Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2

[MikeG]

15 years will be good to see. Hell, even 10. Far better than the ridiculous slap over the wrist he got last time. This is a good day for the SA justice system.

Oh good, we don't disagree on everything

 

[lionking]

Except he successfully defended his girl friend from endangerment from an evil intruder.

Sampson, I await a retraction and apology for being so wrong.

 

[MikeG]

Sampson, I await a retraction and apology for being so wrong.

I wouldn't push this too hard. You may have missed an attempt at humour or irony.

 

[Scordatura]

Justice for Reeva at last. He's a murderer and Masipa is an incompetent judge. She will be directed to make sure the sentence is appropriate this time, that's for sure.

Masipa screwed up all right.

Pistorius murder verdict: key points

The appeal court found that Judge Thokozile Masipa had made errors in law when reaching her original verdict of culpable homicide.

The appeal judges said Masipa was wrong in her application of dolus eventualis, as Pistorius “must have foreseen” that firing into the door could cause the death of whoever was behind it.

Masipa also wrongly conflated the test of dolus eventualis with dolus directus in accepting that the defence argument that he did not know the person behind the door was Steenkamp meant he could not be guilty of murder.

Masipa’s verdict was premised upon an acceptance that Pistorius did not think Steenkamp was in the toilet, but this was also wrong: the key thing is that the perpetrator knows his actions could kill that person, whoever it is.

The failure to take into account all the evidence – in particular, key ballistics evidence – amounted to a failure in law, the judges said.

 

[Samson]

Sampson, I await a retraction and apology for being so wrong.

I wouldn't push this too hard. You may have missed an attempt at humour or irony.

This reversal is a travesty. Masipa understood that the sequence was 4 gunshots, then Pistorius screaming in anguish as he realised he had silenced his girlfriend with gunshots, then 4 strikes with the bat.

This is an absurd judgement.

ETA. Don't forget the empty bladder, and if you all have, maybe explain it in any context outside of a normal nocturnal episode.

 

[lionking]

This reversal is a travesty. Masipa understood that the sequence was 4 gunshots, then Pistorius screaming in anguish as he realised he had silenced his girlfriend with gunshots, then 4 strikes with the bat.

This is an absurd judgement.

And she was wrong. Comprehensively.

 

[MikeG]

.....Masipa understood that the sequence was 4 gunshots.........

That's all you need to know. At that point, having had a reasonable expectation that those shots would kill whoever was behind the door, he is guilty of murder.

The state of the bladder is a silly aside.

 

[Samson]

And she was wrong. Comprehensively.

I find it incomprehensible that the world at large has determined that this act falls within any statistical norm, if in fact Oscar Pistorius knew Reeva was behind that door. It fails every test. What occurred was a collective voyeuristic wish that this extreme act aligned neatly with an extreme character, and we could all rejoice as the pack deconstructed it. I am perfectly certain that Oscar's account is true and the only one that makes sense and fits the facts. As a non gunner, I don't particularly object to his pending fate.

 

[LondonJohn]

And she was wrong. Comprehensively.

Yes she was dreadfully wrong.

And Samson, I think that in this case, you've come to the wrong conclusion based on the available evidence. 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. The court never had to show that he knew (or even must have known, or even ought to have known) that it was Reeva Steenkamp behind that door rather than the mythical intruder. Personally, I think that as a search for the truth, its highly more likely than not that he did indeed know that it was Steenkamp behind the door. I believe that the most likely scenario by far is that they had an argument of escalating severity in the bedroom, and that she started to get dressed to leave the house. I think he threatened her or even physically assaulted her in the bedroom at that point, causing her to abandon getting dressed and run to the bathroom with her phone. I think she locked herself in the toilet, pursued by Pistorius with a gun in his hand. I think she probably signalled to him that she was about to phone either the police or a friend/relative, and that this is what pushed him over the edge as he realised the potential repercussions to him, both reputationally and potentially also legally. I think this is what enraged him into firing the shots through the door.

But I reiterate, all the court had to decide was whether he knew there was a human being behind that door, that whoever Pistorius believed was behind that door posed no imminent threat to Pistorius (or anyone else), and that shooting through the door was likely to seriously injure or kill that person. I suspect that Steenkamp's friends and family will never be entirely satisfied that the court hasn't ruled that Pistorius knew it was Steenkamp at whom he was shooting, but that was never likely (or, indeed, necessary for proving murder).

 

[LondonJohn]

That's all you need to know. At that point, having had a reasonable expectation that those shots would kill whoever was behind the door, he is guilty of murder.

The state of the bladder is a silly aside.

Indeed. Many people fail to understand that Pistorius' own version of events leads to a finding of murder. Pistorius acknowledged that he fired four aimed shots through that door, and that he didn't think that the door was opening when he aimed and fired (though he subsequently clumsily tried to claim that the gun went off reflexively in his hand). So even if one believes that Pistorius was pursuing this mythical intruder, he still had no right to aim and fire at this intruder through the door. After all, Pistorius - by definition - cannot have known even whether the mythical intruder was armed (by definition, since in fact it was Steenkamp behind the door), and he admitted that he must have known that he (and anyone else) was in no imminent danger. He also knew the power of the weapon and ammunition he had in his hand.

As an interesting thought experiment, it's worth understanding that if there truly had been a home invasion by an intruder that night, Pistorius' actions should also have resulted in a conviction for murder. One simply does not have the right to fire a powerful hand gun (with military grade ammunition) through a closed door, even if you think that behind the door there is a home intruder. In this thought experiment, had Pistorius seen the intruder in the bedroom waving a gun around before running to the toilet, or had Pistorius seen the toilet door opening, then he would probably have had justifiable grounds for self-defence. But if Pistorius purely heard the sounds of an intrusion, then went to the bathroom to investigate, and then realised that the intruder was behind the locked toilet door, then he would have had no justifiable ground to fire four aimed shots through the door.

 

[Scordatura]

Here's the appeal court judgement in full:

http://cdn.24.co.za/files/Cms/General/d/1801/db3888fd1bc24611805612316c9e413b.pdf

 

[Samson]

Yes she was dreadfully wrong.

And Samson, I think that in this case, you've come to the wrong conclusion based on the available evidence. 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. The court never had to show that he knew (or even must have known, or even ought to have known) that it was Reeva Steenkamp behind that door rather than the mythical intruder. Personally, I think that as a search for the truth, its highly more likely than not that he did indeed know that it was Steenkamp behind the door. I believe that the most likely scenario by far is that they had an argument of escalating severity in the bedroom, and that she started to get dressed to leave the house. I think he threatened her or even physically assaulted her in the bedroom at that point, causing her to abandon getting dressed and run to the bathroom with her phone. I think she locked herself in the toilet, pursued by Pistorius with a gun in his hand. I think she probably signalled to him that she was about to phone either the police or a friend/relative, and that this is what pushed him over the edge as he realised the potential repercussions to him, both reputationally and potentially also legally. I think this is what enraged him into firing the shots through the door.

But I reiterate, all the court had to decide was whether he knew there was a human being behind that door, that whoever Pistorius believed was behind that door posed no imminent threat to Pistorius (or anyone else), and that shooting through the door was likely to seriously injure or kill that person. I suspect that Steenkamp's friends and family will never be entirely satisfied that the court hasn't ruled that Pistorius knew it was Steenkamp at whom he was shooting, but that was never likely (or, indeed, necessary for proving murder).

I see this case as a one trick pony, where the only interesting fact to be ascertained is the "knowledge of Pistorius". All punishment should accommodate this fact finding, and I agree completely with Masipa. I have said before that Icerat and Leila Schnepps made identical findings to Masipa, three fiercely independent analysts. I was shocked when everyone I mentioned the case to said guilty as sin as one, when I decided with no knowledge, the proposition of a wealthy man deliberately shooting his girlfriend was absurd, and that a completely plausible alternative theory was available.

 

[Samson]

That's all you need to know. At that point, having had a reasonable expectation that those shots would kill whoever was behind the door, he is guilty of murder.

The state of the bladder is a silly aside.

Well no, the state of the bladder proves Pistorius' story. No woman fleeing a threat sits and urinates.

 

[lionking]

I see this case as a one trick pony, where the only interesting fact to be ascertained is the "knowledge of Pistorius". All punishment should accommodate this fact finding, and I agree completely with Masipa. I have said before that Icerat and Leila Schnepps made identical findings to Masipa, three fiercely independent analysts. I was shocked when everyone I mentioned the case to said guilty as sin as one, when I decided with no knowledge, the proposition of a wealthy man deliberately shooting his girlfriend was absurd, and that a completely plausible alternative theory was available.

You really should look up the Confirmation Bias fallacy.

 

[lionking]

Well no, the state of the bladder proves Pistorius' story. No woman fleeing a threat sits and urinates.

No it doesn't. This post of yours is absolute rubbish.

 

[Samson]

No it doesn't. This post of yours is absolute rubbish.

I infer you suggest Steenkamp urinated while terrified. I do not buy that. Not at all.

 

[GlennB]

... the proposition of a wealthy man deliberately shooting his girlfriend was absurd, and that a completely plausible alternative theory was available.

You're still missing the point.

 

[TofuFighter]

Yes she was dreadfully wrong.

And Samson, I think that in this case, you've come to the wrong conclusion based on the available evidence. 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. The court never had to show that he knew (or even must have known, or even ought to have known) that it was Reeva Steenkamp behind that door rather than the mythical intruder. Personally, I think that as a search for the truth, its highly more likely than not that he did indeed know that it was Steenkamp behind the door. I believe that the most likely scenario by far is that they had an argument of escalating severity in the bedroom, and that she started to get dressed to leave the house. I think he threatened her or even physically assaulted her in the bedroom at that point, causing her to abandon getting dressed and run to the bathroom with her phone. I think she locked herself in the toilet, pursued by Pistorius with a gun in his hand. I think she probably signalled to him that she was about to phone either the police or a friend/relative, and that this is what pushed him over the edge as he realised the potential repercussions to him, both reputationally and potentially also legally. I think this is what enraged him into firing the shots through the door.

But I reiterate, all the court had to decide was whether he knew there was a human being behind that door, that whoever Pistorius believed was behind that door posed no imminent threat to Pistorius (or anyone else), and that shooting through the door was likely to seriously injure or kill that person. I suspect that Steenkamp's friends and family will never be entirely satisfied that the court hasn't ruled that Pistorius knew it was Steenkamp at whom he was shooting, but that was never likely (or, indeed, necessary for proving murder).

I read all of the above points from the judgment, but i can't understand how the conclusion can be arrived at that Pistorius did not know he was in imminent danger.

 

[katy_did]

But I reiterate, all the court had to decide was whether he knew there was a human being behind that door, that whoever Pistorius believed was behind that door posed no imminent threat to Pistorius (or anyone else), and that shooting through the door was likely to seriously injure or kill that person. I suspect that Steenkamp's friends and family will never be entirely satisfied that the court hasn't ruled that Pistorius knew it was Steenkamp at whom he was shooting, but that was never likely (or, indeed, necessary for proving murder).

There's actually more to it than this - even having decided the above, they still had to consider the putative private defence argument raised by Pistorius' defence, in other words that he believed the person posed an imminent threat to him (regardless of whether or not that was in fact the case, as clearly it wasn't here). The question is whether Pistorius believed at the time that his life was in danger, not whether a person thinking rationally would have had that belief. This would have been a defence even he foresaw that he would kill the person behind the door when he shot.

As long as Pistorius is convicted on the grounds that he believed he was shooting at an intruder, and not at Reeva, then I think either a murder or manslaughter conviction is reasonable - it's a grey area. But what did become very clear during the trial - and the only unambiguous evidence we have - is that the sequence of events was gunshots > Pistorius shouts for help > Pistorius breaks down door. There never were any female screams and the prosecution theory was deeply flawed; in that respect they're rather lucky to get a conviction based on a theory they never put any real effort into arguing. However, there's certainly a fine line between murder/manslaughter in those circumstances even if Pistorius thought he was firing at an intruder, and which side of that line it falls rests principally on Pistorius' state of mind at the time.

I do wonder whether he'll appeal on the grounds that a great deal of weight seems to have been placed on his confused testimony, and that unusually, that testimony was broadcast live as he gave it, and dissected on TV in real time. Arguably it was the impact of this trial being televised which led to the judge in the Dewani trial refusing to allow that to be broadcast live.

 

[katy_did]

I read all of the above points from the judgment, but i can't understand how the conclusion can be arrived at that Pistorius did not know he was in imminent danger.

Yes, it really is a very fine judgment to make, and I'm not entirely sure the SC judges convincingly addressed that point (though I haven't read the whole ruling yet, so maybe they did and it wasn't in the summary). They did say Pistorius' explanations weren't "rational", but rationality is completely beside the point here; beliefs and states of mind aren't always (or even often!) rational.