• 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.
GlennB said:
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.
Click to expand...

:confused: That what was locked? This BBC article has a floorplan, this article identifies the spot where he shot, and it's even worse than I remembered.

In order to confront the "intruder", Oscar had to go down from the bedroom through a narrow passageway, then make a 90 degrees right turn, and make another right turn to stand in front of the sinks where he shot. That means that the "intruder", in order to be a danger to Oscar, would have had to scale the same maze. Oscar would have had ample time to be alerted that the "intruder" would move his way.
 
ddt said:
:confused: That what was locked? This BBC article has a floorplan, this article identifies the spot where he shot, and it's even worse than I remembered.

In order to confront the "intruder", Oscar had to go down from the bedroom through a narrow passageway, then make a 90 degrees right turn, and make another right turn to stand in front of the sinks where he shot. That means that the "intruder", in order to be a danger to Oscar, would have had to scale the same maze. Oscar would have had ample time to be alerted that the "intruder" would move his way.
Click to expand...

The toilet door.
 
MontagK505 said:
Your post #3535 didn't say anything about shooting through a closed door. So your "citation" is useless.
Click to expand...

Let's change things round. Say Oscar had gone to the toilet, where he happened to keep his gun. And say he heard someone come in through the window and fire a shot at Reeva. Would he be acting reasonably if he shot through the door in the direction of the sound? Clearly, yes. I would say the same if he just heard someone climbing in though the window. There is nothing special about firing through a door and we know from this case that it can be extremely dangerous. Reeva was not safe on her side of the closed door and nor was Oscar on his. The guidance I cited said the cops should give a warning unless they were in danger themselves. The presence of a closed door does not mean there can be no danger. If you want to claim professional marksmen or SWAT types would not fire through a door, go and find a cite.
 
GlennB said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, I disagree with her. What's important, though, is the evidence she relied on. I don't recall any evidence from combat-type experts. If there exists a body of opinion within that community that attack would be the best means of defence in the given circumstances then her finding would be at variance with it.
 
anglolawyer said:
Let's change things round. Say Oscar had gone to the toilet, where he happened to keep his gun. And say he heard someone come in through the window and fire a shot at Reeva. Would he be acting reasonably if he shot through the door in the direction of the sound? Clearly, yes. I would say the same if he just heard someone climbing in though the window. There is nothing special about firing through a door and we know from this case that it can be extremely dangerous. Reeva was not safe on her side of the closed door and nor was Oscar on his. The guidance I cited said the cops should give a warning unless they were in danger themselves. The presence of a closed door does not mean there can be no danger. If you want to claim professional marksmen or SWAT types would not fire through a door, go and find a cite.
Click to expand...

MontagK505 said:
I don't think SWAT teams shoot through doors just because they are nervous about a noise behind the door.
Click to expand...
That's what I actually said. Sorry the burden of proof in on you that a LEO or SWAT team member rules of engagement allows them to shoot through a closed if their only evidence of danger is they heard a noise. That is the situation Oscar was faced with. Do you seriously think that a LEO that hears a strange noise behind his/her bathroom door is going to blindly shoot through that door?
 
Last edited:
MontagK505 said:
Sorry the burden of proof in on you that a LEO or SWAT team member rules of engagement allows them to shoot through a closed if their only evidence of danger is they heard a noise. Do you seriously think that a LEO that hears a strange noise behind his/her bathroom door is going to blindly shoot through that door?
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

But comparing OP's actions with what a SWAT guy or LEO might or might not do is in any case irrelevant in the "reasonable person" test.
 
MontagK505 said:
Sorry the burden of proof in on you that a LEO or SWAT team member rules of engagement allows them to shoot through a closed if their only evidence of danger is they heard a noise. Do you seriously think that a LEO that hears a strange noise behind his/her bathroom door is going to blindly shoot through that door?
Click to expand...

No, the burden was on the state to prove that no reasonable, trained combat-type would shoot through a door. There was no burden on the defence to show anything and there is certainly none on me. My question is pretty simple: on what evidence did the judge conclude that it was unreasonable for him to have approached along the corridor or fired through the door? In a professional negligence claim, the court will hear experts evidence on what is regarded as reasonable conduct within the particular profession (medicine, architecture, surveying whatever). It won't just make things up unaided by properly qualified experts' opinion. I don't see any difference here. I don't see the judge's opinion as carrying any more weight than mine. Or yours.
 
anglolawyer said:
No, the burden was on the state to prove that no reasonable, trained combat-type would shoot through a door. There was no burden on the defence to show anything and there is certainly none on me. My question is pretty simple: on what evidence did the judge conclude that it was unreasonable for him to have approached along the corridor or fired through the door? In a professional negligence claim, the court will hear experts evidence on what is regarded as reasonable conduct within the particular profession (medicine, architecture, surveying whatever). It won't just make things up unaided by properly qualified experts' opinion. I don't see any difference here. I don't see the judge's opinion as carrying any more weight than mine. Or yours.
Click to expand...
Because it is against the law to shoot without identifying a tangible threat and target. Pistorius did neither.
 
GlennB said:
Absolutely.

But comparing OP's actions with what a SWAT guy or LEO might or might not do is in any case irrelevant in the "reasonable person" test.
Click to expand...

Agreed OP is not a trained LEO or SWAT member, so it's not reasonable to be held to that standard.
 
Have you undergone the required training and study of South African firearms law to make that statement?
 
MontagK505 said:
Agreed OP is not a trained LEO or SWAT member, so it's not reasonable to be held to that standard.
Click to expand...

You have it the wrong way round and as a result you are unwittingly arguing my case. The standard of a professional is higher than any to which an ordinary householder would be expected to attain. If there were evidence that in the given circumstances a pro would or reasonably might have shot through the door then why should Oscar be held to a more exacting standard and required to show more restraint than a pro?

Please don't answer that a pro would not shot through a door as we would then have gone in a circle. Go find a cite.
 
MontagK505 said:
So it OK for Oscar to shoot his girlfriend simply because he was nervous about a noise behind a door? You really think that?
Click to expand...

Yes. I just wouldn't put it like that. The judge found as a fact that he believed someone had entered his home and that person had secreted themselves in his bathroom. Given that finding, I am maintaining that among the reasonable courses of action open to him (it should not be thought there was only one) was to shoot to kill or incapacitate at the earliest possible moment.
 
I have posted links previously citing the law. Please use the search function and do some research.
 
anglolawyer said:
Let's change things round. Say Oscar had gone to the toilet, where he happened to keep his gun. And say he heard someone come in through the window and fire a shot at Reeva. Would he be acting reasonably if he shot through the door in the direction of the sound? Clearly, yes. I would say the same if he just heard someone climbing in though the window. There is nothing special about firing through a door and we know from this case that it can be extremely dangerous. Reeva was not safe on her side of the closed door and nor was Oscar on his. The guidance I cited said the cops should give a warning unless they were in danger themselves. The presence of a closed door does not mean there can be no danger. If you want to claim professional marksmen or SWAT types would not fire through a door, go and find a cite.
Click to expand...

No because he wouldn't know if the sound was her or the intruder. This is the problem, he put four rounds through that door without actually knowing what he was shooting at. This is why the judge has found him guilty of negligent homicide.
 
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