Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #65~ the appeal~

[L2L]

So ..... what do you think will be the outcome of the SC Appeal? What's next, in everyone's view?

 

[foxbluff]

So ..... what do you think will be the outcome of the SC Appeal? What's next, in everyone's view?

I think they'll agree w/Judge Masipa's verdict.

 

[soozieqtips]

I think they'll agree w/Judge Masipa's verdict.

What makes you think that after the line of questioning yesterday? Is there anything in particular that makes you feel the verdict won't be overturned?

 

[akp]

So ..... what do you think will be the outcome of the SC Appeal? What's next, in everyone's view?

Normally I would be very confident they are going to overturn the ruling. But after having watched the original trial, then reading Masipa's judgement, and thus finding out what rubbish can be dished out by a High Court Judge, I would not be surprised any more if even the Appeal Court stays with the ruling.
Actually, I still believe they will overturn the ruling, but just toning down my expectations, as a defence mechanism to save myself from further shock!

 

[L2L]

Normally I would be very confident they are going to overturn the ruling. But after having watched the original trial, then reading Masipa's judgement, and thus finding out what rubbish can be dished out by a High Court Judge, I would not be surprised any more if even the Appeal Court stays with the ruling.
Actually, I still believe they will overturn the ruling, but just toning down my expectations, as a defence mechanism to save myself from further shock!

Understood!

 

[Giles]

"Oscar Pistorius is refusing to make plans for his future out of fear of returning to jail, and has lost more than a stone in weight, the sprinter’s agent has revealed. Peet van Zyl, who has represented the shamed sprinter for eight years, said they won’t discuss future goals until Pistorius’ fate is sealed...

Today, a number of polls carried out by South African media suggested the majority of those who followed yesterday’s hearing at the Supreme Court of Appeal predicted a dire outcome for Pistorius. who was freed a little over a fortnight ago after serving a year of his five-year sentence."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-agent-reveals-emotional-reunion-runner.html

 

[Giles]

So ..... what do you think will be the outcome of the SC Appeal? What's next, in everyone's view?

I don't know. I think a finding of DE is most likely, but I won't be too surprised if they uphold Masipa's verdict.

Whichever way they go, I hope the decision is unanimous and that it is well reasoned, clear and concise.

 

[WilliamMunter]

It’s still not about dolus eventualis, but about intention to act unlawfully

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opin...out-intention-to-act-unlawfully/#.Vjsa_nrfWrW

 

[Marfa Lights]

....... 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.....

For Pete's sake, we are concerned with the CONSEQUENCES of Pistorius' actions-- the DEATH of the person behind the door that was the RESULT of him consciously taking his personal gun loaded with exploding bullets and firing 4 rounds at, not just a door, but what he perceived to be a human behind the door.

Neither Oscar nor his defense team ever claimed he just wanted to spray the door with bullets to frighten the person who was inside or just to release his anxieties or whatever possibilities you keep promulgating in the interest of "open-mindedness." Even Derman testified Oscar fired at the door to "nullify" a perceived threat.

No matter what theories are postulated or what excuses a defendant comes up with to try to justify his actions, it's the consequences of their actions they need to answer for. If Oscar wanted to just let off steam, or put an intruder on notice, he could have shot into the ceiling like the sheriff does when they want to get everyone's attention in a bar room brawl. He admitted he knew a HUMAN was behind that door. He demonstrated he knew the power of firing his personal weapon with those kind of bullets.

In retrospect, he will say anything to avoid being held accountable for the consequences of his actions that night. Saying "I didn't mean to do it" just does not cut it, I am afraid.

 

[Sherbert]

Nel has actually made this argument - just in a different way.

Where you plead self defence you effectively admit the intention to kill part because you intentionally deployed lethal force for the precise purpose of stopping the attacker.

The question is JUSTIFICATION NOT INTENTION AND NOT FORESEABILITY!!!

The intention (either DD or DE) is implicitly conceded in the defence

As Grant argues - DE (or DD) is just not relevant to the question of PPD

And as Nel submitted on appeal - it should not be possible for the defence to plead self defence, but alternately plead lack of intention

They are mutually destructive defences

AND ALL OF THAT goes back to the fact that OP chickened out of his brief and couldn't manage to say he intentionally shot in self defence.

So the Court needed to either say "hey its obvious you shot to kill - lets talk self defence" OR should say "you haven't come up to brief on self defence sorry"

The illogic that Greenland points out exists precisely because the Court accepted OPs evidence contradicting his own defence, and then constructed him a new defence

Yes, although I interpret this comment as Judge Greenland indicating that Nel should have been bold and gone for Directus on the basis that, if you fire four black talons into a confined space, it's more than just a possibility that you're going to kill the person behind the door.

Regarding OP going against the brief, this is a distinct possibility. However, his difficulty was that he would have been made aware by his legal team that he didn't satisfy the three stage test for PPD, which, is, no doubt, why he sought to wriggle out of responsibility by claiming that his actions were involuntary. What choice did he have but to obfuscate in the hope that something stuck?

If you remember, the double tap scenario advanced by Roux was knocked firmly on the head by Mangena, which made it even harder for OP to claim PPD:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/10708569/Oscar-Pistorius-trial-Shots-fired-at-Reeva-Steenkamp-gave-her-time-to-scream.html


'Barry Roux, Pistorius's barrister, suggested to Captain Mangena that the four shots had been issued as two "double-taps", implying there was little time for any reaction from the victim.


"It was four in quick succession. That is the version of the accused, two double-taps," he said.

Captain Mangena said there was enough time between the shots for Steenkamp to be knocked from a standing position facing the door to being slumped on top of the magazine rack.

"Look at the wounds sustained by the deceased," he said. "If it's two double taps, then all the wounds would be in the same position. There wouldn't be any time for her to change position in that instance. It's impossible." '


It would have been very interesting indeed to have been a fly on the wall during the client conference following that debacle...anic:

 

[Sherbert]

bbm
If OP minutes/seconds before arriving at home had called his on-and-off-Ex "baby shoes" (and as we know, he did), then he was psychologically already in defensive attitude towards Reeva. One more important reason for his bad mood as soon as he walked in the door. IMO and experienced by myself (of course NOT with OP).

I wonder if they quarrelled over Cassidy Taylor-Memmory? If, as I suspect, OP was in a mood because his meeting hadn't gone well, Reeva would have been sympathetic, I'm sure, up to a point. However the subject of women's empowerment was very much at the forefront of her mind that night. Did she gradually become weary of his complaining and his unwillingness to accept any blame, leading her finally to speak up and give him a piece of her mind on the subject? I know I would have.

 

[Sherbert]

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

This really is very amusing.

 

[Colin de France]

For Pete's sake, we are concerned with the CONSEQUENCES of Pistorius' actions-- the DEATH of the person behind the door that was the RESULT of him consciously taking his personal gun loaded with exploding bullets and firing 4 rounds at, not just a door, but what he perceived to be a human behind the door.

Neither Oscar nor his defense team ever claimed he just wanted to spray the door with bullets to frighten the person who was inside or just to release his anxieties or whatever possibilities you keep promulgating in the interest of "open-mindedness." Even Derman testified Oscar fired at the door to "nullify" a perceived threat.

No matter what theories are postulated or what excuses a defendant comes up with to try to justify his actions, it's the consequences of their actions they need to answer for. If Oscar wanted to just let off steam, or put an intruder on notice, he could have shot into the ceiling like the sheriff does when they want to get everyone's attention in a bar room brawl. He admitted he knew a HUMAN was behind that door. He demonstrated he knew the power of firing his personal weapon with those kind of bullets.

In retrospect, he will say anything to avoid being held accountable for the consequences of his actions that night. Saying "I didn't mean to do it" just does not cut it, I am afraid.

....as i said before...there's a difference between pre-meditated murder and shooting in a moment of anger and i also don't think he fired at her intentionally.......as for "open-mindedness" that goes without saying as none of us were there to see what actually happened......

 

[lithgow1]

....as i said before...there's a difference between pre-meditated murder and shooting in a moment of anger and i also don't think he fired at her intentionally.......as for "open-mindedness" that goes without saying as none of us were there to see what actually happened......

But doesn't the fact that he got his gun and went to where Reeva/intruder was point to premeditation? I would have thought that arming yourself and heading towards the victim, and then shooting said victim is premeditation. Plus premeditation, as I am sure you know, can be considered to have occurred in a matter of seconds - 'I am angry, I have my gun, I will shoot' is pretty much all it takes AFAIK.

 

[Sherbert]

....as i said before...there's a difference between pre-meditated murder and shooting in a moment of anger and i also don't think he fired at her intentionally.......as for "open-mindedness" that goes without saying as none of us were there to see what actually happened......

I think you posted previously that OP should be given a lengthy sentence for killing Reeva. Are you also saying that you believe CH to be the correct verdict?

 

[lithgow1]

I wonder if they quarrelled over Cassidy Taylor-Memmory? If, as I suspect, OP was in a mood because his meeting hadn't gone well, Reeva would have been sympathetic, I'm sure, up to a point. However the subject of women's empowerment was very much at the forefront of her mind that night. Did she gradually become weary of his complaining and his unwillingness to accept any blame, leading her finally to speak up and give him a piece of her mind on the subject? I know I would have.

Which one is Cassidy again? I tend to agree with the poster (WilliamMunter I think) who suggested an argument stemming from his phone call with ex Jenna AKA 'babyshoes'. A long chat with an ex on Valentine's Day is maybe not the best way to kick off the night. Then there was her meeting up with her ex (the rugby player) that day or the one before (?). So add OP's bad meeting and the evidence of tensions in what should have been the 'everything is wonderful' stage of a new relationship and there are quite a few factors there that could have led to an argument. I also think that RS was a smart woman and was probably starting to realise that this guy was not the charmer she probably first thought he was. BTW, it might just be my cynicism but I find 'babyshoes' a kind of puke inducing nickname for a grown woman, similar to the `no, your'e smoochy' Seinfeld episode.

 

[Colin de France]

But doesn't the fact that he got his gun and went to where Reeva/intruder was point to premeditation? I would have thought that arming yourself and heading towards the victim, and then shooting said victim is premeditation. Plus premeditation, as I am sure you know, can be considered to have occurred in a matter of seconds - 'I am angry, I have my gun, I will shoot' is pretty much all it takes AFAIK.

......it came after having tried to get in with the bat which as that hadn't managed to break open the door only wound him up even more.....i think she had his mobile with her and it was that he was after.....the intention to use the gun was to blow a hole in the door which didn't work due to the distance plus an act of anger...

 

[Colin de France]

I think you posted previously that OP should be given a lengthy sentence for killing Reeva. Are you also saying that you believe CH to be the correct verdict?

...he fired recklessly and killed an innocent human being i think that deserves a heavy sentence......as for the verdict i would like to see a re-trial....so that when he does go down he will know why ....

 

[lithgow1]

......it came after having tried to get in with the bat which as that hadn't managed to break open the door only wound him up even more.....i think she had his mobile with her and it was that he was after.....the intention to use the gun was to blow a hole in the door which didn't work due to the distance...

Maybe, but even so that would still count as premeditation wouldn't it? Being so angry that you indulge in that chain of events is no excuse. I understand what you are saying in your view of what happened, but that would involve him being so irrationally angry that he completely lost touch with reality. He knew what his ammo was capable of doing. Also, why did he keep firing after the first shot which in all likelihood would have caused her to scream in such a way as to make him aware the bullet had hit her? If his plan was just to get the door open, surely a bloodcurdling scream should have knocked him back into the reality of what he was doing.

 

[soozieqtips]

Which one is Cassidy again? I tend to agree with the poster (WilliamMunter I think) who suggested an argument stemming from his phone call with ex Jenna AKA 'babyshoes'. A long chat with an ex on Valentine's Day is maybe not the best way to kick off the night. Then there was her meeting up with her ex (the rugby player) that day or the one before (?). So add OP's bad meeting and the evidence of tensions in what should have been the 'everything is wonderful' stage of a new relationship and there are quite a few factors there that could have led to an argument. I also think that RS was a smart woman and was probably starting to realise that this guy was not the charmer she probably first thought he was. BTW, it might just be my cynicism but I find 'babyshoes' a kind of puke inducing nickname for a grown woman, similar to the `no, your'e smoochy' Seinfeld episode.

Cassidy is the one who was yelled at and had the door slammed on her while at OP's house. I think a settlement in her favour was reached just before the trial.