Discussion Thread #60 - 14.9.12 ~ the appeal~

[Sherbert]

I don't see how (for the moment)... but it may just be "tunnel-vision" on my part… please elaborate on your thoughts.

I wonder if the first set of bangs muddied the waters to the benefit of the Defence.

If the Stipps had not heard them, this would mean that the focus of the Court would have been on the screams followed by bangs at approx 3:15, followed by crying.

In the absence of the earlier bangs, would Roux have been likely to insist that the 3:15 bangs were the cricket bat, not the shots? I doubt it. What assisted him was Mr Stipp's assertion that both sets of bangs sounded exactly the same.

And Masipa would not have been able to select the earlier bangs in order to make a finding that Reeva was already dead at the time of the screaming because the time of the shots would be likely to be fixed at around 3:14 - 3:15, ie, after the Stipps and Burger/Johnson heard the screams.

 

[AJ_DS]

I wonder if the first set of bangs muddied the waters to the benefit of the Defence.

If the Stipps had not heard them, this would mean that the focus of the Court would have been on the screams followed by bangs at approx 3:15, followed by crying.

In the absence of the earlier bangs, would Roux have been likely to insist that the 3:15 bangs were the cricket bat, not the shots? I doubt it. What assisted him was Mr Stipp's assertion that both sets of bangs sounded exactly the same.

And Masipa would not have been able to select the earlier bangs in order to make a finding that Reeva was already dead at the time of the screaming because the time of the shots would be likely to be fixed at around 3:14 - 3:15, ie, after the Stipps and Burger/Johnson heard the screams.

OK I get what you are saying…

Couldn't Roux then simply be able to state either :

- That nobody heard the cricket bat after the 3:15 gunshots because they are far weaker in intensity than the gunshots

or

- That everybody was sleeping for the gunshots and everybody heard the 3:15 cricket bat because bat strikes can be readily mistaken for gunshots

Yes, the bit about Stipp's assistance about 2 sets of bangs sounding like gunshots would not have been available to Roux… but IIRC, it is the muddied timeline, not the 2 sets of bangs, which was instrumental in establishing that it could only have been OP screaming.

However, having not heard the first bangs, Stipp would probably not have attempted to call security twice… only once at 3:15:51… hence, it would have been much harder for Roux to skew the timeline as he did.

… To be honest, I'm not sure I'm covering all the bases since this is an hypothetical scenario which I have never explored before… will give it some more thought and elaborate further shortly.

 

[Jake18]

personally, I think Oscar's experience with firearms is highly relevant. It was demonstrated that he passed his firearms competency written test and thus knew that indiscriminate firing was illegal, even at so called perceived but not imminent threats. It also highlights that he knew the impact and effect of firing bullets (zombie stopper, anyone?)

 

[GR_Turner]

Except all this is moot now. Masipa rejected pretty much all of OP's (varied) defences including :
a) Diminished criminal responsibility secondary to mental illness,
b) Automatism ("the gun just went off')
c) A sort of provoked self defence (secondary to his disability and exaggerated "startle")

IIRC the DT didn't even broach the possibility that, without the above extenuating factors, it was in any way reasonable to shoot a noise 4 times in the middle of the night.

In the same way that the arguments over screams and phone calls are rendered irrelevant by Masipa's decision, so is the impact of Oscar's disability and supposed anxious nature on his actions.

Which leaves us with a criminally responsible, experienced firearms owner, with another method of escape, shooting four times through a closed door at a person who was unable to escape.

He says he didn't mean to kill anyone, so what did he foresee?

Masipa called these actions negligent, the State say that murder was the only likely outcome.

And therein lies the crux of the issue for the appeal judges.

Shooting someone dead without a legal justification is murder. So clearly Judge Masipa meant to accept Oscar's defense - it must have been the PPD as she excludes the others. I expect the State will argue as you do that this couldn't be PPD because he had other options and overstepped the mark. Which brings me back to asking whether the decision to go towards the danger armed indicates an intention at that point to shoot 4 times through the door or whether that intention was only formed in the second before the shooting because he believed he was about to be attacked. If it is the latter, then he at that moment had no other options. And I am far from sure that the State proved that he knew he was overstepping the mark at the time of shooting. It is not enough to ask - should he have known - they need to prove he did know. A difficult distinction I acknowledge.

Judge Masipa accepted that he was an anxious kind of person and that he is more vulnerable than an able bodied person. I don't think the defense ever intended to claim diminished responsibility on the basis of anxiety. I think they have a problem with the fact that the law in SA doesn't make allowances for the effects of a disability and were searching for a legal framework into which they could fit it. It seems obvious that a double amputee on his stumps wouldn't stand a chance against even an unarmed attacker (no pun intended!) once the attacker got close (and he was around 2m away) and that his could explain his belief that firing multiple shots was necessary to defend himself.

How does it matter what the size of the toilet was or that someone inside wouldn't have any way to escape? This is a redundant argument left over from the assumption that he knew it was Reeva in there imo. He thought the 'intruder' was about to open the door and come out and that's why he fired. What would an intruder coming out towards him do on finding him there I wonder?

I'm not sure that the defense did say he didn't intend to kill anyone. That was Judge Masipa's conclusion based on the downward trajectory of the shots. I have no idea whether that is a factual fact or a challengable legal fact though!

 

[Jake18]

Shooting someone dead without a legal justification is murder. So clearly Judge Masipa meant to accept Oscar's defense - it must have been the PPD as she excludes the others. I expect the State will argue as you do that this couldn't be PPD because he had other options and overstepped the mark. Which brings me back to asking whether the decision to go towards the danger armed indicates an intention at that point to shoot 4 times through the door or whether that intention was only formed in the second before the shooting because he believed he was about to be attacked. If it is the latter, then he at that moment had no other options. And I am far from sure that the State proved that he knew he was overstepping the mark at the time of shooting. It is not enough to ask - should he have known - they need to prove he did know. A difficult distinction I acknowledge.

Judge Masipa accepted that he was an anxious kind of person and that he is more vulnerable than an able bodied person. I don't think the defense ever intended to claim diminished responsibility on the basis of anxiety. I think they have a problem with the fact that the law in SA doesn't make allowances for the effects of a disability and were searching for a legal framework into which they could fit it. It seems obvious that a double amputee on his stumps wouldn't stand a chance against even an unarmed attacker (no pun intended!) once the attacker got close (and he was around 2m away) and that his could explain his belief that firing multiple shots was necessary to defend himself.

How does it matter what the size of the toilet was or that someone inside wouldn't have any way to escape? This is a redundant argument left over from the assumption that he knew it was Reeva in there imo. He thought the 'intruder' was about to open the door and come out and that's why he fired. What would an intruder coming out towards him do on finding him there I wonder?

I'm not sure that the defense did say he didn't intend to kill anyone. That was Judge Masipa's conclusion based on the downward trajectory of the shots. I have no idea whether that is a factual fact or a challengable legal fact though!

OK, this is the point where it's time for me to disengage. I'm not sure if you're being deliberately disingenuous or not but I'll bite one last time...

The State established that Oscar was criminally responsible, did not have any other diminished capacity, had other means of escape, was not actually under any threat at all, had the presence of mind in the heat of his screaming terror (according to him) to not fire a warning shot because of possible ricochet yet you're chastising the State for being unable to adequately prove exactly what was, or wasn't, going through Oscar's mind at the time of the shooting? You do know that mind reading is impossible?

And the defence didn't say that Oscar didn't mean to kill anyone but he certainly did.

I'm done now.

 

[AJ_DS]

I suspect that if an intruder had in fact opened the toilet door, he certainly would not have charged a man standing 2 meters away who was pointing a gun at him.

Especially since this is an intruder who, according to OP's version, took refuge in the toilet cubicle at the mere sounds of OP shouting.

 

[soozieqtips]

OK, this is the point where it's time for me to disengage. I'm not sure if you're being deliberately disingenuous or not but I'll bite one last time...

The State established that Oscar was criminally responsible, did not have any other diminished capacity, had other means of escape, was not actually under any threat at all, had the presence of mind in the heat of his screaming terror (according to him) to not fire a warning shot because of possible ricochet yet you're chastising the State for being unable to adequately prove exactly what was, or wasn't, going through Oscar's mind at the time of the shooting? You do know that mind reading is impossible?

And the defence didn't say that Oscar didn't mean to kill anyone but he certainly did.

I'm done now.

BIB - and to add to that, OP admitted he had 'many' thoughts, despite telling Nel he didn't have time to 'think'. Nel took him step by step through the events, and at every stage, OP gave reasons for his actions, the most telling one being that he foresaw firing a warning shot could injure him. Quite clear thinking for someone who couldn't 'think' because he was so scared. Not to mention that the door opened outwards, so he could easily have positioned himself in such a way that as soon as the 'intruder' came out, he could have shot. Of course, even though he yelled 'get the .... out of my house' - he never gave the 'intruder' a chance to do exactly that. He simply shot and killed, when he was under no threat, and knew he was under no threat. The 'intruder' would have been more at risk coming blindly through a door which opened outwards and not having a clue where the killer was standing!

 

[GR_Turner]

OK, this is the point where it's time for me to disengage. I'm not sure if you're being deliberately disingenuous or not but I'll bite one last time...

The State established that Oscar was criminally responsible, did not have any other diminished capacity, had other means of escape, was not actually under any threat at all, had the presence of mind in the heat of his screaming terror (according to him) to not fire a warning shot because of possible ricochet yet you're chastising the State for being unable to adequately prove exactly what was, or wasn't, going through Oscar's mind at the time of the shooting? You do know that mind reading is impossible?

And the defence didn't say that Oscar didn't mean to kill anyone but he certainly did.

I'm done now.

I don't chastise the State for not proving Oscar 'knew' as opposed to 'should have known' he was exceeding the bounds of self-defense at all. I just raise the question as it must be relevant if the decision reaches that point. I didn't decide that there is a distinction between 'should have known' and 'did know' - this is the legal distinction between CH and DE. The courts look at the circumstances and evidence to decide which it is. How that will pan out in this case I don't know.

That he was criminally responsible is not in doubt. My question is whether that he had other options before he formed the intention to shoot through the door is relevant to PPD. In other words, does his choice to move towards the perceived threat when he didn't yet know if there was even anyone there negate his defense of PPD if the basis of his PPD defense is that he shot through the door thinking at that moment that he was under attack. I can't see how you think this is being disingenuous.

 

[AJ_DS]

BIB - and to add to that, OP admitted he had 'many' thoughts, despite telling Nel he didn't have time to 'think'. Nel took him step by step through the events, and at every stage, OP gave reasons for his actions, the most telling one being that he foresaw firing a warning shot could injure him. Quite clear thinking for someone who couldn't 'think' because he was so scared. Not to mention that the door opened outwards, so he could easily have positioned himself in such a way that as soon as the 'intruder' came out, he could have shot. Of course, even though he yelled 'get the .... out of my house' - he never gave the 'intruder' a chance to do exactly that. He simply shot and killed, when he was under no threat, and knew he was under no threat. The 'intruder' would have been more at risk coming blindly through a door which opened outwards and not having a clue where the killer was standing!

Placing oneself into the mind of the hypothetical intruder in OP's version is very revealing :

- Frightened he fled into the toilet cubicle
- If he was not working alone, he must suspect his accomplice(s) also fled leaving him alone to fend for himself
- He must strongly suspect the home owner is armed (this is SA after all and the home owner is confronting him)
- He heard the home owner shout for Reeva to call the police
- Estate security and police will probably arrive shortly

If he's armed, the intruder could attempt to shoot blindly into the bathroom through the toilet door but :

- The odds of hitting and killing the home owner are slim at best
- The odds of the home owner returning fire are high
- The odds of the home owner hitting and killing him in that narrow enclosed space are high

The intruder could break the toilet window and jump but the high probabilities of sustaining injuries which would prevent him from fleeing successfully renders this course of action pointless.

Placing oneself into OP's mind is also very revealing :

- he's very familiar with the layout of his home/bathroom/toilet… the intruder(s) aren't
- he's armed with a loaded, cocked, safety off, gun in his hands at the ready
- he knows the only 2 possible locations where the intruders can appear are the bathroom window (on a ladder*) and the toilet cubicle (behind a closed door**)
- he knows the intruder(s) can't see him and therefore can't possibly know where he is
- he believes Reeva has called the police which are on they're way

He has the advantage, the upper hand on the intruders.

* Only 1 intruder could appear at the window… this intruder would have to climb to reach the window, meaning he would have to use at least one hand on the ladder… if this intruder was armed and wished to shoot at OP, he would first have to raise himself on the ladder peaking his head in the window's opening which would be suicidal... then point, aim and shoot one-handed with the gun next to his face.

Shooting blindly into the bathroom is not an option for the intruder on the ladder as one of his accomplice is in the bathroom

** The intruder would have to turn the handle to open the toilet door… OP would see the toilet door handle move or even the toilet door begin to open long before the intruder could possibly see, point, aim and shoot at OP… again suicidal

 

[cottonweaver]

I don't chastise the State for not proving Oscar 'knew' as opposed to 'should have known' he was exceeding the bounds of self-defense at all. I just raise the question as it must be relevant if the decision reaches that point. I didn't decide that there is a distinction between 'should have known' and 'did know' - this is the legal distinction between CH and DE. The courts look at the circumstances and evidence to decide which it is. How that will pan out in this case I don't know.

That he was criminally responsible is not in doubt. My question is whether that he had other options before he formed the intention to shoot through the door is relevant to PPD. In other words, does his choice to move towards the perceived threat when he didn't yet know if there was even anyone there negate his defense of PPD if the basis of his PPD defense is that he shot through the door thinking at that moment that he was under attack. I can't see how you think this is being disingenuous.

“In other words, does his choice to move towards the perceived threat when he didn't yet know if there was even anyone there ….”
From the outset OP story is that he thought there was an intruder/s – he completely discounted it could be anyone else in the toilet. So we need to remove that clause in the sentence. (And at no point did he say ” I considered that actually I might be simply hearing things and maybe there’s no-one there, or it could be a stray animal….” He knew he couldn’t say that because of where that would logically lead.)

“….negate his defense of PPD if the basis of his PPD defense is that he shot through the door thinking at that moment that he was under attack.”
I don’t think you can split up his actions in his account in that way. I know he wanted it split that way (hence he ditched the “double-tap” and prepped his Vorster backed GAD & sports physio’s “startle response”/ criminal incapacity get-out) but all his stated actions are integrated with one conclusion.
I can’t say, as a sane person with proven criminal capacity, for example, “I stabbed him through the heart four times with a 9” blade but whilst I was plunging the knife in and out four times, I didn’t actually mean to do it and I didn’t foresee that this could be lethal.” Especially not if I am trained with such a weapon and I proven to know the results due to exams that I have passed in the very subject. I could say I wasn’t thinking straight but couldn’t say I was not in control of my actions. I could say, like a kid on the naught step, “I didn’t mean to do it” but its totally meaningless in the circumstances given by OP.
The only way his actions (from getting the gun loaded with lethal ammo to firing can be separated) is if he took another course that night where he didn’t actually use that ammunition in the way he did. And as others have said – if we go with his story, a full range of options were realistically open to him.

You ask “My question is whether that he had other options before he formed the intention to shoot through the door is relevant to PPD.” Yes IMO those options and his awareness of those is relevant to PPD, at the very moment of firing.

Incidentally I take your point about ANC Womens’ League earlier and “jumping the gun” etc. but, as it stands they did not influence Masipa in any way in her verdict as I appreciate you think there was undue/unfair influence. I really doubt they will have any influence on the Supreme Court either, it’s no longer about the facts of the case.

The “zombie-stopper” video pistol footage shows the amount of control needed to override kickback through a number of rounds whilst maintaining “aim”/close grouping.

 

[GR_Turner]

“In other words, does his choice to move towards the perceived threat when he didn't yet know if there was even anyone there ….”
From the outset OP story is that he thought there was an intruder/s – he completely discounted it could be anyone else in the toilet. So we need to remove that clause in the sentence. (And at no point did he say ” I considered that actually I might be simply hearing things and maybe there’s no-one there, or it could be a stray animal….” He knew he couldn’t say that because of where that would logically lead.)

“….negate his defense of PPD if the basis of his PPD defense is that he shot through the door thinking at that moment that he was under attack.”
I don’t think you can split up his actions in his account in that way. I know he wanted it split that way (hence he ditched the “double-tap” and prepped his Vorster backed GAD & sports physio’s “startle response”/ criminal incapacity get-out) but all his stated actions are integrated with one conclusion.
I can’t say, as a sane person with proven criminal capacity, for example, “I stabbed him through the heart four times with a 9” blade but whilst I was plunging the knife in and out four times, I didn’t actually mean to do it and I didn’t foresee that this could be lethal.” Especially not if I am trained with such a weapon and I proven to know the results due to exams that I have passed in the very subject. I could say I wasn’t thinking straight but couldn’t say I was not in control of my actions. I could say, like a kid on the naught step, “I didn’t mean to do it” but its totally meaningless in the circumstances given by OP.
The only way his actions (from getting the gun loaded with lethal ammo to firing can be separated) is if he took another course that night where he didn’t actually use that ammunition in the way he did. And as others have said – if we go with his story, a full range of options were realistically open to him.

You ask “My question is whether that he had other options before he formed the intention to shoot through the door is relevant to PPD.” Yes IMO those options and his awareness of those is relevant to PPD, at the very moment of firing.

Incidentally I take your point about ANC Womens’ League earlier and “jumping the gun” etc. but, as it stands they did not influence Masipa in any way in her verdict as I appreciate you think there was undue/unfair influence. I really doubt they will have any influence on the Supreme Court either, it’s no longer about the facts of the case.

The “zombie-stopper” video pistol footage shows the amount of control needed to override kickback through a number of rounds whilst maintaining “aim”/close grouping.

From the outset OP story is that he thought there was an intruder/s...
No - he thought an intruder or intruders were coming in through the window. But then he got his gun and yelled at them to get out. So then he didn't know whether there was anyone there or not. On hearing the toilet door slam he still didn't know as it could have been someone kicking the door on their way out. The point at which is heard someone start to open the door (as he believed) was when he heard the noise and that was the moment of the decision to shoot.

I can’t say, as a sane person with proven criminal capacity, for example, “I stabbed him through the heart four times with a 9” blade but whilst I was plunging the knife in and out four times, I didn’t actually mean to do it and I didn’t foresee that this could be lethal.”
I don't think that was my argument. My argument was in relation to the separation between everything that went before the noise in the toilet and what happened after.

Yes IMO those options and his awareness of those is relevant to PPD, at the very moment of firing.
At the moment of hearing the noise and firing, he was around 2m away from an intruder, on his stumps and unable realistically to run away or defend himself imo. What are the options you think he had?

Yeah - I'm not sure what my argument was now about the ANCWL. I don't think they per se or the public had an influence on the trial as it turned out though I do think that a judge under pressure to give a particular verdict from the public might find a way to do that. I'm glad Judge Masipa ignored public opinion. I think my point may have been in the context of the way the media cover trials and the inevitable pro-prosecution bias that generally arises.

Yes, you may well be right about the amount of force required to hold a gun steady. Was the gun in the video the same gun? - though maybe it doesn't make much difference. If he had fired once or even twice perhaps, I think it would have been CH for sure. The four shots makes it so much more problematic. The problem imo is that there seems to be an unwritten rule that you can shoot at someone through a door as long as you think they are an intruder and you only fire once. So the question then is why is that CH and not murder? Is this because by shooting once you don't have intent to kill - that seems an odd assertion given DE. Or that you are reacting instinctively and without thought? It seems rather as though courts (and the police) try not to convict people of murder in these circumstances.

 

[AJ_DS]

The “zombie-stopper” video pistol footage shows the amount of control needed to override kickback through a number of rounds whilst maintaining “aim”/close grouping.

The gun in the “zombie-stopper” video was a long-barreled pistol...not a semi-automatic short-barreled handgun… this makes a big difference in gas pressure and recoil strength.

The gun in the “zombie-stopper” video used the most powerful and largest caliber ammunition available (.50 caliber)… not 9mm… this also makes a huge difference in recoil.

Combine both facts and the kickback is not not at all comparable… not even in the same ballpark.

 

[james83]

From the outset OP story is that he thought there was an intruder/s...
No - he thought an intruder or intruders were coming in through the window. But then he got his gun and yelled at them to get out. So then he didn't know whether there was anyone there or not. On hearing the toilet door slam he still didn't know as it could have been someone kicking the door on their way out. The point at which is heard someone start to open the door (as he believed) was when he heard the noise and that was the moment of the decision to shoot.

I can’t say, as a sane person with proven criminal capacity, for example, “I stabbed him through the heart four times with a 9” blade but whilst I was plunging the knife in and out four times, I didn’t actually mean to do it and I didn’t foresee that this could be lethal.”
I don't think that was my argument. My argument was in relation to the separation between everything that went before the noise in the toilet and what happened after.

Yes IMO those options and his awareness of those is relevant to PPD, at the very moment of firing.
At the moment of hearing the noise and firing, he was around 2m away from an intruder, on his stumps and unable realistically to run away or defend himself imo. What are the options you think he had?

Yeah - I'm not sure what my argument was now about the ANCWL. I don't think they per se or the public had an influence on the trial as it turned out though I do think that a judge under pressure to give a particular verdict from the public might find a way to do that. I'm glad Judge Masipa ignored public opinion. I think my point may have been in the context of the way the media cover trials and the inevitable pro-prosecution bias that generally arises.

Yes, you may well be right about the amount of force required to hold a gun steady. Was the gun in the video the same gun? - though maybe it doesn't make much difference. If he had fired once or even twice perhaps, I think it would have been CH for sure. The four shots makes it so much more problematic. The problem imo is that there seems to be an unwritten rule that you can shoot at someone through a door as long as you think they are an intruder and you only fire once. So the question then is why is that CH and not murder? Is this because by shooting once you don't have intent to kill - that seems an odd assertion given DE. Or that you are reacting instinctively and without thought? It seems rather as though courts (and the police) try not to convict people of murder in these circumstances.

First BIB Not according to his original bail statement

The athlete woke up in the early hours of 14 February, he added, and went onto the balcony to bring a fan in and close the sliding doors, blinds and curtains. "I heard a noise and realised that someone was in the bathroom

 

[GR_Turner]

First BIB Not according to his original bail statement

The athlete woke up in the early hours of 14 February, he added, and went onto the balcony to bring a fan in and close the sliding doors, blinds and curtains. "I heard a noise and realised that someone was in the bathroom

He thought at that time that someone was coming in through the window or in the bathroom - it doesn't alter the rest of the argument.

 

[Jake18]

I don't chastise the State for not proving Oscar 'knew' as opposed to 'should have known' he was exceeding the bounds of self-defense at all. I just raise the question as it must be relevant if the decision reaches that point. I didn't decide that there is a distinction between 'should have known' and 'did know' - this is the legal distinction between CH and DE. The courts look at the circumstances and evidence to decide which it is. How that will pan out in this case I don't know.

That he was criminally responsible is not in doubt. My question is whether that he had other options before he formed the intention to shoot through the door is relevant to PPD. In other words, does his choice to move towards the perceived threat when he didn't yet know if there was even anyone there negate his defense of PPD if the basis of his PPD defense is that he shot through the door thinking at that moment that he was under attack. I can't see how you think this is being disingenuous.

Ok, so let's go back to basics because I don't understand.

We've established that a criminally responsible, experienced fire arms owner, with another method of escape shot four times through a closed door at a person who was unable to escape.

The State established that there was no threat. There was no objective evidence at any time that Oscar's life was in danger. I'm not sure where your moving door handle came from - Oscar talked about the "wood moving" sound which was the magazine rack which didn't actually move at all as evidenced by the blood pooling. As someone pointed out Oscar was walked through every second of what happened by Nel and he was very very vague, contradictory and misleading. He was also found to have the foresight to not fire a warning shot.

Yet - because the State couldn't prove that he wasn't terrified at the moment of the shooting he should be given the benefit of the doubt?

Do you think the appeal judges will be lamenting the absence of psychics in this case as an obvious State oversight?

 

[Jake18]

Panel judge 1 : I'm finding it extremely difficult to ascertain Oscar's state of mind at the time of the killing. This transcript is hard to follow - Oscar hardly remembers anything and a lot of what he does say is contradictory. At one point his gun is going off by itself, at another he's shooting but not aiming.

Judge 2 : And every time a cohesive narrative seems to emerging he sobs and court is adjoined.

Judge 3 : I certainly can't say for certain that he wasn't terrified, in fact, I'm not really sure what he's trying to say at all.

Judge 4 : Well, in my experience this type of evasive, contradictory, selectively amnesic testimony is exactly what happens when someone is innocent. He says he was terrified of an attack so it must be the truth. The absence of any evidence that there was an attack is therefore largely irrelevant, I always base my verdicts on what the accused tells the court about their feelings at the time of the crime.

Judge 5 : I agree. In my 25 years of experience I've never come across an accused who has lied about their state of mind at the time of a murder.

 

[Interested Bystander]

The gun in the “zombie-stopper” video was a long-barreled pistol...not a semi-automatic short-barreled handgun… this makes a big difference in gas pressure and recoil strength.

The gun in the “zombie-stopper” video used the most powerful and largest caliber ammunition available (.50 caliber)… not 9mm… this also makes a huge difference in recoil.

Combine both facts and the kickback is not not at all comparable… not even in the same ballpark.

I, too, was under the impression that the gun in the video was the gun that killed Reeva mainly due to newspaper reports at the time. One of those reports is linked below. I appreciate the newspaper report may be incorrect.

I hasten to add that I know nothing whatsoever about guns but would be interested to see the difference between the gun he used in the murder and this gun because I too wondered how he managed to shoot such a tight set of shots with a gun with such a powerful kick-back. Is it possible to identify the gun in the photo so that I can make a comparison using better photos. I appreciate this may be a big ask as the gun is not in focus.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-pictured-gun-used-3193993

 

[east2west]

iirc, the gun used to fire through the toilet door was a 9mm Taurus Parabellum. ?

 

[GR_Turner]

[/B]

Ok, so let's go back to basics because I don't understand.

We've established that a criminally responsible, experienced fire arms owner, with another method of escape shot four times through a closed door at a person who was unable to escape.

The State established that there was no threat. There was no objective evidence at any time that Oscar's life was in danger. I'm not sure where your moving door handle came from - Oscar talked about the "wood moving" sound which was the magazine rack which didn't actually move at all as evidenced by the blood pooling. As someone pointed out Oscar was walked through every second of what happened by Nel and he was very very vague, contradictory and misleading. He was also found to have the foresight to not fire a warning shot.

Yet - because the State couldn't prove that he wasn't terrified at the moment of the shooting he should be given the benefit of the doubt?

Do you think the appeal judges will be lamenting the absence of psychics in this case as an obvious State oversight?

Let me explain more then. There is a separation between the decision to shoot and what came before it. The problem with putting everything together is that you in effect assign intent to shoot through the door retrospectively - as though he planned it all the second he picked up the gun. This is not the case. There are two parts to his actions and the questions about how reasonable his beliefs or bahviour were must depend on what he knew at the time or what he could foresee imo:

Before hearing the noise in the toilet:
- He thought there was probably an intruder(s) in the bathroom as Reeva was in bed (so he thought)
- He had the opportunity to escape or do something else at that point
- He only intended to shoot to defend if necessary
- He had the right to go investigate, armed, in own home as long as the weapon was only used in the event of being attacked.
- He gave the intruder(s) warning that he was coming so he gave them the chance to run away and so sought to avoid a confrontation.
- He didn’t know for sure that there was someone there at all times.

On hearing the noise in the toilet:
- He knew there was an intruder and where he was
- He believed he was hearing the door move (it could have just been Reeva leaning on the door to hear better – the magazine rack wasn’t the only possibility)
- He didn’t see the handle turn
- He was very close to the perceived danger so there was little time and potentially great danger
- He wouldn’t have had a chance in a fight and couldn’t run away on stumps
- Householders are permitted to shoot if they believe that an attack is imminent – they don’t have to wait for an attack.

That is the first step and then we can move on to asking whether what he did was reasonable in the light of the above I think. ie Was it reasonable to think he was under attack? etc

 

[AJ_DS]

I, too, was under the impression that the gun in the video was the gun that killed Reeva mainly due to newspaper reports at the time. One of those reports is linked below. I appreciate the newspaper report may be incorrect.

I hasten to add that I know nothing whatsoever about guns but would be interested to see the difference between the gun he used in the murder and this gun because I too wondered how he managed to shoot such a tight set of shots with a gun with such a powerful kick-back. Is it possible to identify the gun in the photo so that I can make a comparison using better photos. I appreciate this may be a big ask as the gun is not in focus.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-pictured-gun-used-3193993

There are many videos of OP shooting…

- 1 video depicts OP shooting with the same gun he killed Reeva 9mm semi-auto handgun (see photo)… very little kick-back… so little it can easily be fired one-handed

- 1 video is the zombie-stopper video with a high powered revolver (see photo)… tremendous kick-back… cannot be fired one-handed





The purchase order for more guns OP had placed (not yet received and cancelled after the events) shows he bought a Smith&Wesson 500 revolver with .50 caliber bullets

As for grouping of the shots on the toilet door… the shots were made from a distance of about 2 meters which is ridiculously close… it cannot be stated that these shots were made by an expert marksman aiming… as this grouping (at that distance) could easily have been made by a novice who never handled a gun before.

One should not misuse "grouping" which is the means by which we evaluate accuracy of 2 or more aimed shots… one could not use the term grouping when someone fires randomly without aiming.

See next photos for comparison of .50 caliber size of bullet and muzzle energy… FYI the .50 Action Express is smaller and less powerful than the 500 S&W