Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2

[newyorkguy]

Great importance was placed on the fact Steenkamp's bladder was empty at the time she was shot. The argument seemed to be, her bladder would not have been empty unless she had urinated within moments of being shot. That, however, is not what Prof Gert Saayman, who performed the post mortem on Reeva Steenkamp, testified to. At the trial Saayman testified "that Steenkamp’s bladder would have been empty had she gone to the toilet between 30 minutes to an hour before her death." We're left with a possible scenario where Steenkamp had used the water closet well before the shooting, strongly suggesting she had gone back and locked herself in to get away from Pistorius.

Now the argument is, the trial judge considered the prosecution's contention it was premeditated, deliberate murder to be idiotic. But the trial judge never said anything remotely like that.

[Judge Thokozile Masipa ruled] there was a reasonable possibility that Pistorius really did think Steenkamp was an intruder when he fired four shots through a locked bathroom door the night he killed her.

A reasonable possibility doesn't mean the alternate theory is idiotic. In fact, accepting Pistorius' scenario as "a reasonable possibility" is the bare minimum. It is no ringing endorsement of Oscar Pistorius. Combined with the fact Masipa also characterized Pistorius as an unreliable witness, it seems pretty clear to me that the prosecution was one key piece of evidence away from convincing Masipa that this was a deliberate murder.

 

[The Atheist]

Great importance was placed on the fact Steenkamp's bladder was empty at the time she was shot.

Only by one person.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

You clearly consider yourself superior to "the deluded masses".

Yes, but don't we all?!

 

[Samson]

Great importance was placed on the fact Steenkamp's bladder was empty at the time she was shot. The argument seemed to be, her bladder would not have been empty unless she had urinated within moments of being shot. That, however, is not what Prof Gert Saayman, who performed the post mortem on Reeva Steenkamp, testified to. At the trial Saayman testified "that Steenkamp’s bladder would have been empty had she gone to the toilet between 30 minutes to an hour before her death." We're left with a possible scenario where Steenkamp had used the water closet well before the shooting, strongly suggesting she had gone back and locked herself in to get away from Pistorius.

Now the argument is, the trial judge considered the prosecution's contention it was premeditated, deliberate murder to be idiotic. But the trial judge never said anything remotely like that.


A reasonable possibility doesn't mean the alternate theory is idiotic. In fact, accepting Pistorius' scenario as "a reasonable possibility" is the bare minimum. It is no ringing endorsement of Oscar Pistorius. Combined with the fact Masipa also characterized Pistorius as an unreliable witness, it seems pretty clear to me that the prosecution was one key piece of evidence away from convincing Masipa that this was a deliberate murder.

I appreciate your attention to detail.
I have a question as a corollary. Why did Masipa, as a fierce defender of women's rights to be unmolested, deliver a sentence designed to allow very early release, if she thought there was more than a remote chance of intent to kill Reeva? If she had little belief in his story, she was entitled to put him away for a long time, to be on the safe side.

 

[Metullus]

I appreciate your attention to detail.
I have a question as a corollary. Why did Masipa, as a fierce defender of women's rights to be unmolested, deliver a sentence designed to allow very early release, if she thought there was more than a remote chance of intent to kill Reeva? If she had little belief in his story, she was entitled to put him away for a long time, to be on the safe side.

Error in judgement? It happens, you know.

 

[Samson]

Error in judgement? It happens, you know.

Maybe, but her history suggests she was pretty sure of her thinking when giving him an effective year sentence. After all, if he was known to have deliberately killed her no one would argue any mitigation.

 

[lionking]

Maybe, but her history suggests she was pretty sure of her thinking when giving him an effective year sentence. After all, if he was known to have deliberately killed her no one would argue any mitigation.

No maybe about it. It was by definition an error in judgement.

 

[newyorkguy]

First of all, the maximum sentence Pistorius could have recieved upon being convicted of culpable homicide was fifteen years. That was the maximum sentence Judge Masipa could have imposed. To her credit, Masipa wasn't judging the case as a woman's rights advocate but as a criminal court judge. That's what you seem to misunderstand. She found there was a reasonable possibility -- under the rules of evidence (not whatever her own private feeling is) -- that Pistorius did fire believing it to be an intruder in his water closet. Why the light sentence? This is how USA Today reported it at the time:

JOHANNESBURG — South African Olympic athlete Oscar Pistorius was sentenced to prison for five years Tuesday for the 2013 killing of his girlfriend, less than half the time he could have received following his manslaughter conviction last month. Judge Thokozile Masipa said a long sentence would show a lack of mercy toward Pistorius, known as the "Blade Runner" for racing on prosthetic legs. She suspended a separate three-year sentence for an unrelated firearms charge. Link to news article

However there was another reason for the lenient sentence, the trial judge ruled Pistoruis had showed no intent to kill. That was where, however, the South African Supreme Court ruled she erred. In its appeal the state asked the Supreme Court to rule on the following:

[G]iven he knew someone was behind the door, and he fired four bullets into a tiny room, should he have foreseen that his actions would have killed whoever was in there? They decided unanimously. Yes, he did. And that is murder. News article

 

[Samson]

No maybe about it. It was by definition an error in judgement.

Well no, by the sentence she clearly agreed with the defence, not the prosecution. There is no middle ground between the two, only one could be correct. I accept you think he deliberately killed Reeva, but I don't agree, and I don't think the judge did either, notwithstanding New York Guy's analysis.

 

[newyorkguy]

I accept you think he deliberately killed Reeva, but I don't agree, and I don't think the judge did either...

Again, your contention was that Judge Masipa considered the prosecution's theory to be "idiotic." By saying it "was reasonably possible" he didn't kill Steenkamp deliberately, doesn't she seem to be indicating she believed the possibility existed that he did?

 

[Metullus]

Maybe, but her history suggests she was pretty sure of her thinking when giving him an effective year sentence. After all, if he was known to have deliberately killed her no one would argue any mitigation.

You have yet to indicate in what way the prosecution's suggestions were idiotic. You have only pointed out that the judge in this case made an error in judgement...

 

[trustbutverify]

Well no, by the sentence she clearly agreed with the defence, not the prosecution. There is no middle ground between the two, only one could be correct. I accept you think he deliberately killed Reeva, but I don't agree, and I don't think the judge did either, notwithstanding New York Guy's analysis.

Judges making terrible decisions is, in no way, a rare event. The prosecutions case didn't seem "idiotic" in any way to me. Unless "idiotic" is a word you use for any assertion you don't approve of.

 

[TofuFighter]

In the last few days it's been confirmed that OP has filed papers with the Constitutional Court, claiming that the SCA erred in applying an objective rationality criterion to him.

“The legal requirements for putative private defence were not a question of law referred to the SCA under section 319 of the CPA (Criminal Procedure Act). Therefore, with respect, the SCA had no statutory authority to interfere with either the trial court’s legal or factual finding of putative private defence.”

eta link for reading: http://mg.co.za/article/2016-01-12-oscar-pistorius-claims-sca-discriminated-against-him

 

[Samson]

In the last few days it's been confirmed that OP has filed papers with the Constitutional Court, claiming that the SCA erred in applying an objective rationality criterion to him.

“The legal requirements for putative private defence were not a question of law referred to the SCA under section 319 of the CPA (Criminal Procedure Act). Therefore, with respect, the SCA had no statutory authority to interfere with either the trial court’s legal or factual finding of putative private defence.”

eta link for reading: http://mg.co.za/article/2016-01-12-oscar-pistorius-claims-sca-discriminated-against-him

It is pleasing to see he will persevere. Pistorius should fight to his last breath to show he never intended to kill Reeva Steenkamp. In his position I would.

 

[trustbutverify]

It is pleasing to see he will persevere. Pistorius should fight to his last breath to show he never intended to kill Reeva Steenkamp. In his position I would.

He should claim he was just trying to wound her.

 

[lionking]

It is pleasing to see he will persevere. Pistorius should fight to his last breath to show he never intended to kill Reeva Steenkamp. In his position I would.

This desperate last attempt will fair and will only enrich lawyers. He murdered Reeva and will do serious time, thankfully.

 

[GlennB]

It is pleasing to see he will persevere. Pistorius should fight to his last breath to show he never intended to kill Reeva Steenkamp. In his position I would.

Missing the point, as ever. He intended to risk the life of *someone*, whether it was RS is incidental.

 

[MikeG]

Missing the point, as ever. He intended to risk the life of *someone*, whether it was RS is incidental.

Exactly.

The logic of Sampson's approach is that Reeva Steenkamp's life is worth more than that of someone , anyone, else. If you kill Steenkamp deliberately you are a murderer, but if you kill someone else deliberately you are only guilty of the equivalent of manslaughter.

 

[newyorkguy]

I'm not sure how the law works in South Africa but I was very surprised to read the grounds upon which Pistorius' lawyers are appealing the latest ruling (finding him guilty of murder). Specifically the lawyers are arguing that the "reasonable man" (or in this case "the rational person") standard does not and should not apply to Pistorius. From the link:

Pistorius’s lawyers argue that the SCA erred by introducing an objective rationality criterion, of the “rational person”. In doing so, the SCA ignored Pistorius’s subjective state of the mind, in particular his anxiety disorder, his serious physical disability and his feelings of vulnerability.

The court erred by using objective reasoning? That's a new one.

I do agree that, essentially, Pistorius has already been judged not to have deliberately killed Reeva Steenkamp. The finding is that in firing four shots into the water closet Pistorius should have known (as would any reasonable or rational person) that the action would be quite likely to kill whoever was in the closet. I think most nations would consider that manslaughter (or the local equivalent). If a defendant takes an action of which a foreseeable result is someone getting killed, and someone does in fact die, pleading, "I didn't mean to kill them," is not a legally viable defense.

Except Pistorius is claiming that in his case it should be an adequate defense due to his anxiety disorder. That's ironic because aren't his lawyers basically conceding: The court got it right for rational people but not for Oscar.

 

[Desert Fox]

If we are arguing with issues of wrongful convictions, self defense cases should be ones to be avoided. They are just so messy and hard to tell. There should need to be something obvious which argues for innocence if we argue for them. Otherwise, just leave them alone.