Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2

[The Atheist]

I am scornful of people who "know" that he is either guilty or innocent, because in the simplest terms, there will never be certainty.

Except, the way the law is written in RSA - and NZ and UK - is that using known deadly force for an indirect threat is murder, so there is certainty.

The only questionable part is whether or not he knew it was Reeva in the bathroom. But since he's been convicted of murder, it's not much of an issue now anyway.

 

[Samson]

Except, the way the law is written in RSA - and NZ and UK - is that using known deadly force for an indirect threat is murder, so there is certainty.

The only questionable part is whether or not he knew it was Reeva in the bathroom. But since he's been convicted of murder, it's not much of an issue now anyway.

Atheist, I have absolutely no doubt he believed he was shooting a dangerous intruder in a dangerous country. He should be managed as a citizen, not a criminal.

Paris
Texas

Understand fear and the distortions.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Atheist, I have absolutely no doubt he believed he was shooting a dangerous intruder in a dangerous country. He should be managed as a citizen, not a criminal.

Paris
Texas

Understand fear and the distortions.

Evidence he had to believe he had a dangerous intruder?

 

[erwinl]

Atheist, I have absolutely no doubt he believed he was shooting a dangerous intruder in a dangerous country. He should be managed as a citizen, not a criminal.

Paris
Texas

Understand fear and the distortions.

Samson,

Even if it all happened as Pistorius said and even if he truely thought he and Steenkamp were in danger, he still, according to SA law, committed murder and should face the consequences for that. Being mistaken in once's perception of the situation should not be a path to not having to face the consequences of actions taken.

 

[trustbutverify]

Atheist, I have absolutely no doubt he believed he was shooting a dangerous intruder in a dangerous country. He should be managed as a citizen, not a criminal.

Absolutely no doubt, huh?

 

[lionking]

Atheist, I have absolutely no doubt he believed he was shooting a dangerous intruder in a dangerous country. He should be managed as a citizen, not a criminal.

Paris
Texas

Understand fear and the distortions.

Your doubt means nothing. He is a murderer by definition and beyond doubt. Deal with it.

 

[TofuFighter]

Except, the way the law is written in RSA - and NZ and UK - is that using known deadly force for an indirect threat is murder, so there is certainty.

The only questionable part is whether or not he knew it was Reeva in the bathroom. But since he's been convicted of murder, it's not much of an issue now anyway.

It's not much of an issue now. It's a certainty that he was convicted. It's not a certainty that he intentionally murdered someone.

 

[Rolfe]

I think that's pretty much what everyone thought.

According to Bob Black, my SA-resident friend, that's what most of the population of SA thought at the time.

I've just emailed him to ask him about the reasoning behind the latest decision. He's a QC, and familiar with both SA law and this case, so he should have some informed input.

I'm a little unclear about the points of law. I thought the original verdict was based on the crucial test being Pistorius's actual beliefs and frame of mind at the time. That while many people might believe that his protestations of acting in genuine fear of his life were self-serving porkies, this couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and so he was acquitted of murder.

Now, I'm slightly unclear whether the appeal ruling is on the basis of the appeal court holding that the crucial test isn't what Pistorius believed in his fevered imagination, but what a reasonable person might have believed and done in the same circumstances; or whether the basis is simple disbelief of Pistorius's protestations about his state of mind, which the appeal court believe to be lies BRD.

I do remember Bob being fairly certain that Pistorius would be convicted in the original trial, on the basis that he murdered "the person behind the door", and it did actually matter whether he knew it was Reeva Steenkamp or whether he thought it was an intruder. It will be interesting to see what he has to say.

 

[TofuFighter]

Thanks Rolfe, that would be an interesting read.

 

[Samson]

Until the debate clarifies that Oscar was certain there was an intruder, and indeed that is the only interesting question, we should acknowledge everyone's right to determine the correct punishment. To me it is clearly ridiculous in any jurisdiction to subtract 15 years from his life now when he has had guns taken from his control. He has learned all he possibly can. I am amazed at the idiocy of those who think there is more to it.

 

[Samson]

If he shot my daughter through a closed door, and I came to accept he was attempting to protect her, there would be no sighs of relief with a guilty verdict, just disgust at an absurd misallocation of revenge. This case is unique, insofar as the target was undetermined. There has been none like it in history.

 

[Rolfe]

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.)

Views about the case in South Africa are very mixed.

Every South African lawyer that I've spoken to thinks (as I do) that the trial judge got the law disastrously wrong. If Oscar intended to kill whoever was behind the bathroom door (or was reconciled to that result whether or not he intended it) then the only question remaining was whether he could bring himself within the ambit of self-defence. The trial judge (correctly) held that he had failed to meet the (very strict) terms of the defence (which would have resulted in a verdict of Not Guilty), but went on to hold that his evidence on this issue justified a finding that he might not have intended to kill but rather was negligent -- thereby rendering the crime not murder but culpable homicide. This is arrant nonsense and the Appeal Court judges say so (in clear but commendably restrained terms). The best analysis that I've read so far is this piece by Findlay Stark: http://matterscriminal.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/dolus-eventualis-and-pistorius-case.html

Apart from lawyers, most of my South African male friends and acquaintances think that the original verdict was wrong and that he ought to have been convicted of murder. I should say that many of these friends and acquaintances are (or were) police officers so perhaps that's only to be expected. Most of my female friends and acquaintances have more sympathy for Oscar. But that is not usually because they swallow the intruder story, but because they regard Reeva Steenkamp as having been "no better than she should be" and as having driven poor, vulnerable Oscar over the edge with her rondlopery (a lovely Afrikaans expression for being free with one's favours).

Rondlopery! I love it!

 

[lionking]

If he shot my daughter through a closed door, and I came to accept he was attempting to protect her, there would be no sighs of relief with a guilty verdict, just disgust at an absurd misallocation of revenge. This case is unique, insofar as the target was undetermined. There has been none like it in history.

Utter rubbish. Oscar is a murderer. Full stop.

 

[Samson]

From the link

The appellate court found that Pistorius was outside the ambit of the defence of putative private defence because he did not know that the person in the toilet was a threat to him.

Here is the problem. Once anyone accepts, as I do, that Pistorius had no possible motive to kill Reeva, and of course he was defending her, his actions are completely rational, within the context of his foreshortened status on stumps, and his regrettable ownership of a killing weapon. It is incredible to me that the world judges him from any alternate perspective. Wittering on about law is irrelevant. Rolfe you well know that QC's are hired guns with worthless interpretations, the plebiscite is collectively well qualified. Yet I am alone in my views even locally, where everyone seems to want Oscar to get a bullet in revenge. C'est la vie...

 

[lionking]

No c'est la via for Reeva. The murderer will get his full due, finally.

 

[Samson]

No c'est la via for Reeva. The murderer will get his full due, finally.

It seems murder should be applied to any act of self defence then, when death results.
You win because everyone agrees, but this is a forum for deeper analysis, and skepticism for always achieving what we wish for.

 

[trustbutverify]

If he shot my daughter through a closed door, and I came to accept he was attempting to protect her, there would be no sighs of relief with a guilty verdict, just disgust at an absurd misallocation of revenge. This case is unique, insofar as the target was undetermined. There has been none like it in history.

What if he shot your daughter through a closed door, and you came to accept he was attempting to kill her, which, given the circumstances, is a perfectly reasonable conclusion?

 

[trustbutverify]

It seems murder should be applied to any act of self defence then, when death results.
You win because everyone agrees, but this is a forum for deeper analysis, and skepticism for always achieving what we wish for.

No, I don't see anyone claiming the bolded. Not even anywhere close, actually.

 

[Desert Fox]

Atheist, I have absolutely no doubt he believed he was shooting a dangerous intruder in a dangerous country. He should be managed as a citizen, not a criminal.

In the bathroom with the door closed?

 

[Scordatura]

Oscar himself effectively closed the door to PPD through his own testimony. His first response to why he shot the gun was that he did it without thinking. That triggered Roux bringing in experts to testify about his anxiety issues and GAD and the timeout for a mental evaluation at Weskoppies.

In later testimony he said he believed his and Reeva's lives were in danger (PPD) and that's why he shot the door but at the end of his testimony he changed it again, adamantly insisting that he never intended to shoot anyone. That's not PPD.

The SCA judgment explains it all better than I can. Paragraphs 17 and 52 through 54.

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

The sole reason the case went to the SCA was because Masipa misapplied the law. The SCA judgment was unanimous. Some people believe if Oscar had remained steadfast in claiming he believed he shot an intruder in a lawful manner that he might have been found not guilty. Masipa was sympathetic towards him so who knows?