Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2

[Samson]

I have a couple of South African friends at church and I got chatting to the woman - who's perfectly nice - about Oscar, shortly after the murder, and most ppl in England outraged by the act. So I was quite taken aback when she said she thought he was innocent because of #4.

She explained many European South Africans live in fear of violent burglars, because of the great social distance in that society. An Us and Them outlook, and Oscar was, "Us".

Her view was based on prejudice, but you can see that cultural influences are part of the wider issues surrounding this case.

For the record, I am glad justice has now been done.

How has justice been done? Reeva is corporeally dead, and Oscar spiritually so. What justice pleases you?

 

[Desert Fox]

It is fascinating that Masipa is now the sentencing judge. I think the best word for this is "quirk".

Many cases in the US bounce back to the original judge as well. For example, Burnett basically bounced every appeal with the West Memphis Three no matter how reasonable.

 

[newyorkguy]

Having learned a lot more about Oscar Pistorius over the past year or so, I agree it is conceivable he fired the shots into the bathroom honestly believing there was an intruder inside. I concede that based on his history of having an attraction to handguns, his eagerness to use them, his feelings of vulnerability, his anxiety level (as evidenced in court by the sobbing and vomiting episodes), his anger management issues and his displays of compulsive behavior.

There's two other things that sort of bother me:

• People who believe Pistorius to have deliberately murdered his girlfriend seem callous towards Pistorius' profound disability. Having both legs amputated below the knee is a horrendous thing to have happen. I'm sure there are many psychological issues present; it is understandable he would feel anxious and insecure at times, even a good part of the time. Yet he went on to accomplish so much, showing fierce determination and an absolute will to triumph over adversity. So it is very tragic that someone like this finds himself utterly ruined at age 29.
  
  
• People who believe Pistorius did not intend to kill Reeva Steenkamp, that when he fired the fatal shots he believed he was protecting her, seem to disregard the tragedy Steenkamp suffered. She was a beautiful young woman, highly successful and with a great life ahead of her. That she became romantically involved with Pistorius, given his physical disabilities, says much about her character. I'm sure many women would not have even considered dating a man who was a double-amputee, no matter how successful he had otherwise become.

Pistorius took everything away from Steenkamp. He left her family and friends devastated. Their lives will never be the same. Oscar Pistorius is not the victim here. Spare a tear or two for Steenkamp.

 

[MikeG]

......If Oscar thought he was defending, it is case closed to me.........

There's where it all goes wrong for you. There are laws about how you can defend yourself. Shooting through a closed door knowing you are going to kill whoever is on the other side, without having been threatened, would always, in any circumstance I can think of, be breaking the law in any first world country I am familiar with. And so it should too.

 

[newyorkguy]

I absolutely agree that firing through a door when you have no way of knowing who is on the other side -- and there is no visible sign there is an intruder in your residence -- should be considered manslaughter. I'm not so sure that is the case in some of the American states that have Stand Your Ground laws. In those states a home owner or apartment tenant is presumed to have been legitimately defending themselves with deadly force if they say that's what they believed they were doing. They have the absolute right to kill anyone they believe has invaded their home. They don't have to prove they were in fear of their life or serious injury, they just have to state it. The burden is entirely on the prosecution to prove they are lying. Since fear is such a subjective emotion that can be very difficult to do.

Not to say that if this incident had happened in the U.S. Pistorius wouldn't have been prosecuted, but convicting him may have been difficult in SYG states. Where courts and juries recognize that, in protecting people's right to kill intruders, there will be mistakes made. That so long as the killer contends he killed in 'good faith' -- and the state can't prove otherwise -- the defendants go free.

There have been many many cases in the U.S. that have left police, prosecutors and much of the public shaking their heads.

 

[trustbutverify]

How has justice been done? Reeva is corporeally dead, and Oscar spiritually so. What justice pleases you?

That a murderer has been found guilty of murder?

 

[Desert Fox]

I absolutely agree that firing through a door when you have no way of knowing who is on the other side -- and there is no visible sign there is an intruder in your residence -- should be considered manslaughter. I'm not so sure that is the case in some of the American states that have Stand Your Ground laws. In those states a home owner or apartment tenant is presumed to have been legitimately defending themselves with deadly force if they say that's what they believed they were doing. They have the absolute right to kill anyone they believe has invaded their home. They don't have to prove they were in fear of their life or serious injury, they just have to state it. The burden is entirely on the prosecution to prove they are lying. Since fear is such a subjective emotion that can be very difficult to do.

Not to say that if this incident had happened in the U.S. Pistorius wouldn't have been prosecuted, but convicting him may have been difficult in SYG states. Where courts and juries recognize that, in protecting people's right to kill intruders, there will be mistakes made. That so long as the killer contends he killed in 'good faith' -- and the state can't prove otherwise -- the defendants go free.

There have been many many cases in the U.S. that have left police, prosecutors and much of the public shaking their heads.

Unless you are black. . . .Sorry, I had to say that

 

[lionking]

How has justice been done? Reeva is corporeally dead, and Oscar spiritually so. What justice pleases you?

What? The guilty has been found guilty. The best definition of justice I know.

 

[The Atheist]

I believe 5, but as I concede, it ain't getting traction.

I finally have it.

No matter how insane a defence can be made, you're advocating it henceforth should fall under the "reasonable doubt" provision.

Oscar should have said he'd been possessed by demons. In RSA, he'd have a fair shot at that defence.

I am not interested in law,...

*splutter!*

You can't be serious, having made almost all of your five thousand posts in Trials & Errors.

Does anyone here think society should continue to fear Oscar Pistorius?

Yes.

He clearly has anger management and other serious mental issues. Until he receives help and manages to improve those parts of his life, he is a danger to himself and others.

Did you not see that this is a man who has fired a gun in public?

Not that the fact of society's safety has anything to do with it until he's eligible for parole, which looks like it will be a few years away now.

 

[Samson]

I finally have it.

No matter how insane a defence can be made, you're advocating it henceforth should fall under the "reasonable doubt" provision.

Oscar should have said he'd been possessed by demons. In RSA, he'd have a fair shot at that defence.



*splutter!*

You can't be serious, having made almost all of your five thousand posts in Trials & Errors.



Yes.

He clearly has anger management and other serious mental issues. Until he receives help and manages to improve those parts of his life, he is a danger to himself and others.

Did you not see that this is a man who has fired a gun in public?

Not that the fact of society's safety has anything to do with it until he's eligible for parole, which looks like it will be a few years away now.

I have spent enough time on this so this old post of Charlie Wilkes best sums up the situation for me.

Some people simply have an obsession with guns that leads to terrible judgment. They may be careless in other aspects of their lives, but armed confrontation is the one thing for which they are prepared... too prepared, in fact. They hear a sound downstairs, or in the next room, and the thinking seems to be, "Aha! I always knew this would happen! Some low-life criminal has broken in!" They blast away, and they are genuinely surprised when it turns out to be a loved one.

I have a feeling that is what Pistorius did, but I am not yet ready to draw a firm conclusion.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9017803&postcount=797

 

[The Atheist]

5. He knew Reeva was in bed asleep, and a black man had broken and entered. He shoots at an oblique angle, imagining the intruder will not receive an injury, but be totally aware that he is nailed down by a serious and prepared defender.

I believe 5, but as I concede, it ain't getting traction.

I have a feeling that is what Pistorius did, but I am not yet ready to draw a firm conclusion.

So, you're back-tracking from your previous position.

Goodo.

 

[Samson]

So, you're back-tracking from your previous position.

Goodo.

No that was Charlie 3 days after the tragedy. Everything in italics. My position is his then preferred theory, what he thinks now is unknown. I don't regard it as impossible to prove this theory correct, but Pistorius is a goner.
The next episode is Masipa resentencing him. Can her sentencing be appealed? She must be pretty angry to have spent weeks hearing the evidence only to be overruled by a bunch of once over lightly crowd pleasers.

 

[lionking]

No that was Charlie 3 days after the tragedy. Everything in italics. My position is his then preferred theory, what he thinks now is unknown. I don't regard it as impossible to prove this theory correct, but Pistorius is a goner.
The next episode is Masipa resentencing him. Can her sentencing be appealed? She must be pretty angry to have spent weeks hearing the evidence only to be overruled by a bunch of once over lightly crowd pleasers superior, more experienced judges.

FTFY.

Masipa was wrong, grossly wrong. Deal with it.

 

[Sideroxylon]

No that was Charlie 3 days after the tragedy. Everything in italics. My position is his then preferred theory, what he thinks now is unknown. I don't regard it as impossible to prove this theory correct, but Pistorius is a goner.
The next episode is Masipa resentencing him. Can her sentencing be appealed? She must be pretty angry to have spent weeks hearing the evidence only to be overruled by a bunch of once over lightly crowd pleasers.

An ad hom against members of the SA Supreme Court and zero argument against their easily understood explanation, related in this thread. Nice one.

 

[TofuFighter]

Having learned a lot more about Oscar Pistorius over the past year or so, I agree it is conceivable he fired the shots into the bathroom honestly believing there was an intruder inside. I concede that based on his history of having an attraction to handguns, his eagerness to use them, his feelings of vulnerability, his anxiety level (as evidenced in court by the sobbing and vomiting episodes), his anger management issues and his displays of compulsive behavior.

There's two other things that sort of bother me:

• People who believe Pistorius to have deliberately murdered his girlfriend seem callous towards Pistorius' profound disability. Having both legs amputated below the knee is a horrendous thing to have happen. I'm sure there are many psychological issues present; it is understandable he would feel anxious and insecure at times, even a good part of the time. Yet he went on to accomplish so much, showing fierce determination and an absolute will to triumph over adversity. So it is very tragic that someone like this finds himself utterly ruined at age 29.
  
  
• People who believe Pistorius did not intend to kill Reeva Steenkamp, that when he fired the fatal shots he believed he was protecting her, seem to disregard the tragedy Steenkamp suffered. She was a beautiful young woman, highly successful and with a great life ahead of her. That she became romantically involved with Pistorius, given his physical disabilities, says much about her character. I'm sure many women would not have even considered dating a man who was a double-amputee, no matter how successful he had otherwise become.

Pistorius took everything away from Steenkamp. He left her family and friends devastated. Their lives will never be the same. Oscar Pistorius is not the victim here. Spare a tear or two for Steenkamp.

great post

Here's what Bob replied to me about the case. I have his permission to reproduce the email on the forum. (As I said, he is a retired QC and professor of law who now lives for half the year in South Africa.)

Rondlopery! I love it!

Sorry I'm late coming back to this. Thanks for posting Bob's assessment.
(in case he didn't explain it or that it it isn't easy to see, 'rondlopery' roughly translates to 'running around')

 

[katy_did]

Exactly correct. As was the other analysis upthread discussing how ludicrous it was that Masipa could/should have basically ruled in her original verdict that Pistorius did not have a valid self-defence PPD (i.e. that he was lying when he had claimed he genuinely felt in imminent mortal danger), but yet allowed for a culpable homicide verdict - which basically implied that Masipa believed that Pistorius must have negligently and impulsively discharged his weapon (which was contradicted, inter alia, by parts of Pistorius' own testimony!).

The appeal court basically did two things. Firstly, it affirmed that Masipa was correct to throw out the self-defence PPD option. The appeal court agreed that Pistorius was lying when he claimed (Variously) to have been in imminent mortal danger. The court pointed to Pistorius' self-contradictory testimony and statements to police, and was satisfied that Pistorius did not genuinely feel that he shot purely to prevent himself (and/or Steenkamp) from being killed or seriously injured in the imminent future.

Then, secondly and separately, the court demolished Masipa's "reasoning" on rejecting murder in favour of culpable homicide. This really wasn't hard to do. The court pointed to Pistorius' confirmation that he took a stance and fired the four aimed shots. that he knew there was a human being in the extremely small enclosed space behind the door, and that he knew (or must have known) that the powerful hand gun and its powerful, penetrative ammunition in his hand were easily capable of passing through the door and killing or seriously wounding whoever was behind the door. So Pistorius clearly didn't fire negligently or reflexively. He took aim and fired at a target: a target which he knew was in his firing line and which the bullets he fired were likely to hit and kill or seriously wound. And that - when taken together with the rejection of the self-defence PPD - is murder.

Have you read Masipa's ruling, LJ? You're incorrect to say that she rejected PPD, or at least that she did so in its entirety. Of course, if she'd accepted it completely, she would need to have acquitted him of culpable homicide as well; instead, she accepted his defence that he believed he was shooting an intruder and that he was in fear for his life, but that he acted with unreasonable force, hence culpable homicide.

So the appeal court didn't "agree" with Masipa when they said he wasn't in fear for his life, they overturned her (arguably factual, rather than legal) finding. And in fact it's this - the overturning of Masipa's finding on PPD - which was the really critical issue in the appeal court's ruling.

 

[katy_did]

Amidst all this, I think some here have forgotten that neither Masipa nor the Court of Appeal ruled that Pistorius knew/believed he was shooting at Steenkamp behind that door, rather than the mythical intruder claimed by Pistorius. In fact, both courts are agnostic as to the identity of the victim.

I am sure that Steenkamp's family - and, it seems, some people here - would have liked the courts to have found that the "intruder" story was a lie, and that Pistorius had knowingly targeted Steenkamp. But that's not what they found. And, in a very real sense, they had no need to make such a finding (and indeed to have done so could have made this a much more appealable case by the defence). All they had to show was that Pistorius knew it was a human being behind that door - whether he genuinely believed that human to be an intruder, or whether he knew it to be Steenkamp.

Personally, I think that the evidence and testimony all point very strongly to the conclusion that Pistorius never did genuinely think there was an intruder, and that he knew it was Steenkamp at whom he was firing his gun through the door. I think the evidence strongly suggests that Steenkamp ran into the bathroom and locked herself in the toilet with her phone, in order to put a physical barrier between her and a jealous/enraged Pistorius and in order to make a distress phone call (either to police or to family/friend). But that's all conjecture.

Well, it depends what you mean by "the courts are agnostic as to the identity of the victim". Both courts rejected the prosecution theory that he shot Reeva after an argument (or more accurately, the fact-finding court rejected that theory and the appeal court only deals with legal issues so has no power to reconsider that: as it said, "This court cannot interfere, for example, with the factual decision made by the trial court rejecting the State’s version that there had been a disagreement between the appellant and the deceased that led the deceased to hide herself in the toilet to escape from him, before being shot").

As I said above, the finding that OP believed he was shooting at an intruder (or that this was a reasonable possibility) was crucial to Masipa acquitting him of murder, so I don't think it's an irrelevance.

 

[Samson]

Well, it depends what you mean by "the courts are agnostic as to the identity of the victim". Both courts rejected the prosecution theory that he shot Reeva after an argument (or more accurately, the fact-finding court rejected that theory and the appeal court only deals with legal issues so has no power to reconsider that: as it said, "This court cannot interfere, for example, with the factual decision made by the trial court rejecting the State’s version that there had been a disagreement between the appellant and the deceased that led the deceased to hide herself in the toilet to escape from him, before being shot").

As I said above, the finding that OP believed he was shooting at an intruder (or that this was a reasonable possibility) was crucial to Masipa acquitting him of murder, so I don't think it's an irrelevance.

I see no doubt he is innocent of murder in the widely held sense of the word. The lynch mob is wrongfully sated.

 

[trustbutverify]

So, anyone who disagrees with your day one conclusion is part of a lynch mob? That seems convenient.

 

[Bob001]

I see no doubt he is innocent of murder in the widely held sense of the word. The lynch mob is wrongfully sated.

He deliberately killed a person without justification. Whether he intended to kill Reeva or an unknown stranger is irrelevant. Firing four shots at anyone is intent to kill, and that's what makes it murder.