Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #69 *Appeal Verdict*

[Tortoise]

The number of shots is not really relevant if these people thought they were acting in self defence. Where in law does it say you can only fire once to save your life?

The SCA did not say it was not a genuine accident as there was insufficient reliable evidence for that despite how many times it gets brought up to the contrary.

As has been pointed out before people do try to get gunshot victims to hospital themselves and OP did call for help no matter what twist is put on it.

BIB

The SCA said "he fired the fatal shots with criminal intent".

Criminal intent never happens by accident and his murder conviction means there is not a smidgen of reasonable doubt.

 

[aftermath]

This has been discussed many many times before. You must have missed it. No one knows why the content of the Netcare call wasn't brought up in court. It could have been for many reasons, ie, 60 seconds of silence from OP, a bad line, or call not recorded properly. Who knows? Do you really not think if there was anything redeeming on it for OP that Roux wouldn't have pushed for the details to be known? All that we know here on WS is that a call was made to Netcare which lasted 60 seconds. That's ALL we know to be a fact. We do NOT know that the killer requested help for the woman he'd just murdered. We do NOT know that the killer was told to bring Reeva to the hospital as all we have is the killer's word for it, and his word means nothing, nada, zilch. Given his web of lies and deceit throughout the trial, it's highly unlikely he did request help but just wanted the call on 'record'.

That it is ' highly unlikely' is opinion, not fact. If there was 60 seconds of silence, why didn't the prosecution use this as evidence against the defence claims? We know more than the simple fact that a call was logged. We know that the prosecution didn't challenge the defence version re the calls. The inference is therefore that there was no challenge to be made.

 

[GR_Turner]

Perhaps he was a less-than-credible witness compared to the others you mention.

I can think of a few characteristics that may have distinguished him from the others-- several of which clearly did not serve him well in court:

1. Arrogance/Sense of Entitlement/Privilege
2. Recklessness/Carelessness
3. Dishonesty/Evasiveness/Did not take the court into his confidence
4. Inability to take responsibility for his actions
5. Strongly motivated by self-interest/lack of integrity
6. Disrespect for the law/Disregard of Lawful Behavior
7. Trigger-Happy/Infatuated with Guns/Careless with his weapon
8. Abusive and Controlling Behavior toward others

None of this proves he knew he was acting illegally. Once the court and SCA accepted OP's version, the case is very similar to many others where people have thought they were defending themselves in their homes. In the D'Oliveira case, the circumstances were utterly different - I'm not surprised the court couldn't find he thought he was acting legally in shooting multiple times at men outside his house with no sign of forced entry. Plainly, OP's situation as he saw it couldn't have been more different.

 

[Tortoise]

None of this proves he knew he was acting illegally. Once the court and SCA accepted OP's version, the case is very similar to many others where people have thought they were defending themselves in their homes. In the D'Oliveira case, the circumstances were utterly different - I'm not surprised the court couldn't find he thought he was acting legally in shooting multiple times at men outside his house with no sign of forced entry. Plainly, OP's situation as he saw it couldn't have been more different.

Where did you get that idea?

They completely rejected PPD.

 

[aftermath]

Where did you get that idea?

They completely rejected PPD.

Did they accept that he knew it was Reeva?

 

[Tortoise]

Did they accept that he knew it was Reeva?

It wasn't within their powers to disturb factual findings of the trial court.

 

[aftermath]

It wasn't within their powers to disturb factual findings of the trial court.

Okay.. So since they didn't find that he knew it was Reeva, they accepted that he thought it was an intruder?

 

[Marfa Lights]

So are you now saying that it's got nothing to do with his answer in the gun test? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the gun test in SA says it's ok to shoot 1 shot at someone you can't properly see. If shooting without properly knowing your target means that you have knowingly acted illegally, then it doesn't make any difference whether it was 1 shot or 4, or are you now arguing that if I go up to someone and shoot once, that somehow doesn't really matter, but 4 would??

It's really not that hard. Both are unlawful, of course. But firing one shot after a legitimate startle or mistaken judgment about an imminent threat as testified by a credible witness who accepts full responsibility for their actions = more likely to be reasonably possibly true and receive a CH verdict.

Firing four shots (particularly 1 then 3 more) without any legal justification or adequate explanation of an imminent threat as submitted by an evasive and combative witness with a plethora of defenses all denying responsibility for his actions= more likely to be determined intentional rather than merely negligent and to receive a DE verdict.

 

[Tortoise]

Okay.. So since they didn't find that he knew it was Reeva, they accepted that he thought it was an intruder?

No, they merely worked within their jurisdiction. They made no finding about identity, but did state that his evidence was untruthful and that he has given no credible explanation for the shooting.

 

[aftermath]

No, they merely worked within their jurisdiction. They made no finding about identity, but did state that his evidence was untruthful and that he has given no credible explanation for the shooting.

Isn't identity key, though?

 

[soozieqtips]

That it is ' highly unlikely' is opinion, not fact. If there was 60 seconds of silence, why didn't the prosecution use this as evidence against the defence claims? We know more than the simple fact that a call was logged. We know that the prosecution didn't challenge the defence version re the calls. The inference is therefore that there was no challenge to be made.

BIB - um, yes. My choice of words 'highly unlikely' means I regard it as an opinion, not fact, so not sure why you needed to state the obvious? Why are you using the fact the state did not 'challenge' the defence version of calls as something positive for the murderer? If there's a record of a logged call, how on earth could the state dispute that? By your own reasoning, if there was something on the recording that could have helped the murderer, then why didn't his defence team call Netcare? Do you have an answer for that? Lastly, if we follow your logic that because the state didn't challenge the defence over logged calls it means there was no challenge to be made... it must also follow (going by your own logic) that because the defence weren't able to successfully challenge the photographic evidence of the bedroom scene, then there was no challenge to be made and OP must be a liar and murderer, yes?

 

[GR_Turner]

It's really not that hard. Both are unlawful, of course. But firing one shot after a legitimate startle or mistaken judgment about an imminent threat as testified by a credible witness who accepts full responsibility for their actions = more likely to be reasonably possibly true and receive a CH verdict.

Firing four shots (particularly 1 then 3 more) without any legal justification or adequate explanation of an imminent threat as submitted by an evasive and combative witness with a plethora of defenses all denying responsibility for his actions= more likely to be determined intentional rather than merely negligent and to receive a DE verdict.

Ah, so now it doesn't matter what you put on the gun licence exam as long as there are other witnesses to confirm your version of events and as long as you are only shooting once without thinking. That makes everything clear(!) So basically, the argument that he must have known he was acting illegally because of the answer on the gun licence exam is wrong. I'm really not sure how OP's description of imminent threat could have been said more clearly.

What makes this case different is none of what you have identified, but that the prosecution wanted a murder conviction, whereas in the other cases they didn't. It's really that simple.

 

[Tortoise]

Isn't identity key, though?

No, it has no bearing. Murder is murder, whoever the intended target, and since premeditation was out of the equation it was irrelevant to the enquiry of the SCA.

 

[aftermath]

BIB - um, yes. My choice of words 'highly unlikely' means I regard it as an opinion, not fact, so not sure why you needed to state the obvious? Why are you using the fact the state did not 'challenge' the defence version of calls as something positive for the murderer? If there's a record of a logged call, how on earth could the state dispute that? By your own reasoning, if there was something on the recording that could have helped the murderer, then why didn't his defence team call Netcare? Do you have an answer for that? Lastly, if we follow your logic that because the state didn't challenge the defence over logged calls it means there was no challenge to be made... it must also follow (going by your own logic) that because the defence weren't able to successfully challenge the photographic evidence of the bedroom scene, then there was no challenge to be made and OP must be a liar and murderer, yes?

BIB yes: they didn't need to because it wasn't called into question in court. His post-shooting behaviour has been the subject of much debate on forums like this but not in court.

 

[GR_Turner]

BIB - um, yes. My choice of words 'highly unlikely' means I regard it as an opinion, not fact, so not sure why you needed to state the obvious? Why are you using the fact the state did not 'challenge' the defence version of calls as something positive for the murderer? If there's a record of a logged call, how on earth could the state dispute that? By your own reasoning, if there was something on the recording that could have helped the murderer, then why didn't his defence team call Netcare? Do you have an answer for that? Lastly, if we follow your logic that because the state didn't challenge the defence over logged calls it means there was no challenge to be made... it must also follow (going by your own logic) that because the defence weren't able to successfully challenge the photographic evidence of the bedroom scene, then there was no challenge to be made and OP must be a liar and murderer, yes?

The state made no allegation about the contents of the call. Why then would either you or the defense bring it up? My guess is that he was incoherent and that's why neither side thought it was useful. The state were afraid it would show how upset he seemed, while the defense were afraid it would show that he didn't give all the details. Not helpful to either side.

 

[aftermath]

No, it has no bearing. Murder is murder, whoever the intended target, and since premeditation was out of the equation it was irrelevant to the enquiry of the SCA.

Ah okay. I think this is where you and I fundamentally disagree then..as I believe that the presumed identity of the person behind the door is intrinsically linked to the nature of any intent and therefore to the issue of DE or CH.

 

[Tortoise]

Ah, so now it doesn't matter what you put on the gun licence exam as long as there are other witnesses to confirm your version of events and as long as you are only shooting once without thinking. That makes everything clear(!) So basically, the argument that he must have known he was acting illegally because of the answer on the gun licence exam is wrong. I'm really not sure how OP's description of imminent threat could have been said more clearly.

What makes this case different is none of what you have identified, but that the prosecution wanted a murder conviction, whereas in the other cases they didn't. It's really that simple.

There was no imminent threat that's why. It was Reeva and she was defenceless.

He couldn't invent any facts to support his lie, because Reeva had to be mute throughout and not move the handle because she knew she had locked the door. Thank goodness for a common sense conviction.

 

[GR_Turner]

No, it has no bearing. Murder is murder, whoever the intended target, and since premeditation was out of the equation it was irrelevant to the enquiry of the SCA.

Of course it makes a difference. If the state had shown he knew it was Reeva, it could only have been a deliberate murder whereas shooting in panic at a presumed intruder is usual regarded as CH. In what other cases has shooting at an intruder in the home been treated as murder? I've not heard of any at all in SA. Have you?

 

[Tortoise]

Ah okay. I think this is where you and I fundamentally disagree then..as I believe that the presumed identity of the person behind the door is intrinsically linked to the nature of any intent and therefore to the issue of DE or CH.

Without PPD it is murder. There was not negligence or accident but recklessness and criminal intent to kill, not ingredients for CH.Coupled with a dishonest testimony, you are at liberty to decide who you think he intended to kill.

 

[soozieqtips]

The state made no allegation about the contents of the call. Why then would either you or the defense bring it up? My guess is that he was incoherent and that's why neither side thought it was useful. The state were afraid it would show how upset he seemed, while the defense were afraid it would show that he didn't give all the details. Not helpful to either side.

BIB - I already said earlier it could have been a bad line or 60 seconds of silence. Not helpful to either side is correct, not unlike hauling a reluctant Frank to court would have also been unhelpful.