• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend

Status
Not open for further replies.
.
It was a response to your post about .
.
Do follow the real conversation.

I am trying but not succeeding. You said:

The number of perps that will persist in an attack that is being resisted with gunfire is somewhere between zero and none!

Poppycock. Back it up. This is the sort of vapid remark that contributes nothing. What on earth are you talking about? In the scenario where he dallies in the bedroom checking on Reeva and/or calling security he is not resisting anything with gunfire so what is there to stop the intruder creeping down the hallway and shooting him while he is checking etc? At what point is he going to communicate to the intruder that he is armed? Your statement is unsourced and absurd. If you have a clue what you are talking about, please say why you should be heeded. Otherwise your opinion is not better than the judge's uninformed idea that he should have got on the phone to security.
 
I don't dispute this (except, in his mind, it was not 'a random noise' so, if you could just try to grasp this for a second, we are trying to assess his options assuming there was an intruder in his toilet). Everything carries risk in such a case. Delaying, even for a few seconds, also carries a risk that the intruder might gain the upper hand. Your sniper thing is just ridiculous. And once again, your post is unaccompanied by a statement of any relevant qualifications. Have you been in the same situation? Have you received any appropriate, professional training in what to do in such a situation? If so, please spell it out.

Yes the sniper thing is ridicolous, that's why I used the smiley.
In my eyes, your scenario is just as ridicolous.

No, I haven't been in the same situation, have you?
I did do a stint in our army though and was thought to never fire a firearm, unless I absolutely knew what I was firing at.
This was peacetime of course.

No matter whether there was an intruder or not (in this case there was not). In my eyes the correct and best course of action would be to:
- wake up Reeva
- get the pistol and aim for the corridor
- silently let Reeva call 112 (or whatever the number is in SA)
- Wait for the police/security to arrive
- All the while being ready to shoot if the intruder should come out Butch cassidy and Sundance Kid style.

this way there would be the least danger to OP and Reeva.
 
Last edited:
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defen...-fire-on-two-robbery-suspects-saves-roommate/ is a link to a site with a bunch of cases where guns are used in legit self defence. Take this one:

Keith Dennis was walking home when he was approached by two men. One of the suspects held a knife to Dennis’ back and demanded money.
“I thought I was going to die, to tell you the truth, because the knife was 10 inches long,” said Dennis.


Fortunately, upon arriving at the home, another resident, who was sleeping, senses something was wrong. That resident confronted the suspects as they got to the front door and opened fire.The suspects, realizing they were now facing an armed citizen, fled the scene. The armed citizen tried to chase down the suspects, and during the chase more rounds may have been fired.
Ultimately, the suspects escaped, but police managed to track them down and arrest them a short time later.

There is a link to the story according to which the shooter says:

“Right when I seen them get to the door, I popped and then they took of running, and I chased the one down, and I shot two more times trying to catch him,” said David Tucker.

No one was hurt.

Well, whaddaya know? No attempt to ID them or warn them - he just 'popped' and, doubtless because they really were bad guys, nobody has a problem. He even shot at them when they were running away (attempted murder?). It doesn't seem as though the police thought there was anything amiss here. I bet there are thousands of similar stories.
 
Yes the sniper thing is ridicolous, that's why I used the smiley.
In my eyes, your scenario is just as ridicolous.

No, I haven't been in the same situation, have you?
I did do a stint in our army though and was thought to never fire a firearm, unless I absolutely knew what I was firing at.
This was peacetime of course.

No matter whether there was an intruder or not (in this case there was not). In my eyes the correct and best course of action would be to:
- wake up Reeva
- get the pistol and aim for the corridor
- silently let Reeva call 112 (or whatever the number is in SA)
- Wait for the police/security to arrive
- All the while being ready to shoot if the intruder should come out Butch cassidy and Sundance Kid style.

this way there would be the least danger to OP and Reeva.
No, I have no relevant experience. I make no claim to have any. To my unqualified eye what you suggest seems reasonable but an expert might suggest it still gives the intruder a chance to catch you off guard. What is your line of sight? Can you see along the corridor? If so then the shooter can see you too and could take a pop at you from the darkness. It would only take one shot, if his gun is anything like Oscar's, and you will have lost.

Anyway, for Oscar to be guilty of homicide by negligence it would have to be shown that the course of action he took was not among the range of reasonable responses open to him. So, even if your method is best (and I am inclined to doubt it) that by itself does not dispose of the question of reasonableness.

ETA and general safety guidelines on the correct use of arms are not to be confused with specific training and advice in various combat situations.
 
Last edited:
No, I have no relevant experience. I make no claim to have any. To my unqualified eye what you suggest seems reasonable but an expert might suggest it still gives the intruder a chance to catch you off guard. What is your line of sight? Can you see along the corridor? If so then the shooter can see you too and could take a pop at you from the darkness. It would only take one shot, if his gun is anything like Oscar's, and you will have lost.

Anyway, for Oscar to be guilty of homicide by negligence it would have to be shown that the course of action he took was not among the range of reasonable responses open to him. So, even if your method is best (and I am inclined to doubt it) that by itself does not dispose of the question of reasonableness.

ETA and general safety guidelines on the correct use of arms are not to be confused with specific training and advice in various combat situations.

Then we're on an equal footing. Both non qualified to discuss this. :)

Why stay in the corridor, or in front of it?
If you are on the side, the intruder has to pass the opening while searching for you, before he/she can shoot.
You, on the other hand know where he will appear and thus always have the upper hand.
If he comes out.
 
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defen...-fire-on-two-robbery-suspects-saves-roommate/ is a link to a site with a bunch of cases where guns are used in legit self defence.
......
Well, whaddaya know? No attempt to ID them or warn them - he just 'popped' and, doubtless because they really were bad guys, nobody has a problem. He even shot at them when they were running away (attempted murder?). It doesn't seem as though the police thought there was anything amiss here. I bet there are thousands of similar stories.

Your link doesn't work, which means that we can't assess the source of this report or the police or prosecutorial response. But according to what you quote, the resident identified two armed men who had robbed his roommate and he pursued them; he didn't open fire through the door at the sound of knocking.
 
No, I have no relevant experience. I make no claim to have any. To my unqualified eye what you suggest seems reasonable but an expert might suggest it still gives the intruder a chance to catch you off guard. What is your line of sight? Can you see along the corridor? If so then the shooter can see you too and could take a pop at you from the darkness.

It's well established there's a line of sight from the bedroom along the corridor. If the intruder appears then it's him that's making a 90° turn into the unknown. As it happened it was OP that made that turn, into the bathroom. Additionally it would be the intruder moving while OP is static and ready.

Once Steenkamp exits the bedroom - if that's what they choose to do - OP follows her, keeping the corridor covered.

I can't see why you find this hard to comprehend. In fact I'm coming to the conclusion you're squabbling for the fun of it.
 
Then we're on an equal footing. Both non qualified to discuss this. :)

Why stay in the corridor, or in front of it?
If you are on the side, the intruder has to pass the opening while searching for you, before he/she can shoot.
You, on the other hand know where he will appear and thus always have the upper hand.
If he comes out.

The point is, so is the judge not qualified to discuss the scenario. She would have been qualified had either side engaged an expert to take her through the options. Look, what I am saying is nothing strange. In almost any other case involving negligence there will be experts on either side testifying as to the standard of care required in the given scenario, be it a road traffic accident, a surgical procedure or an industrial accident. The judge does not sit there and make it up by herself and it would be perverse and unreasonable to do so. That being so, why is it OK for amateurs like the judge, or you and me, to pronounce on the correct course of action in a complicated and extremely dangerous situation demanding instant evaluation and decision-making?

The shooter might hear Reeva on the phone and creep down the corridor and just put one eye and his gun hand round the corner and fire. You have no time to react to that. So I still don't buy your method as being obviously superior to the one Oscar chose. Suppose there had been an intruder and suppose Oscar had done as you and the judge suggest but suppose he and Reeva had died as a result. Are you saying that is not a realistic possibility? If so, based on what?
 
Last edited:
It's well established there's a line of sight from the bedroom along the corridor. If the intruder appears then it's him that's making a 90° turn into the unknown. As it happened it was OP that made that turn, into the bathroom. Additionally it would be the intruder moving while OP is static and ready.

Once Steenkamp exits the bedroom - if that's what they choose to do - OP follows her, keeping the corridor covered.
I can't see why you find this hard to comprehend. In fact I'm coming to the conclusion you're squabbling for the fun of it.
You are joking right? Reeva goes in the direction of the intruder before turning off to head downstairs and Oscar follows her. And then it's all safe, right? Again, poppycock. You don't know what you're talking about. Why not just say so?

Do they go downstairs backwards? After all, there is nothing to stop the intruder haring after them, right? This is ridiculous. You are just squabbling for the fun of it having no clue what you are talking about. If I'm wrong, please state any relevant qualifications and/or experience or explain why none are necessary.
 
Your link doesn't work, which means that we can't assess the source of this report or the police or prosecutorial response. But according to what you quote, the resident identified two armed men who had robbed his roommate and he pursued them; he didn't open fire through the door at the sound of knocking.

No, he fired on a hunch. He sensed something was wrong. There was no report of the bad guys flashing weapons. Try this link.

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2014/01/30/south-ogden-ave-home-invasion.html
 
The point is, so is the judge not qualified to discuss the scenario. She would have been qualified had either side engaged an expert to take her through the options. Look, what I am saying is nothing strange. In almost any other case involving negligence there will be experts on either side testifying as to the standard of care required in the given scenario, be it a road traffic accident, a surgical procedure or an industrial accident. The judge does not sit there and make it up by herself and it would be perverse and unreasonable to do so. That being so, why is it OK for amateurs like the judge, or you and me, to pronounce on the correct course of action in a complicated and extremely dangerous situation demanding instant evaluation and decision-making?

The shooter might hear Reeva on the phone and creep down the corridor and just put one eye and his gun hand round the corner and fire. You have no time to react to that. So I still don't buy your method as being obviously superior to the one Oscar chose. Suppose there had been an intruder and suppose Oscar had done as you and the judge suggest but suppose he and Reeva had died as a result. Are you saying that is not a realistic possibility? If so, based on what?

And he will find you, aim for you and shoot you sooner than that you would be able to, while looking at the corridor opening?

As opposed to going to the bathroom door and standing in front of it, to absorb the bullets the intruder would be able to fire at that moment?
Or entering the corridor, while the intruder is already peeking around the bathroom door and shooting you then?

That would be a smart move? I don't think so.

Staying away from the danger or trying to increase the distance is always preferable to going towards the danger. Especially if you don't know what the intention of the intruder is.
 
You are joking right? Reeva goes in the direction of the intruder before turning off to head downstairs and Oscar follows her. And then it's all safe, right?

Check the layout of the bedroom. The exit is opposite the foot of the bed, not 'towards the intruder'. OP can easily keep himself closer to the corridor than Steenkamp need ever get.
 
And he will find you, aim for you and shoot you sooner than that you would be able to, while looking at the corridor opening?

As opposed to going to the bathroom door and standing in front of it, to absorb the bullets the intruder would be able to fire at that moment?
Or entering the corridor, while the intruder is already peeking around the bathroom door and shooting you then?

That would be a smart move? I don't think so.

Staying away from the danger or trying to increase the distance is always preferable to going towards the danger. Especially if you don't know what the intention of the intruder is.
Well the actual facts of the case get in the way here. He went along the corridor to investigate and it was only when he got to the bathroom that he heard a sound behind the toilet door and reacted to it at that moment. You have him in the bedroom already knowing there is someone in the bathroom. That's not what happened. Or not what the judge accepted as having happened.

In your scenario, I don't see why he can't just poke an eye and a gun barrel round the corner at his end of the corridor and fire. Oscar isn't Wyatt Earp, so he is not going to be able to react fast enough to prevent harm to himself. Or he might call out 'don't shoot, I'm not armed' and walk straight at you and fire.
 
Check the layout of the bedroom. The exit is opposite the foot of the bed, not 'towards the intruder'. OP can easily keep himself closer to the corridor than Steenkamp need ever get.

Fine, so as you traverse the space between the end of the bed and the exit he shoots along the corridor. Brilliant. Or he just follows you as you head to the stairs. Why is that not possible? Are you arguing for the fun of it? :D
 
Why is it that only you think it is absurd?

Why would I care how many people agree or disagree with me on this point? IAAL and don't need moral or other support to discuss points of law. You still haven't turned up anything to back up your thing about having to identify the intruder. The judge didn't bother to mention it either. Strange.
 
English law of self defence - crown prosecution service guidance

English law on self defence expressly recognises that householders are in a special position. The statutory provision is in Section 76(5A) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The CPS guidance says:

Subsection (5A) allows householders to use disproportionate force when defending themselves against intruders into the home. The provision came into force on 25 April 2013 and applies to cases where the alleged force was used after that date. The provision does not apply restrospectively. It provides that where the case is one involving a householder (please see the section below for further details) the degree of force used by the householder is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as the householder believed them to be if it was grossly disproportionate. A householder will therefore be able to use force which is disproportionate but not grossly disporportionate.
The provision does not give householders free rein to use disproprtionate force in every case they are confronted by an intruder. The provision must be read in conjunction with the other elements of section 76 of the 2008 Act. The level of force used must still be reasonable in the circumstances as the householder believed them to be (section 76(3)).

In deciding whether the force might be regarded as 'disproportionate' or 'grossly disproportioante' the court will need to consider the individual facts of each case, including the personal circumstances of the householder and the threat (real or perceived) posed by the offender.

Section 76(7) sets out two considerations that should be taken into account when deciding whether the force used was reasonable. Both are adopted from existing case law. They are:

  • that a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action;
  • that evidence of a person's having only done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken by that person for that purpose.
The last highlight fits our case perfectly as does the bold text.
 
Why would I care how many people agree or disagree with me on this point? IAAL and don't need moral or other support to discuss points of law. You still haven't turned up anything to back up your thing about having to identify the intruder. The judge didn't bother to mention it either. Strange.

You are playing a semantic game with the word identify. You know precisely what it means when I said identifying that one is under threat and identifying the source of the threat.

For example, for private self defence you cannot think you are under attack and blast away at the first person you see or think you see.

You need to certain that the person that you kill is indeed the one attacking you.

Instead you counter with nonsense about passports and proof of residential address and other delusional fantasies about wild west wet dreams.

I am tired of playing silly buggers with you now.

The scenario's posed in the training for competency are backed and mandated by the Firearms Control Act, Domestic Violence Act, Act for Dangerous Weapons and Criminal Procedures Act.

The law in South Africa is not the same as the law in England.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom