Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2

[The Atheist]

... but a cripple trying to "protect" his gal ...

 

[Rolfe]

No Rolfe.
I see you as a best quality contributor, but you were captured in the case early by a false analyst.

A retired professor of law who lives in South Africa for half the year is a "false analyst"? Who knew.

 

[Samson]

A retired professor of law who lives in South Africa for half the year is a "false analyst"? Who knew.

I know a retired now dead law professor who visited Arthur Allan Thomas in jail and pronounced him guilty.
Except Len Demmler killed his daughter when she discovered he forged her mother's will.

If this retired professor of law knows something we don't I would be pleased to hear it. I have no dog in the fight, but I agreed with judge Masipa Icerat Thoughtful and MikeG among others.
Far greater damage is done with wrongful convictions than wrongful acquittals in New Zealand, and while Pistorius is hardly a classic miscarriage even if he is telling the truth, Reeva's family deserves the truth whatever it may be.

 

[trustbutverify]

Yes, it seems ironic that brave law enforcement officers get a leave pass to blaze away but a cripple trying to "protect" his gal is thrown to the wolves. This assuming that it was genuine mistaken identity as trial judge Masipa declared.

You're approaching Delete Your Account territory. Also; I wouldn't call six years for executing his significant other being "thrown to the wolves".

 

[trustbutverify]

If this retired professor of law knows something we don't I would be pleased to hear it. I have no dog in the fight, but I agreed with judge Masipa Icerat Thoughtful and MikeG among others.

That's a joke, right?

 

[MikeG]

I know a retired now dead law professor who visited Arthur Allan Thomas in jail and pronounced him guilty.
Except Len Demmler killed his daughter when she discovered he forged her mother's will.

If this retired professor of law knows something we don't I would be pleased to hear it. I have no dog in the fight, but I agreed with judge Masipa Icerat Thoughtful and MikeG among others.
Far greater damage is done with wrongful convictions than wrongful acquittals in New Zealand, and while Pistorius is hardly a classic miscarriage even if he is telling the truth, Reeva's family deserves the truth whatever it may be.

No, I'm pretty sure you didn't. I accept Pistorius' story, but that story still describes a murder.

 

[Samson]

That's a joke, right?

Jesus wept, to quote the long lost Charlie Wilkes.
I am accused on different message boards of being all sorts, but I apply only rational thought to arrive at conclusions.
Oscar Pistorius had means and opportunity but no motive. Reeva was bearer of a valentine card that evening, I LOVE YOU.

 

[Samson]

You're approaching Delete Your Account territory. Also; I wouldn't call six years for executing his significant other being "thrown to the wolves".

I don't understand your reference to delete your account.
ISF exists for these debates.

 

[Samson]

No, I'm pretty sure you didn't. I accept Pistorius' story, but that story still describes a murder.

I suspect murder has a more specific definition. Pistorius killed with just one bullet to the head.
She damn nearly lived.

 

[trustbutverify]

I am accused on different message boards of being all sorts, but I apply only rational thought to arrive at conclusions.

I assume that's a joke as well, correct?

 

[MikeG]

I suspect murder has a more specific definition. .....

A deliberate decision to kill. That's all. It doesn't require you have knowledge of who your victim is.

Under the Common Law, or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The term malice aforethought did not necessarily mean that the killer planned or premeditated on the killing, or that he or she felt malice toward the victim. Generally, malice aforethought referred to a level of intent or reck-lessness that separated murder from other killings.......

From Legal Dictionary

 

[Rolfe]

I accept Pistorius' story, but that story still describes a murder.

A deliberate decision to kill. That's all. It doesn't require you have knowledge of who your victim is.

From Legal Dictionary

And that is exactly what the retired professor of law living in South Africa says about it.

Actually, he's not so sure that he accepts Pistorius's story on a personal level, but he believes that the story can't be disproved to the level of legal certainty that would be required to convict him of intentionally killing Reeva. He is absolutely clear that on the known facts of the case Pistorius is guilty of murder, since he deliberately shot through that door at somebody he intended to kill.

 

[Samson]

And that is exactly what the retired professor of law living in South Africa says about it.

Actually, he's not so sure that he accepts Pistorius's story on a personal level, but he believes that the story can't be disproved to the level of legal certainty that would be required to convict him of intentionally killing Reeva. He is absolutely clear that on the known facts of the case Pistorius is guilty of murder, since he deliberately shot through that door at somebody he intended to kill.

Which is why the debate should be initially constrained to deciding who Pistorius believed was behind the door.
There is spurious discussion about a loud argument that morphs into a possibility of Pistorius screaming in anguish when he finds Reeva absent and thus certainly behind the door.

 

[MikeG]

Which is why the debate should be initially constrained to deciding who Pistorius believed was behind the door........

This one sentence sums up your entire post history in this thread. The stubborn refusal to concede that it is utterly irrelevant who was behind the door is mind-boggling after so long. It doesn't matter if he thought Reeva was behind the door, or if he thought the Texas Chainsaw Massacrer was behind the door. Shooting through the door to kill was the crime, not shooting to kill Reeva. She is a red herring.

 

[MikeG]

And that is exactly what the retired professor of law living in South Africa says about it.

Actually, he's not so sure that he accepts Pistorius's story on a personal level, but he believes that the story can't be disproved to the level of legal certainty that would be required to convict him of intentionally killing Reeva. He is absolutely clear that on the known facts of the case Pistorius is guilty of murder, since he deliberately shot through that door at somebody he intended to kill.

Exactly.

 

[3point14]

Which is why the debate should be initially constrained to deciding who Pistorius believed was behind the door.

The bit you seem so spectacularly to fail to understand is that it doesn't actually matter who he believed was behind the door when assessing if Oscar is guilty of murder or not.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I don't understand your reference to delete your account.
ISF exists for these debates.

It is a suggestion that should you realize the absurdity of that argument you might be inclined to abandon your account in embarrassment. So, carry on I guess.

 

[Rolfe]

Which is why the debate should be initially constrained to deciding who Pistorius believed was behind the door.
There is spurious discussion about a loud argument that morphs into a possibility of Pistorius screaming in anguish when he finds Reeva absent and thus certainly behind the door.

As others have said, this is irrelevant nonsense. Even if one accepts that Pistorius thought it was an intruder behind the door, or at least accepts that his assertion to that effect can't be disproved, he is still guilty of murder because he knowingly shot at a person with the intent to kill them, and did in fact kill them.

That's what he was convicted of. He wasn't convicted of knowingly murdering Reeva Steenkamp in the course of an acrimonious domestic dispute because that cannot be proved to be what happened. He was convicted of intentionally murdering whoever it was behind the door. That it happened to be Reeva Steenkamp is not the point, nor is it relevant whether or not he knew it was her or believed it was someone else.

You have been told this so often by so many posters in this thread I am beginning to wonder about your reading comprehension skills.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Sorry if this has been mentioned earlier in the thread; I've read the whole thing, but it's been a while. IANAL, but the reason that Pistorius is guilty of murder even if he's telling the truth about what he believed, is that he had no legal right to kill the person behind the door when he did, even if that person was an intruder. He wasn't being directly threatened; he could have retreated and kept his gun pointed down the hall toward the bathroom while telling Reeva to call for help.

 

[Rolfe]

That is certainly how I understand it. He wasn't being directly threatened. That he came out with a story that he believed something that clearly was not what was happening doesn't confer him the right to kill.

In the threads about the US cops the law seems to be that the cop only has to say "but I was in mortal terror for my life because I believed that person had a gun and was going to shoot me" and it's an automatic free pass. And it doesn't matter if it's proved that the person didn't have a gun and didn't make the slightest threatening move, so long as the cop says he was mortally terrified then it's OK that he killed the person.

This however was in South Africa where apparently it isn't enough just to assert that you were in mortal terror and shot because you believed the other person had a gun and was going to shoot you. There has to be some rational basis for that opinion. However, in this case it was actually Reeva behind the door and she didn't have a gun and it's essentially impossible to see where the rational basis for the opinion that he was in mortal danger came from.

Add to that the fact that he had a perfectly clear line of escape but chose to advance on the closed door rather than making his escape, and he's toast.

Personally I incline to the view that he had had a steaming row with Reeva, she ran away from him and shut herself in the toilet, and he chased after her and shot at her in a red mist of fury which he regretted about three seconds later. But I recognise there are arguments as to why this may not be an unassailable scenario.

He shot through a door, intending to kill the person who was behind the door. That person hadn't made any threatening moves towards him, and if he was apprehensive he had every opportunity to get the hell out. That makes him guilty of murder under SA law.