Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #65~ the appeal~

[Colin de France]

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.

....didn't he say that in retrospect though ? ......

 

[Susza]

All that speculation about OP's anxiety, OP's vulnerability on stumps etc pales in recognition that any experienced gun handler, holding a gun loaded with Black Talon bullets in his hands would most likely feel less afraid, more sure and powerful. IMHO. He had the arsenal to do damage, so he had the 'power' in that situation. Hypothetically, even if the alleged intruder came rushing out, he had the power in that situation. The person hiding in the toilet cubicle had no power in that situation. Hope the five judges see it this way. My opinion only.

BBM
I still have a problem with with the defense's argument that OP scored to the max in the anxiety tests. The tests were done after the killing and OP had 1 million of reasons to be anxious at THAT time. How can one give these results such an importance?

 

[Val1]

.......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 Pistoroius and don't particually 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.....

Iirc, it's the law in SA that says it's illegal to fire on a closed door that has a person behind it, even in self-defense. I don't recall that it makes any allowance for what a person's state of mind is while doing so.

So unless you plan on making some kind of submission to change the laws to depend on a person's state of mind(which only the person committing the action could know and since they're the one to benefit most from denying intent, why should anyone believe them), especially since they are already committing an action that one can easily foresee would have deadly consequences, I don't understand the point of your objective discussion.

 

[lithgow1]

....didn't he say that in retrospect though ? ......

Yes he did but IMO he just said it because he had to come up with an answer, any answer, to Nel's questioning on why he fired into the door when he had other options in dealing with the 'intruder'. But I think it was just an answer, not something he considered at the time because I firmly believe he knew who was behind that door. Telling though that the response he came up with was all about self preservation.

Whether he shot in rage, disregarding the likely consequences at that particular moment, or really wanted to kill her doesn`t matter so much to me. Would be good to know, but I doubt we ever will, so all that is left is the end result of the action he elected to take.

 

[Colin de France]

Iirc, it's the law in SA that says it's illegal to fire on a closed door that has a person behind it, even in self-defense. I don't recall that it makes any allowance for what a person's state of mind is while doing so.

So unless you plan on making some kind of submission to change the laws to depend on a person's state of mind(which only the person committing the action could know and since they're the one to benefit most from denying intent, why should anyone believe them), especially since they are already committing an action that one can easily foresee would have deadly consequences, I don't understand the point of your objective discussion.

.......just as every trajectory of each bullet is important so is the reason behind pulling the trigger........that is the point.

 

[Susza]

....didn't he say that in retrospect though ? ......

I don't understand the question. All OP said during the trial he said it in retrospect.

 

[Val1]

.......just as every trajectory of each bullet is important so is the reason behind pulling the trigger........that is the point.

Hmm reasons... well there was this:

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2014-04-14-pistorius-trial-week-6-day-1/#.VjoB5yvAD1o
"Pistorius, under questioning, repeated that he believed he heard the toilet door slam after he shouted at Reeva to call for help while moving down the passage, and while he was in the process of shouting at the intruders."

and what was he shouting at the "intruders" you ask? Well he actually demonstrated it for the court and it certainly sounded more like something a person would shout/scream at someone they were having an argument with than someone they were scared of..

http://www.smh.com.au/world/oscar-p...ces-sixth-day-of-grilling-20140414-36nem.html
"Get the f--- out of my house! Get the f--- out of my house!"

Anyway, it's 5:30am... fftobed:

 

[mrjitty]

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.

Yes - sorry - I was agreeing with you but i see the context of my reply made it look like i was taking issue with you.

 

[mrjitty]

.....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....

It is not legally viable.

It might be interesting in terms of what really happened that night - but it is not a valid argument for Court.

If you believe otherwise, then you should be able to find decided case law etc to support your view.

There was a time past when men got given a bit of a free pass for so called "crimes of passion" or "provocation" in domestic arguments - but nowadays it is simply recognised as domestic violence.

Having an anger management problem is not a legal defence.

Indeed in this case, OPs obvious anger issues are part of the circumstantial evidence which suggest intentional murder.

 

[WilliamMunter]

It's great to see everyone, again. Thanks for all your comments.

I missed the appeal live but just watched the replay. I had no idea what to expect but found it was riveting. Almost makes me want to go to law school.

Questions I have:

• Do you think any of the judges read the entire trial transcript?
• If not, will they read it now?
• If so, would it be optional or required?

• A commenter here mentioned that, if Oscar appeals this appeal, it wouldn't be fast-tracked. Why do you think not?

You know, I really miss the old times of the trial - on pins and needles every minute, little sleep, blood pressure through the roof, obsessed.

Then, again, I really don't miss the old times of the trial - on pins and needles every minute, little sleep, blood pressure through the roof, obsessed. My heart began racing today as I got sucked back into the drama and the energy of it all. I still haven't calmed down.

General Comment in re: Masipa:

I'm afraid I'm too tired to find it right now, which I SINCERELY apologize for, but maybe someone will recognize what I'm going to say, here, and can add the link because it was REALLY interesting.

At some point, months after the original trial concluded, Masipa showed up somewhere for something and was asked on camera? (paraphrasing, here, how she was handling all the negativity directed toward her personally regarding her judgement.

She seemed genuinely shocked by the question, by the idea that anyone would feel anything personally about her in that regard. She said that, if people felt negatively about anything it was only because they were all shocked by the outcome, that everyone had been so convinced that things would go the other way. They were just surprised.

I was shocked by her reaction. Genuinely shocked. Then I thought, "No, it actually makes perfect sense. She was, IMHO, clueless then and is just as clueless now. People generally tend to be consistent if nothing else.

I realized today that her fellow judges may have know very well that Masipa was old, incompetent, whatever, when she was involved in this trial. I work with other professors who everyone knows shouldn't be teaching any more but we can't / won't really say anything or admit it outside of our own department circle because, well, because they're colleagues. Do students and others actually think we don't know it just because we don't acknowledege it? It's a really awkward situation and it happens in every profession. Soon enough, I'LL be the one people will be too "kind" to ne honest about.

Well, that's all I've got. Thanks so much, again!

BIB

My understanding is that they only read a condensed version of the full transcript:

"This week, state advocate Gerrie Nel tried to convince the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) it should read every word of the trial to determine whether Pistorius was guilty of the murder of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, rather than of the culpable homicide charge on which he was convicted.

But Pistorius’ advocate, Barry Roux SC, argued that the appeal court judges should read only the “relevant parts” of the court record.

SCA president Judge Lex Mpati agreed with Roux that the 31 volumes should be shortened. After this was done, “a good many” fewer volumes were handed to the court."

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Oscar-Pistorius-nearly-home-free-20150802​

After the trial Judge Masipa applied for new position and it was during that interview that she was asked about negativity from the Pistorius trial

"“I do not think the criticism was about me at all,” she replied. “It was about the outcome. Because people were expecting a different outcome, they were just expressing frustration. I don’t think I’m stigmatised … perhaps I am too naive about that. Since Pistorius I have been given other cases. The counsel that have appeared before me still give me the same respect before and after.

"A judge must respect criticism. It is not personal. When someone expressed their frustration you should just let them … judges have been attacked all over ... we are not on the bench to please people, we are not there to win a popularity contest. We are there to do a job and, once you know you’ve done your job, there really isn’t anything to worry about."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/14/oscar-pistorius-trial-thokozile-masipa-judge​

She didn't get the promotion

 

[Colin de France]

It is not legally viable.

It might be interesting in terms of what really happened that night - but it is not a valid argument for Court.

If you believe otherwise, then you should be able to find decided case law etc to support your view.

There was a time past when men got given a bit of a free pass for so called "crimes of passion" or "provocation" in domestic arguments - but nowadays it is simply recognised as domestic violence.

Having an anger management problem is not a legal defence.

Indeed in this case, OPs obvious anger issues are part of the circumstantial evidence which suggest intentional murder.

...."viable" was in relation to this discussion...as for "crime of passion" i don't think we are there...what i am concerned about is that discussing the reason for shooting remains open and not everyone is obliged to follow the majority opinion. I see that you now use the word "suggest" instead of "shows" which is a step forward in objectivity in the light of the fact that none of us was there to see what actually occurred..... I think the difference does matter between pre-meditated murder and shooting in anger without thought.....i did say it was a fine line however...

 

[aftermath]

.......just as every trajectory of each bullet is important so is the reason behind pulling the trigger........that is the point.

Completely agree with this. I know you and I don't agree on much but the reason for shooting in the first place is intrinsic to establishing the level and nature of any intent, IMO.

 

[Colin de France]

I know you and I don't agree on much

....cheers....

 

[Interested Bystander]

http://www.theweek.co.uk/oscar-pist...rius-cannot-escape-murder-verdict-appeal-live

Oscar Pistorius appeal: did prosecutors sway the judges?

“Oscar Pistorius's defence lawyer Barry Roux faced tough questioning from five of South Africa's top judges yesterday as he attempted to keep the Olympian and Paralympian out of prison.....”

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

I speak Afrikaans as my first language and I've listened to the clip recording Roux and Nel chatting at the end of the appeal in Afrikaans, where Barry said in "Maar dat ek gaan verloor is feit" (That I am going to lose is a fact) probably a hundred times.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2015/nov/03/im-going-to-lose-says-pistorius-lawyer-video

But that is just half of it. Here is, in my opinion, the entire exchange:

Barry Roux: "inaudible.....inaudible...het nie 'n kans nie" (inaudible... inaudible...don't have a chance)
Barry Roux (continues): "Maar laat ek gaan verloor is feite.." (But that I am going to lose is a fact...)
Gerrie Nel: "Dis twee feite.....daai....jy kan maar almal vra....inaudible...gevangene is...." (That's two facts....that...you can ask everyone....inaudible...prisoner is...)

 

[mrjitty]

Completely agree with this. I know you and I don't agree on much but the reason for shooting in the first place is intrinsic to establishing the level and nature of any intent, IMO.

The reason for shooting is the fundamental question at trial!

 

[mrjitty]

I realized today that her fellow judges may have know very well that Masipa was old, incompetent, whatever, when she was involved in this trial. I work with other professors who everyone knows shouldn't be teaching any more but we can't / won't really say anything or admit it outside of our own department circle because, well, because they're colleagues. Do students and others actually think we don't know it just because we don't acknowledege it? It's a really awkward situation and it happens in every profession. Soon enough, I'LL be the one people will be too "kind" to ne honest about.

Bad judgements (for whatever reason) are not really that remarkable.

Frequently lower Courts screw up - which is why we have two layers of Appeal Courts to fix that stuff up. And its also why the twin Appellate layer features the cream of the judiciary.

This case is actually not that bad legally (as opposed to socially/notoriety) because the SC can fix it on appeal.

But there are many diabolical decisions on the books that persist for decades - often because there is no opportunity (i.e. another case) to fix them up.

You end up arguing about these in law school, or the law reports publish savage criticisms.

Sometimes Parliament ends up fixing it up.

My opinion is that regardless of the facts - any high end Judge or Professor is going to be sceptical of the poor technical quality of her judgement.

A sure sign that she just isn't up to this level of case.

 

[Val1]

The reason for shooting is the fundamental question at trial!

Of course everyone wants to know the reason, but when it boils down to it, in this case with all the missing and tampered with evidence(from OP's own family/friends), motive is a non-factor.

OP illegally(which he had been trained to know was illegal) fired four lethal shots through a closed/locked door at and subsequently killed a person and he admitted to having done so.

His response, after you get through his "plethora" of excuses(defenses) many of which contradicted the other, was that he didn't mean to kill RS, even though Nel had provided the court with a video showing that OP did in fact know exactly what one single shot from his gun/ammo was capable of. That was the "reason" his defense tried to so hard to show mental defect vis a vis his "fright". MOO.

 

[soozieqtips]

Completely agree with this. I know you and I don't agree on much but the reason for shooting in the first place is intrinsic to establishing the level and nature of any intent, IMO.

BIB - except that no one except OP can know what his intent was, and most murderers are unlikely to admit the real reason for killing someone - even celebrity murderers.

 

[Fuskier]

it is not legally viable.

It might be interesting in terms of what really happened that night - but it is not a valid argument for court.

If you believe otherwise, then you should be able to find decided case law etc to support your view.

There was a time past when men got given a bit of a free pass for so called "crimes of passion" or "provocation" in domestic arguments - but nowadays it is simply recognised as domestic violence.

Having an anger management problem is not a legal defence.

indeed in this case, ops obvious anger issues are part of the circumstantial evidence which suggest intentional murder.

BIB: :clap: