• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend

Status
Not open for further replies.
lionking said:
He might, but I'm certain the prosecution will as well. Unfortunately I predict an 18 month sentence. Far too lenient.
Click to expand...

Has the prosecution a right of appeal? Abandoning myself once again to the stupid folly of these ill-informed predictions, I predict he will successfully appeal the culpable homicide verdict on the ground (possibly among others) that, on the facts as found (which are likely now set in stone so far as any appeal court is concerned) a reasonable person would have fired through the door or, at any rate, it cannot be said with sufficient assurance that he would not.

I am thinking of all the times security types have gunned someone down and got away with it in far less dangerous situations than Oscar's: the Gibraltar IRA thing, Jean Charles De Menezes (surely those cops would be guilty of CH under SA law) the guy who was carrying a chair leg in a carrier bag (why, for Pete's sake) in the East End and the cops thought it was a sawn off shotgun. I bet the yanks here have a thousand similar stories. Even Tony Martin, the farmer, was OK shooting at the travellers who invaded his home so long as they weren't running away when he did it.
 
anglolawyer said:
Has the prosecution a right of appeal? Abandoning myself once again to the stupid folly of these ill-informed predictions, I predict he will successfully appeal the culpable homicide verdict on the ground (possibly among others) that, on the facts as found (which are likely now set in stone so far as any appeal court is concerned) a reasonable person would have fired through the door or, at any rate, it cannot be said with sufficient assurance that he would not.

I am thinking of all the times security types have gunned someone down and got away with it in far less dangerous situations than Oscar's: the Gibraltar IRA thing, Jean Charles De Menezes (surely those cops would be guilty of CH under SA law) the guy who was carrying a chair leg in a carrier bag (why, for Pete's sake) in the East End and the cops thought it was a sawn off shotgun. I bet the yanks here have a thousand similar stories. Even Tony Martin, the farmer, was OK shooting at the travellers who invaded his home so long as they weren't running away when he did it.
Click to expand...
You are supporting my non cash bet, no jail time versus seven years. The larger question is to establish what purpose is served by a custodial sentence. None if we believe he believed he was protecting the love of his life. A mistake of this magnitude is clearly not likely to be repeated by any learning man.
 
Samson said:
You are supporting my non cash bet, no jail time versus seven years. The larger question is to establish what purpose is served by a custodial sentence.
Click to expand...

To teach him that his attitude to firearms is inappropriate and to allow him to get training or counselling in a safe (for the rest of the population) environment.

Samson said:
None if we believe he believed he was protecting the love of his life. A mistake of this magnitude is clearly not likely to be repeated by any learning man.
Click to expand...

"Smart" people do stupid things all the time, particularly when angry, frightened, confused or some combination.
 
Listening to the BBC coverage interviewing South Africans:

3 women/day in SA are killed by their partners.
If O.P. were poor or black he'd have been convicted of murder. (no surprise there)
People blame the judge more than the prosecutor and think it was murder.
 
DarthFishy said:
Oscar acquitted on first 3rd charge (firing the gun out of a sunroof) as the state did not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it.

I think the Judge is in a bit of a tough spot here. The evidence in this trial seems to suggest that Oscar did indeed murder Reeva Steenkamp. This suggestion is obviously not enough to convict (for murder) so the Judge cannot do that.

Will be interesting to see what the eventual sentence will be if (when?) he is convicated of culpable homicide.
Click to expand...

I don't think the bolded bit was true by the end of the trial, at least if you mean the evidence suggests he knowingly shot Reeva. The defence closing argument and especially the timeline they presented were very strong, and basically forced the judge to accept the screams and shouts for help had to have been Pistorius. Not least because the prosecution barely argued the point! Once the 'woman's screams' were gone, there was little else to suggest he was guilty of knowingly shooting Reeva, and quite a bit to support the theory he thought it was an intruder (his shouts for help immediately after the shots, his immediate statement that he thought she was an intruder, his distress at the scene, and his genuine (according to witnesses) desire to save her life). Not proof, but certainly evidence which supported the defence more than the prosecution.

I think the prosecution stuffed up by overcharging him in the first place, when the evidence didn't support a premeditated murder charge. If they were going to charge him with murder at all, then it should've been on the grounds he was guilty of murdering a would-be intruder, not that he was guilty of knowingly shooting Steenkamp. They still might not have got a murder conviction, but at least they wouldn't have spent most of the trial arguing a hopelessly weak case.
 
Last edited:
anglolawyer said:
I predict he will successfully appeal the culpable homicide verdict on the ground (possibly among others) that, on the facts as found (which are likely now set in stone so far as any appeal court is concerned) a reasonable person would have fired through the door or, at any rate, it cannot be said with sufficient assurance that he would not.
Click to expand...

I thought the judge's whole point was that a reasonable person would not have approached the door with a gun in the first place, but would have escaped or called for help?
 
GlennB said:
I thought the judge's whole point was that a reasonable person would not have approached the door with a gun in the first place, but would have escaped or called for help?
Click to expand...

If that was her point then I dispute it. It occurs to me now that a useful defence witness would have been one of these SWAT team guys who might have testified as to their training when faced with an armed criminal. What are their 'rules of engagement' for instance? They might provide an objective basis for assessment of what a reasonable person is allowed to do and what not. I repeat, on the facts as he has been found to have believed them to be, it seems to me perfectly reasonable for him to have shot first and asked questions later which is what I think the professionals do.

I think, though I may not be paying sufficiently close attention, that she may have condemned him for unreasonably concluding it was an intruder behold the door rather than Reeva. That sort of thinking is alien to my criminal law training in which the accused must be judged on his own subjective understanding, not what the court thinks a notional reasonable person would have understood. I'm not sure it's right anyway, even in SA terms, since it takes insufficient account of the urgency of the situation and the increased danger to himself and Reeva if he stopped to make enquiry before firing.
 
Skwinty said:
The state can only appeal on matters of law. If the judge has misinterpreted dolus eventualis then Nel will certainly appeal.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Similar here. I expect the state to appeal.

Now we have the verdict, I cast my mind back to Nel's cross. He was at pains to keep stressing the need for Oscar to 'take responsibility' but was not that effective on the murder front. It would not surprise me at all if he though the state's case on murder was not that good and that he played it to ensure he got the CH conviction at the very least.
 
anglolawyer said:
If that was her point then I dispute it. It occurs to me now that a useful defence witness would have been one of these SWAT team guys who might have testified as to their training when faced with an armed criminal. What are their 'rules of engagement' for instance? They might provide an objective basis for assessment of what a reasonable person is allowed to do and what not. I repeat, on the facts as he has been found to have believed them to be, it seems to me perfectly reasonable for him to have shot first and asked questions later which is what I think the professionals do.
Click to expand...

She went out of her way to define 'reasonable person' in terms of Pistorius' age, background, gender, abilities, training etc, not in terms of being a pro SWAT team member. Putting himself into the situation where he felt threatened, panicked and fired was not, as I understand her words, the act of a reasonable person. I'd agree totally with that especially given that the bedroom and balcony doors were a few yards away.
 
anglolawyer said:
Thanks. Similar here. I expect the state to appeal.

Now we have the verdict, I cast my mind back to Nel's cross. He was at pains to keep stressing the need for Oscar to 'take responsibility' but was not that effective on the murder front. It would not surprise me at all if he though the state's case on murder was not that good and that he played it to ensure he got the CH conviction at the very least.
Click to expand...
The CH conviction was pretty straight forward, but every one I ever discussed with said guilty as sin, including two Zimbabwean white middleclass immigrants. Everyone thinks it was a a Hey Joe moment. Premeditated murder, but why do people wish this to be so?
 
GlennB said:
She went out of her way to define 'reasonable person' in terms of Pistorius' age, background, gender, abilities, training etc, not in terms of being a pro SWAT team member. Putting himself into the situation where he felt threatened, panicked and fired was not, as I understand her words, the act of a reasonable person. I'd agree totally with that especially given that the bedroom and balcony doors were a few yards away.
Click to expand...

The point about the SWAT person was that his training, rules of engagement etc would provide a truly objective standard of what one is supposed to do when confronted by an armed, or possibly armed, adversary. We can attribute to our notional SWAT person Oscar's particular attributes, as the law requires, but on what evidence has the judge decided that his conduct was unreasonable. Has she just worked it out herself? If so, I don't see any proper basis for her view.

Here is something which may or may not be legit

As with other UK armed police forces, CO19 adhere to rules of engagement based on guidelines from the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo). These specify that they:

Must identify themselves and declare intent to fire (unless this risks serious harm).
Should aim for the biggest target (the torso) to incapacitate and for greater accuracy.
Should reassess the situation after each shot.
Click to expand...

My emphasis. It's a bit much to expect Oscar to have observed the last rule, which probably requires specific training, but note that it is OK to shoot at the torso without first identifying oneself or issuing a warning where one is at risk of serious harm, which he undoubtedly was in the scenario as he saw it (the intruder could as easily have fired at him through the toilet door).
 
Samson said:
The CH conviction was pretty straight forward, but every one I ever discussed with said guilty as sin, including two Zimbabwean white middleclass immigrants. Everyone thinks it was a a Hey Joe moment. Premeditated murder, but why do people wish this to be so?
Click to expand...

Well, everybody is very gung-ho with cases to which they have not attended in the required detail so their opinions are worthless. And as to why people permit themselves opinions on things they know next to nothing about, I believe it is a compulsive human trait for most of us most of the time.
 
katy_did said:
I don't think the bolded bit was true by the end of the trial, at least if you mean the evidence suggests he knowingly shot Reeva. The defence closing argument and especially the timeline they presented were very strong, and basically forced the judge to accept the screams and shouts for help had to have been Pistorius. Not least because the prosecution barely argued the point! Once the 'woman's screams' were gone, there was little else to suggest he was guilty of knowingly shooting Reeva, and quite a bit to support the theory he thought it was an intruder (his shouts for help immediately after the shots, his immediate statement that he thought she was an intruder, his distress at the scene, and his genuine (according to witnesses) desire to save her life). Not proof, but certainly evidence which supported the defence more than the prosecution.

I think the prosecution stuffed up by overcharging him in the first place, when the evidence didn't support a premeditated murder charge. If they were going to charge him with murder at all, then it should've been on the grounds he was guilty of murdering a would-be intruder, not that he was guilty of knowingly shooting Steenkamp. They still might not have got a murder conviction, but at least they wouldn't have spent most of the trial arguing a hopelessly weak case.
Click to expand...

I should have said suggestive to me. I will admit a bias against Oscar Pistorius as he seems to fit the stereotypical "macho Afrikaaner male" that I have little affinity for (even though I, ironically fit 2 of the 3 adjectives).

The evidence from the trial, to me, suggests that he did kill her in rage, but I readily admit that there's definitely not enough evidence to convict him and I do think justice was done (dependent on the actual sentencing).
 
Samson said:
The CH conviction was pretty straight forward, but every one I ever discussed with said guilty as sin, including two Zimbabwean white middleclass immigrants. Everyone thinks it was a a Hey Joe moment. Premeditated murder, but why do people wish this to be so?
Click to expand...

In the previous post I have outlined my personal reasons for thinking so, and I suspect I am not the only one who thinks this way.

It may also further be compounded by feelings of jealousy.

I do admit that I'm biased in my thinking though.

ETA: And what Anglo-Lawyer said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom