Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2

[lionking]

In any case, Oscar got off lightly.

 

[rockinkt]

He was prepared for the worst in a country of badly treated and dangerous predators.

I find that answer hard to take seriously and it truly adds nothing in the way of useful information.
Could you please be specific? What was his stated reason for shooting into the bathroom four times?

 

[MikeG]

.......why do you keep ignoring the law the way it is written?

Because it is out of kilter with his sympathies. Obviously, in Samsonworld, sympathies outweigh the rule of law.

 

[Hard Cheese]

Thanks for the red herring. Who was talking about "intent to kill"? That is irrelevant to my point. The point is he was shooting into a bathroom with a door closed at a person he knew was inside. A person who at the time was no threat to him. (This is assuming you accept his version of what happened.) After all the person was in a bathroom behind a closed door. That shows reckless disregard. After all it is reasonably foreseeable that if you fire a gun into a closed room that you know is occupied by someone that you may kill or seriously injure them.

Playing devil's advocate here (because personally I don't believe Pistorious' story for a second) how does he know the person inside is of no threat to him? If you accept that Pistorious has a working knowledge of guns, and that he must have known that firing though a door into toilet cubicle would likely kill the occupant, isn't the opposite also true? If he believed the intruder in the cubicle was armed, then he would also know that the intruder could equally shoot through the door and hit him. You could still make an argument for self defence.

 

[Samson]

Playing devil's advocate here (because personally I don't believe Pistorious' story for a second) how does he know the person inside is of no threat to him? If you accept that Pistorious has a working knowledge of guns, and that he must have known that firing though a door into toilet cubicle would likely kill the occupant, isn't the opposite also true? If he believed the intruder in the cubicle was armed, then he would also know that the intruder could equally shoot through the door and hit him. You could still make an argument for self defence.

There is considerable evidence that Pistorius' account is correct.
The primary source is the extensive and realistic timelines and conversations logged by the various authorities that concur with his account.
The forum owner Icerat was a seriouis analyst who concluded Pistorius' account is correct, and then an Amanda Knox guilter, Thoughtful went into serious detail saying the same thing. Interestingly she proved in that case the postal police and Raffaele Sollecito were in accord with their evidence, so she is a fair and serious mathematician.
And the trial judge Thokozile Masipa concurred.

I think there is indeed a thread concensus that the question is whether Oscar should have shot at a closed door, but not that he believed his girlfriend, who came bearing a valentine card saying "this is the night I declare my love for you" was the person he knew was behind that door.

 

[MikeG]

There is considerable evidence that Pistorius' account is correct..........

..........and for the thousandth time, even if his story is 100% correct (which I too accept as likely), then he is guilty of murder.

 

[Pacal]

Playing devil's advocate here (because personally I don't believe Pistorious' story for a second) how does he know the person inside is of no threat to him? If you accept that Pistorious has a working knowledge of guns, and that he must have known that firing though a door into toilet cubicle would likely kill the occupant, isn't the opposite also true? If he believed the intruder in the cubicle was armed, then he would also know that the intruder could equally shoot through the door and hit him. You could still make an argument for self defence.

There is no evidence that any intruder shot at him, neither is there evidence that he realistically could have thought the person was armed. Further self defence means precisely that. There is no evidence that he could realistically have thought the person was trying to kill him, assault him. After all the person was in the bathroom with a door closed! Since there was no way, from his own story, that he could have thought the person could realistically have been armed, and since even his own version of the story indicates no reasonable basis for him thinking he was about to be assaulted or being the victim of a murder; self defence won't wash. Fantasizing the person has a gun won't get someone off in that situation. I hope.

 

[Hard Cheese]

There is no evidence that any intruder shot at him, neither is there evidence that he realistically could have thought the person was armed.

Had the event occurred in the United States, given the rate of gun ownership and incidence of gun violence, would you be willing to bet an intruder was in your house unarmed? South Africa's homicide rate involving guns is 5 times higher per capita than the USA, wouldn't it simply be statistically prudent to assume an intruder is armed? Why on earth would you automatically assume they were unarmed? There must be a reason people live behind high walls and razor wire there, it can't be for aesthetics.

Further self defence means precisely that. There is no evidence that he could realistically have thought the person was trying to kill him, assault him. After all the person was in the bathroom with a door closed!

As I said, if Oscar can shoot through a door, so can an intruder. Neither party would have knowledge of whether the other was armed or not.

Since there was no way, from his own story, that he could have thought the person could realistically have been armed,

What exactly in his story prevents his intruder from being armed?

 

[MikeG]

Had the event occurred in the United States, given the rate of gun ownership and incidence of gun violence, would you be willing to bet an intruder was in your house unarmed? South Africa's homicide rate involving guns is 5 times higher per capita than the USA, wouldn't it simply be statistically prudent to assume an intruder is armed? Why on earth would you automatically assume they were unarmed? There must be a reason people live behind high walls and razor wire there, it can't be for aesthetics.



As I said, if Oscar can shoot through a door, so can an intruder. Neither party would have knowledge of whether the other was armed or not.



What exactly in his story prevents his intruder from being armed?

This is just misinformed nonsense. If there had been an intruder, and if that intruder was armed, this would still have been murder. You are falling into the classic trap of trying to apply your country's laws to another country. Noting your country of residence, I'm wondering if you being here making the same spurious arguments as Samson, also a Kiwi, is entirely coincidental.

 

[lionking]

This is just misinformed nonsense. If there had been an intruder, and if that intruder was armed, this would still have been murder. You are falling into the classic trap of trying to apply your country's laws to another country. Noting your country of residence, I'm wondering if you being here making the same spurious arguments as Samson, also a Kiwi, is entirely coincidental.

Yes utter nonsense. I wonder how much fanboism is playing a part. I’m certain that is the case with Samson, who seems transfixed with Oscar’s athletic ability.

My opinion is that he deliberately murdered his wife in a fit of rage. Doesn’t matter what I think though. He’s where he deserves to be

 

[Hard Cheese]

This is just misinformed nonsense. If there had been an intruder, and if that intruder was armed, this would still have been murder.

Oh, I fully understand that. That he is guilty of murder under South African law doesn't make Pistorius' argument of mitigation, of acting in self-defence, necessarily untrue. It's not an unreasonable argument, and his best bet to escape with a light sentence. He would have got away with it too, if it weren't for that meddling Nel.

Noting your country of residence, I'm wondering if you being here making the same spurious arguments as Samson, also a Kiwi, is entirely coincidental.

Come on, man. Go back and read the first half of the first sentence of post #944. Do I have to repost it for you?

 

[Hard Cheese]

My opinion is that he deliberately murdered his wife in a fit of rage. Doesn’t matter what I think though. He’s where he deserves to be

I agree with you. As I posted in #944, personally I don't believe Pistorious' story for a second. Not because I think that a person couldn't be in a state of panic and fear to the point where they thought that shooting into a locked door at an intruder was a good idea, but because his story about believing Reeva was in the bed was a load of bollocks.

 

[MikeG]

.........Come on, man. Go back and read the first half of the first sentence of post #944. Do I have to repost it for you?

Well, let me just say that I'll keep a watching brief. Some people come here and pretend to be playing devil's advocate as some sort of safety net against posting an unpopular or hard-to-defend viewpoint.

 

[Pacal]

Had the event occurred in the United States, given the rate of gun ownership and incidence of gun violence, would you be willing to bet an intruder was in your house unarmed? South Africa's homicide rate involving guns is 5 times higher per capita than the USA, wouldn't it simply be statistically prudent to assume an intruder is armed? Why on earth would you automatically assume they were unarmed? There must be a reason people live behind high walls and razor wire there, it can't be for aesthetics.

Sorry but you can't just fantasize that a person was armed if your claiming self defence against an attacker. And further even if the person was armed self defence involves that the person was a direct and immediate threat to your life like they fired at you first or shoved a gun in your face, or threatened to kill you etc. Simply having a gun is not a an immediate threat to your life. Your argument would turn case after case of death by reckless disregard of people's lives into "self defence" because people will fantasize the person was armed.

As I said, if Oscar can shoot through a door, so can an intruder. Neither party would have knowledge of whether the other was armed or not.

Of course are you seriously willing to argue if the mythical intruder had in fact been armed he would have been acting in "self defence" if he shot Oscar through the door after all Oscar might have been armed?! The point is even if the person had been armed he would not have been an immediate direct threat to Oscar and therefore by firing through the door Oscar was not acting in "self defence" by any legal logic, he was acting in reckless disregard at best. As I said there is no evidence of any so-called "intruder" firing a gun and Oscar doesn't claim that happened.

What exactly in his story prevents his intruder from being armed?

Of course the "intruder" could have been armed, but in claiming self defence a fantasy that you thought the person was armed is not good enough and you must show that your life was in immediate peril and that it was reasonable for you to think so. Say like someone fired a gun at you, threatened your life while waving a gun etc. A person, even if armed, behind a bathroom door, who has not fired his alleged weapon or threatened you is not an immediate threat by most legal criteria.

 

[Hard Cheese]

Sorry but you can't just fantasize that a person was armed if your claiming self defence against an attacker.

In the eyes of the law, and after the fact, sure. But to claim people will always behave completely rationally and consider legal ramifications in what they believe to be a life-threatening situation is silly. Pistorius got what he legally deserved for his reckless action, but at the same time, I don't dismiss that genuine fear of ones life and a misguided belief of acting in self defence is a possibility. If you live in a country where gun-related violence and home invasions are common, wouldn't that just reinforce the idea that what you think is an intruder is likely to be armed?

Of course are you seriously willing to argue if the mythical intruder had in fact been armed he would have been acting in "self defence" if he shot Oscar through the door after all Oscar might have been armed?!

Obviously no - he's an intruder in the process of committing a crime in someone else's house.

A person, even if armed, behind a bathroom door, who has not fired his alleged weapon or threatened you is not an immediate threat by most legal criteria.

Sure, by most legal criteria. But I wouldn't be relying on a law book as any guarantee of my safety in that situation.

 

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by Pacal View Post

Sorry but you can't just fantasize that a person was armed if your claiming self defence against an attacker.

In the eyes of the law, and after the fact, sure. But to claim people will always behave completely rationally and consider legal ramifications in what they believe to be a life-threatening situation is silly. Pistorius got what he legally deserved for his reckless action, but at the same time, I don't dismiss that genuine fear of ones life and a misguided belief of acting in self defence is a possibility. If you live in a country where gun-related violence and home invasions are common, wouldn't that just reinforce the idea that what you think is an intruder is likely to be armed?

Who was talking about people behaving "rationally" in situations like this? Or considering the legal ramifications of what they do? I was talking about the law. And in law Pistorius' claim of "self defence" fails and fails hard; what he may have irrationally believed is utterly irrelevant to the fact his claim of "self defence" fails. It appears we are talking past each other you are apparently think it is possible that Pistorius may have genuinely thought his life was in danger and that he was acting in self defence. Yes he may actually have thought so but it makes no difference to the fact his claim of "self defence" fails totally under law. Especially since even if you accept Pistorius' story there is no evidence whatsoever that the "intruder" acted as an immediate threat to Pistorius. There are consequences to people behaving stupidly and irrationally in circumstances like Pistorius' version of events.

Originally Posted by Pacal View Post

Of course are you seriously willing to argue if the mythical intruder had in fact been armed he would have been acting in "self defence" if he shot Oscar through the door after all Oscar might have been armed?!

Obviously no - he's an intruder in the process of committing a crime in someone else's house.

Of course in law you are right but I thought you were talking about subjective fears and what people might irrationally think is the case under given circumstances. In which case it is perfectly obvious that an intruder could fire through a closed door at someone he thought was a threat to his life and think perfectly sincerely he is acting in self defence. Of course any decent law court would throw out such an idiotic defence even if the intruder was in fact utterly sincere about it.

riginally Posted by Pacal View Post

A person, even if armed, behind a bathroom door, who has not fired his alleged weapon or threatened you is not an immediate threat by most legal criteria.

Sure, by most legal criteria. But I wouldn't be relying on a law book as any guarantee of my safety in that situation.

So would you fire through a closed door at someone you thought was armed even though you knew no such thing and the person had In fact done nothing indicating that he was a threat to your life and limb? You would instead utterly cave into irrational fears and fantasy and fire away? I hope you never have a gun if that is the case.

Of course nothing is guaranteed in life and frankly firing through a closed door would not guarantee your safety. After all if the person does in fact have a gun and hasn't used it yet firing through a closed door would almost certainly cause them to fire back. And since the door is closed you have a very high chance of missing entirely and thus you have likely increased the danger to yourself, in a very stupid manner. Why because firing at someone through a closed door or wall is simply stupid.

I could of course give a very long list of cases in which people have sincerely believed their lives were at risk and killed someone in "self defence"; only the utter stupidity and irrationality of their actions is obviously apparent. And there are consequences for being an idiot.

 

[Hard Cheese]

Who was talking about people behaving "rationally" in situations like this? Or considering the legal ramifications of what they do? I was talking about the law. And in law Pistorius' claim of "self defence" fails and fails hard; what he may have irrationally believed is utterly irrelevant to the fact his claim of "self defence" fails. It appears we are talking past each other you are apparently think it is possible that Pistorius may have genuinely thought his life was in danger and that he was acting in self defence. Yes he may actually have thought so but it makes no difference to the fact his claim of "self defence" fails totally under law.

Of course it fails under the law. But you can claim "self defence" not only in an attempt to escape a charge of murder, but also in the hope of reducing the sentence you receive. Pistorius is guilty of murder, but that doesn't mean his belief his life was at risk holds no merit and his sentence not adjusted accordingly.

So would you fire through a closed door at someone you thought was armed even though you knew no such thing and the person had In fact done nothing indicating that he was a threat to your life and limb?

The fact that they're in my bathroom in the middle of the night indicates they are a threat to life and limb. In a country where gun violence and crime are commonplace, it's hard to imagine they're there to pay you a social visit.

You would instead utterly cave into irrational fears and fantasy and fire away?

I've never been in such a situation, so I have no idea how I would react. If it came to the crunch, and if I feared for my family or myself, maybe I would. Can you guarantee me that you wouldn't?

I hope you never have a gun if that is the case.

I hope not either, I certainly don't want one. Plenty of people do stupid, irrational things with guns, and I'm not sanctimonious enough to claim that somehow I'm immune to doing them either.

 

[Pacal]

Of course it fails under the law. But you can claim "self defence" not only in an attempt to escape a charge of murder, but also in the hope of reducing the sentence you receive. Pistorius is guilty of murder, but that doesn't mean his belief his life was at risk holds no merit and his sentence not adjusted accordingly.

Of course such a claim can work to mitigate the sentence even if it is inherently very dubious and in this case failed to prevent him from being found guilty of murder and being sentenced has a murderer. But then all sorts of factors are taken into account when sentencing people. In this case the "self defence" argument was being used in an attempt to prevent him from being found guilty of murder and it failed.

So would you fire through a closed door at someone you thought was armed even though you knew no such thing and the person had In fact done nothing indicating that he was a threat to your life and limb?

The fact that they're in my bathroom in the middle of the night indicates they are a threat to life and limb.

This is of course fantasy logic. The sort of logic that any Court with any sense would utterly reject from someone claiming self defence. To repeat you don't know that the person was in fact armed and the "intruder" has made absolutely no threatening remarks etc., against you. That does not constitute an immediate threat to life and limb or much of a threat to life and limb period. Thieves are generally only interested in stealing your stuff; getting into a fracas is generally not what they are interested in. "Self defence" requires the person actually being a threat to your life and limb fantasizing such a threat isn't enough.

In a country where gun violence and crime are commonplace, it's hard to imagine they're there to pay you a social visit.

So what. That does not excuse fantasy taking over and behaving like an idiot. And what's with the crap about " a social visit"? Whoever implied that it was.

I've never been in such a situation, so I have no idea how I would react. If it came to the crunch, and if I feared for my family or myself, maybe I would. Can you guarantee me that you wouldn't?

I can't guarantee anything and what I would do in such a situation is irrelevant. However if I did something so stupid I would hope I wouldn't try to evade the consequences of my stupidity.

I hope not either, I certainly don't want one. Plenty of people do stupid, irrational things with guns, and I'm not sanctimonious enough to claim that somehow I'm immune to doing them either.

We seem to be in agreement that Oscar did something stupid and irrational with a gun and that his "self defence" argument is legally pretty weak. I wonder who here has sanctimoniously claimed that they are immune to behaving like a raving idiot.

 

[MikeG]

........ I wonder who here has sanctimoniously claimed that they are immune to behaving like a raving idiot.

With a gun? If so, that's going to eliminate most posters from the question, I suspect.

 

[Hard Cheese]

Of course such a claim can work to mitigate the sentence even if it is inherently very dubious and in this case failed to prevent him from being found guilty of murder and being sentenced has a murderer. But then all sorts of factors are taken into account when sentencing people. In this case the "self defence" argument was being used in an attempt to prevent him from being found guilty of murder and it failed.

Ultimately it failed. But initially it succeeded because he was found guilty of culpable homicide and got an extremely light sentence, which was only rectified after two appeals.

Thieves are generally only interested in stealing your stuff; getting into a fracas is generally not what they are interested in.

I love how you use the word "generally", as if I was going to rely on someone being at the top of the bell curve when I find them trespassing in my house at midnight. Even in my part of the world there are plenty of occurrences of home invasions where the occupant, often very elderly, has been badly beaten. I'm not sure how I'd distinguish between a "thief" and a "home invader". Perhaps they could get business cards printed up.

"Self defence" requires the person actually being a threat to your life and limb fantasizing such a threat isn't enough.

It may well do in South Africa, and possibly most other countries, I don't know. IMO the application of castle doctrine in US law is the correct approach. The right to protect myself and my family should trump all assumptions about your intent if you are illegally trespassing on my property.

I can't guarantee anything and what I would do in such a situation is irrelevant. However if I did something so stupid I would hope I wouldn't try to evade the consequences of my stupidity.

Your view of Pistorius' behaviour is modelled on how you believe you would act and how one should should behave afterwards despite (I assume) you having never been in such a situation and your opinion that Pistorius does not actually 100% believe that his life was in danger. I think he's a liar (re his testimony about Reeva being in the bed) and a complete idiot (he had a thousand ways to avoid the situation he was in), but by the same token I don't discount that I could be completely wrong and he could be telling the truth.

I wonder who here has sanctimoniously claimed that they are immune to behaving like a raving idiot.

Your statement "I hope you never have a gun in that case" (because I might do what Pistorius did) implies that the same isn't true for you. Maybe I am reading that wrong.