Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2

[MikeG]

So what do you think the 4 shots through the middle of a closed door of a small toilet cubical were intended to do?

You seem to have missed this Samson. Was it too difficult?

 

[MikeG]

Like math(s), ethics and logic have no borders. I am interested in the singular question, was Oscar aiming to protect or kill Reeva?

No you're not.

You continually claim that he shouldn't be in prison, and that he is not guilty of murder. You are continually told that this is entirely independent of whether he was trying to protect or kill Reeva. If you really were solely interested in this latter question, then you wouldn't pontificate on his innocence, because you would know that his innocence is nothing whatever to do with the answer to the question you claim to be "solely" interested in.

 

[Rolfe]

It was a bad angle for killing. He shot from the remotest point that guaranteed hitting the interior of the cubicle. In America they would be credited as warning shots.

And yes I am making that up, but I think I am right.

I have discovered, in another thread, that in America you don't fire "warning shots". If you are sufficiently concerned for your life, you shoot to kill. Anything less than that, either a warning shot or shooting to injure, is taken as proof you weren't really in fear for your life (or you would have shot to kill) and so you should not have used your weapon at all.

So not only are you making it up, you are completely and wildly wrong.

 

[Rolfe]

No you're not.

You continually claim that he shouldn't be in prison, and that he is not guilty of murder. You are continually told that this is entirely independent of whether he was trying to protect of kill Reeva. If you really were solely interested in this latter question, then you wouldn't pontificate on his innocence, because you would know that his innocence is nothing whatever to do with the answer to the question you claim to be "solely" interested in.

This.

Samson has been skating evasively round this for many pages now. It needs an answer, though I'm not optimistic that one will be forthcoming. Or not a coherent one anyway.

 

[SpitfireIX]

It was a bad angle for killing. He shot from the remotest point that guaranteed hitting the interior of the cubicle. In America they would be credited as warning shots.

And yes I am making that up, but I think I am right.

IANAL, but I am an American. Also, I don't own any guns, but I occasionally shoot pistols, rifles and shotguns with friends and relatives who do. Plus I had a .22 caliber rifle for shooting tin cans when I was in high school, and I shot competitively when I was in college, but I gave it up after my freshman year because I wasn't very good.

Off the top of my head, I'd say your claim is ridiculous. And even if they were considered "warning shots" in America, here is an excerpt from a ruling by a Florida court:

Firing a firearm in the air, even as a so-called “warning shot,” constitutes as a matter of law the use of deadly force, that is the use of a force likely to cause death or great bodily harm … A firearm is, by definition, a deadly weapon which fires projectiles likely to cause death or great bodily harm; whenever it is fired in the vicinity of human beings, as here, there is real danger that the fired projectile may hit someone, even if not aimed at anyone, as such projectiles are quite capable of ricocheting off nearby objects and hitting people in the area. (source)​

So again we're back to depraved indifference, which means it was murder.

 

[MikeG]

....So again we're back to depraved indifference, which means it was murder.

Indeed.

I pointed this out to Samson a few days ago, and with South African law built on UK case law, the following excerpt confirms exactly what you just said:

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

 

[SpitfireIX]

I have discovered, in another thread, that in America you don't fire "warning shots". If you are sufficiently concerned for your life, you shoot to kill. Anything less than that, either a warning shot or shooting to injure, is taken as proof you weren't really in fear for your life (or you would have shot to kill) and so you should not have used your weapon at all.

So not only are you making it up, you are completely and wildly wrong.

This was mentioned in the article where I found the excerpt I quoted in my previous post. It's an argument that has been used by prosecutors in certain cases, sometimes successfully, sometimes not.

A further complication is the fact that in addition to the laws of the federal government, every state, district, and inhabited territory has its own set of criminal laws. Assault and murder almost always come under the laws of individual states, districts, and inhabited territories, so if we were to examine all of the US case law on warning shots, we would likely find 50+ varying interpretations of the issue. However I strongly suspect we would find few, if any, cases where firing through a door when one believes a person to be on the other side would be considered to be firing "warning shots."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Warning shots? Oh for pity's sake. That has to be one of the more ludicrous hypotheses.

Occam's Razor, he was pissed (most likely over something real or imagined that stoked his self-centered jealousy), he chased her with the gun, she tried to get away by locking herself in the bathroom, he shot in anger, she died.

Another explanation when the above domestic violence scenario is as common as dirt should need extraordinary evidence.

 

[Elagabalus]

Weather he killed her or not, that dude could play the **** out of a Fender Electric Jazz Bass!!


Oh ... oh, ... "PIS"... tor ... ius ...

 

[newyorkguy]

Having looked at the law in various places (much earlier in this thread), in all the jurisdictions I could find Pistorius' actions would be considered criminal in every one of them. The ironic thing is, the laws are intended to prevent exactly the kind of outcome we had here. An innocent person losing their life in a shooting when the killer has not actually seen the person he is shooting at. When the killer has misinterpreted what he has seen or heard.

 

[Vixen]

Having looked at the law in various places (much earlier in this thread), in all the jurisdictions I could find Pistorius' actions would be considered criminal in every one of them. The ironic thing is, the laws are intended to prevent exactly the kind of outcome we had here. An innocent person losing their life in a shooting when the killer has not actually seen the person he is shooting at. When the killer has misinterpreted what he has seen or heard.

I have a South African acquaintance who believes Pistorius is innocent on the grounds that 'there are so many black burglars targetting wealthy whites and are extremely aggressive, in that they have little to lose, it was entirely reasonable for Oscar to get his gun and shoot'.

She omitted to factor in the fact he must have noticed Reeva was not in the bed and therefore likely to be in the bathroom which he was firing into.

 

[Rolfe]

The other problem with your racist friend's comment is that even if she thinks that behaviour is "entirely reasonable", it's still murder according to South African law.

 

[lionking]

The other problem with your racist friend's comment is that even if she thinks that behaviour is "entirely reasonable", it's still murder according to South African law.

Absolutely.

 

[Samson]

Warning shots? Oh for pity's sake. That has to be one of the more ludicrous hypotheses.

Occam's Razor, he was pissed (most likely over something real or imagined that stoked his self-centered jealousy), he chased her with the gun, she tried to get away by locking herself in the bathroom, he shot in anger, she died.

Another explanation when the above domestic violence scenario is as common as dirt should need extraordinary evidence.

I am curious why you ridicule my position despite it broadly agreeing with what the trial judge found.
Did he shoot to kill? He shot from a remote point. He did kill, but could not be sure he had until he broke the door. Though the silence within was ominous.

I continue to be surprised there is no one who thinks punishment should be differentiated by the identification issue.
I would sentence according to

1. There is no doubt he knew it was Reeva.
2. There is no doubt he thought it was an intruder.

I think we can agree one of the above statements is true. In my view the sentence should be wildly different according to which is true.
I would add that I totally discount any hybrid idea that he wasn't sure whether it was Reeva or an intruder, but that he shot anyway just in case it was the latter.

 

[MikeG]

Just avoid the question Samson, as you have done throughout this thread. Nobody will notice.

 

[Rolfe]

It doesn't matter who he thought it was. He killed someone under circumstances where he had no right to kill them, which makes it murder.

 

[Vixen]

The other problem with your racist friend's comment is that even if she thinks that behaviour is "entirely reasonable", it's still murder according to South African law.

Not my friend. I've avoided her ever since.

I don't think she was being racist though. Through her eyes, that's how it sincerely seems to her.

 

[Samson]

It doesn't matter who he thought it was. He killed someone under circumstances where he had no right to kill them, which makes it murder.

On this thread we may discuss logic and ethics as well as law.
Thank you.

 

[Rolfe]

Actually making a distinction between the two would be good.

Thank you.

 

[Samson]

They are the two distinct components of Philosophy 1 as I recall, taught in different lectures.
In this case logic is separating the possibilities into premises, ethics is determining an appropriate sentence once logic is done with.
My pleasure.