Tortoise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,456
- Reaction score
- 133,509
You don't know that he believed that. There is no evidence for it.
Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #69 *Appeal Verdict*
- Thread starter bessie
- Start date
- Status
You don't know that he believed that. There is no evidence for it.
But it has been accepted that he did
Tortoise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,456
- Reaction score
- 133,509
Only by the judge who was so incompetent that her judgement had to be overturned.
ETA and a judge who ignored the most pertinent evidence in reaching her decision.
But legally accepted nonetheless
Tortoise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,456
- Reaction score
- 133,509
There is no way of overturning her mistakes of fact. That doesn't improve your argument in the slightest. As an impartial observer of the trial you have seen no evidence of his belief in an intruder and you know he was deceitful.
It makes your stance questionable to say the least.
LemonMousse
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2014
- Messages
- 939
- Reaction score
- 0
No....not legally accepted. Acceptance implies agreement.
Your argument is:
The SCA were unable to overturn a finding of fact.
Therefore, they did not overturn a finding of fact.
Therefore, they agreed with the finding of fact.
Does not compute.
Marfa Lights
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2014
- Messages
- 682
- Reaction score
- 0
Indeed the State was unable to prove that his intruder story was not reasonably possibly true. Masipa established this fact in her judgment.
However, although she acknowledged he held a genuine belief there was an intruder and was acting in fear, her judgment was inconclusive whether or not she legally justified his PPD claim as a complete defense. (Fear alone does not justify an unlawful killing.)
Masipa also had the problem of Oscar's alternate defense of never intending to shoot at the intruder in self-defense. She ultimately decided for him that must have intended to shoot, but then confusingly said he could not have intended to kill (the deceased) because he thought she was in the bedroom.
It was downhill for her judicial logic from there and no one could say for certain she had found his PPD claim fully justified as a result of her poorly written judgment.
And so she left the door open for the SCA to make their own determination that based on his own testimony it was unreasonable for him to possibly believe anyone was attacking him or that an attack was imminent that would have provoked the use of lethal force under those circumstances.
The State was able to prove that he acted with reckless disregard toward the person behind the toilet door, and would have foreseen that death could likely result from firing four times into such a small toilet cubicle. They were also able to prove that he had knowledge of the unlawfulness of using lethal force under those circumstances.
In summary, his PPD claim was only accepted to the extent that he may have held a genuine belief that an intruder had entered his house and this would understandably cause him to be fearful.
However, it is not just what he thought or believed that matters-- his subsequent actions exceeded the bounds of a lawful self-defense and consequently he was not entitled to the full protection of the laws of self-defense. That is what is meant when people say his PPD claim was "not made out."
soozieqtips
Owned by a cat...
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,954
- Reaction score
- 0
~snipped~
BIB - Totally agree. I sometimes have to look to see if I'm on an old thread when I see the same questions coming up again and again which have been answered and explained over and over till I just give up. You have the patience of a saint (as do others here) to continue to answer and explain in great detail when you have already done it so many times before.
There’s none as blind as those who do not wish to see
There’s none as deaf as those who do not wish to hear
Nor none as unknowing as those who do not wish to understand
@ Marfa Lights
Thank you for your reply. I understand what you are saying and agree with you that fear can never justify an unlawful killing. The killing could never be lawful - he was always going to have to be found guilty of something. I believe it was reported that Masipa struggled between DE and CH, and I think that may well have been due to the level of recklessness in his actions after that initial error of believing an intruder was nearby.
For me, once the intruder version is accepted as possible, then CH becomes the most reasonable verdict. The potential for the freeze-fight-flight fear response to dominate actions/thoughts that might be more reasoned in circumstances away from perceived imminent danger is strong. (imo)
Thank you for your reply. I understand what you are saying and agree with you that fear can never justify an unlawful killing. The killing could never be lawful - he was always going to have to be found guilty of something. I believe it was reported that Masipa struggled between DE and CH, and I think that may well have been due to the level of recklessness in his actions after that initial error of believing an intruder was nearby.
For me, once the intruder version is accepted as possible, then CH becomes the most reasonable verdict. The potential for the freeze-fight-flight fear response to dominate actions/thoughts that might be more reasoned in circumstances away from perceived imminent danger is strong. (imo)
Tortoise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,456
- Reaction score
- 133,509
Still wrong. The psychiatric evaluation showed he was able to appreciate right from wrong.
Prof Derman made out a case for a fight mentality but that's all, Masipa rejected the fear/startle reaction - she found, based on the psych evaluation and his other thoughts, that firing his gun was a controlled action with thought.
CH is not a reasonable or correct verdict when a person who is able to think and can appreciate that they are not in danger kills anyway. Even less so when there is no evidence for the most unlikeliest of stories and a dishonest witness.
Marfa Lights
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2014
- Messages
- 682
- Reaction score
- 0
I think the problem for most of us is that his response to the presumed intruder just did not qualify as a defensive action-- he went on the offensive and took preemptive action before anyone had actually threatened him.
Making this kind of erroneous assumption after hearing the quite normal noises of a houseguest using the bathroom in the middle of the night is bad enough (but understandably could be considered negligent.)
It was obvious, however, that he was not justified or even merely negligent in taking the actions that followed. And South African law is very strict about the use of lethal force against an intruder-- none of this 'Castle Doctrine' shoot first and ask questions later business that we have in the U.S.
Oscar made a conscious decision to go after the presumed intruder, and being unable to justify any rational belief in why he felt he was under imminent attack, the obvious inference is that he intentionally fired and would have known his actions were unlawful and likely to kill someone.
The court was obliged to find him guilty of DE.
If Reeva had thrown open the door suddenly, and he fired in response to that direct action, it probably would have been a different verdict.
I suppose the simplest summary of the SCA judgement is that it remains murder to execute someone in your bathroom - regardless of whom you think it is.
Such a killing can only be legally justified where the strict test for self defence is met.
CH is a red herring in this regard.
CH will be the verdict only where you did in fact believe you were acting in self defence but your opinion was unreasonably held.
As OP was not able to meet the test for self defence even where his version was 100% accepted - murder is the correct verdict.
Such a killing can only be legally justified where the strict test for self defence is met.
CH is a red herring in this regard.
CH will be the verdict only where you did in fact believe you were acting in self defence but your opinion was unreasonably held.
As OP was not able to meet the test for self defence even where his version was 100% accepted - murder is the correct verdict.
People are getting frustrated with you because your statement above is not a correct statement of South African law.
My biggest frustration with all this is that common law legal questions are answered by reference to legal tests. Any first year law student learns this.
So you have to apply the facts to the strict multi-step test for self defence / PPD - blow by blow.
What often happens on this thread is people just announce that OP did act in PPD or whatever - without quoting a single element of the test.
If you did that in LAWS 101 you would get a D
So no legal argument should be taken seriously if not supported by legal reasoning.
I understand that on Websleuths everyone can have an opinion - but that does not mean that you can have a valid opinion about technical matters that are clearly wrong.
e.g. if you were to misquote the laws of physics.
Sadly rather than discussing the legal merits of Steyn's legal argument for example - something that would be valuable to do - page after page gets spent on stuff that is simply wrong!
Even Roux doesn't make the kind of arguments seen here - because he'd be laughed out of town.
my .02
The problem is that the defence couldn't produce any convincing evidence that the defensive action was justified when weighed against the perceived threat.
Even OP did not testify that he believed that he had to shoot to protect himself and proceeded accordingly.
No one can really believe it is OK to hear a noise in your toilet and unload 4 zombie stoppers without bothering to verify who is in there.
That is where the question of prima facie proof became critical.
You must also understand that Supreme Court Judges are alive to the dynamics of the case.
If you come to Court without bonafides you can't go crying over spilt milk.
Agreed.
The SCA will always have regard to the interests of Justice.
This might lead them to find a legitimate path to the correct result.
Between the lines - this is really what Roux is asking for.
A shift in policy because scared people in their gated communities are packing heat and are going to end up blowing people away "by accident"
He is also trying to make OP a special case - to avoid "opening the floodgates" as Judges love to say
To be successful in this he really needs to find multiple justices who have sympathy for OPs situation.
The law is really pretty clear - its all about how you view the conduct and where to draw the line.
Not my intention to frustrate you and others. Might be worth putting me on the ignore list?
Masipa found that there was no evidence to suggest that Pistorius's mistaken belief that there was an intruder was not 'honestly entertained'. I read that as meaning that the court found the intruder version to be reasonably possible.
Yes - but that does not equate to PDD
That's just the putative bit. She held there was a mistake.
The Court must still go further and examine whether the actions, based on the mistaken belief, could amount to self defence.
Nowhere in the judgement does Masipa say "I find the defence of PPD was made out"
Either because it wasn't, or she messed up.
Either way it opens the door for the SCA to jump in and rule whether the defence was made out.
- Status