Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2

[MikeG]

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese

........ IMO the application of castle doctrine in US law is the correct approach. The right to protect myself and my family should trump all assumptions about your intent if you are illegally trespassing on my property..........

You weren't playing devil's advocate, then. Good, at least that's established.

[Hard Cheese]

Originally Posted by MikeG

You weren't playing devil's advocate, then. Good, at least that's established.

Oh, how drearily predictable. You've convinced yourself, good on you.

[MikeG]

No, more to the point, you've failed to convince others.

[Hard Cheese]

Originally Posted by MikeG

No, more to the point, you've failed to convince others.

Since you take it upon yourself to be the mouthpiece for everyone, that makes it very efficient for me when I tell you...I don't care. Please pass it on.

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese

Ultimately it failed. But initially it succeeded because he was found guilty of culpable homicide and got an extremely light sentence, which was only rectified after two appeals.

It still failed and rightly so.

Quote:

I love how you use the word "generally", as if I was going to rely on someone being at the top of the bell curve when I find them trespassing in my house at midnight. Even in my part of the world there are plenty of occurrences of home invasions where the occupant, often very elderly, has been badly beaten. I'm not sure how I'd distinguish between a "thief" and a "home invader". Perhaps they could get business cards printed up.

Perhaps you should leave aside the agit-prop nonsense. I was talking about self defence. The simple fact an intruder is in your house is not, repeat not, a threat to life and limb. And since the vast majority of such thieves are only interested in your stuff that means you can't assume they are a threat to life and limb. Self defence requires a clear and immediate threat to your or someone else's life and limb and simply being an intruder isn't enough.

Quote:

It may well do in South Africa, and possibly most other countries, I don't know. IMO the application of castle doctrine in US law is the correct approach. The right to protect myself and my family should trump all assumptions about your intent if you are illegally trespassing on my property.

Wow! what stew of idiocy. If that is indeed legal doctrine in parts of the USA then stupidity runs deep. I hope the details of this doctrine make it less stupid than what you said. You do realize that all over the world including the USA I would think people trespass other people's property because it provides a short cut or some other reason. Now do you believe a 10 year old taking a short cut across someone's property can be shot down? I am also not aware that break and enter and thievery are appropriately punished by death. Oh and I do in fact agree that the rights of anyone go out the window if they threaten by immediate action your life and limb and this includes threats to your family.

However giving a license to every idiot who fantasizes paranoid fears of someone simply being in their house to shoot people down. Well just no!

This does remind of cases I've heard about of people deliberately luring people to rob them and then shooting them down.

Quote:

Your view of Pistorius' behaviour is modelled on how you believe you would act and how one should should behave afterwards despite (I assume) you having never been in such a situation and your opinion that Pistorius does not actually 100% believe that his life was in danger. I think he's a liar (re his testimony about Reeva being in the bed) and a complete idiot (he had a thousand ways to avoid the situation he was in), but by the same token I don't discount that I could be completely wrong and he could be telling the truth.

Actually the law is indeed modeled on how people "should" behave in given situations. Oh and I have been in that situation, several times in fact, and I didn't feel my life was in danger. Instead I was incensed that I was being robbed. In all three cases the thieves were apprehended.

Quote:

Your statement "I hope you never have a gun in that case" (because I might do what Pistorius did) implies that the same isn't true for you. Maybe I am reading that wrong.

Since I didn't and don't have a gun I have no idea how I would have responded if I had had a gun in the above mentioned incidents. Further I do sometimes suffer from panic attacks, so who knows?

Frankly any sort of right to respond to mere trespass with potentially lethal force strikes me has evil.

[Hard Cheese]

Originally Posted by Pacal

I was talking about self defence. The simple fact an intruder is in your house is not, repeat not, a threat to life and limb.

Legally, usually. In real life, your assumption your (presumed) thief is one of the "vast majority" is a foolish gamble. Most of the time you'll be correct. It only takes one time for you to be wrong to have something happen to you or your family. That doesn't mean my first action would be shooting wildly at them, even if I owned a gun - I'd be getting my family off the property and calling the police. But no way on Gods Earth am I ever going to assume they would never hurt me.

Originally Posted by Pacal

Wow! what stew of idiocy. If that is indeed legal doctrine in parts of the USA then stupidity runs deep.

Maybe you should read up about it then, most states have it in one form or another. It doesn't mean you can blow away the mailman, or a thief running out the door with your TV set. But if you have a reasonable fear of your life or your family is in danger, you can use deadly force without fear of prosecution. That's as I understand it, I'm not a US resident so someone may be able to chime in and confirm.

Originally Posted by Pacal

I hope the details of this doctrine make it less stupid than what you said. You do realize that all over the world including the USA I would think people trespass other people's property because it provides a short cut or some other reason. Now do you believe a 10 year old taking a short cut across someone's property can be shot down?

No, of course it doesn't give you that right, nor should it.

Originally Posted by Pacal

I am also not aware that break and enter and thievery are appropriately punished by death.

If the thief carried a gun or a knife or a baseball bat, then you'd probably have justification. If you shot them climbing out a window with your wallet, no.

Originally Posted by Pacal

However giving a license to every idiot who fantasizes paranoid fears of someone simply being in their house to shoot people down. Well just no!

That's the thing. What to you in Canada and I in New Zealand seems like paranoid fear, probably isn't in South Africa or the US. If they're living behind high walls, barbed wire and own guns to protect themselves, then I think the law should at least not hamper a law-abiding citizen should someone find themselves up against a home invader, and should not unnecessarily punish them for their action afterwards.

That said, you don't want to give license to the closet Dirty Harry type, which clearly Pistorius is. But I'd hope to think these guys were in the minority, and the majority are rational people.

[MikeG]

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese

....... If they're living behind high walls, barbed wire and own guns to protect themselves, then I think the law should at least not hamper a law-abiding citizen should someone find themselves up against a home invader, and should not unnecessarily punish them for their action afterwards..........

This is where the this thread has wasted umpteen pages. What people think the law should be is irrelevant. Pistorius' own story is an admission of murder under South African law, and wishing that law was different is unproductive.

[Hard Cheese]

Originally Posted by MikeG

This is where the this thread has wasted umpteen pages. What people think the law should be is irrelevant.Pistorius' own story is an admission of murder under South African law, and wishing that law was different is unproductive.

Sure, he's guilty of murder under SA law, and if you want to draw a line under that and learn nothing from it, go ahead. I don't think it's unproductive to discuss the definition of intent and self defence laws in general terms, and how they are implemented in other parts of the world.

[MikeG]

You might note, Hard Cheese, that some of us have been posting in this thread since day one. Dropping into it four years later and telling us what lessons we should learn is an interesting approach.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese

Legally, usually. In real life, your assumption your (presumed) thief is one of the "vast majority" is a foolish gamble. Most of the time you'll be correct. It only takes one time for you to be wrong to have something happen to you or your family. That doesn't mean my first action would be shooting wildly at them, even if I owned a gun - I'd be getting my family off the property and calling the police. But no way on Gods Earth am I ever going to assume they would never hurt me.

Maybe you should read up about it then, most states have it in one form or another. It doesn't mean you can blow away the mailman, or a thief running out the door with your TV set. But if you have a reasonable fear of your life or your family is in danger, you can use deadly force without fear of prosecution. That's as I understand it, I'm not a US resident so someone may be able to chime in and confirm.


No, of course it doesn't give you that right, nor should it.


If the thief carried a gun or a knife or a baseball bat, then you'd probably have justification. If you shot them climbing out a window with your wallet, no.



That's the thing. What to you in Canada and I in New Zealand seems like paranoid fear, probably isn't in South Africa or the US. If they're living behind high walls, barbed wire and own guns to protect themselves, then I think the law should at least not hamper a law-abiding citizen should someone find themselves up against a home invader, and should not unnecessarily punish them for their action afterwards.

That said, you don't want to give license to the closet Dirty Harry type, which clearly Pistorius is. But I'd hope to think these guys were in the minority, and the majority are rational people.

I think where you go wrong, Hard Cheese, is that you accept Pistorius' claim that he believed there was an intruder. Truth is, all the evidence points to Pistorius cold-bloodedly shooting dead his girlfriend in one of his well-known rages.

[Hard Cheese]

Originally Posted by MikeG

You might note, Hard Cheese, that some of us have been posting in this thread since day one. Dropping into it four years later and telling us what lessons we should learn is an interesting approach.

If you don't think you're getting anything more out of the thread, why are you still hanging around after four years? Just to stroke your beard and tut tut at anyone who hasn't been here "since day one"? Maybe you should ask the mods to close it, since it's served your purpose.

[Hard Cheese]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I think where you go wrong, Hard Cheese, is that you accept Pistorius' claim that he believed there was an intruder. Truth is, all the evidence points to Pistorius cold-bloodedly shooting dead his girlfriend in one of his well-known rages.

No, I don't believe his claim at all - I think he shot his partner in a wild, jealous rage and tried to cover it up. But that's just my opinion. I accept there is the (unlikely to me) possibility that his story is the truth. This doesn't make him any less guilty, but I'm interested in whether they actually accepted (or even addressed) the veracity of his story in the appeal, or whether they simply ignored it because it wasn't legally relevant.

[Samson]

This case resembles many others where debate rages around immovable datapoints. I consider the idea that there can be dual conclusions from the data absurd, as in Bain Bamber Lundy and so on.
This thread should get to the heart of the matter, and determine whether a cripple would stand at an oblique angle and fire randomly at his girl friend through a bathroom door.
I do not believe it, but set against that is her apparel and the phones in the cubicle.

[erwinl]

Originally Posted by Samson

This case resembles many others where debate rages around immovable datapoints. I consider the idea that there can be dual conclusions from the data absurd, as in Bain Bamber Lundy and so on.
This thread should get to the heart of the matter, and determine whether a cripple would stand at an oblique angle and fire randomly at his girl friend through a bathroom door.
I do not believe it, but set against that is her apparel and the phones in the cubicle.

Did somebody else fire those shots then?

[MikeG]

Originally Posted by Samson

This case resembles many others where debate rages around immovable datapoints. I consider the idea that there can be dual conclusions from the data absurd, as in Bain Bamber Lundy and so on.
This thread should get to the heart of the matter, and determine whether a cripple would stand at an oblique angle and fire randomly at his girl friend through a bathroom door.
I do not believe it, but set against that is her apparel and the phones in the cubicle.

Is anyone disputing that he fired through the bathroom door? Does anyone, other than you, contend that it makes any difference whether or not he thought it was his girlfriend behind the door?

Those are the "fixed data points" which you have spent 4 years not understanding. London John explained the legalities of this in immense and thoughtful detail at various stages through this thread, and there isn't a single honest reader who could be left in any doubt after that. As with one single poster in the Sollecito thread, the only remaining issue is not one of fact, of legal interpretation, or of philosophy, but one of the willful ignorance and dishonesty of that one poster. Arguing that there is doubt in a case where there is no doubt is just displaying emotion, not intellect. Answer this one question straightforwardly and honestly, Samson:

Do you understand that even if (as you and I both believe) Pistorius' story as told in court is broadly correct and honest, that his actions that night still constitute murder under the SA law pertaining at the time? That's a yes or no binary choice.