Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #69 *Appeal Verdict*

[Greater Than]

Op made it clear that he shot believing someone was coming out of the toilet, not just because he thought someone was there. There's a huge difference between grabbing a gun planning to kill an intruder up front, and taking the gun for self defence and then reacting strongly when thinking an attack was imminent. I can't see why this is such a difficult distinction to understand.

Yes, OP claimed he fired when he heard wood moving which he perceived to be the door opening, except Masipa herself even said he was a "very poor witness," was evasive, and his evidence was contradictory...in other words, she called him a liar.

But the court was not left to decide if he was telling the truth about his perception of the door opening just based on his claim, expert testimony proved his claim was impossible. The door was obviously not opening because it was locked from the inside. OP tried to say Reeva bumped the magazine rack making the wood noise, but Mangena proved she was standing close to and facing the door when the first shot hit her, which was nowhere near the magazine rack. So OP tried to claim the police tampered with evidence by moving the magazine rack but Dixon, the defense's own expert, contradicted his claim. He testified that the blood pool around the leg of the magazine rack proves it was next to the toilet when Reeva was shot dead, and was not moved as OP claimed.

The wood moving noise was invented. Without it the case would have been open and shut. Killing someone who poses no imminent threat is murder. He had to come up with some kind of explanation as to why he fired though a closed door in order to support his claim that he was acting in PPD. I can't see why this is so difficult for you to understand.

 

[soozieqtips]

Op made it clear that he shot believing someone was coming out of the toilet, not just because he thought someone was there. There's a huge difference between grabbing a gun planning to kill an intruder up front, and taking the gun for self defence and then reacting strongly when thinking an attack was imminent. I can't see why this is such a difficult distinction to understand.

BIB - "Reacting strongly" is a bit of an understatement for pumping 4 bullets into the door and murdering a human being, don't you think? And it's already been pointed out time and time again that he had no legitimate reason to believe an 'attack' was imminent, since no one came out of the toilet and the door handle didn't even move.

A later post of yours highlights some of OP's testimony where you say he makes it pretty clear why he shot? Firstly, him repeating at least 8 times that "I didn't have time to think" doesn't make it true. Nel pointed out several times where OP did think from the time he armed himself with a gun to the point when he decided to shoot. OP explained all his thought processes when pressed by Nel, and funnily enough he was thinking all the way down the passage, when to scream, when to be quiet, not firing a warning shot in case he hurt himself... but conveniently, at the point of shooting (when he was absolutely under no threat of attack) that's when he suddenly didn't have time to think.

It would not have been a difficult distinction to understand if OP hadn't repeatedly lied throughout, changed his versions when he thought it might help him, or enlisted the help of his family to remove evidence from the crime scene. Innocent people don't do that.

 

[mrjitty]

Masipa herself never held that PPD was made out, hence GR Turner's arguments are irrelevant to the appeal.

Leach himself pointed that out in oral argument, when we were treated to the sight of Roux wetting his pants live on television

 

[Belgarion]

BIB - "Reacting strongly" is a bit of an understatement for pumping 4 bullets into the door and murdering a human being, don't you think? And it's already been pointed out time and time again that he had no legitimate reason to believe an 'attack' was imminent, since no one came out of the toilet and the door handle didn't even move.

A later post of yours highlights some of OP's testimony where you say he makes it pretty clear why he shot? Firstly, him repeating at least 8 times that "I didn't have time to think" doesn't make it true. Nel pointed out several times where OP did think from the time he armed himself with a gun to the point when he decided to shoot. OP explained all his thought processes when pressed by Nel, and funnily enough he was thinking all the way down the passage, when to scream, when to be quiet, not firing a warning shot in case he hurt himself... but conveniently, at the point of shooting (when he was absolutely under no threat of attack) that's when he suddenly didn't have time to think.

It would not have been a difficult distinction to understand if OP hadn't repeatedly lied throughout, changed his versions when he thought it might help him, or enlisted the help of his family to remove evidence from the crime scene. Innocent people don't do that.

His persistent mantra of "I didn't have time to think" was clearly aimed at avoiding responsibility ie if I didn’t think I can’t be responsible.

Pistorius doing his upmost to avoid responsibility was the dominant recurring theme throughout the trial.

I would go as far as to suggest he was clinically obsessed with the avoidance of any responsibility which could possibly undermine his perceived status.

This was clearly shown in the Tasha’s incident. Pistorius pulled the trigger of that there is no doubt, unless of course one believes in miraculous self-discharging ammunition. Yet he seemed not to understand that by denying he pulled the trigger he was making himself look an obvious blatant liar just to avoid putting up his hands and accepting the responsibility of acting stupidly.

His action on that occasion ranked with that of a 4 year old still on the learning curve of life who being caught with a chocolate covered face blames his sister for the missing chocolates.

 

[GR_Turner]

Yes, OP claimed he fired when he heard wood moving which he perceived to be the door opening, except Masipa herself even said he was a "very poor witness," was evasive, and his evidence was contradictory...in other words, she called him a liar.

But the court was not left to decide if he was telling the truth about his perception of the door opening just based on his claim, expert testimony proved his claim was impossible. The door was obviously not opening because it was locked from the inside. OP tried to say Reeva bumped the magazine rack making the wood noise, but Mangena proved she was standing close to and facing the door when the first shot hit her, which was nowhere near the magazine rack. So OP tried to claim the police tampered with evidence by moving the magazine rack but Dixon, the defense's own expert, contradicted his claim. He testified that the blood pool around the leg of the magazine rack proves it was next to the toilet when Reeva was shot dead, and was not moved as OP claimed.

The wood moving noise was invented. Without it the case would have been open and shut. Killing someone who poses no imminent threat is murder. He had to come up with some kind of explanation as to why he fired though a closed door in order to support his claim that he was acting in PPD. I can't see why this is so difficult for you to understand.

Masipa didn't say that OP was lying about everything. In fact, she accepted his version except that she said he had intent to shoot. It is irrelevant that the door didn't open - it's that he thought it was that matters and that the court didn't reject his version. OP said he didn't know what the noise was but Nel wouldn't accept that and demanded an answer so OP guessed and guessed wrong. That's not proof of lying. When the court accepted his version, they accepted the version with the noise. Seems to me you are working on the basis that the court threw his version out but it didn't so this approach just isn't valid.

And stating something that is just your opinion doesn't add anything to the discussion imo - I mean your third paragraph. None of that was in either judgement.

 

[Trotterly]

Masipa didn't say that OP was lying about everything. In fact, she accepted his version except that she said he had intent to shoot. It is irrelevant that the door didn't open - it's that he thought it was that matters and that the court didn't reject his version. OP said he didn't know what the noise was but Nel wouldn't accept that and demanded an answer so OP guessed and guessed wrong. That's not proof of lying. When the court accepted his version, they accepted the version with the noise. Seems to me you are working on the basis that the court threw his version out but it didn't so this approach just isn't valid.

And stating something that is just your opinion doesn't add anything to the discussion imo - I mean your third paragraph. None of that was in either judgement.

Two courts have failed to find that he knew it was Reeva yet some will never let it go :facepalm:

 

[soozieqtips]

Masipa didn't say that OP was lying about everything. In fact, she accepted his version except that she said he had intent to shoot. It is irrelevant that the door didn't open - it's that he thought it was that matters and that the court didn't reject his version. OP said he didn't know what the noise was but Nel wouldn't accept that and demanded an answer so OP guessed and guessed wrong. That's not proof of lying. When the court accepted his version, they accepted the version with the noise. Seems to me you are working on the basis that the court threw his version out but it didn't so this approach just isn't valid.

And stating something that is just your opinion doesn't add anything to the discussion imo - I mean your third paragraph. None of that was in either judgement.

BIB - he shouldn't have had to lie about anything if it was really just a tragic mistake like he wanted everyone to think. The fact he lied at all speaks volumes about the lowlife he is, not to mention coward and justice evader. That anyone can still defend him after seeing his true colours is something I cannot understand. This is someone who outright refused to admit to events that couldn't have happened like he said (the mysterious gun going off by itself for example). When he wasn't lying, he was busy calling other people liars, or blaming his defence team for omissions in his affidavit, or accusing them of telling him it was legal to keep his father's ammo in his safe! No way did Roux tell him that was legal. You name it, he blamed someone else for it. His family don't help, what with evidence tampering, etc. OP murdered Reeva in a rage (IMO) and he will do and say anything to wriggle out of his punishment because that's the cold and callous person he is. No conscience and no thought for anyone but his precious self. God bless Reeva for what that maniac put her through that night.

 

[mrjitty]

BIB - "Reacting strongly" is a bit of an understatement for pumping 4 bullets into the door and murdering a human being, don't you think? And it's already been pointed out time and time again that he had no legitimate reason to believe an 'attack' was imminent, since no one came out of the toilet and the door handle didn't even move.

A later post of yours highlights some of OP's testimony where you say he makes it pretty clear why he shot? Firstly, him repeating at least 8 times that "I didn't have time to think" doesn't make it true. Nel pointed out several times where OP did think from the time he armed himself with a gun to the point when he decided to shoot. OP explained all his thought processes when pressed by Nel, and funnily enough he was thinking all the way down the passage, when to scream, when to be quiet, not firing a warning shot in case he hurt himself... but conveniently, at the point of shooting (when he was absolutely under no threat of attack) that's when he suddenly didn't have time to think.

It would not have been a difficult distinction to understand if OP hadn't repeatedly lied throughout, changed his versions when he thought it might help him, or enlisted the help of his family to remove evidence from the crime scene. Innocent people don't do that.

Justice Leach also reacted strongly.

 

[sleuth-d-]

I think he was pretty clear actually. He fired when he thought the door was about to open, in fright and without time to think. The problem I think is the word intent. OP is clear that he didn't think before shooting and that's why he says he didn't have intention to shoot. This is an understandable perspective when the word is used colloquially and is surely different from intention when used in a legal sense. Given that OP was consistent about his version regarding the belief that the door was about to open, that he was afraid as he thought there was an intruder and that just fired without thinking, the question of legal intent should have been decided by the court and not OP's answer to the question of whether he intended to shoot imo. Masipa decided there was intention so PPD should have been based on that finding, not on OP's fuzzy and colloquial understanding of intention. In effect he had one version that could raise 2 possible defences depending on how you dealt with it legally.

Try looking at the excerpts from this perspective: see my bolds


Roux: At any time did you intend to kill reeva
Oscar: I did not intend to kill Reeva or anybody else Mi'Lady.

http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Os..._Death?Page=49


Oscar: It was accidental. My understanding is I didn't intent to shoot the intruder. I got a fright from someone inside the toilet.
Nel: You never fired at the intruders intentionally, the gun went off unintentionally?
Oscar: I didn't have much time to think. I dealt with a set of circumstances.
Nel: you're giving evidence. Did you shoot intentionally?
Oscar: I shot out of fear.
Nel: Because of fear you shot at them.
Oscar: I didn't intend to shoot at them, I didnt intend to kill someone. When I heard the noise from the toilet, I thought someone was coming out to kill me. I didn't have time to think.

Nel: Did your gun accidentally go off or did you fire at the intruders
Oscar: My firearm went off, it was an accident it happened. I fired my firearm before I could think

Oscar: At the time I fired the shot, I didn't have time to think. I didn't intend to shoot at anyone. I can't say I didn't. I never fired shots purposely into a door.

http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Os..._Death?Page=50


Nel: Did you fire deliberately, still accidentally.
Oscar: I'm still that I fired the gun out of fear. I didn't mean to pull the trigger so in that sense it was an accident.
Nel: I never meant to pull the trigger. You never wanted to shoot at intruders coming out of the bathroom.
Oscar: I didn't have time to think. I didn't want to shoot at anyone.
Nel: Whatever happened never caused you to shoot - it happened accidentally.
Oscar: The noise came from the toilet, caused me to pull the trigger. I didn't have time to think about it, I heard a noise, and I discharged my firearm.

http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Os..._Death?Page=52


Oscar: I didn't intend to shoot, when I heard a noise, I didn't have time to think. I fired my weapon. It was an accident.

http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Os..._Death?Page=53


Nel: If you did not want to shoot the person, what did you want to do.
Oscar: My intention was to make the person flee.
Nel: Nothing else.
Oscar: correct
Nel: And when you got into the bathroom there was nobody there.
Oscar: correct

http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Os..._Death?Page=55


Nel: But isn't your defence that you thought you were in danger and wanted to shoot the person in the bathroom.
Oscar: No
Nel: Is it your defence that you fired at the perceived attacker.
Oscar: I fired at the door

Nel: Is it your defence that you fired at the perceived attacker.
Oscar: No.
Nel: Then what is your defence
Oscar: I heard the noise and I didn't have time to interpret it and I fired my firearm out of fear.

Nel: I don't understand your defence you can't have two
Oscar: I understand
Nel: The way I understand the defence is that you acted in putitive self defence. that you fired at the attacker to ward off an attack.
Oscar: I didn't have time to think. I fired my firearm.
Nel: you defence has changed from putitive self defence to involuntary action.
Oscar: I don't understand the law.

http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Os..._Death?Page=56


Nel: IF your version now is that you fired because you were scared? Why only four, why not empty the magazine? Why not fire at the window. Did you not think there was someone on the window.
Oscar: My firearm was pointed at the door.
Nel: Did you not think of firing into the shower
Oscar: If I fired into the shower it could ricochet and hit me.
Nel: But firing into the door you should know it could hit someone.
Oscar: I didn't intend to fire my gun.

Nel: you thought the intuder was coming out, and they would have to turned the door handle. For them to get out the door they have to use the handle, and you could see it.
Oscar: I guess I didn't focus on the handle, I focused on the door as a whole.
Nel: Did you not fire at the handle.
Oscar: I can see that is not the case
Nel: If you wanted to fire at the intruder, where would you have fired.
Oscar: Probably at chest height, probably on the right.
Nel: So we can exclude that you fired to protect yourself.Did you fire to shoot an intruder.
Oscar: No I fired because I had a fright.
Nel: If there was an intruder in the toilet, would it have been an accident.
Oscar: I never intended to shoot anyone, yes.

http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Os..._Death?Page=57

This all seems very consistent to me.

i think your bold shows he didn't understand the nature of his defence. he seems to have been correct in saying: "i don't understand the law". for ppd, he had to keep stressing that he intended to shoot, but in self-defence... when he mentions it was an accident it did him no good, similar when he says he fired because he "had a fright". i am sure roux stressed this to him, they had a year to prepare and coach him. it did not work.

from the link... for ppd

"
Various requirements must be met before the defensive act will be considered lawful. The attack must be:

commenced or imminent;

against a legally recognised interest;5 and

unlawful.

The action made in defence must be:

necessary to avert the attack;

reasonable in terms of the amount of force used; and

directed against the attacker.

Thus, the action taken must be in response to a currently pending aggressive action, and the law specifically rules out any action being taken, on the one hand, pre-emptively or, on the other, in ‘revenge’.
"

above are my bolds

https://www.issafrica.org/pubs/CrimeQ/No.8/duPlessis.htm

 

[Hazy]

Two courts have failed to find that he knew it was Reeva yet some will never let it go :facepalm:

I wonder what the result would have been if Leach had of been the trial judge ....

You can't really compare a trail finding and an appeal finding as if they were on a level playing field as an appeal is somewhat restricted to a trial judges findings rightly or wrongly

 

[sleuth-d-]

Masipa didn't say that OP was lying about everything. In fact, she accepted his version except that she said he had intent to shoot. It is irrelevant that the door didn't open - it's that he thought it was that matters and that the court didn't reject his version. OP said he didn't know what the noise was but Nel wouldn't accept that and demanded an answer so OP guessed and guessed wrong. That's not proof of lying. When the court accepted his version, they accepted the version with the noise. Seems to me you are working on the basis that the court threw his version out but it didn't so this approach just isn't valid.

And stating something that is just your opinion doesn't add anything to the discussion imo - I mean your third paragraph. None of that was in either judgement.

my bold. i thought he originally said it was the door that made the 'sound of wood moving'... why didn't he stick with that? there were no other wooden objects in the toilet to choose from [let's assume he is familiar with his own toilet, and the window doesn't open], so when he didn't choose the door, he had to choose the mag rack.

tangled in his own fabrication at that point. imo.

 

[soozieqtips]

I wonder what the result would have been if Leach had of been the trial judge ....

You can't really compare a trail finding and an appeal finding as if they were on a level playing field as an appeal is somewhat restricted to a trial judges findings rightly or wrongly

BIB - good point.

 

[mrjitty]

Some people don't seem to have grasped the finer legal points made by Justice Leach

The defence of PPD is never made out based on what the accused claimed he thought.

This is because the accused will always claim to act in PPD

Rather the question is what must the accused have known?

As Justice Leach noted

1. OP never verified who was behind the door
2. OP never saw the door open - the opposite


OP, as a trained shooter, knew it was illegal to shoot. Therefore even if scared, the defence of PPD was not made out.

Not even close in my view.

So you can trawl Masipa's judgement all you like - but you will never find the words "the defence has made out PPD".

Because it was not held in her court and was not held on appeal either.

 

[mrjitty]

I wonder what the result would have been if Leach had of been the trial judge ....

You can't really compare a trail finding and an appeal finding as if they were on a level playing field as an appeal is somewhat restricted to a trial judges findings rightly or wrongly

Yes - the appeal is restricted to Masipa's legal errors.

Which is why surfing her judgement to retrofit a finding of PPD is pointless.

 

[mrjitty]

my bold. i thought he originally said it was the door that made the 'sound of wood moving'... why didn't he stick with that? there were no other wooden objects in the toilet to choose from [let's assume he is familiar with his own toilet, and the window doesn't open], so when he didn't choose the door, he had to choose the mag rack.

tangled in his own fabrication at that point. imo.

Yes.

His trouble always was that he needed an "attack" to start.

Sadly there were not many attacky options with the door locked.

He really was hampered by that door needing to be locked.

 

[mrjitty]

i think your bold shows he didn't understand the nature of his defence. he seems to have been correct in saying: "i don't understand the law". for ppd, he had to keep stressing that he intended to shoot, but in self-defence... when he mentions it was an accident it did him no good, similar when he says he fired because he "had a fright". i am sure roux stressed this to him, they had a year to prepare and coach him. it did not work.

Exactly - thats the wrong defence - more like involuntary action.

I think he just screwed up here

 

[sleuth-d-]

BIB - he shouldn't have had to lie about anything if it was really just a tragic mistake like he wanted everyone to think. The fact he lied at all speaks volumes about the lowlife he is, not to mention coward and justice evader. That anyone can still defend him after seeing his true colours is something I cannot understand. This is someone who outright refused to admit to events that couldn't have happened like he said (the mysterious gun going off by itself for example). When he wasn't lying, he was busy calling other people liars, or blaming his defence team for omissions in his affidavit, or accusing them of telling him it was legal to keep his father's ammo in his safe! No way did Roux tell him that was legal. You name it, he blamed someone else for it. His family don't help, what with evidence tampering, etc. OP murdered Reeva in a rage (IMO) and he will do and say anything to wriggle out of his punishment because that's the cold and callous person he is. No conscience and no thought for anyone but his precious self. God bless Reeva for what that maniac put her through that night.

my bold.
and yet. not guilty in this case. which gets overlooked, as the murder is understandably the main issue... but still, how did he get away with that ammo charge?

 

[Trotterly]

Yes.

His trouble always was that he needed an "attack" to start.

Sadly there were not many attacky options with the door locked.

He really was hampered by that door needing to be locked.

Wonder why he didn't say he saw the handle move.

 

[Marfa Lights]

:gaah:

Op made it clear that he shot believing someone was coming out of the toilet, not just because he thought someone was there. There's a huge difference between grabbing a gun planning to kill an intruder up front, and taking the gun for self defence and then reacting strongly when thinking an attack was imminent. I can't see why this is such a difficult distinction to understand.

It's fine to take up a gun in self defense, but one then has to be mindful to only USE the gun in a legitimate act of self-defense. You cannot take up a lethal weapon whenever something goes bump in the night and shoot four shots at an unidentified person and kill them simply out of some unfounded fear. All he needed to do was identify his target by asking "Who goes there?"

Otherwise what is left to say: "Sorry, I made an erroneous assumption."

 

[Marfa Lights]

Wonder why he didn't say he saw the handle move.

Perhaps because the person on the inside who locked the door knows it is locked and would have no reason to turn the handle.