|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
![]() |
#121 |
The Grammar Tyrant
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,541
|
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. |
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#122 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,051
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#123 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 20,046
|
|
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#124 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,181
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#125 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,231
|
|
__________________
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mahatma Gandhi Wollen owns the stage |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#126 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,020
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#127 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,069
|
|
__________________
"come on. Judas is meeting us at midnight with the getaway donkeys" |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#128 |
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,785
|
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. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#129 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,069
|
Thanks Rolfe, that would be an interesting read.
|
__________________
"come on. Judas is meeting us at midnight with the getaway donkeys" |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#130 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,051
|
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.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#131 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,051
|
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.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#132 |
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,785
|
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.)
Originally Posted by Robert Black QC
Rondlopery! I love it! |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#133 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,020
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#134 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,051
|
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... |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#135 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,020
|
No c'est la via for Reeva. The murderer will get his full due, finally.
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#136 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,051
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#137 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,231
|
|
__________________
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mahatma Gandhi Wollen owns the stage |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#138 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,231
|
|
__________________
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mahatma Gandhi Wollen owns the stage |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#139 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
|
|
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - - - -Bertrand Russell |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#140 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA, near the Isle of Lucy
Posts: 392
|
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? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#141 |
The Grammar Tyrant
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,541
|
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. As Rolfe has shown, under RSA (and NZ/UK/etc) law, that isn't even an issue. ![]() 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." |
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#143 |
Now. Do it now.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
|
|
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#144 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,850
|
|
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#145 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,776
|
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:
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#146 |
The Grammar Tyrant
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,541
|
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 |
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#147 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,051
|
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.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#148 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,638
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#149 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,020
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#150 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,020
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#151 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,231
|
|
__________________
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mahatma Gandhi Wollen owns the stage |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#152 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,776
|
Quote:
In that instance the defendant can not argue that they did not mean to kill the person in the bathroom. At least in the U.S., the judge in a jury trial would be very likely to explain when charging the jury that under our laws the "I didn't mean to kill anyone when I fired four shots through the bathroom door," is not a legally plausible defense. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#153 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,638
|
Amidst all this, I think some here have forgotten that neither Masipa nor the Court of Appeal ruled that Pistorius knew/believed he was shooting at Steenkamp behind that door, rather than the mythical intruder claimed by Pistorius. In fact, both courts are agnostic as to the identity of the victim.
I am sure that Steenkamp's family - and, it seems, some people here - would have liked the courts to have found that the "intruder" story was a lie, and that Pistorius had knowingly targeted Steenkamp. But that's not what they found. And, in a very real sense, they had no need to make such a finding (and indeed to have done so could have made this a much more appealable case by the defence). All they had to show was that Pistorius knew it was a human being behind that door - whether he genuinely believed that human to be an intruder, or whether he knew it to be Steenkamp. Personally, I think that the evidence and testimony all point very strongly to the conclusion that Pistorius never did genuinely think there was an intruder, and that he knew it was Steenkamp at whom he was firing his gun through the door. I think the evidence strongly suggests that Steenkamp ran into the bathroom and locked herself in the toilet with her phone, in order to put a physical barrier between her and a jealous/enraged Pistorius and in order to make a distress phone call (either to police or to family/friend). But that's all conjecture. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#154 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,638
|
The test is wider than that. It's whether the assailant ought reasonably to have known that his/her actions might either kill or seriously injure the victim. That's to mitigate against a defendant claiming something like "Oh yeah, I was only shooting to injure the other person: my mate got shot four times in the torso a few years ago and he survived - that's what I was hoping to do to the guy I was shooting at. I really didn't want to KILL him, your honour.....". Basically, if the assailant should have known that his/her actions might at least seriously injure the victim, then by extension the assailant ought to have known that death was a clearly possible outcome. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#155 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,051
|
If we restrict the debate to determining if Reeva was trying to escape from Oscar, or that the intruder hypothesis is correct, and I see this as the normal dichotomy in these types of cases, then the empty bladder assumes paramount significance. I suggested this earlier, and I don't recall it being substantially addressed, but handwaved away.
The pattern I like is to find one extreme data point that can not fit the prosecution theory, and to then test the plausibilty of the accused's narrative. The empty bladder makes no sense to me if Reeva is afraid of a pursuing Oscar. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#156 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
|
|
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - - - -Bertrand Russell |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#157 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,051
|
Well, in the real world everyone I mention the case to agrees with that and I am deemed a nutter.
However, I watched quite a bit of the trial as it was rather convenient evening viewing hours in NZ. I watched Masipa intently absorbing the proceedings, a woman who sentenced a rapist to 60 year's jail as she rather disapproves of violence towards her gender. Furthermore, Oscar's account and logs of phone calls were all consistent with his one and only substantial narrative (variations are commonplace where someone in obviously deep trouble tries to make more credible their disastrous errors of judgement). Masipa watched the prosecution flat out lie about sequences of events, and judged as she saw it. I buy right into her analysis, as it accords exactly with others who drilled into the detail. But the battle is hopeless both legally and in public opinion now, most feel better and safer, but I think it is ridiculous. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#158 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,776
|
How long was she in the bathroom? Why are you so convinced that a woman taking refuge in a bathroom, to get away from her boy friend, to call someone -- possibly the police -- would not urinate while in the bathroom? You seem to be placing a lot on that, but I don't see how that logically follows.
Isn't it possible she knew he was angry -- her mother says Reeva claimed they fought all the time -- but never dreamed he would shoot her? Isn't it possible that once she entered the bathroom and locked the door she felt safe? Safe enough to urinate if she had the need? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#159 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,020
|
It's Pistorius' narrative which is ridiculous. He didn't notice Reeva get out of bed. Didn't notice she wasn't in bed when he supposedly heard an intruder. Didn't even bother to ascertain her whereabouts when he supposedly feared for his life. Didn't notice she wasn't in bed when he came back to the bedroom to get his gun.
Ridiculous. Unbelievable. |
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#160 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
|
I am a firearm owner, as you might know. As others have argued, it really does not matter if he was specifically shooting at her or not.
Lets say I wake up in the middle of the night and hear noises in my bathroom. I might grab my weapon, sure. The first thing I will do is yell into the room "I have a weapon. Identify yourself." He failed those basic steps so he is guilty of murder. |
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - - - -Bertrand Russell |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|