Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #65~ the appeal~

[Val1]

....that only works if the physical confines were taken into consideration at the moment of firing which if so would be an outright contradiction simply because in a moment of rage he would not of been thinking about anything.......apart from that it's not a defense but a valid theory and as we are not a club of like-minded people but a public discussion forum i believe it has it's place and rightly so .......

Ever hear the term cold rage? I have a suspicion that OP went from a hot anger with ranting and raving, smashing doors, tossing laptops onto the floor, jeans pulled inside out on the floor like they'd been pulled off someone unwillingly(re RS's bruises) to a cold anger when she wouldn't comply with whatever his issue was and that's when the gun came out.

 

[Colin de France]

Isn't the whole argument that it doesn't matter if he "intended" to kill someone, but that he was fully aware of the very real likelihood that firing 4 "zombiestoppers" into such a small enclosed tiled room with no place to hide that it would kill someone and did anyway?

Heck, if I deliberately(consciously) get into, start and then proceed to speed my car into a crowd of people without "intending" to kill anyone, even though I'm pretty sure there's a very real likelihood that it would, should or would I get off with a slap on the wrist if someone dies as a result of my actions or should I be charged with manslaughter and have to serve time for it?

.......it's not a question of defense but an understanding of what happened and the truth......there's a world of difference between firing in anger recklessly and the intention to kill....

 

[Colin de France]

Ever hear the term cold rage? I have a suspicion that OP went from a hot anger with ranting and raving, smashing doors, tossing laptops onto the floor, jeans pulled inside out on the floor like they'd been pulled off someone unwillingly(re RS's bruises) to a cold anger when she wouldn't comply with whatever his issue was and that's when the gun came out.

.....and it's because of the long lead up to the shooting that i find it it hard to make the bridge between that and murder......

 

[mrjitty]

I just about fell over when it was reported that she'd said "On the count of premeditated murder, the judge says the evidence is “purely circumstantial” so she deemed him not guilty even though in almost the same breath she'd said he "was “not truthful” about his intention when arming himself with a loaded gun before approaching the bathroom."

Seriously, aren't most murders, especially premeditated ones, usually convicted on circumstantial evidence?

Well it's not even true as there multiple direct witnesses to the build up - like Dr Stipp. :thinking:


And yes - for instance all forensics etc are circumstantial

 

[akp]

.......it's not a question of defense but an understanding of what happened and the truth......there's a world of difference between firing in anger recklessly and the intention to kill....

If you do not want to get bogged down by the 'factual findings' of Masipa, if you are interested in just the truth, you then go over The neighbors' evidences, phone data, the ballistic evidence and Sayman' report - put them together - it will tell you it was murder, not DE, but clear DD.
Problem for the State now is that they can raise questions about only certain 'factual findings' which were obtained by using legal principles wrongly, and not the others, even though those 'findings' are also equally wrong.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Val1]

.....and it's because of the long lead up to the shooting that i find it it hard to make the bridge between that and murder......

The murder charge would be because he consciously fired four "zombiestoppers" into a small toilet room with a closed/locked door where he believed a person was with no care for whether they injured or even killed that person, even though he had had training that specifically said that would be illegal.

You seem to be stuck on the same thing Masipa erred with imo, where she totally disregarded the argument that it didn't matter who had been killed as far as what the PT's charge was, just that the actions OP had consciously and admitted to having taken, would kill someone.

Yes RS matters in that she was the victim, but when the judge ignores and discounts what circumstantial evidence was there or testified to, plus all the evidence that had been illegally removed(or tampered with) by OP's family/friends, the PT had little choice but to distance themselves from their early submission of premeditated against RS and go with what was left.

 

[Colin de France]

The murder charge would be because he consciously fired four "zombiestoppers" into a small toilet room with a closed/locked door where he believed a person was with no care for whether they injured or even killed that person, even though he had had training that specifically said that would be illegal.

You seem to be stuck on the same thing Masipa erred with imo, where she totally disregarded the argument that it didn't matter who had been killed as far as what the PT's charge was, just that the actions OP had consciously and admitted to having taken, would kill someone.

Yes RS matters in that she was the victim, but when the judge ignores and discounts what circumstantial evidence was there or testified to, plus all the evidence that had been illegally removed(or tampered with) by OP's family/friends, the PT had little choice but to distance themselves from their early submission of premeditated against RS and go with what was left.

....no....there's a risk of looking for complications when in my opinion there isn't any need.....to try to make my position clearer when he he fired it was a "oh no what have i done" scenario. As for the rest regarding punishment etc i have already said before that shooting recklessly and killing an innocent unarmed human being deserves a heavy sentence.....i think it's important that different theories coexist on here.....

 

[mrjitty]

We've discussed some of this intent stuff before.

Its not only the moment of "truth"

Intent to shoot someone can be derived from a longer course of conduct

We don't just ask Why does the accused pull the trigger, but why does the accused have a gun in his hand in the first place?

When you threaten your girlfriend with a loaded gun - the court should not isolate that from the decision to shoot.

This is the case in other murders.

E.g in the Yeates and Watts murders, the killer may not have realised he is going to strangle his victim to death in advance. They appeared to lose control in the heat of the moment.

However the intent to murder is inferred from the wider conduct.

Both these killers tried to argue manslaughter but both cases are clearly murder.

Intent is a legal state.

You can't strangle someone then claim you didn't realise they would die.

 

[Colin de France]

We've discussed some of this intent stuff before.

Its not only the moment of "truth"

Intent to shoot someone can be derived from a longer course of conduct

We don't just ask Why does the accused pull the trigger, but why does the accused have a gun in his hand in the first place?

When you threaten your girlfriend with a loaded gun - the court should not isolate that from the decision to shoot.

This is the case in other murders.

E.g in the Yeates and Watts murders, the killer may not have realised he is going to strangle his victim to death in advance. They appeared to lose control in the heat of the moment.

However the intent to murder is inferred from the wider conduct.

Both these killers tried to argue manslaughter but both cases are clearly murder.

Intent is a legal state.

You can't strangle someone then claim you didn't realise they would die.

.....we may well of discussed the "intent stuff" before but that doesn't make it any the less viable......there's a difference in intentionally shooting to kill and shooting in anger and we musn't let go of that....

 

[akp]

.....we may well of discussed the "intent stuff" before but that doesn't make it any the less viable......there's a difference in intentionally shooting to kill and shooting in anger and we musn't let go of that....

I think from the legal point of view, whether one is angry at the time of shooting, or one is smiling does not make much of a difference at the time of conviction. It could come into picture at the time of sentencing. I could be wrong, though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Colin de France]

I think from the legal point of view, whether one is angry at the time of shooting, or one is smiling does not make much of a difference at the time of conviction. It could come into picture at the time of sentencing. I could be wrong, though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

....all that dépends....we have to keep an open mind......

 

[Val1]

.....we may well of discussed the "intent stuff" before but that doesn't make it any the less viable......there's a difference in intentionally shooting to kill and shooting in anger and we musn't let go of that....

BBM - Sure it does, just because someone feels remorse after killing someone doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished for having committed the murder.

 

[Interested Bystander]

In any event - we are in the venue of the SC where arguments have to be legally valid.

There is no such defence as firing in a rage. The idea that you could argue you were angrily shooting at the door but not the person - and thus had no intention - is a complete non starter given the physical confines.

Otherwise every shooter could make such a fanciful defence.

My point about OP's temper was not intended to infer that it could be part of a defence. It has been fairly evident on the forum that most of us believe OP was indeed very angry and out of control (no doubt, in part, as a result of the argument that van der Merwe overheard). He was known to have a very short fuse which has been reported on many occasions.

I pointed out that he clearly had intention to kill. This is an ongoing disagreement with Colin-de-France who thinks OP didn't mean to shoot RS.

 

[Colin de France]

BBM - Sure it does, just because someone feels remorse after killing someone doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished for having committed the murder.

......i was referring to it still being the actuality on here...not any remorse he may well be feeling......nothing to do with that .......

 

[Colin de France]

My point about OP's temper was not intended to infer that it could be part of a defence. It has been fairly evident on the forum that most of us believe OP was indeed very angry and out of control (no doubt, in part, as a result of the argument that van der Merwe overheard). He was known to have a very short fuse which has been reported on many occasions.

I pointed out that he clearly had intention to kill. This is an ongoing disagreement with Colin-de-France who thinks OP didn't mean to shoot RS.

.....if, one day the truth does come out and it turns out that he did fire on the door without thinking and seriously regretted his actions we will surely wonder why we didn't take that idea onboard beforehand......

 

[Val1]

......i was referring to it still being the actuality on here...not any remorse he may well be feeling......nothing to do with that .......

Anyone that has done this: [video=youtube;5VWDIlSMTMc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VWDIlSMTMc"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VWDIlSMTMc[/video]

and then does this: Warning, graphic... youtube.com/watch?v=ApE65nCQYdA
knew exactly what the consequences of his actions would be. That's intent.

 

[Val1]

.....if, one day the truth does come out and it turns out that he did fire on the door without thinking and seriously regretted his actions we will surely wonder why we didn't take that idea onboard beforehand......

I gather you didn't read my post about driving a car into a crowd of people... it doesn't matter whether he meant to or not, the fact is he did and there is a punishment for it which he and his family and friends have tried their utmost to avoid, even to removing/tampering with evidence.

 

[Susza]

Oh yes....I'd forgotten.

I can't see her cringing today....more like oblivious because remember how some of us figured that she didn't even write her reasons for Judgment? She stumbled the whole way through it. I still think that female assessor wrote it for her.

BBM
While listening to Roux yesterday arguing in front of the FIVE I started to thing he himself helped Masipa/her assessor to write it for her.
Is this completely impossible?

 

[Colin de France]

I gather you didn't read my post about driving a car into a crowd of people... it doesn't matter whether he meant to or not, the fact is he did and there is a punishment for it which he and his family and friends have tried their utmost to avoid, even to removing/tampering with evidence.

.......of course i read it, i read all the post's on here......in anycase that doesn't take anything away from the idea that all scenarios should be open to discussion....personally i don't know Pistorius and don't particularly want to, what concerns me is finding the truth, if we say that there's no difference between firing on a door in rage or outright murder we will be being selective with theories which is not in the interest of an objective discussion.....

 

[Susza]

He fired in a blind rage disregarding any outcome. His argument that he fired unbeknownst to himself fits with blind rage. But this would be going to DD and not what the State is arguing.

BBM
Not sure wether he was disregarding ANY outcome. When asked why he didn't fire a warning shot somewhere into the bathroom he said he was afraid a ricochet could hurt him. IMO this means he intentionally fired the 4 shots into the tiny toilet cubicle fully accepting he might kill somebody.