Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend

[icerat]

What I don't understand is, how Pistorius thinks he can convince anyone he reasonably feared for his life since a) whatever method he used to deduce it was a burglar was obviously flawed (since it WASN'T a burglar) and b) the 'unknown' person in the bathroom was making no threats and had essentially locked themselves in. Strange behavior for a murderous burglar. Would a reasonable man choose to fire shots into a locked bathroom, killing the occupant, in those circumstances?

Mind you, here in the states, in a place called South Florida, Pistorius might have an excellent chance of getting acquitted. From what I've read he does not have a great chance in South Africa.

I really think he should start pondering a plea deal on the condition he gets some credible shot at parole in some distant year. Like the detectives say when they're trying to coax a confession: "Why not make this right? You want to help yourself...now's the time to do it."

Not in my opinion. Not even close to being a reasonable course of action.

Except of course, as I've mentioned several times, I have two separate South African colleagues that were shot in their homes by burglars, one through a door without any threat made.

So it's not an entirely irrational response to shoot first.

 

[Rolfe]

True, but I thought the Professor was saying the circumstances as Pistorius described them amounted to murder under SA law, even if he genuinely thought he was shooting a burglar. Obviously this isn't the case, since in Pistorius' account he feared for his life. It's true of course that if the judge finds any part of his story not credible (whether it be the "I thought it was a burglar" part or the "I feared for my life" part), she could then find him guilty of murder.

Well, this was a conversation over lunch, after we'd finished high-fiving that the Scottish police finally seemed to believe us about the Lockerbie thing. I was interested, because of this thread, but not actually taking lecture notes.

I think the point being made was that the events as they occurred, as Pistorius describes them, amount to the crime of murder in SA law, because the feeble excuse that he did what he admittedly did because he genuinely feared for his life and saw this as the only or best way to react in these circumstances is not even remotely credible.

Now some people's mileage may vary on this, but I think that was what the psych evaluation was for. Was he actually so mentally screwed up in the paranoia department that he honest-to-God thought that? Answer, no.

When this opinion comes from someone who has himself sat on the bench as a judge, and who is very familiar with the legal system of SA (his business partner is a former policeman), I tend to regard it as credible.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

It's so unreasonable that it's basically proof that he murdered her in a fit of rage. If he had genuinely thought it was a burglar, he'd have taken a careful position outside the door, had his gun at the ready, and phoned for the police.

If he had murdered Reeva in a cold, calculated way, he'd have not fired at her through the bathroom door, because the chances of actually hitting her fatally were not sure enough to be worthwhile.

So the only explanation that makes sense is that he fired through the door in rage after she locked herself in during or after a fight.

I think what you are describing is the general opinion in SA as described by my friend. At least in his social circles in a rather small place called Middlepos! I think it's a pretty plausible Occam's razor interpretation. The thing is, is it beyond reasonable doubt?

Rolfe.

 

[fagin]

My SA law is a bit rusty, but AFAIK (or remember) there is no such thing as culpable homicide. Or even homicide.
There is murder, when you kill someone unlawfully you intend to kill, or someone you didn't intend to kill, but could have foreseen the consequences (ie missed the intended victim and hit a bystander).
The degree of punishment depends on the intention, and/or degree of negligence - what would the pater familiarus have done?
If you kill someone lawfully (normally self defence) it can't be murder, in any degree.

Or something like that.

 

[Rolfe]

Indeed. As it has been explained to me, even if it had been an actual burglar who was revealed lying dead behind that door, he's still guilty of murder. Beyond that it comes down to the sentencing. He's a dangerous trigger-happy menace to society either way.

Rolfe.

 

[anglolawyer]

My SA law is a bit rusty, but AFAIK (or remember) there is no such thing as culpable homicide. Or even homicide.
There is murder, when you kill someone unlawfully you intend to kill, or someone you didn't intend to kill, but could have foreseen the consequences (ie missed the intended victim and hit a bystander).
The degree of punishment depends on the intention, and/or degree of negligence - what would the pater familiarus have done?
If you kill someone lawfully (normally self defence) it can't be murder, in any degree.

Or something like that.

That is not how it has been explained here by skwinty mainly. First off, 'homicide' just means unlawful killing of a human being. It embraces everything: infanticide, suicide (which I think is still unlawful here but have not checked for many years) manslaughter, murder, premeditated murder (if your jurisdiction has such a thing - mine does not) etc.

In SA they have murder, which is like our version - killing with intent to kill or maybe only with intent to cause serious harm - and culpable homicide which is negligent killing. We do not have an equivalent in England and Wales.

Culpable homicide involves an objective test. No matter what the accused himself subjectively thought, would the reasonable man have acted as the accused did? If yes, not guilty, if no, guilty.

 

[newyorkguy]

...So it's not an entirely irrational response to shoot first.

If you know it's a burglar.

In some U.S. states you can pretty much get away with shooting anyone who makes an illegal entry into your home. Even if it turns out to be a drunk party-goer who stepped out for a smoke and drunkenly staggers back to the wrong house.

I believe Pistorius knew it was his girlfriend in the bathroom. I'm not convinced he meant to kill her. In fact I wonder, if she had survived and stated Pistorius knew she was in the bathroom, would Pistorius be claiming it was an intruder who shot her? Remember she's in the locked bathroom; she can't see the person firing the shots.

 

[Giordano]

So it's not an entirely irrational response to shoot first.

Was it rationale? It might result in killing of an innocent person. It might result in killing of your girl friend. Is shooting anyone when you can't distinguish their identity considered appropriate by the gun advocates, let alone by the law?

 

[SezMe]

In some U.S. states you can pretty much get away with shooting anyone who makes an illegal entry into your home.

Hell, some guy got off on a SYG basis when a drunk wandered into his yard.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Can't they recreate the screaming to show if you could hear it or not from the witnesses' locations?

 

[FromBelgiumWithLove]

Can't they recreate the screaming to show if you could hear it or not from the witnesses' locations?

Apparently not. The problem is that additional houses have been built in the neighbourhood since the crime, changing the acoustical landscape. You'd also have to do such a recreation in identical metereological conditions.

As someone who's lived in an inner-city area most of my life, I can testify that even seemingly minor changes in surrounding buildings or roads can change the acoustics significantly. For years, I didn't realize that there were horse-drawn tourist carriages very regularly passing through the street right round the corner from me. (I can't see that street, and I'm not usually at home when those carriages operate.) It was only when the street was resurfaced, with traditional cobblestones instead of asphalt, that I began to hear the clippety-clop of shod hooves during the summer, when my windows are usually open. Even slight changes in wind direction also make a huge difference to what I can hear from around the neighbourhood, and to the distance those sounds travel.

 

[icerat]

If you know it's a burglar.

But he did know it was a burglar. Who else could it be? Reeva was in bed, and if he thinks like most people in this forum, there's no way he could have missed her getting out of the bed.

The problem was he was wrong.

 

[newyorkguy]

But he did know it was a burglar. Who else could it be? Reeva was in bed, and if he thinks like most people in this forum, there's no way he could have missed her getting out of the bed. The problem was he was wrong.

You're taking it as a given he is being truthful? You don't see a possibility he blew his fuse and is now lying to cover his tracks? Okay fine.

 

[icerat]

You're taking it as a given he is being truthful? You don't see a possibility he blew his fuse and is now lying to cover his tracks? Okay fine.

No, it's predicated to a certain extent on him being truthful. I tend to believe him because he's had the same story from day one and so far there's been no holes of any significance punched it where you would expect - ballistics etc. Various of the prosecutions claims have however fallen down (for example that he had his prosthesis on)

In my view he's still guilty of homicide, but the specifics of how his defence should affect sentencing I'll leave to the judge.

 

[GlennB]

No, it's predicated to a certain extent on him being truthful. I tend to believe him because he's had the same story from day one ....

His bail statement differed from his trial testimony. When I can get a half-decent connection I'll trawl back through this thread, but I'm sure it's here somewhere.

 

[icerat]

His bail statement differed from his trial testimony. When I can get a half-decent connection I'll trawl back through this thread, but I'm sure it's here somewhere.

There are a few inconsistencies, but given the nature of human memory that's expected - not having any is suspicious. As I said further on in the post, nothing (I feel) of significance.

 

[Camillus]

First off, 'homicide' just means unlawful killing of a human being. It embraces everything: infanticide, suicide (which I think is still unlawful here but have not checked for many years) manslaughter, murder, premeditated murder (if your jurisdiction has such a thing - mine does not) etc.

Suicide hasn't been illegal in England and Wales since 1961 (see the Suicide Act), in NI since 1966 and has never been a crime in Scotland.

You must be older than I thought

 

[Samson]

There are a few inconsistencies, but given the nature of human memory that's expected - not having any is suspicious. As I said further on in the post, nothing (I feel) of significance.

She ate at midnight also, is this consistent with his testimony or the configuration of the apartment and security such that she could eat secretly? If not, he is lying on this count.

 

[lane99]

Oscar on his best behaviour

He used to be cruel to his woman, but he's getting better all the time. After all, at least he didn't blow anyone's head off this time:

Oscar Pistorius in nightclub altercation days after defence closes case
.
.

 

[MontagK505]

He used to be cruel to his woman, but he's getting better all the time. After all, at least he didn't blow anyone's head off this time:

Oscar Pistorius in nightclub altercation days after defence closes case
.
.

There seems to be some conflicting stories from witnesses as to what actually happened. Going out in public while waiting the outcome of your highly publicized murder trial seems to show poor judgement on Oscars part.