Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend

[zooterkin]

It's perfectly possible to own a handgun in the UK. As I said there are significant restrictions but ownership is not barred. You might want to have a look at the legislation proper (the 1997 Act). People are often surprised by what they find (particularly when the discover that the Act does not explicitly refer to handguns).

Well, technically, yes, there are some handguns it is legal to own, but it is a severely restricted category. For example, nothing with a barrel shorter than 30cm.

 

[lionking]

You should learn the difference between "not proven" and Absolutely not.
The prosecution failed to prove he knew it was her behind the door. Considering the man's general selfish character and his known stupidity handling firearms, it wouldn't surprise me if he actually did kill her in a rage. But, it's not proven he knew it was her.

Beat me to it. I agree totally.

 

[Samson]

You should learn the difference between "not proven" and Absolutely not.
The prosecution failed to prove he knew it was her behind the door. Considering the man's general selfish character and his known stupidity handling firearms, it wouldn't surprise me if he actually did kill her in a rage. But, it's not proven he knew it was her.

The way the judge is defending Oscar, and knowing she is tough on male female violence, it seems she sees it as mistaken identity. Her analysis looks sound, so why suggest she is wrong? She made sense of the phone calls, timing and a lot of detail. Still I must read her reasoning which I admit I haven't done, but relied on people who have.

 

[MontagK505]

The way the judge is defending Oscar, and knowing she is tough on male female violence, it seems she sees it as mistaken identity. Her analysis looks sound, so why suggest she is wrong? She made sense of the phone calls, timing and a lot of detail. Still I must read her reasoning which I admit I haven't done, but relied on people who have.

The judge has found him guilty of culpable homicide. My view is that even if his version of events are true, he still had an oblation to be certain who he was shooting at. This is especially true when he had a known guest in his own home. This is what makes me angry, Oscar is such a nasty, self-absorbed, stupid man he should be given a long prison term just as a public safety policy.

 

[Samson]

The judge has found him guilty of culpable homicide. My view is that even if his version of events are true, he still had an oblation to be certain who he was shooting at. This is especially true when he had a known guest in his own home. This is what makes me angry, Oscar is such a nasty, self-absorbed, stupid man he should be given a long prison term just as a public safety policy.

That seems the prevailing position for now, and quite fair enough. I just wonder if the judge is being quite original here in her thinking though. The sentencing will be of great interest.

If it was real mistaken identity, is there not reason to feel a smidgen of sympathy for a man who has ruined his own life, and another family's?
Act in haste, repent at leisure.

 

[MontagK505]

That seems the prevailing position for now, and quite fair enough. I just wonder if the judge is being quite original here in her thinking though. The sentencing will be of great interest.

If it was real mistaken identity, is there not reason to feel a smidgen of sympathy for a man who has ruined his own life, and another family's?
Act in haste, repent at leisure.

I'm not sure which family you're referring to. Reeva's family I feel sorry for. They will never see her again. I feel no sympathy for Oscar.

 

[Samson]

I'm not sure which family you're referring to. Reeva's family I feel sorry for. They will never see her again. I feel no sympathy for Oscar.

It seems no one does, but what if Reeva turned out to be in bed, and the wc revealed a heavily armed intruder with a criminal record? Hindsight is a marvellous thing, but he would be a folk hero instead surely.

 

[Skwinty]

It seems no one does, but what if Reeva turned out to be in bed, and the wc revealed a heavily armed intruder with a criminal record? Hindsight is a marvellous thing, but he would be a folk hero instead surely.

He would still have been guilty of culpable homicide.

 

[Camillus]

Well, technically, yes, there are some handguns it is legal to own, but it is a severely restricted category. For example, nothing with a barrel shorter than 30cm.

Yes, the restrictions are severe and legally owning a modern handgun (defined as manufactured post 1919 or chambered in a round currently manufactured, for the curious out there) in the UK is virtually impossible. It is, though, possible to own a handgun with a barrel length less than 30 cm (although good luck owning ammunition to go in it and heaven forfend that pistol and ammunition should ever be in the same place together).

 

[Samson]

He would still have been guilty of culpable homicide.

I agree with the judge on this, and I am surprised at her forgiving comments. It seems irregular, I feel there are surprises in store.

 

[katy_did]

Masipa:

"If the accused for example had awoken in the middle of the night and in darkness saw a silhouette hovering next to his bed and had in a panic grabbed his firearm and shot at that figure, only to find that it was the deceased, his conduct would have been understandable and perhaps excusable."

...

"Because you said that you would have to have had aimed higher if you wanted to kill, it shows that you were consciously thinking...consciously thinking that you didn't want to kill the intruder, only incapacitate them which shows mercy on your behalf."
Remind me never to visit South Africa.

Is the second quote just your interpretation of what Masipa said? It's nowhere in her ruling that I can see, and it kind of sounds like the opposite of what she said...

I agree that the first quote is a bit bizarre, but I suppose the judge is contrasting that situation with what Pistorius actually did, i.e. made a conscious decision to pick up a loaded gun and walk towards the 'intruder', comparing it to someone who truly did shoot in a panic without much or any conscious thought.

 

[Skwinty]

I agree with the judge on this, and I am surprised at her forgiving comments. It seems irregular, I feel there are surprises in store.

I think the prosecution will appeal and the matter will come before a bench of supreme court of appeal judges. They will decide on Masipa's application of facts to law on the dolus eventualis.

Pistorius is not off the hook yet and the conviction of culpable homicide could turn into a murder conviction.

That's the surprise.

 

[Colin from France]

You should learn the difference between "not proven" and Absolutely not.
The prosecution failed to prove he knew it was her behind the door. Considering the man's general selfish character and his known stupidity handling firearms, it wouldn't surprise me if he actually did kill her in a rage. But, it's not proven he knew it was her.

Apart from the fact that RS was shot dead there is no proof of anything in this case. This is not the first time that a case is tried without any proof, one of the reasons why the jury system exists. What matters here is that a murder has been committed even if it had turned out to be an intruder, you don't go around shooting at people in cold blood without a warning, in the dark and without any idea at who you may be shooting at. Four times !

 

[Father LukeDuke]

Oh please. That's like hearing about the Trayvon Martin case and vowing never to visit the US.

If I were black there would be plenty of places I wouldn't visit on the basis of how the locals, especially local law enforcement, would treat me. I'm not necessarily saying Florida is one of those places. There are a ton of other reasons for not visiting that place, rampant vigilantes aren't very high up the list for me.

What a airhead position to hold. I thought this was a forum for rational thought and critical thinking?

South Africa has one of the highest homicide rates in the world, that's (one of) the main reasons it doesn't appeal to me. Not wanting to visit very violent places is perfectly rational.

Aside from that, most of us don't pick holidays using critical thinking tools. The Pistorius case has added to my general feeling about the place - whether this is re-enforcing prejudices, I'm not sure. However the objective fact remains that SA is a violent and often dysfunctional country.

 

[Skwinty]

You have described most countries in that post. If I may ask, have you ever been to South Africa? If not, it would be your loss. Just my opinion as a 60 year old South African.

 

[Bob001]

I think the prosecution will appeal and the matter will come before a bench of supreme court of appeal judges. They will decide on Masipa's application of facts to law on the dolus eventualis.

Pistorius is not off the hook yet and the conviction of culpable homicide could turn into a murder conviction.
....

In the U.S. the prosecution cannot appeal a "not guilty" verdict or a conviction on a reduced charge. How often in South Africa does a prosecutor's appeal succeed? Is that a routine occurrence, or would it be unusual for an appeals court to impose a more severe verdict? And if the appeals court does so, are there levels of appeal after that?

 

[Skwinty]

In the U.S. the prosecution cannot appeal a "not guilty" verdict or a conviction on a reduced charge. How often in South Africa does a prosecutor's appeal succeed? Is that a routine occurrence, or would it be unusual for an appeals court to impose a more severe verdict? And if the appeals court does so, are there levels of appeal after that?

I am not a lawyer but as I understand the matter, the accused can appeal all the way to the constitutional court on points of law and fact. the prosecution can only appeal on points of law.

I don't think that the prosecution appealing is very common and each case will be treated on it's own merits.

Old case law has stated that the prosecution can only appeal on points of law if there was an acquittal. However, see this link and the comments section.


http://criminallawza.net/2014/09/13/pistorius-remains-in-jeopardy-of-a-murder-conviction/

"James Grant says:
September 18, 2014 at 22:31
You are right. I have had to revise my thinking on this and agree that, given that the state will have to rely on s 319, the case of Seekoei will be a hurdle. I don’t see it as insurmountable though. I am studying the judgement and don’t think it will hold. I expect it will be overturned on appeal – at the SCA or, ultimately, the Constitutional Court – particularly given Basson 2007 CC. Hope to post a full comment on this soon…"

ETA: If you are on twitter then...https://twitter.com/CriminalLawZA

 

[Scordatura]

Is the second quote just your interpretation of what Masipa said? It's nowhere in her ruling that I can see, and it kind of sounds like the opposite of what she said...

I agree that the first quote is a bit bizarre, but I suppose the judge is contrasting that situation with what Pistorius actually did, i.e. made a conscious decision to pick up a loaded gun and walk towards the 'intruder', comparing it to someone who truly did shoot in a panic without much or any conscious thought.

I heard the second quote during the livestream and I don't see it in the written judgement either so it's possible I misheard what she said. Below, I quoted what was actually written in the judgement, along with some other comments in order to keep the information accurate.

Masipa had to deal with OP's conflicting defenses so her job wasn't easy. As far as I can tell, in the end she decided OP did act consciously, but she took into account his GAD, fight rather than flight personality and his startle reflex. It's all a little confusing.

I also think she gave too much weight to OP's emotions after he shot Reeva, as if that somehow mitigated his actions. I just don't understand how crying, praying and promising to dedicate his and Reeva's life to God translates to his not intending to kill anyone when he fired those shots through the door.

He stated that if he wanted to shoot the intruder he would have shot higher up and more in the direction where the opening of the door would be to the far right of the door and at chest height. I pause to state that this assertion is inconsistent with that of someone who shot without thinking. I shall revert to this later in my judgment.
...
There was no lapse of memory or any confusion on the part of the accused. On his own version he froze, then decided to arm himself and go to the bathroom. In other words he took a conscious decision.
...
The accused clearly wanted to use the firearm and the only way he could have used it was to shoot at the perceived danger. The intention to shoot however does not necessarily include the intention to kill.
...
How could the accused reasonably have foreseen that the shots he fired would kill the deceased? Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased, as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time.

To find otherwise would be tantamount to saying that the accused’s reaction after he realised that he had shot the deceased was faked; that he was play acting merely to delude the onlookers at the time.

 

[Samson]

I heard the second quote during the livestream and I don't see it in the written judgement either so it's possible I misheard what she said. Below, I quoted what was actually written in the judgement, along with some other comments in order to keep the information accurate.

Masipa had to deal with OP's conflicting defenses so her job wasn't easy. As far as I can tell, in the end she decided OP did act consciously, but she took into account his GAD, fight rather than flight personality and his startle reflex. It's all a little confusing.

I also think she gave too much weight to OP's emotions after he shot Reeva, as if that somehow mitigated his actions. I just don't understand how crying, praying and promising to dedicate his and Reeva's life to God translates to his not intending to kill anyone when he fired those shots through the door.

It is a lucid line to take once choosing to believe it was mistaken identity. In fact what I have more or less thought with the angles and floor plan.

 

[Colin from France]

"I just don't understand how crying, praying and promising to dedicate his and Reeva's life to God translates to his not intending to kill anyone when he fired those shots through the door." .......only a few weeks after the killing he was trying to pull a Reeva lookalike in a club. I wonder when those who believe he is innocent will realise that they've been well fooled ?