Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #65~ the appeal~

[DexterMorgan]

And I gave you his intention, to neutralize the perceived threat. Why does that have to mean killing?

Because he knew that reeva was in the bathroom since they just talked 30 minutes prior. Plus lets not act like she would be covered with a blanket on a hot night. Why not turn on bedroom light to see how many offenders you are dealing with.

 

[lithgow1]

And I gave you his intention, to neutralize the perceived threat. Why does that have to mean killing?

Well if it doesn't mean 'killing' what does 'neutralize', achieved via firing four 'zombie stoppers' at close range towards the perceived threat mean then? You chose the word 'neutralize' so how about explaining what you mean by that term.

 

[jilly]

To protect himself, in other words he intended to fire to neutralize what he perceived as a threat.

Seriously? He could have fired one shot in the air and told them to come out with their hands up.

 

[LemonMousse]

To protect himself, in other words he intended to fire to neutralize what he perceived as a threat.

And this, I think betrays where you are going wrong. Because I do think you're misunderstanding the issues here, Trotterly.

If he intended to fire to "neutralize the threat" then he is guilty of Dolus Directus. He achieved his desired outcome...the person behind the door was "neutralized" just as he intended. Obviously then he needs to convince the court that he was legally justified (PD or PPD) or could not be held legally accountable (Insanity) both of which negate the direct intention.

DE is what you have when the person does NOT intend the outcome. When they do NOT set out to kill anyone, or "neutralize" threats. But, while doing whatever they think they are doing, and for whatever reason they think they are doing it, they continue in the knowledge that someone might get hurt...and someone does.

We must ask....

Did Pistorius not know that shooting into that toilet could hurt whoever was in it?

Whatever he was actually directly intending (if anything) did he continue to pursue his aim reckless to the safety of the person in the toilet?

Did he genuinely believe he had every right to KILL whoever was in the toilet?

And, by the way, on the one hand you're accepting his, "I just wasn't thinking", while on the other you have him "intending" to "neutralize" the threat. Both cannot be true, I'm afraid.

 

[Trotterly]

because he knew that reeva was in the bathroom since they just talked 30 minutes prior. Plus lets not act like she would be covered with a blanket on a hot night. Why not turn on bedroom light to see how many offenders you are dealing with.

bib ?

 

[Trotterly]

Well if it doesn't mean 'killing' what does 'neutralize', achieved via firing four 'zombie stoppers' at close range towards the perceived threat mean then?

It means death if the person is right behind the door. Therefore PPD even though he did not necessarily intend death.

 

[lithgow1]

It means death if the person is right behind the door. Therefore PPD even though he did not necessarily intend death.

What can he have intended other than death? He knew the dimensions of the room, he knew the capacity of his ammunition, he chose to fire four times, three of the four hit her and all three in and of themselves could have proved fatal so how do you arrive at he didn't necessarily intend death.

 

[LemonMousse]

And I gave you his intention, to neutralize the perceived threat. Why does that have to mean killing?

Masipa said that she considered that he raised PPD and he clearly shot in order to protect himself from a perceived threat

Sorry, but how else do you "neutralize" a perceived threat with a gun? Blow their wig off?

No. Masipa did not consider that he successfully raised PPD. She constructed a defence for him, and it wasn't PPD. Accepting that he did what he did because he was anxious and scared is NOT accepting a defence of PPD. One of the criteria that a successful PPD defence must meet is that a reasonable person, with the same circumstances, would probably have acted in the same way. She did not find this, so she convicted him of CH.

 

[DexterMorgan]

bib ?

The fan conversation. Or him getting up to bring in the fan.

 

[Trotterly]

And this, I think betrays where you are going wrong. Because I do think you're misunderstanding the issues here, Trotterly.

If he intended to fire to "neutralize the threat" then he is guilty of Dolus Directus. He achieved his desired outcome...the person behind the door was "neutralized" just as he intended. Obviously then he needs to convince the court that he was legally justified (PD or PPD) or could not be held legally accountable (Insanity) both of which negate the direct intention.

DE is what you have when the person does NOT intend the outcome. When they do NOT set out to kill anyone, or "neutralize" threats. But, while doing whatever they think they are doing, and for whatever reason they think they are doing it, they continue in the knowledge that someone might get hurt...and someone does.

We must ask....

Did Pistorius not know that shooting into that toilet could hurt whoever was in it?

Whatever he was actually directly intending (if anything) did he continue to pursue his aim reckless to the safety of the person in the toilet?

Did he genuinely believe he had every right to KILL whoever was in the toilet?

And, by the way, on the one hand you're accepting his, "I just wasn't thinking", while on the other you have him "intending" to "neutralize" the threat. Both cannot be true, I'm afraid.

I never said he didn't intend harm.(to an intruder)

In the context of fearing the intruder Masipa said that he had intention to shoot but that he said he had no intention to kill and that this raised PPD.

The DE was with respect to Reeva when there would have been no intention to kill (Reeva)

Last part, I realize that he must have been thinking.

 

[Trotterly]

The fan conversation. Or him getting up to bring in the fan.

That was a minute or two before not half an hour.

 

[lithgow1]

I never said he didn't intend harm.(to an intruder)

In the context of fearing the intruder Masipa said that he had intention to shoot but that he said he had no intention to kill and that this raised PPD.

The DE was with respect to Reeva when there would have been no intention to kill (Reeva)

Last part, I realize that he must have been thinking.

Well he sure went about that the wrong way eh. Again, what did he intend if not to kill given what we know about dimensions, ammunition, range etc. I am asking your thoughts, not Masipas.

 

[Trotterly]

Well he sure went about that the wrong way eh. Again, what did he intend if not to kill given what we know about dimensions, ammunition, range etc. I am asking your thoughts, not Masipas.

I think he intended to shoot the intruder to stop them attacking.

 

[LemonMousse]

UN

I never said he didn't intend harm.(to an intruder)

In the context of fearing the intruder Masipa said that he had intention to shoot but that he said he had no intention to kill and that this raised PPD.

The DE was with respect to Reeva when there would have been no intention to kill (Reeva)

Last part, I realize that he must have been thinking.

Whhhhaaaaatttt?

He intended harm but not death? The law does not make that distinction at all - certainly not when the object being used to inflict harm is a GUN! I am stunned that you are trying to!

All you are doing when you keep quoting Masipa and what she was trying to do is highlight her mistake over and over. And you can't seem to see why it was a mistake.

The actual identity of the person who died is irrelevant when considering DE. Blimey, enough of the judges on Tuesday pointed this out, and I would think they'd know, right?

DE is when you DON'T intend ANY person at all to be killed, but your actions are such that this is a risk. And because you don't intend ANY person to be killed then there is no identity to the object of your intention, because there is no intention!

If you name the person, or give identifying details, then it becomes a case if DD..

She was WRONG to consider DE in relation to any specified person at all. Simply wrong.

(Very sorry for caps...not shouting. Just emphasising the important words. No aggression intended).

 

[lithgow1]

I think he intended to shoot the intruder to stop them attacking.

And kill them in the process. That is what he must have intended given the circumstances. I don't understand why you are so reluctant to say he meant to kill them when there is no other realistic outcome from the action he chose.

 

[Trotterly]

Sorry, but how else do you "neutralize" a perceived threat with a gun? Blow their wig off?

No. Masipa did not consider that he successfully raised PPD. She constructed a defence for him, and it wasn't PPD. Accepting that he did what he did because he was anxious and scared is NOT accepting a defence of PPD. One of the criteria that a successful PPD defence must meet is that a reasonable person, with the same circumstances, would probably have acted in the same way. She did not find this, so she convicted him of CH.

By shooting at it.

Masipa found he feared for his life, he intended to use the gun and when he heard the noise he shot what he thought was an intruder coming out to attack him. Sounds like PPD to me.

 

[Trotterly]

And kill them in the process. That is what he must have intended given the circumstances. I don't understand why you are so reluctant to say he meant to kill them when there is no other realistic outcome from the action he chose.

Why kill though? It was the only gun he had. If he had a less powerful gun with less lethal ammo would that have changed his intention?

Can you understand that if someone breaks into your house and you have a gun to hand and you think you are going to be attacked that you might use the gun just to protect yourself without any thought for your target? You just want the attack to stop. Why must that be to kill?

 

[soozieqtips]

What can he have intended other than death? He knew the dimensions of the room, he knew the capacity of his ammunition, he chose to fire four times, three of the four hit her and all three in and of themselves could have proved fatal so how do you arrive at he didn't necessarily intend death.

And Leach clearly stated that Reeva had nowhere to hide so OP must have foreseen killing whoever was behind the door. Everybody but his tiny team of supporters acknowledges that. One has to be in complete denial not to accept that OP didn't intend to kill or seriously injure the person behind the door. Four shots at close range will do it.

 

[LemonMousse]

I know it's been said unpteen times by umpteen people, but I am going to stick this here before going to bed.

PD/PPD.

There are not many circumstances when you are legally justified in killing someone, but self-defence is one of them. The main one, probably.

It is not unlawful to kill someone if your life is under threat if you don't. You are absolved of all blame and culpability. The law considers your actions justified.

The law takes into account that there are some circumstances where you may be given very, very good reasons to suppose your life is in danger even though it turns out that it's not. Someone pointing a gun at you that turns out not to be loaded etc.

In both cases, the onus is on you to show that your life really was in danger or you had a very good reason to sincerely believe it was. Not only that, the circumstances were such that any reasonable person, in the same boat, would have reached the same conclusion and done the same thing.

If you successfully pursuade a court of either of the above, you will be fully acquitted. PD and PPD are both complete defences against any charge of unlawful killing, whether murder or homicide.

What Pistorians are trying to suggest is that Masipa basically said: "I accept your plea of PPD. Under the circumstances the law considers you legally justified in your actions - any reasonable person in a similar situation would have done the same thing you did. However, you still shouldn’t have done it - even though I accept your defence of legal justification - so go to prison for five years anyway".

No. A conviction of anything in relation to the death he caused is proof that she did not accept his PPD defence.

She might have believed he was scared and anxious, but she did not see this as legal justification for what he did which is what acquittal on the basis of PPD would have meant.

 

[soozieqtips]

Why kill though? It was the only gun he had. If he had a less powerful gun with less lethal ammo would that have changed his intention?

Can you understand that if someone breaks into your house and you have a gun to hand and you think you are going to be attacked that you might use the gun just to
protect yourself without any thought for your target? You just want the attack to stop. Why must that be to kill?

It must be to kill or seriously injure when you fire FOUR shots at close range. FOUR! No warning shots. No shots aimed at the toilet floor to scare the invisible intruder. So many other ways he could have used the gun to scare the crap out of the 'intruder' instead of killing them. How you can't see that four shots at close range didn't necessarily mean he intended to kill flies in the face of all that is logical.