protestations of acting in genuine fear of his life were self-serving porkies, this couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and so he was acquitted of murder.

Now, I'm slightly unclear whether the appeal ruling is on the basis of the appeal court holding that the crucial test isn't what Pistorius believed in his fevered imagination, but what a reasonable person might have believed and done in the same circumstances; or whether the basis is simple disbelief of Pistorius's protestations about his state of mind, which the appeal court believe to be lies BRD.

I do remember Bob being fairly certain that Pistorius would be convicted in the original trial, on the basis that he murdered "the person behind the door", and it did actually matter whether he knew it was Reeva Steenkamp or whether he thought it was an intruder. It will be interesting to see what he has to say.

TofuFighter 4th December 2015 03:44 AM

Thanks Rolfe, that would be an interesting read.

Samson 4th December 2015 04:52 AM

Until the debate clarifies that Oscar was certain there was an intruder, and indeed that is the only interesting question, we should acknowledge everyone's right to determine the correct punishment. To me it is clearly ridiculous in any jurisdiction to subtract 15 years from his life now when he has had guns taken from his control. He has learned all he possibly can. I am amazed at the idiocy of those who think there is more to it.

Samson 4th December 2015 05:07 AM

If he shot my daughter through a closed door, and I came to accept he was attempting to protect her, there would be no sighs of relief with a guilty verdict, just disgust at an absurd misallocation of revenge. This case is unique, insofar as the target was undetermined. There has been none like it in history.

Rolfe 4th December 2015 05:19 AM

Here's what Bob replied to me about the case. I have his permission to reproduce the email on the forum. (As I said, he is a retired QC and professor of law who now lives for half the year in South Africa.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Black QC
Views about the case in South Africa are very mixed.

Every South African lawyer that I've spoken to thinks (as I do) that the trial judge got the law disastrously wrong. If Oscar intended to kill whoever was behind the bathroom door (or was reconciled to that result whether or not he intended it) then the only question remaining was whether he could bring himself within the ambit of self-defence. The trial judge (correctly) held that he had failed to meet the (very strict) terms of the defence (which would have resulted in a verdict of Not Guilty), but went on to hold that his evidence on this issue justified a finding that he might not have intended to kill but rather was negligent -- thereby rendering the crime not murder but culpable homicide. This is arrant nonsense and the Appeal Court judges say so (in clear but commendably restrained terms). The best analysis that I've read so far is this piece by Findlay Stark: http://matterscriminal.blogspot.co.u...rius-case.html

Apart from lawyers, most of my South African male friends and acquaintances think that the original verdict was wrong and that he ought to have been convicted of murder. I should say that many of these friends and acquaintances are (or were) police officers so perhaps that's only to be expected. Most of my female friends and acquaintances have more sympathy for Oscar. But that is not usually because they swallow the intruder story, but because they regard Reeva Steenkamp as having been "no better than she should be" and as having driven poor, vulnerable Oscar over the edge with her rondlopery (a lovely Afrikaans expression for being free with one's favours).


Rondlopery! I love it!

lionking 4th December 2015 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11012045)
If he shot my daughter through a closed door, and I came to accept he was attempting to protect her, there would be no sighs of relief with a guilty verdict, just disgust at an absurd misallocation of revenge. This case is unique, insofar as the target was undetermined. There has been none like it in history.

Utter rubbish. Oscar is a murderer. Full stop.

Samson 4th December 2015 05:52 AM

From the link

The appellate court found that Pistorius was outside the ambit of the defence of putative private defence because he did not know that the person in the toilet was a threat to him.

Here is the problem. Once anyone accepts, as I do, that Pistorius had no possible motive to kill Reeva, and of course he was defending her, his actions are completely rational, within the context of his foreshortened status on stumps, and his regrettable ownership of a killing weapon. It is incredible to me that the world judges him from any alternate perspective. Wittering on about law is irrelevant. Rolfe you well know that QC's are hired guns with worthless interpretations, the plebiscite is collectively well qualified. Yet I am alone in my views even locally, where everyone seems to want Oscar to get a bullet in revenge. C'est la vie...

lionking 4th December 2015 05:56 AM

No c'est la via for Reeva. The murderer will get his full due, finally.

Samson 4th December 2015 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 11012089)
No c'est la via for Reeva. The murderer will get his full due, finally.

It seems murder should be applied to any act of self defence then, when death results.
You win because everyone agrees, but this is a forum for deeper analysis, and skepticism for always achieving what we wish for.

trustbutverify 4th December 2015 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11012045)
If he shot my daughter through a closed door, and I came to accept he was attempting to protect her, there would be no sighs of relief with a guilty verdict, just disgust at an absurd misallocation of revenge. This case is unique, insofar as the target was undetermined. There has been none like it in history.

What if he shot your daughter through a closed door, and you came to accept he was attempting to kill her, which, given the circumstances, is a perfectly reasonable conclusion?

trustbutverify 4th December 2015 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11012098)
It seems murder should be applied to any act of self defence then, when death results.
You win because everyone agrees, but this is a forum for deeper analysis, and skepticism for always achieving what we wish for.

No, I don't see anyone claiming the bolded. Not even anywhere close, actually.

Desert Fox 4th December 2015 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11011859)
Atheist, I have absolutely no doubt he believed he was shooting a dangerous intruder in a dangerous country. He should be managed as a citizen, not a criminal.

In the bathroom with the door closed?

Scordatura 4th December 2015 10:45 AM

Oscar himself effectively closed the door to PPD through his own testimony. His first response to why he shot the gun was that he did it without thinking. That triggered Roux bringing in experts to testify about his anxiety issues and GAD and the timeout for a mental evaluation at Weskoppies.

In later testimony he said he believed his and Reeva's lives were in danger (PPD) and that's why he shot the door but at the end of his testimony he changed it again, adamantly insisting that he never intended to shoot anyone. That's not PPD.

The SCA judgment explains it all better than I can. Paragraphs 17 and 52 through 54.

http://cdn.24.co.za/files/Cms/Genera...316c9e413b.pdf

The sole reason the case went to the SCA was because Masipa misapplied the law. The SCA judgment was unanimous. Some people believe if Oscar had remained steadfast in claiming he believed he shot an intruder in a lawful manner that he might have been found not guilty. Masipa was sympathetic towards him so who knows?

The Atheist 4th December 2015 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11011859)
Atheist, I have absolutely no doubt he believed he was shooting a dangerous intruder in a dangerous country. He should be managed as a citizen, not a criminal.

Breathtaking. You know it beyond any doubt.

Clearly, you and Nigel Latta are cut from exactly the same cloth when it comes to what people are thinking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TofuFighter (Post 11011931)
It's not much of an issue now. It's a certainty that he was convicted. It's not a certainty that he intentionally murdered someone.

As Rolfe has shown, under RSA (and NZ/UK/etc) law, that isn't even an issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11012085)
Here is the problem. Once anyone accepts, as I do, that Pistorius had no possible motive to kill Reeva, and of course he was defending her, ...

:dl:

Oh, that is even better than the previous effort.

He loved her so much he was prepared to kill to protect her.

But he didn't even notice she wasn't in bed.

Mate, you're lucky you were born a human and not a fish, because you would definitely have been the one who thought, "My, what a lovely piece of flesh sitting there waiting to be swallowed."

3point14 4th December 2015 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11012085)
Wittering on about law is irrelevant.


This is an ace statement, given the forum in which it's posted.

MikeG 4th December 2015 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11012098)
It seems murder should be applied to any act of self defence then, when death results........

If you act with disproportionate force, then yes, it should.

Roger Ramjets 4th December 2015 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11011859)
he believed he was shooting a dangerous intruder his girlfriend in a dangerous country the bathroom.

ftfy.

newyorkguy 4th December 2015 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11012098)
It seems murder should be applied to any act of self defence then, when death results...this is a forum for deeper analysis...

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 11012582)
If you act with disproportionate force, then yes, it should.

I agree that we should be able to offer analysis on points where we disagree. I also think Mike G. has it right.

The legal issue is the law protecting people from being killed. That in order to kill someone and have the legal system find it to have been justifiable the defendant has to show compelling evidence that the use of deadly force was reasonable. Look at what happened in the Pistorius apartment that night. He went to the balcony to remove a fan. He noticed a repair crew had left a ladder near his balcony. When he went back into the apartment he discovered the bathroom was occupied. Then, without making any effort to find out who was in the bathroom, he went to his bedroom, got a handgun and then fired four shots through the bathroom door. How was he legally entitled to kill who ever was in the bathroom? Pistorius had not been threatened. He had not seen anyone enter his apartment. There was no sign of an intruder. He obviously did not ascertain to a certainty that his girlfriend was still in bed.

There's another issue here too that goes to Pistorius' state of mind. Upon reentering the bedroom to get the handgun, wouldn't a reasonable person have made sure his girlfriend understood there might be an intruder in the apartment? Make sure she was going to 1) stay put, 2) call police or 3) exit the apartment.

Was it reasonable in the face of all that for Pistorius to have then killed the unknown person in the bathroom? Most people would say no Pistorius did not act reasonably.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11012045)
If he shot my daughter through a closed door, and I came to accept he was attempting to protect her, there would be no sighs of relief with a guilty verdict, just disgust...

Reeva Steenkamp's mother June Steenkamp has not accepted that Pistorius was trying to protect her daughter. She will not discuss what she thinks but she has said:
Quote:

"Reeva was afraid, I think, to tell me, some of the problems. She did say they were fighting all of the time, but you don’t tell your mother everything.” Link to news article
What Steenkamp says she plans to do is start a charity to help victims of domestic abuse.

The Atheist 4th December 2015 03:20 PM

Some things to put Pistorius into perspective, instead of the fantasy figure some people have built up of a wonderful, caring bloke.

In 2009, he spent a night in jail after allegedly assaulting a 19-year-old woman at a party in a case that was settled out of court.

Two years later, he was accused of firing a gun through the sunroof of an ex-girlfriend's moving car, although a court found there was not enough evidence to convict him on that charge.

Weeks before he shot Steenkamp, he discharged a gun by accident at a Johannesburg restaurant.


link

Samson 4th December 2015 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 11012782)
. Look at what happened in the Pistorius apartment that night. He went to the balcony to remove a fan. He noticed a repair crew had left a ladder near his balcony. When he went back into the apartment he discovered the bathroom was occupied. Then, without making any effort to find out who was in the bathroom, he went to his bedroom, got a handgun and then fired four shots through the bathroom door. How was he legally entitled to kill who ever was in the bathroom? Pistorius had not been threatened. He had not seen anyone enter his apartment. There was no sign of an intruder. He obviously did not ascertain to a certainty that his girlfriend was still in bed.

There's another issue here too that goes to Pistorius' state of mind. Upon reentering the bedroom to get the handgun, wouldn't a reasonable person have made sure his girlfriend understood there might be an intruder in the apartment? Make sure she was going to 1) stay put, 2) call police or 3) exit the apartment.

Was it reasonable in the face of all that for Pistorius to have then killed the unknown person in the bathroom? Most people would say no Pistorius did not act reasonably.



Reeva Steenkamp's mother June Steenkamp has not accepted that Pistorius was trying to protect her daughter. She will not discuss what she thinks but she has said:


What Steenkamp says she plans to do is start a charity to help victims of domestic abuse.

My understanding is he heard a noise in the bathroom so immediately locked onto the presumption it was an intruder. My supposition is he subconsciously expected he would have heard Reeva go to the bathroom while he was on the deck, and presumably considered stealth in getting the firearm from under the bed and getting to the bathroom as quickly as possible paramount. Obviously this is his big problem, as no one can believe it. Yet it makes more sense to me to believe this than that he would end his own life as he knows it by committing cold blooded murder.

LondonJohn 4th December 2015 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scordatura (Post 11012511)
Oscar himself effectively closed the door to PPD through his own testimony. His first response to why he shot the gun was that he did it without thinking. That triggered Roux bringing in experts to testify about his anxiety issues and GAD and the timeout for a mental evaluation at Weskoppies.

In later testimony he said he believed his and Reeva's lives were in danger (PPD) and that's why he shot the door but at the end of his testimony he changed it again, adamantly insisting that he never intended to shoot anyone. That's not PPD.

The SCA judgment explains it all better than I can. Paragraphs 17 and 52 through 54.

http://cdn.24.co.za/files/Cms/Genera...316c9e413b.pdf

The sole reason the case went to the SCA was because Masipa misapplied the law. The SCA judgment was unanimous. Some people believe if Oscar had remained steadfast in claiming he believed he shot an intruder in a lawful manner that he might have been found not guilty. Masipa was sympathetic towards him so who knows?


Exactly correct. As was the other analysis upthread discussing how ludicrous it was that Masipa could/should have basically ruled in her original verdict that Pistorius did not have a valid self-defence PPD (i.e. that he was lying when he had claimed he genuinely felt in imminent mortal danger), but yet allowed for a culpable homicide verdict - which basically implied that Masipa believed that Pistorius must have negligently and impulsively discharged his weapon (which was contradicted, inter alia, by parts of Pistorius' own testimony!).

The appeal court basically did two things. Firstly, it affirmed that Masipa was correct to throw out the self-defence PPD option. The appeal court agreed that Pistorius was lying when he claimed (Variously) to have been in imminent mortal danger. The court pointed to Pistorius' self-contradictory testimony and statements to police, and was satisfied that Pistorius did not genuinely feel that he shot purely to prevent himself (and/or Steenkamp) from being killed or seriously injured in the imminent future.

Then, secondly and separately, the court demolished Masipa's "reasoning" on rejecting murder in favour of culpable homicide. This really wasn't hard to do. The court pointed to Pistorius' confirmation that he took a stance and fired the four aimed shots. that he knew there was a human being in the extremely small enclosed space behind the door, and that he knew (or must have known) that the powerful hand gun and its powerful, penetrative ammunition in his hand were easily capable of passing through the door and killing or seriously wounding whoever was behind the door. So Pistorius clearly didn't fire negligently or reflexively. He took aim and fired at a target: a target which he knew was in his firing line and which the bullets he fired were likely to hit and kill or seriously wound. And that - when taken together with the rejection of the self-defence PPD - is murder.

lionking 4th December 2015 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 11012782)
I agree that we should be able to offer analysis on points where we disagree. I also think Mike G. has it right.

The legal issue is the law protecting people from being killed. That in order to kill someone and have the legal system find it to have been justifiable the defendant has to show compelling evidence that the use of deadly force was reasonable. Look at what happened in the Pistorius apartment that night. He went to the balcony to remove a fan. He noticed a repair crew had left a ladder near his balcony. When he went back into the apartment he discovered the bathroom was occupied. Then, without making any effort to find out who was in the bathroom, he went to his bedroom, got a handgun and then fired four shots through the bathroom door. How was he legally entitled to kill who ever was in the bathroom? Pistorius had not been threatened. He had not seen anyone enter his apartment. There was no sign of an intruder. He obviously did not ascertain to a certainty that his girlfriend was still in bed.

There's another issue here too that goes to Pistorius' state of mind. Upon reentering the bedroom to get the handgun, wouldn't a reasonable person have made sure his girlfriend understood there might be an intruder in the apartment? Make sure she was going to 1) stay put, 2) call police or 3) exit the apartment.

Was it reasonable in the face of all that for Pistorius to have then killed the unknown person in the bathroom? Most people would say no Pistorius did not act reasonably.



Reeva Steenkamp's mother June Steenkamp has not accepted that Pistorius was trying to protect her daughter. She will not discuss what she thinks but she has said:


What Steenkamp says she plans to do is start a charity to help victims of domestic abuse.

This is exactly the way I see it. Good summary.

lionking 4th December 2015 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11013073)
My understanding is he heard a noise in the bathroom so immediately locked onto the presumption it was an intruder. My supposition is he subconsciously expected he would have heard Reeva go to the bathroom while he was on the deck, and presumably considered stealth in getting the firearm from under the bed and getting to the bathroom as quickly as possible paramount. Obviously this is his big problem, as no one can believe it. Yet it makes more sense to me to believe this than that he would end his own life as he knows it by committing cold blooded murder.

I find it far easier to believe that Pistorius lied through his back teeth. The disgraceful judgement of Masipa has been rightly swept away.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.