Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #67 *Appeal Verdict*

[Interested Bystander]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...188/Oscar-Pistorius-appeal-decision-live.html
Pistorius family react to "harsh" judgement
A Pistorius family source said their phones were ringing non-stop and Pistorius was surrounded by his aunt, uncle, siblings and family.
"It was a harsh judgement, harsher than we thought but in terms of the content, we felt it would go this way after hearing what was said at the appeal," the source said.
The source added that Pistorius had been preparing mentally for the likely outcome. "You have to prepare for it."
Pistorius family and his legal team, including barrister Barry Roux and solicitor Brian Webber, are now poring over the judgement and considering their options. It is understood that they have 10 days to lodge an appeal with the Constitutional Court.

 

[soozieqtips]

I hope if the NPA do need to re-arrest him they are going to get a move on about it. I would not put it past that snivelling little creep to hightail it to Mozambique on a private jet asap. He wouldn't even be breaking the law doing so if he's officially not under house arrest anymore.

I wouldn't put anything past him or his evidence-removing family. If he thinks he might get 15 years in :jail:, what does he have to lose by doing a bunk?

 

[akp]

Going to Constitutional Court citing disadvantage due to televised trial should not be an option, as far as I can see. If it was the case, appeal on that ground (to an appropriate higher court) should have been made right after the original trial. Telecast of trial has not happened between then and now. So complaining about it now would amount to saying something like "if the ruling is to my liking, everything is fine, but if it goes against my liking, I have been victimised". However, this is pretty much the kind of reasoning his defence team has been using all along in the trial, presenting several versions and inviting the judge to pick whichever she finds suitable! So no surprises if they decide to give it a try one more time!

 

[Colin de France]

That's not the point.

Did he forsee that by shooting he could kill the person?
Did he continue nevertheless - as Leach said, "gambling with someone's life"?

If yes...then that is legal intention.

If he'd shot the door intending to kill the person that would be direct intent.

.......this is confusing justification and intent.....if he shot at the door without the intention to kill for whatever reason whether it be a moment of extreme anger or not having given the conséquences any thought etc then so be it.....how that translates in justice is another thing what concerns me is that we leave an open door for the truth if it ever comes out.....

 

[Tortoise]

I hope if the NPA do need to re-arrest him they are going to get a move on about it. I would not put it past that snivelling little creep to hightail it to Mozambique on a private jet asap. He wouldn't even be breaking the law doing so if he's officially not under house arrest anymore.

And you can bet he has already been advised of that too.

 

[JudgeJudi]

The State couldn’t appeal the factual decision made by the trial court which rejected the State’s version that there had been a disagreement between OP and Reeva that led to Reeva hiding in the toilet to escape from him, before being shot. The State could thus not appeal the finding that OP did not have the direct intention to murder Reeva Steenkamp. Instead, the State’s case before the SCA revolved primarily on whether the trial court had erred with regard to the issue of dolus eventualis.

The SCA pointed out that the High Court made at least three fatal legal mistakes in coming to this conclusion.

“First, the High Court wrongly applied an objective rather than a subjective approach to the question of dolus. The issue was not what was reasonably foreseeable when Pistorius fired at the toilet door but whether he – Pistorius – actually foresaw that he might kill the person behind the door when he fired four bullets through it.

Second, the High Court seemed to have found that the presence of a person behind the door was not reasonably foreseeable. But this “is at odds with its subsequent conclusion that the accused was guilty of culpable homicide on the basis that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have foreseen the reasonable possibility that the shots fired at the door of the toilet might kill whoever was in the toilet”. Why fire at a closed door if you did not believe that there was somebody behind the door?

The third fundamental error made by the High Court was that its consideration of dolus eventualis centred upon whether Pistorius knew that the person in the toilet cubicle was Reeva. Its conclusion that dolus eventualis had not been proved was premised upon an acceptance that, as Pistorius had thought Reeva was in the bedroom, he did not foresee that she was the person in the toilet”.

http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/reeva-steenkamp-was-it-a-race-crime-or-a-sex-crime/#more-9031

 

[Sherbert]

Some juicy bits from the Judgement:

From Para 50

A person is far more likely to foresee the possibility of death occurring where the weapon used is a lethal firearm (as in the present case) than, say, a pellet gun unlikely to do serious harm. Indeed, in this court, counsel for the accused, while not conceding that the trial court had erred when it concluded that the accused had not subjectively foreseen the possibility of the death of the person in the toilet, was unable to actively support that finding. In the light of the nature of the firearm and the ammunition used and the extremely limited space into which the shots were fired, his diffidence is understandable.

From Para 53

In these circumstances, although he may have been anxious, it is inconceivable that a rational person could have believed he was entitled to fire at this person with a heavy calibre firearm, without taking even that most elementary precaution of firing a warning shot (which the accused said he elected not to fire as he thought the ricochet might harm him). This constituted prima facie proof that the accused did not entertain an honest and genuine belief that he was acting lawfully, which was in no way disturbed by his vacillating and untruthful evidence in regard to his state of mind when he fired his weapon.

Para 55

In order to disturb the natural inference that a person intends the probable consequences of his actions, the accused was required to establish at least a factual foundation for his alleged genuine belief of an imminent attack upon him. This the accused did not do. Consequently, although frightened, the accused armed himself to shoot if there was someone in the bathroom and when there was, he did. In doing so he must have foreseen, and therefore did foresee that the person he was firing at behind the door might be fatally injured, yet he fired without having a rational or genuine fear that his life was in danger. The defence of putative private or self-defence cannot be sustained and is no bar to a finding that he acted with dolus eventualis in causing the death of the deceased.

So:

1. Death was subjectively foreseeable and he foresaw it.
2. He had no genuine and honest belief that he was legally entitled to shoot.
3. He had no rational or genuine fear that his life was in danger.

 

[Marfa Lights]

And you can bet he has already been advised of that too.

I bet the engines are warming up right now...

 

[Tortoise]

The State couldn’t appeal the factual decision made by the trial court which rejected the State’s version that there had been a disagreement between OP and Reeva that led to Reeva hiding in the toilet to escape from him, before being shot. The State could thus not appeal the finding that OP did not have the direct intention to murder Reeva Steenkamp. Instead, the State’s case before the SCA revolved primarily on whether the trial court had erred with regard to the issue of dolus eventualis.

The SCA pointed out that the High Court made at least three fatal legal mistakes in coming to this conclusion.

“First, the High Court wrongly applied an objective rather than a subjective approach to the question of dolus. The issue was not what was reasonably foreseeable when Pistorius fired at the toilet door but whether he – Pistorius – actually foresaw that he might kill the person behind the door when he fired four bullets through it.

Second, the High Court seemed to have found that the presence of a person behind the door was not reasonably foreseeable. But this “is at odds with its subsequent conclusion that the accused was guilty of culpable homicide on the basis that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have foreseen the reasonable possibility that the shots fired at the door of the toilet might kill whoever was in the toilet”. Why fire at a closed door if you did not believe that there was somebody behind the door?

The third fundamental error made by the High Court was that its consideration of dolus eventualis centred upon whether Pistorius knew that the person in the toilet cubicle was Reeva. Its conclusion that dolus eventualis had not been proved was premised upon an acceptance that, as Pistorius had thought Reeva was in the bedroom, he did not foresee that she was the person in the toilet”.

http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/reeva-steenkamp-was-it-a-race-crime-or-a-sex-crime/#more-9031

If you read the first part of the judgement it is clear that they thought Masipa misdirected herself on DD of the intruder too, but they couldn't do anything about it because the State didn't appeal on those grounds. (not suggesting you haven't read it of course, just a turn of phrase JJ)

I think it would have succeeded.

 

[Tortoise]

Some juicy bits from the Judgement:

From Para 50

A person is far more likely to foresee the possibility of death occurring where the weapon used is a lethal firearm (as in the present case) than, say, a pellet gun unlikely to do serious harm. Indeed, in this court, counsel for the accused, while not conceding that the trial court had erred when it concluded that the accused had not subjectively foreseen the possibility of the death of the person in the toilet, was unable to actively support that finding. In the light of the nature of the firearm and the ammunition used and the extremely limited space into which the shots were fired, his diffidence is understandable.

From Para 53

In these circumstances, although he may have been anxious, it is inconceivable that a rational person could have believed he was entitled to fire at this person with a heavy calibre firearm, without taking even that most elementary precaution of firing a warning shot (which the accused said he elected not to fire as he thought the ricochet might harm him). This constituted prima facie proof that the accused did not entertain an honest and genuine belief that he was acting lawfully, which was in no way disturbed by his vacillating and untruthful evidence in regard to his state of mind when he fired his weapon.

Para 55

In order to disturb the natural inference that a person intends the probable consequences of his actions, the accused was required to establish at least a factual foundation for his alleged genuine belief of an imminent attack upon him. This the accused did not do. Consequently, although frightened, the accused armed himself to shoot if there was someone in the bathroom and when there was, he did. In doing so he must have foreseen, and therefore did foresee that the person he was firing at behind the door might be fatally injured, yet he fired without having a rational or genuine fear that his life was in danger. The defence of putative private or self-defence cannot be sustained and is no bar to a finding that he acted with dolus eventualis in causing the death of the deceased.

So:

1. Death was subjectively foreseeable and he foresaw it.
2. He had no genuine and honest belief that he was legally entitled to shoot.
3. He had no rational or genuine fear that his life was in danger.

Reducing his chances of mitigation somewhat I would say.

 

[LaLaw2000]

He should be marched straight back to :jail:

He's a convicted murderer who doesn't belong among the public.

Not only is he a convicted murderer, he was a very dangerous person even before he committed the murder!

General comments:

*I was here almost every day throughout the trial and took a dislike to Marsipa (sp?) very early on. I felt she and the female assessor were very sympathetic toward OP. Even before Marsipa's decision of the verdict, I felt she would find some way of making sure OP all but got away with murdering Reeva. I just do not think she thought she would ever be questioned on her very soft findings and sentencing.

*I hope OP had his little green bucket handy as he was watching this morning! He may have needed it for real this time!

*IMO, this deal about him no longer being under house arrest really badly needs to cleared up ASAP. He needs to be re-arrested and with no bail this time!

MOO

 

[soozieqtips]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...188/Oscar-Pistorius-appeal-decision-live.html
Pistorius family react to "harsh" judgement
A Pistorius family source said their phones were ringing non-stop and Pistorius was surrounded by his aunt, uncle, siblings and family.
"It was a harsh judgement, harsher than we thought but in terms of the content, we felt it would go this way after hearing what was said at the appeal," the source said.
The source added that Pistorius had been preparing mentally for the likely outcome. "You have to prepare for it."
Pistorius family and his legal team, including barrister Barry Roux and solicitor Brian Webber, are now poring over the judgement and considering their options. It is understood that they have 10 days to lodge an appeal with the Constitutional Court.

BIB - perhaps the convicted murderer could consider the option of simply facing facts and serve his time with a little dignity.

 

[LemonMousse]

.......this is confusing justification and intent.....if he shot at the door without the intention to kill for whatever reason whether it be a moment of extreme anger or not having given the conséquences any thought etc then so be it.....how that translates in justice is another thing what concerns me is that we leave an open door for the truth if it ever comes out.....

Sorry Colin - I don't mean to be argumentative, but you are incorrect.

Murder is the intentional killing of another person. Right?

But the law understands that sometimes you behave in such a way that is so dangerous to another person that if they die your actions are tantamount to intention.

A good example would be somebody wanting to get into a toilet cubicle and choosing to blow off the door handle by shooting it.

Their conscious intention may have been to blow off the door handle - but they MUST have known they'd stand a chance of the bullets hitting a person and elected to carry on nevertheless.

This is why Pistorius is now a convicted murderer. Not because he directly intended death, but because he knowingly played fast and loose with another person's welfare.

You cannot do that and then say, "Oh well, I didn't actually mean to hurt them!" So what? You must have known you would....and that's murder.

 

[Colin de France]

Reducing his chances of mitigation somewhat I would say.

....if he were to come out with the declaration that he thought she was to the right of the WC and that he shot to the left, right or wrong, motivation and conséquences included, that would make a difference.....

 

[atthelake]

:gasp:

My phone battery died last night and therefore my alarm to wake up and watch live did not happen.

ullhair:

Great news !!

Can anyone throw up the links for a YouTube of it.. and also the final written verdict and opinions please .

TIA

 

[Tortoise]

....if he were to come out with the declaration that he thought she was to the right of the WC and that he shot to the left, right or wrong, motivation and conséquences included, that would make a difference.....

that's not making any sense to me, sorry to be blunt

 

[Interested Bystander]

On Oscar's story 'changing':

"With ample justification, the court found the accused to have been ‘a very poor witness’. His version varied substantially. At the outset he stated that he had fired the four shots ‘before I knew it’ and at a time when he was not sure if there was somebody in the toilet.

This soon changed to a version that he had fired as he believed that whoever was in the toilet was going to come out to attack him.

"He later changed this to say that he had never intended to shoot at all; that he had not fired at the door on purpose and that he had not wanted to shoot at any intruder coming out of the toilet. In the light of these contradictions, one really does not know what his explanation is for having fired the fatal shots..."

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/N...cas-judgment-against-oscar-pistorius-20151203

It is often said "liars have to have good memories". How true!

 

[Tortoise]

:gasp:

My phone battery died last night and therefore my alarm to wake up and watch live did not happen.

ullhair:

Great news !!

Can anyone throw up the links for a YouTube of it.. and also the final written verdict and opinions please .

TIA

http://cdn.24.co.za/files/Cms/General/d/1801/db3888fd1bc24611805612316c9e413b.pdf
judgement here

 

[LemonMousse]

....if he were to come out with the declaration that he thought she was to the right of the WC and that he shot to the left, right or wrong, motivation and conséquences included, that would make a difference.....

It would make no difference whatsoever.

 

[Colin de France]

Sorry Colin - I don't mean to be argumentative, but you are incorrect.

Murder is the intentional killing of another person. Right?

But the law understands that sometimes you behave in such a way that is so dangerous to another person that if they die your actions are tantamount to intention.

A good example would be somebody wanting to get into a toilet cubicle and choosing to blow off the door handle by shooting it.

Their conscious intention may have been to blow off the door handle - but they MUST have known they'd stand a chance of the bullets hitting a person and elected to carry on nevertheless.

This is why Pistorius is now a convicted murderer. Not because he directly intended death, but because he knowingly played fast and loose with another person's welfare.

You cannot do that and then say, "Oh well, I didn't actually mean to hurt them!" So what? You must have known you would....and that's murder.

....no you're not being argumentative, maybe i'm not getting across.......i just don't see him as someone who would intentionally kill....there is a big difference between having the intention and not....not only for the person having killed but for the family of the deceased and society as a whole.......if we as humans can't accept that difference then we might as well leave justice to machines......