Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend

[GlennB]

.
I haven't followed this much, as the ways the rich and famous separate is of little interest to me, but, with the "intruder" in an enclosure, why not call 911?

Even better - get out the bedroom door and downstairs. Then call 911.

 

[Azrael 5]

So the law of the rich and famous strikes again. If he were black or his victim had been ,SA would be ablaze now surely.

I can only hope he is dealt ten years minimum,but likely get 18 month,with good behaviour clause,an appeal thrown in for good measure ,he'll serve 90 days maximum.
I'll be claiming my $1 million dollars next month

Incidentally when the forum moved did they leave an important piece of software behind,whenever I post I get Gateway error.

 

[Samson]

There are two great books in waiting. I imagine to read just one with no prior knowledge will totally convince. Why not by one clever author?

 

[MontagK505]

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.

I don't think SWAT rules of engagement means you shoot through a closed door at an unknown target. The fact that he put four rounds through that closed door using high powered ammo means he intended to kill. It amazes me the judge doesn't see this.

 

[MontagK505]

Concrete proof that Judge Masipa made the correct call:

http://www.channel24.co.za/Gossip/News/Donald-Trump-calls-Oscar-judge-a-total-moron-20140912

I presume this is sarcasm. Anyone who would allow DT to influence their thinking in any manner would be suspect.

 

[lionking]

Why on earth is he still on bail? I now fear this weak judge will give him a suspended sentence.

 

[anglolawyer]

I don't think SWAT rules of engagement means you shoot through a closed door at an unknown target. The fact that he put four rounds through that closed door using high powered ammo means he intended to kill. It amazes me the judge doesn't see this.

OK, let's see the rules. I already posted some which authorised shooting without warning where danger was apprehended.

 

[GlennB]

OK, let's see the rules. I already posted some which authorised shooting without warning where danger was apprehended.

As I posted upthread, the judge made it very clear that 'a reasonable person' in this context would be somebody akin to OP himself. SWAT rules of engagement are totally irrelevant here. Totally.

It's like someone has been fingered for failing to help a child out swimming who was in trouble. What would a 'reasonable person' do? Well, if you're me you seek help elsewhere, because I'm a crap swimmer. If I were a trained lifeguard then 'reasonable' would be to swim out and help the kid.

OP was not SWAT trained or qualified. 'Reasonable' here, as Masipa made clear, would be to seek safety rather then confront the perceived danger.

 

[anglolawyer]

As I posted upthread, the judge made it very clear that 'a reasonable person' in this context would be somebody akin to OP himself. SWAT rules of engagement are totally irrelevant here. Totally.

It's like someone has been fingered for failing to help a child out swimming who was in trouble. What would a 'reasonable person' do? Well, if you're me you seek help elsewhere, because I'm a crap swimmer. If I were a trained lifeguard then 'reasonable' would be to swim out and help the kid.

OP was not SWAT trained or qualified. 'Reasonable' here, as Masipa made clear, would be to seek safety rather then confront the perceived danger.

Your analogy does not hold. Oscar had to protect himself and Reeva. His judgment, which you and the judge have second-guessed, without any known qualifications in either case, was to shoot. If a SWAT person would have acted similarly that proves what a reasonable response to the perceived danger would be. Masipa is a judge. What does she know about self-defence in such cases?

 

[MontagK505]

Your analogy does not hold. Oscar had to protect himself and Reeva. His judgment, which you and the judge have second-guessed, without any known qualifications in either case, was to shoot. If a SWAT person would have acted similarly that proves what a reasonable response to the perceived danger would be. Masipa is a judge. What does she know about self-defence in such cases?

I don't think SWAT teams shoot through doors just because they are nervous about a noise behind the door. They have to have much stronger reasons. Even if you accept OP's version of events he did intend to kill whoever was behind that door.
I don't buy his story because I don't think man who is so terrified his judgement is that impaired would crawl down a totally dark passageway on his stubbies toward what he claims to be extreme danger. I freely admit this isn't proof that OP knowingly murdered his girlfriend. The most charitable thing I can say about OP is that he is a dangerous poop-brained idiot that should not be wandering around loose.

 

[Samson]

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.

From thoughtful over at PMF.

Jude Masipa made the right call. Emotion might persuade many people that Pistorius knowingly killed Reeva, but the evidence totally failed to prove that. Above all Nel fell down very badly in refusing to provide even a hypothetical explanation for the sounds heard by his own witnesses. Close examination of the evidence lends far more weight to Pistorius' version of the timeline than Nel's. in fact Nel's assertion of death at 3:17 flatly contradicted the evidence. No matter what one believes, intentional murder of Reeva was not proved. However, dangerous and reckless high risk potentially lethal behavior leading to death was proved, ergo culpable homicide is the right decision. Acquittal would have been unthinkable. Pistorius will deservedly spend years in prison. Unlike Amanda and Raffaele, this may actually make him into a better person.

Her last sentence is surprising as she is bright enough to stop flogging that horse.

 

[lionking]

Who's handling Pistorius' PR? To have his uncle actually thank the judge and talk about the toll the trial put on the family was unbelievable. Does he think people will sympathise? Poor call. His family should have kept their thoughts to themselves.

Somebody is dead at OP's hands, and he may yet get a slap on the wrist. Reeva's family deserves the utmost sympathy. Oscar's none at all.

 

[I Ratant]

I don't think SWAT teams shoot through doors just because they are nervous about a noise behind the door. They have to have much stronger reasons. Even if you accept OP's version of events he did intend to kill whoever was behind that door.
I don't buy his story because I don't think man who is so terrified his judgement is that impaired would crawl down a totally dark passageway on his stubbies toward what he claims to be extreme danger. I freely admit this isn't proof that OP knowingly murdered his girlfriend. The most charitable thing I can say about OP is that he is a dangerous poop-brained idiot that should not be wandering around loose.

.
Hunters fire the "sound shot" frequently.
Hear a noise, shoot at the noise.
Most frequently, instead of "ROAR!!!" from the animal, it's "ARRRRGGGGHH! You bastard!" from the other hunter!

 

[anglolawyer]

I don't think SWAT teams shoot through doors just because they are nervous about a noise behind the door. They have to have much stronger reasons. Even if you accept OP's version of events he did intend to kill whoever was behind that door. I don't buy his story because I don't think man who is so terrified his judgement is that impaired would crawl down a totally dark passageway on his stubbies toward what he claims to be extreme danger. I freely admit this isn't proof that OP knowingly murdered his girlfriend. The most charitable thing I can say about OP is that he is a dangerous poop-brained idiot that should not be wandering around loose.

Please back that up with some sort of citation, as I have.

 

[GlennB]

Your analogy does not hold. Oscar had to protect himself and Reeva. His judgment, which you and the judge have second-guessed, without any known qualifications in either case, was to shoot. If a SWAT person would have acted similarly that proves what a reasonable response to the perceived danger would be. Masipa is a judge. What does she know about self-defence in such cases?

Your analysis of his behaviour begins at the point where he's facing that door. Masipa's point was that he had no business being there.

 

[ddt]

I don't think SWAT teams shoot through doors just because they are nervous about a noise behind the door. They have to have much stronger reasons. Even if you accept OP's version of events he did intend to kill whoever was behind that door.
I don't buy his story because I don't think man who is so terrified his judgement is that impaired would crawl down a totally dark passageway on his stubbies toward what he claims to be extreme danger. I freely admit this isn't proof that OP knowingly murdered his girlfriend. The most charitable thing I can say about OP is that he is a dangerous poop-brained idiot that should not be wandering around loose.

This. That's the main reason why I don't buy Oscar's story. If he really thought there was an intruder in the bathroom, he would have sat on the bed, kept his gun aimed at the passageway to the bathroom and called the SA equivalent of 911. If there really was an intruder in the bathroom, he could only have entered the rest of the house through that passageway - or escaped through a bathroom window with a couple of soaps and a bottle of shampoo in his pockets.

(Damn. Just back from shopping and now I realize I forgot to buy shampoo).

 

[I Ratant]

That is so obvious to us, why was it not obvious at the trial?
Someone/thing is in a locked room, and one has to shoot into that room?

 

[GlennB]

That is so obvious to us, why was it not obvious at the trial?
Someone/thing is in a locked room, and one has to shoot into that room?

His story was that he didn't know it was locked and thought the occupant was about to leave it, putting him in danger. The prosecution couldn't prove otherwise.

 

[MontagK505]

This. That's the main reason why I don't buy Oscar's story. If he really thought there was an intruder in the bathroom, he would have sat on the bed, kept his gun aimed at the passageway to the bathroom and called the SA equivalent of 911. If there really was an intruder in the bathroom, he could only have entered the rest of the house through that passageway - or escaped through a bathroom window with a couple of soaps and a bottle of shampoo in his pockets.

(Damn. Just back from shopping and now I realize I forgot to buy shampoo).

Wasn't he supposed to have a panic button to summon local security?

 

[MontagK505]

Please back that up with some sort of citation, as I have.

Your post #3535 didn't say anything about shooting through a closed door. So your "citation" is useless.