Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend

[Skwinty]

.
Shoot back!
He DID have that option!
And that would be legal.

Precisely, all he had to do was wait at the end of the passage and start shooting the moment he "identified" the threat as per his legal gun competency training.

 

[GlennB]

.
I "foresee the possibility of impending death" every I get in my car and leave the driveway. But I have also "foreseen" ways to avoid the "impending death". Situational awareness for one, obeying the traffic laws, and a good seat-belt/harness, and a well-maintained car.

Yup. And OP's conduct was akin to jumping in a crappy old car and careening down a road covered in black ice.

 

[anglolawyer]

.
Shoot back!
He DID have that option!
And that would be legal.

I don't think you have a clue. You think it's a Wild West gun fight that the good guy always wins. There must be a pro round here to scotch this nonsense.

 

[Father LukeDuke]

I don't think you have a clue. You think it's a Wild West gun fight

Well, it was more like a realistic one in this case. Someone waits till their victim is taking a piss, then shoots them repeatedly at point blank range....

There must be a pro round here to scotch this nonsense.

I'm a bit confused as to your insistence that pros, a SWAT team or whatever, would behave this way. I'll paint what I would see the equivalent scenario would be:

SWAT team are dispatched to a house as a neighbour has phoned in saying there might be an intruder in the house next door. However no intruder has actually been seen so far. They are told the home owner is in, so there is definitely at least one innocent person in the house. They arrive on the street, collect a spare key from the neighbour and quietly let themselves in to the house.

As they walk down the corridor in the dark they hear noises from behind what looks like a bathroom door. So, obviously, they open fire at the door without further ado. No challenge of the person behind the door (no checking it is even a person), no checking first where the homeowner might be. Blat, blat, blat into the door - maximum force.

They open the bathroom door and, quel surprise, the homeowner lies there full of holes. Not only is the homeowner dead, she is also, horror of horrors, white, blond and pretty. No intruder exists.

Now, I don't know about you, but if I heard about this incident, I would be expecting that particular professional to be going to jail for a long time.

 

[Bob001]

I don't think you have a clue. You think it's a Wild West gun fight that the good guy always wins. There must be a pro round here to scotch this nonsense.

You're a UK lawyer, right? How much experience have you had with firearms? Have you ever even held a handgun? It is absolutely indefensible to shoot at an unknown sound -- if that's what happened, which remains disputed -- without knowing for sure who or what is making the sound.

 

[Bob001]

.....
Now, I don't know about you, but if I heard about this incident, I would be expecting that particular professional to be going to jail for a long time.

Unfortunately, in the U.S. the cop would very likely skate. His department might punish him for violating protocol, but it's very rare for a cop to be prosecuted for an "accidental" duty-related shooting. Examples too numerous to list; Google "accidental police officer shootings."

 

[I Ratant]

I don't think you have a clue. You think it's a Wild West gun fight that the good guy always wins. There must be a pro round here to scotch this nonsense.

.
The number of perps that will persist in an attack that is being resisted with gunfire is somewhere between zero and none!

 

[platonov]

Well, it was more like a realistic one in this case. Someone waits till their victim is taking a piss, then shoots them repeatedly at point blank range....



I'm a bit confused as to your insistence that pros, a SWAT team or whatever, would behave this way. I'll paint what I would see the equivalent scenario would be:

SWAT team are dispatched to a house as a neighbour has phoned in saying there might be an intruder in the house next door. However no intruder has actually been seen so far. They are told the home owner is in, so there is definitely at least one innocent person in the house. They arrive on the street, collect a spare key from the neighbour and quietly let themselves in to the house.

As they walk down the corridor in the dark they hear noises from behind what looks like a bathroom door. So, obviously, they open fire at the door without further ado. No challenge of the person behind the door (no checking it is even a person), no checking first where the homeowner might be. Blat, blat, blat into the door - maximum force.

They open the bathroom door and, quel surprise, the homeowner lies there full of holes. Not only is the homeowner dead, she is also, horror of horrors, white, blond and pretty. No intruder exists.

Now, I don't know about you, but if I heard about this incident, I would be expecting that particular professional to be going to jail for a long time.

Without disagreeing with the general point you are making you would be disappointed in this regard. The rules are different for cops and rightly so to a certain extent.

I could cite a UK case you may be familiar with where on the basis of a phone call from a guy in a pub an ARU turned up and shot an innocent man in the back of the head from IIRC about 50-100 m away. Now there was a long protracted dispute over the incident but the cops didn’t go to prison.
Far from it.

 

[anglolawyer]

Without disagreeing with the general point you are making you would be disappointed in this regard. The rules are different for cops and rightly so to a certain extent.

I could cite a UK case you may be familiar with where on the basis of a phone call from a guy in a pub an ARU turned up and shot an innocent man in the back of the head from IIRC about 50-100 m away. Now there was a long protracted dispute over the incident but the cops didn’t go to prison.
Far from it.

Reinforcements from an unexpected quarter! None of the responses above this post contained any credible claims to expertise and I dismiss them all accordingly. Oscar was (in his mind, per the judge) in a one-on-one situation in a confined space with a possibly armed adversary who, momentarily, was at a disadvantage due to being inside the toilet cubicle. That was the best chance he would get to neutralise him with the least risk to himself. He was less mobile than the other guy and he had his girl to protect.

The judge's idea seems ridiculous. The guy could creep along the passage and shoot around the corner while Oscar was on the phone to security. The judge seems to have thought he behaved like a wuss and that a certain level of violence is part and parcel of SA life and something to be put up with. That might be true in Soweto but there is no reason why it should be elsewhere.

I think you guys are only arguing because you believe he knew it was
Reeva. You may or may not be right but try to think hypothetically . Seriously, we need some home invasion comparables, not cops shooting from 50M (although that is a good one).

 

[anglolawyer]

You're a UK lawyer, right? How much experience have you had with firearms? Have you ever even held a handgun? It is absolutely indefensible to shoot at an unknown sound -- if that's what happened, which remains disputed -- without knowing for sure who or what is making the sound.

Aside from a fairground pellet shooter, I've never held a gun. Your last proposition makes no sense and is not what the law says either. In an English (and probably a US) court, An honest belief, even if unreasonable, that an intruder is in the house will be assumed to be true for the purpose of judging the conduct of the accused.

Unfortunately, in the U.S. the cop would very likely skate. His department might punish him for violating protocol, but it's very rare for a cop to be prosecuted for an "accidental" duty-related shooting. Examples too numerous to list; Google "accidental police officer shootings."

Quite

.
The number of perps that will persist in an attack that is being resisted with gunfire is somewhere between zero and none!

And how does this relate to anything? The judge did not say Oscar should have called out that he was armed, only that he should have called security, so the hypothetical intruder had no more reason to expect armed resistance than when he climbed in through the window. Please explain why Oscar would have been safer in the bedroom on the phone than he was while firing through the toilet door.

 

[MontagK505]

Aside from a fairground pellet shooter, I've never held a gun. Your last proposition makes no sense and is not what the law says either. In an English (and probably a US) court, An honest belief, even if unreasonable, that an intruder is in the house will be assumed to be true for the purpose of judging the conduct of the accused.

Quite


And how does this relate to anything? The judge did not say Oscar should have called out that he was armed, only that he should have called security, so the hypothetical intruder had no more reason to expect armed resistance than when he climbed in through the window. Please explain why Oscar would have been safer in the bedroom on the phone than he was while firing through the toilet door.

The fact that the shooter knows someone else is in the house makes shooting at noises reckless and irresponsible.

 

[MontagK505]

Well, it was more like a realistic one in this case. Someone waits till their victim is taking a piss, then shoots them repeatedly at point blank range....



I'm a bit confused as to your insistence that pros, a SWAT team or whatever, would behave this way. I'll paint what I would see the equivalent scenario would be:

SWAT team are dispatched to a house as a neighbour has phoned in saying there might be an intruder in the house next door. However no intruder has actually been seen so far. They are told the home owner is in, so there is definitely at least one innocent person in the house. They arrive on the street, collect a spare key from the neighbour and quietly let themselves in to the house.

As they walk down the corridor in the dark they hear noises from behind what looks like a bathroom door. So, obviously, they open fire at the door without further ado. No challenge of the person behind the door (no checking it is even a person), no checking first where the homeowner might be. Blat, blat, blat into the door - maximum force.

They open the bathroom door and, quel surprise, the homeowner lies there full of holes. Not only is the homeowner dead, she is also, horror of horrors, white, blond and pretty. No intruder exists.

Now, I don't know about you, but if I heard about this incident, I would be expecting that particular professional to be going to jail for a long time.

This is basically what Oscar has done. My understanding, this is what Oscars firearms training says you are NOT supposed to do.

 

[MontagK505]

Reinforcements from an unexpected quarter! None of the responses above this post contained any credible claims to expertise and I dismiss them all accordingly. Oscar was (in his mind, per the judge) in a one-on-one situation in a confined space with a possibly armed adversary who, momentarily, was at a disadvantage due to being inside the toilet cubicle. That was the best chance he would get to neutralise him with the least risk to himself. He was less mobile than the other guy and he had his girl to protect.

The judge's idea seems ridiculous. The guy could creep along the passage and shoot around the corner while Oscar was on the phone to security. The judge seems to have thought he behaved like a wuss and that a certain level of violence is part and parcel of SA life and something to be put up with. That might be true in Soweto but there is no reason why it should be elsewhere.

I think you guys are only arguing because you believe he knew it was Reeva. You may or may not be right but try to think hypothetically . Seriously, we need some home invasion comparables, not cops shooting from 50M (although that is a good one).

Not necessarily, because he knew she was in close vicinity he had a responsibility to be certain it was not her behind the door before he blasted away with his hand howitzer. True, considering the mans character, most people find his version of events to be highly unlikely. But, the prosecution could not prove he knew it was her.

 

[anglolawyer]

Not necessarily, because he knew she was in close vicinity he had a responsibility to be certain it was not her behind the door before he blasted away with his hand howitzer. True, considering the mans character, most people find his version of events to be highly unlikely. But, the prosecution could not prove he knew it was her.

What if he stopped to check on her and in that time the intruder, supposing there was one, gained an advantage and killed them both?

 

[erwinl]

What if he stopped to check on her and in that time the intruder, supposing there was one, gained an advantage and killed them both?

What if the intruder, supposing there was one, was in contact with a sniper outside? Also a possibility, no matter how remote.

Fact is.
Shooting at a random noise in the night, when it is known that the shooter isn't the only legitimate person in the house, carries a significant risk of hitting an innocent.
Which is what happened. Nothing more.

 

[I Ratant]

...
And how does this relate to anything? ...

.
It was a response to your post about

"the intruder charging down the hallway shooting at him"

.
.
Do follow the real conversation.

 

[platonov]

Reinforcements from an unexpected quarter! None of the responses above this post contained any credible claims to expertise and I dismiss them all accordingly. Oscar was (in his mind, per the judge) in a one-on-one situation in a confined space with a possibly armed adversary who, momentarily, was at a disadvantage due to being inside the toilet cubicle. That was the best chance he would get to neutralise him with the least risk to himself. He was less mobile than the other guy and he had his girl to protect.

The judge's idea seems ridiculous. The guy could creep along the passage and shoot around the corner while Oscar was on the phone to security. The judge seems to have thought he behaved like a wuss and that a certain level of violence is part and parcel of SA life and something to be put up with. That might be true in Soweto but there is no reason why it should be elsewhere.

I think you guys are only arguing because you believe he knew it was
Reeva. You may or may not be right but try to think hypothetically . Seriously, we need some home invasion comparables, not cops shooting from 50M (although that is a good one).

No – those double negatives are tricky eh. Just like complicated legalese.
I was merely pointing out that cops get a pass that civilians usually don’t.

But on the issue on the judges explanation of what OP might have done she seems to have missed an obvious course of action (unless I missed it). While (or just after) retrieving the weapon he might have placed his hand on RS and whispered – If shooting starts get under the bed and call 999.
And then taken out the bad guy.

But that would .......... oh never mind. This law talking business is more complicated than it looks.
I'll leave it to the professionals.


ETA
Speaking of professionals (and appalling vistas & precedents), defence lawyers in SA must be very happy with this decision. Divorce lawyers not so much I'd imagine.

 

[anglolawyer]

What if the intruder, supposing there was one, was in contact with a sniper outside? Also a possibility, no matter how remote.

Fact is.
Shooting at a random noise in the night, when it is known that the shooter isn't the only legitimate person in the house, carries a significant risk of hitting an innocent.
Which is what happened. Nothing more.

I don't dispute this (except, in his mind, it was not 'a random noise' so, if you could just try to grasp this for a second, we are trying to assess his options assuming there was an intruder in his toilet). Everything carries risk in such a case. Delaying, even for a few seconds, also carries a risk that the intruder might gain the upper hand. Your sniper thing is just ridiculous. And once again, your post is unaccompanied by a statement of any relevant qualifications. Have you been in the same situation? Have you received any appropriate, professional training in what to do in such a situation? If so, please spell it out.

 

[anglolawyer]

No – those double negatives are tricky eh. Just like complicated legalese.
I was merely pointing out that cops get a pass that civilians usually don’t.

But on the issue on the judges explanation of what OP might have done she seems to have missed an obvious course of action (unless I missed it). While (or just after) retrieving the weapon he might have placed his hand on RS and whispered – If shooting starts get under the bed and call 999.
And then taken out the bad guy.

But that would .......... oh never mind. This law talking business is more complicated than it looks.
I'll leave it to the professionals.

What double negative? What I take from your post is that there has been at least one case, context-specific but nonetheless useful, where the cops just showed up and blew a guy's head off from a safe distance without any warning or proper attempt at identification - and they got away with it. I know of no special law, btw. that applies to cops as against ordinary folk. Just like a cop, I am entitled to use reasonable force to prevent harm to others or myself. Cops are not entitled to use more than reasonable force.

 

[Bob001]

What if he stopped to check on her and in that time the intruder, supposing there was one, gained an advantage and killed them both?

Suppose the "intruder" had dragged her into the bathroom with his hand over her mouth, and the sound he heard had been her struggling? Shooting through the door would have killed them both.

The "reasonable man" standard pervades criminal and civil law. It was not reasonable for Pistorius to believe that the sound of Reeva in the bathroom was proof of an intruder, and, even if there was an intruder, it was not reasonable for him to open fire through a closed door at anyone.

And you haven't responded to the Slate article that contended P. traveled farther to get to the bathroom door than he would have needed to travel to leave the bedroom and call for help. If P. didn't intend to kill Reeva (still an open question), he certainly intended to kill someone, and he had no good reason.
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._reeva_steenkamp_he_s_a_dangerous.single.html