Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2

[Samson]

By the way, if I wished to eliminate the Pistorius right to ordinary and completely flawed human status, and determine he is a character who represents unmitigated evil, I would also agree Reeva's empty bladder is totally irrelevant.

 

[MikeG]

By the way, if I wished to eliminate the Pistorius right to ordinary and completely flawed human status, and determine he is a character who represents unmitigated evil, I would also agree Reeva's empty bladder is totally irrelevant.

Careful with all that straw. It burns you know.

I haven't said Pistorius was evil. I haven't said that he is anything other than an ordinary flawed human being. He made a bad decision: to fire a gun through a closed door. At that point, he deserves whatever punishment is thrown his way, and the state of the bladder of his victim is irrelevant. As it happens, I suspect that he may well have thought there was an intruder behind that door, and that Reeva was still in bed. That doesn't make it any-the-less murder.

 

[Samson]

Careful with all that straw. It burns you know.

I haven't said Pistorius was evil. I haven't said that he is anything other than an ordinary flawed human being. He made a bad decision: to fire a gun through a closed door. At that point, he deserves whatever punishment is thrown his way, and the state of the bladder of his victim is irrelevant. As it happens, I suspect that he may well have thought there was an intruder behind that door, and that Reeva was still in bed. That doesn't make it any-the-less murder.

In that case I suggest you imagine it to be your son convicted of murder. I can't think of a more important question than who he believed was behind the door, and what import that should have for sentencing.

 

[MikeG]

There are boundaries in life, and in law. Killing someone without seeing them, without any idea of the risk they pose, is one of those boundaries. Of course, your hypothetical "my son" thing has no relevance, as A/ I don't have one B/ it is highly unlikely that my daughters would ever see a (another*) gun in their entire lives, let alone handle one, and C/ if they were to kill an anonymous someone without any assessment of the risk they were facing, then I would expect them to face the full weight of the law.

* There was a gun involved in the incident that led to my daughter's rape in Moscow a couple of years ago. She lives in a much saner society now.

 

[MikeG]

Let me just add this. If you have a gun, and you suspect someone behind a closed door is there to do you mischief, you have no excuse for pulling the trigger until you have had an answer to "I have a gun pointed at you. Identify yourself" (or words to that effect).........unless the occupant of the room does or says something to make it clear that they are preparing to attack you.

 

[Bob001]

In that case I suggest you imagine it to be your son convicted of murder. I can't think of a more important question than who he believed was behind the door, and what import that should have for sentencing.

It doesn't matter who he believed was behind the door. Either he didn't know who was behind the door, or he knew it was Reeva. Either way, he had no right to kill a human being who posed no threat to him. His story doesn't make much sense, but even it convicts him of murder.

And consider this: Suppose there had been an intruder? Suppose it had been an unarmed teenage girl who intended to grab P.'s wallet and run? Would shooting her four times be justified?

 

[whoanellie]

what other evidence could there be?

Well, for example n this cases there were ear witnesses.

 

[Samson]

Let me just add this. If you have a gun, and you suspect someone behind a closed door is there to do you mischief, you have no excuse for pulling the trigger until you have had an answer to "I have a gun pointed at you. Identify yourself" (or words to that effect).........unless the occupant of the room does or says something to make it clear that they are preparing to attack you.

It doesn't matter who he believed was behind the door. Either he didn't know who was behind the door, or he knew it was Reeva. Either way, he had no right to kill a human being who posed no threat to him. His story doesn't make much sense, but even it convicts him of murder.

And consider this: Suppose there had been an intruder? Suppose it had been an unarmed teenage girl who intended to grab P.'s wallet and run? Would shooting her four times be justified?

There seems to be a concerted desire to say identity in bathroom is irrelevant, but I profoundly disagree. I would like to see a sentence that reflects a tragedy of killing a loved one in error, and I reckon the matter can be proved one way or the other. That is why I post the thread, not to say he is a murderer in law. I couldn't care less what the law says.

 

[whoanellie]

There seems to be a concerted desire to say identity in bathroom is irrelevant, but I profoundly disagree. I would like to see a sentence that reflects a tragedy of killing a loved one in error, and I reckon the matter can be proved one way or the other. That is why I post the thread, not to say he is a murderer in law. I couldn't care less what the law says.

As I understand it, as far as South African law goes under the doctrine of dolus eventualis the identity of the person behind the door doesn't matter.

I agree with you that from a moral point of view the identity does matter. In my opinion he knew it was Reeva. Whether or not the prosecution proved that beyond a reasonable doubt is another matter. I think they did. But the original trial court disagreed. Thus we are left discussing the alternative theory which does not require that OP knew he was shooting at. Either way - he did or did not know he was shooting Reeva, OP is guilty under South African law and morally culpable. One could argue that OP's knowledge is relevant for determining punishment, but there is ample evidence to suggest he knew he was shooting Reeva.

 

[whoanellie]

Seriously? Now with the fear of a potential intruder you have her doing sophisticated acoustic analyses to determine where her boyfriend is? A smart phone app on the toilet I suppose?

OP claimed to have known that the sound he heard was a window opening in the bathroom. Did he have to do a similar analysis?

 

[Hard Cheese]

Seriously? Now with the fear of a potential intruder you have her doing sophisticated acoustic analyses to determine where her boyfriend is? A smart phone app on the toilet I suppose?

Good grief. The brain can locate the sources of a sound in fractions of a second if there are clues. OP's voice is going to sound very different coming down the corridor and into the bathroom yelling at an intruder to "Get the F out of my house" than doing the same thing in the bedroom - especially to someone familiar with the house. If she could hear him coming towards the bathroom screaming, wouldn't she yell out "It's me! I'm on the bog!"?

 

[MikeG]

There seems to be a concerted desire to say identity in bathroom is irrelevant, but I profoundly disagree. I would like to see a sentence that reflects a tragedy of killing a loved one in error, and I reckon the matter can be proved one way or the other. That is why I post the thread, not to say he is a murderer in law. I couldn't care less what the law says.

So, you'd like the judge to throw away the law book, make up her own law and sentence especially tailored for Pistorius, then offer him a box of tissues and an arm around his shoulders? You don't care what the law says, and everyone else does........but you're right and everyone else is wrong?

In arguing that, you'd have to accept that you would be setting legal precedents. Anyone who fired a gun with intent to kill without having a clue who they were aiming at would claim their right to so do under the Pistorius precedent, and all sorts of (other) murderers would walk free as a result.

Perhaps instead of arguing points of law throughout this thread, you should have avoided that altogether and just been up-front that your viewpoint on this was entirely emotional: you felt sorry for Pistorius who has not only lost his girlfriend, but has been sent to gaol too.

 

[TofuFighter]

I think we're talking about two different things here. You're looking at this in somewhat of a moralistic, social point of view. I think you're also addressing this in terms of whether nor not it was actually premeditated murder of his girlfriend as many people obviously believe. I'm not. The evidence neither supports that or rules it out. I'm looking at this in terms of what the court decided and if they acted properly. I think they did.

TofoFighter are you arguing it was a justifiable shooting, thus Pistorius should not have been charged? The court has ruled, have they not, that his actions were unlawful? That fear is not always a valid defense for the use of deadly force, especially in a case like this where his actions took the life of a completely innocent person. Because of that there are legal consequences. The court has looked at the circumstances and said no, the threat did not rise to the level that justified the use of deadly force. If it had been a home invader found dead in the water closet would that have changed the legal consequences? If they turned out to have been unarmed? I would think Pistorius might still have been charged. It would have been easier for him to tailor his defense -- maybe by saying he knew it was an invader, he'd caught sight of them -- but if the person was unarmed or possibly turned out to be mentally ill he might well have been charged I think. If it had turned out to be some obsessed fan of his? Charged.

Apparently in South Africa there are certain criteria when a homeowner is legally justified in using deadly force and certain criteria when they are not legally justified. I've already described what I think are the reasons Pistorius was not legally justified in using deadly force in this incident. Two courts have obviously seemed to have agreed. The reasoning is that based on what Pistorius knew or could have known at the moment he pulled the trigger, it was not enough to justify killing. It is what it is.

I'm not at all addressing whether it was his girlfriend. I am simply saying that on the assumption that it wasn't his girlfriend, it was necessarily an intruder and thus posed a danger in his mind.

It was posted earlier (my bolding):

<snip>
The critical point is that it is, in law, immaterial who Pistorius thought he was shooting at through the door. The important thing is that 1) he knew there was a human being behind the door, 2) he knew that his gun and its ammunition were easily capable of passing through the door and hitting the person behind the door, 3) he must (not should or could) have known that he was not in imminent danger of injury or death from the person behind the door, and 4) he must (not should or could) have known that by firing his gun and its specialist ammunition with aimed shots through the door four times there was a significant probability that he would seriously injure or kill whoever was behind the door.

All those four things, taken together, mean that dolus eventualis for murder has been met in this instance.
<snip>

I am not arguing that the shooting was justified or that Pistorius should not have been charged. That it happened to be an innocent person behind the door is irrelevant. I agree that it makes no difference who was actually behind the door. I am only arguing that point 3 doesn't appear to have been met. Or if it has, then i haven't seen exactly what it was that convinced the court that it was.

 

[Bob001]

There seems to be a concerted desire to say identity in bathroom is irrelevant, but I profoundly disagree. I would like to see a sentence that reflects a tragedy of killing a loved one in error, and I reckon the matter can be proved one way or the other. That is why I post the thread, not to say he is a murderer in law. I couldn't care less what the law says.

You're buying Pistorius' story completely. But it's not just about Pistorius. A smart, talented (not to mention beautiful) young woman was killed. Her family and friends -- and the world -- lost her forever. You sound like you think she was P.'s property to dispose of as he wished. P. killed a human being without any justification under the circumstances he himself describes. And that leaves aside the real possibility that he in fact chased her into the bathroom and shot her deliberately. P.'s celebrity is what saves him. If this had happened to a nobody, everybody would be sneering at his story and he'd be in prison for life.

 

[Bob001]

....
I am not arguing that the shooting was justified or that Pistorius should not have been charged. That it happened to be an innocent person behind the door is irrelevant. I agree that it makes no difference who was actually behind the door. I am only arguing that point 3 doesn't appear to have been met. Or if it has, then i haven't seen exactly what it was that convinced the court that it was.

He wasn't in imminent danger -- and a reasonable person would have known it -- because the person behind the closed door couldn't see P., P. was free to retreat (including leaving the bedroom) or take cover, and P. was armed. There was no immediate requirement that he open fire to save himself.

 

[Samson]

So, you'd like the judge to throw away the law book, make up her own law and sentence especially tailored for Pistorius, then offer him a box of tissues and an arm around his shoulders? You don't care what the law says, and everyone else does........but you're right and everyone else is wrong?

In arguing that, you'd have to accept that you would be setting legal precedents. Anyone who fired a gun with intent to kill without having a clue who they were aiming at would claim their right to so do under the Pistorius precedent, and all sorts of (other) murderers would walk free as a result.

Perhaps instead of arguing points of law throughout this thread, you should have avoided that altogether and just been up-front that your viewpoint on this was entirely emotional: you felt sorry for Pistorius who has not only lost his girlfriend, but has been sent to gaol too.

That gets close to my view. Seldom is murder achieved through a bathroom door. Law occludes the issues that matter here. A fearful society armed with guns will get to this undesirable destination from time to time. Don't blame the hapless individual anymore than with serial obesity that kills far more.

 

[TofuFighter]

It would reduce the likelihood of being attacked and potentially reduce the fear involved.

It would certainly reduce the likelihood of attack, but not eliminate it. It might even be argued that an intruder in a secure estate might need to be more sophisticated which might increase the fear.
Pistorius was correct that someone was in his bathroom. If he thought it was an intruder, he would have been fearful of the reality he faced rather than surmising that it was too unlikely to be happening.

 

[Samson]

You're buying Pistorius' story completely. But it's not just about Pistorius. A smart, talented (not to mention beautiful) young woman was killed. Her family and friends -- and the world -- lost her forever. You sound like you think she was P.'s property to dispose of as he wished. P. killed a human being without any justification under the circumstances he himself describes. And that leaves aside the real possibility that he in fact chased her into the bathroom and shot her deliberately. P.'s celebrity is what saves him. If this had happened to a nobody, everybody would be sneering at his story and he'd be in prison for life.

His own narrative makes sense. That is what I see. I don't care what happens to him, but far more for the deluded masses that can't see the likely truth, and will never analyse a crime scene and aftermath according to logic.

 

[TofuFighter]

He wasn't in imminent danger -- and a reasonable person would have known it -- because the person behind the closed door couldn't see P., P. was free to retreat (including leaving the bedroom) or take cover, and P. was armed. There was no immediate requirement that he open fire to save himself.

I can accept that.

 

[Samson]

People's reaction to this case is a litmus test for all cases where the immediate reaction is to trust judgement and authority.
Crap.