Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #69 *Appeal Verdict*

[Marfa Lights]

People are getting frustrated with you because your statement above is not a correct statement of South African law.

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.

That is my reading of her judgment as well. However, I think the frustration stems from your apparent conclusion that his mistaken belief in an intruder automatically justifies all further actions on his part or that this mistaken belief somehow qualifies his behavior as negligence.

Re: According to my layman's understanding of PPD-- His actions, even if taken in mistaken belief of an intruder, still have to be evaluated against the laws of self-defense (regardless of whether it was putative or private defense) to qualify as justifiable.

Not necessarily in any order:

1. An attack must have commenced or present an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm;

2. The degree of response must be proportionate with respect to the nature of the attack (i.e. You can't shoot someone who slaps you.)

3. You are not allowed to kill an intruder simply for being in your house. They must present an obvious threat of bodily harm.

Re: Dolus or Intent versus Negligence--
Masipa's judgment can't be relied upon in this regard since she made the flagrant error of considering identity of the victim in her application of DE.

His actions under the circumstances tick all the boxes for DE:
Dolus eventualis exists when an accused foresees that his/her conduct poses a risk that a fatal injury could result from their unlawful actions and reconciles him/herself to the risk, and yet persists with reckless disregard.

Re: Mitigating Factors--
To the extent that his situation elicits sympathy, the defense can always present any mitigating factors at sentencing.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Oh dear, the argument goes on . How sad that this situation has arisen due to Masipa's completely unexplainable and erroneous decision to dismiss ear witness evidence. Ear witness evidence is never perfect and usually it is acceptable there will be some differences. Nobody was primed to take notes at the time of the event and recall is rarely perfect. These people had no axe to grind. They were genuine and wished only to help the investigation. For me, who has always believed the Stipps, Burger/Johnson and Van der Merwe evidence, the screams proved that OP's account was factually unsustainable. There were screams before and during gunshots and there is no argument in my mind that can devalue that evidence and if there were screams, no matter what story OP manufactured, he was guilty of murder. I am inclined to feel that the SC were of that opinion too and fairly obviously distrusted OP's testimony. IMO it gave them the opportunity to right a grave wrong by confirming that his shooting was not in self defence.

 

[aftermath]

That is my reading of her judgment as well. However, I think the frustration stems from your apparent conclusion that his mistaken belief in an intruder automatically justifies all further actions on his part or that this mistaken belief somehow qualifies his behavior as negligence.

Re: According to my layman's understanding of PPD-- His actions, even if taken in mistaken belief of an intruder, still have to be evaluated against the laws of self-defense (regardless of whether it was putative or private defense) to qualify as justifiable.

Not necessarily in any order:

1. An attack must have commenced or present an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm;

2. The degree of response must be proportionate with respect to the nature of the attack (i.e. You can't shoot someone who slaps you.)

3. You are not allowed to kill an intruder simply for being in your house. They must present an obvious threat of bodily harm.

Re: Dolus or Intent versus Negligence--
Masipa's judgment can't be relied upon in this regard since she made the flagrant error of considering identity of the victim in her application of DE.

His actions under the circumstances tick all the boxes for DE:
Dolus eventualis exists when an accused foresees that his/her conduct poses a risk that a fatal injury could result from their unlawful actions and reconciles him/herself to the risk, and yet persists with reckless disregard.

Re: Mitigating Factors--
To the extent that his situation elicits sympathy, the defense can always present any mitigating factors at sentencing.

But that's the thing: ignoring for a moment that he was mistaken, and assuming there was an intruder and he behaved the same way, it would still not have been justifiable. It would still have been unlawful because those conditions for a self defence argument had not been met. What he did was already unlawful, without the identity error on top. But if he didn't intend to act unlawfully (even if ultimately he did so) and/or didn't intend unlawful consequences from his actions, (even if unlawful consequences did result), then the required dolus for DE is absent.

 

[Marfa Lights]

But that's the thing: ignoring for a moment that he was mistaken, and assuming there was an intruder and he behaved the same way, it would still not have been justifiable. It would still have been unlawful because those conditions for a self defence argument had not been met. What he did was already unlawful, without the identity error on top. But if he didn't intend to act unlawfully (even if ultimately he did so) and/or didn't intend unlawful consequences from his actions, (even if unlawful consequences did result), then the required dolus for DE is absent.

So, all a killer has to say is "Gee officer, even though I trained and studied to pass my firearms exam and know all the laws regarding the use of lethal force, I thought hearing a noise in my bathroom at night would justify my actions if I took my gun and blew someone's brains out before bothering to see who they might be. I don't see how I could possibly be charged with any crime since I thought it prudent, if not quite necessary, to kill them just in case they might have nefarious thoughts in mind."

 

[aftermath]

So, all a killer has to say is "Gee officer, even though I trained and studied to pass my firearms exam and know all the laws regarding the use of lethal force, I thought hearing a noise in my bathroom at night would justify my actions if I took my gun and blew someone's brains out before bothering to see who they might be. I don't see how I could possibly be charged with any crime since I thought it prudent, if not quite necessary, to kill them just in case they might have nefarious thoughts in mind."

They could say that, but if they didn't confirm for certain that a life threatening attack was in fact under way before opening fire, then they would be acting unlawfully.

 

[Jake18]

But that's the thing: ignoring for a moment that he was mistaken, and assuming there was an intruder and he behaved the same way, it would still not have been justifiable. It would still have been unlawful because those conditions for a self defence argument had not been met. What he did was already unlawful, without the identity error on top. But if he didn't intend to act unlawfully (even if ultimately he did so) and/or didn't intend unlawful consequences from his actions, (even if unlawful consequences did result), then the required dolus for DE is absent.

Dr Roche Steyn, is that you?

Please tell Anneliese Burgess that the new defence isn't really working...

 

[Belgarion]

They could say that, but if they didn't confirm for certain that a life threatening attack was in fact under way before opening fire, then they would be acting unlawfully.

Which of course Pistorius could not effectively do because his concocted ‘version’ constrained him to not seeing Reeva or the ‘intruder’ or hear their voices. So the best he could offer was that a life threatening attack was underway from a ‘nebulous wood sound’ when he opened fire.

What a transparent pathetic individual. It’s a shame he cannot be charged with grossly insulting the intelligence of most people.

 

[Sherbert]

But that's the thing: ignoring for a moment that he was mistaken, and assuming there was an intruder and he behaved the same way, it would still not have been justifiable. It would still have been unlawful because those conditions for a self defence argument had not been met. What he did was already unlawful, without the identity error on top. But if he didn't intend to act unlawfully (even if ultimately he did so) and/or didn't intend unlawful consequences from his actions, (even if unlawful consequences did result), then the required dolus for DE is absent.

A Court uses all of the available evidence to draw inferences about intention.

In the Pistorius case, the available evidence was:

1. Sean Rens' testimony that Oscar knew that it was unlawful to fire.

2. The psychiatric opinion that Oscar could differentiate between right and wrong.

3. The psychiatric evidence that he wasn't suffering from GAD when he killed Reeva.

4. Oscar's testimony that he didn't intend to shoot.

5. Oscars testimony that he didn't fire a warning shot because he was afraid that he'd be injured by ricochet.

In addition, the SCA had the benefit of Masipa's finding that OP did intend to shoot.

Given all of the above, and given the fact that OP was not found to have been suffering from temporary insanity or non-insane automatism, the natural inference was that he shot intentionally, in the knowledge that it was unlawful to do so.

Any doubt that he did so was not found to be reasonable doubt.

And, even if we give him the benefit of that doubt and concede that fear caused him to lose control, that, IMO, would only explain the first bullet.

Four bullets, on the other hand, is compelling evidence of a complete absence of self-restraint in circumstances where the law does not permit the homeowner to become the aggressor.

Fear will only negate dolus where the homeowner's response is proportionate to the perceived threat.

 

[Belgarion]

A Court uses all of the available evidence to draw inferences about intention.

In the Pistorius case, the available evidence was:

1. Sean Rens' testimony that Oscar knew that it was unlawful to fire.

2. The psychiatric opinion that Oscar could differentiate between right and wrong.

3. The psychiatric evidence that he wasn't suffering from GAD when he killed Reeva.

4. Oscar's testimony that he didn't intend to shoot.

5. Oscars testimony that he didn't fire a warning shot because he was afraid that he'd be injured by ricochet.

In addition, the SCA had the benefit of Masipa's finding that OP did intend to shoot.

Given all of the above, and given the fact that OP was not found to have been suffering from temporary insanity or non-insane automatism, the natural inference was that he shot intentionally, in the knowledge that it was unlawful to do so.

Any doubt that he did so was not found to be reasonable doubt.

And, even if we give him the benefit of that doubt and concede that fear caused him to lose control, that, IMO, would only explain the first bullet.

Four bullets, on the other hand, is compelling evidence of a complete absence of self-restraint in circumstances where the law does not permit the homeowner to become the aggressor.

Fear will only negate dolus where the homeowner's response is proportionate to the perceived threat.

I would suggest an additional factor in relation to intention that should have been drawn by the court was Pistorius’ undoubted obsessed with the carrying and use of firearms, in particular handguns.

He carried a weapon whenever he could (even when swimming) and had on order a S&W500 (currently the largest calibre handgun available). Also he was clearly unable to control his instinct to pull the trigger whenever possible - Tasha’s and sunroof incidents

I have no doubt this continual carrying of his firearm had nothing to do with ‘personal safety’ as suggested in court but with his ‘macho image’ and his chance to show this off by maximising his chances of using the firearm.

Indeed the defence must have realised at an early stage that such inferences could have been drawn from his behaviour in carrying a handgun whenever possible hence their attempts to justify it by inventive situations where Pistorius’ ‘safety had been threatened’. Unfortunately these situations were not documented and usually involved him conveniently forgetting the names of witnesses (cue laughter in court)!!

 

[Marfa Lights]

I would suggest an additional factor in relation to intention that should have been drawn by the court was Pistorius’ undoubted obsessed with the carrying and use of firearms, in particular handguns.

He carried a weapon whenever he could (even when swimming) and had on order a S&W500 (currently the largest calibre handgun available). Also he was clearly unable to control his instinct to pull the trigger whenever possible - Tasha’s and sunroof incidents

I have no doubt this continual carrying of his firearm had nothing to do with ‘personal safety’ as suggested in court but with his ‘macho image’ and his chance to show this off by maximising his chances of using the firearm.

Indeed the defence must have realised at an early stage that such inferences could have been drawn from his behaviour in carrying a handgun whenever possible hence their attempts to justify it by inventive situations where Pistorius’ ‘safety had been threatened’. Unfortunately these situations were not documented and usually involved him conveniently forgetting the names of witnesses (cue laughter in court)!!

I agree. He carried his weapon as a solution in search of a problem.

He was ready to "go commando" at the slightest provocation-- as illustrated by the well-known tweet about his tactical over-reaction to his washing machine.

Too bad Oscar did not have benefit of my defensive driving instructor-- she subjected our class to 8 hours of discussion that always related back to our fundamental "attitudes and values" in order to make us understand the basis (and potential consequences) of our reckless behavior (speeding for most of us, but there was one person who had pulled a gun on someone in a case of road rage.)

Very effective for a 20-something who believes their own competency is more determinative than their reckless behavior. It's been said before, but Oscar needed some similar kind of intervention.

 

[Marfa Lights]

A Court uses all of the available evidence to draw inferences about intention.

In the Pistorius case, the available evidence was:

1. Sean Rens' testimony that Oscar knew that it was unlawful to fire.

2. The psychiatric opinion that Oscar could differentiate between right and wrong.

3. The psychiatric evidence that he wasn't suffering from GAD when he killed Reeva.

4. Oscar's testimony that he didn't intend to shoot.

5. Oscars testimony that he didn't fire a warning shot because he was afraid that he'd be injured by ricochet.

In addition, the SCA had the benefit of Masipa's finding that OP did intend to shoot.

Given all of the above, and given the fact that OP was not found to have been suffering from temporary insanity or non-insane automatism, the natural inference was that he shot intentionally, in the knowledge that it was unlawful to do so.

Any doubt that he did so was not found to be reasonable doubt.

And, even if we give him the benefit of that doubt and concede that fear caused him to lose control, that, IMO, would only explain the first bullet.

Four bullets, on the other hand, is compelling evidence of a complete absence of self-restraint in circumstances where the law does not permit the homeowner to become the aggressor.

Fear will only negate dolus where the homeowner's response is proportionate to the perceived threat.

May I add a #6 to your list?

6. Mangena's testimony showing the trajectory of Oscar's shots-- fairly tight grouping, shots 2, 3 and 4 showing he realigned his aim.

 

[Tortoise]

But that's the thing: ignoring for a moment that he was mistaken, and assuming there was an intruder and he behaved the same way, it would still not have been justifiable. It would still have been unlawful because those conditions for a self defence argument had not been met. What he did was already unlawful, without the identity error on top. But if he didn't intend to act unlawfully (even if ultimately he did so) and/or didn't intend unlawful consequences from his actions, (even if unlawful consequences did result), then the required dolus for DE is absent.

He said he didn't intend to act and that his shots were not deliberate. Therefore he can't say he intended to act with knowledge of lawfulness or otherwise.

Had he said under cross examination, yes I mistakenly thought my life was in danger so I fired the gun at the perceived intruder, Nel could have tested that answer. Nel even said I thought your defence was you acted in PPD and he denied it.

Masipa could make a finding of intention but not negate dolus on the basis of his thoughts. He said he didn't have any, so where would she be plucking that idea from? It wasn't supported by any evidence before the court - it wasn't in the court record. That is why Roux devoted time at the SCA to asking why he would have fired the shots. Roux recognised that the finding of fear was on its own insufficient.

 

[mrjitty]

A Court uses all of the available evidence to draw inferences about intention.

In the Pistorius case, the available evidence was:

1. Sean Rens' testimony that Oscar knew that it was unlawful to fire.

2. The psychiatric opinion that Oscar could differentiate between right and wrong.

3. The psychiatric evidence that he wasn't suffering from GAD when he killed Reeva.

4. Oscar's testimony that he didn't intend to shoot.

5. Oscars testimony that he didn't fire a warning shot because he was afraid that he'd be injured by ricochet.

In addition, the SCA had the benefit of Masipa's finding that OP did intend to shoot.

Given all of the above, and given the fact that OP was not found to have been suffering from temporary insanity or non-insane automatism, the natural inference was that he shot intentionally, in the knowledge that it was unlawful to do so.

Any doubt that he did so was not found to be reasonable doubt.

And, even if we give him the benefit of that doubt and concede that fear caused him to lose control, that, IMO, would only explain the first bullet.

Four bullets, on the other hand, is compelling evidence of a complete absence of self-restraint in circumstances where the law does not permit the homeowner to become the aggressor.

Fear will only negate dolus where the homeowner's response is proportionate to the perceived threat.

Great list!

 

[Marfa Lights]

After Mr. Jitty's loosely made suggestion that we discuss Dr. Roche Steyn's articles, I have been re-reading them (I still have only made it through the first 3 so far) and the thing I am the most struck by is how he gives such short shrift to the relevance of Oscar's written firearms exam as evidence that Oscar did indeed have knowledge of the unlawfulness of his actions.

I only note one brief mention of it and even then he quickly dismisses its significance saying something like you couldn't very well expect him to remember a question on an exam while in the heat of the moment of a (supposed) life-threatening scenario.

From the language he uses, I gather he considers the knowledge gained from the required study of the law and firearms training to become a responsible licensed gun owner to be merely some kind of superficial knowledge compared to the "deeper cognitive" and subjective "operative awareness" he feels the courts must consider to determine if the accused acted with knowledge of unlawfulness.

His argument seems to posit that it's okay to forget your knowledge of the law in the heat of the moment. Wouldn't that require some form of certifiable diminished capacity-- and Oscar has already missed that boat.

How does this concept work in SA? I believe I have read in SA that ignorance of the law is, in fact, a legitimate excuse that removes intent, but how about knowing and forgetting in the heat of the moment? You know-- having to have "deep cognitive operative awareness" as opposed to having passed the state gun licensing exam?

I know this third rung of the test for DE has been conveniently added by Dr. Steyn to save Roux and Oscar from drowning, but I wish Nel and Leach had made more of this specific point and the relevance of the firearms exam.

 

[GR_Turner]

After Mr. Jitty's loosely made suggestion that we discuss Dr. Roche Steyn's articles, I have been re-reading them (I still have only made it through the first 3 so far) and the thing I am the most struck by is how he gives such short shrift to the relevance of Oscar's written firearms exam as evidence that Oscar did indeed have knowledge of the unlawfulness of his actions.

I only note one brief mention of it and even then he quickly dismisses its significance saying something like you couldn't very well expect him to remember a question on an exam while in the heat of the moment of a (supposed) life-threatening scenario.

From the language he uses, I gather he considers the knowledge gained from the required study of the law and firearms training to become a responsible licensed gun owner to be merely some kind of superficial knowledge compared to the "deeper cognitive" and subjective "operative awareness" he feels the courts must consider to determine if the accused acted with knowledge of unlawfulness.

His argument seems to posit that it's okay to forget your knowledge of the law in the heat of the moment. Wouldn't that require some form of certifiable diminished capacity-- and Oscar has already missed that boat.

How does this concept work in SA? I believe I have read in SA that ignorance of the law is, in fact, a legitimate excuse that removes intent, but how about knowing and forgetting in the heat of the moment? You know-- having to have "deep cognitive operative awareness" as opposed to having passed the state gun licensing exam?

I know this third rung of the test for DE has been conveniently added by Dr. Steyn to save Roux and Oscar from drowning, but I wish Nel and Leach had made more of this specific point and the relevance of the firearms exam.

I think his view throughout is that in the situation where someone thinks they are in danger, as OP was in his mind, the court doesn't take the armchair position and says 'he should have known so did know' but should put themselves in the position of the person to ask 'did he know'? The SCA may have used the right terminology to express this but there is no evidence from the judgement that they made any effort at all to consider the situation he thought he was in and how that might have affected his judgement.

Personally, I think the SA system is foolish to put such an emphasis on such a slight difference to decide between CH and DE given that no judge can really know what the accused was actually thinking - and then it compounds this situation by having minimum sentencing legislation for one crime but not the other.

 

[Sherbert]

He said he didn't intend to act and that his shots were not deliberate. Therefore he can't say he intended to act with knowledge of lawfulness or otherwise.

Had he said under cross examination, yes I mistakenly thought my life was in danger so I fired the gun at the perceived intruder, Nel could have tested that answer. Nel even said I thought your defence was you acted in PPD and he denied it.

Masipa could make a finding of intention but not negate dolus on the basis of his thoughts. He said he didn't have any, so where would she be plucking that idea from? It wasn't supported by any evidence before the court - it wasn't in the court record. That is why Roux devoted time at the SCA to asking why he would have fired the shots. Roux recognised that the finding of fear was on its own insufficient.

I can see where you're coming from, but, as he has been convicted on the basis of Masipa's finding of intent to shoot, in my view, the Court is obliged to examine and to draw inferences as to his state of knowledge at that time. If the court doesn't consider the point at all, and omits to come to the conclusion that he must have known he was behaving unlawfully, then there is a danger that its decision can be appealed on the basis that an essential part of the enquiry into liability has been omitted.

 

[mrjitty]

I can see where you're coming from, but, as he has been convicted on the basis of Masipa's finding of intent to shoot, in my view, the Court is obliged to examine and to draw inferences as to his state of knowledge at that time. If the court doesn't consider the point at all, and omits to come to the conclusion that he must have known he was behaving unlawfully, then there is a danger that its decision can be appealed on the basis that an essential part of the enquiry into liability has been omitted.

Absolutely.

 

[Sherbert]

After Mr. Jitty's loosely made suggestion that we discuss Dr. Roche Steyn's articles, I have been re-reading them (I still have only made it through the first 3 so far) and the thing I am the most struck by is how he gives such short shrift to the relevance of Oscar's written firearms exam as evidence that Oscar did indeed have knowledge of the unlawfulness of his actions.

I only note one brief mention of it and even then he quickly dismisses its significance saying something like you couldn't very well expect him to remember a question on an exam while in the heat of the moment of a (supposed) life-threatening scenario.

From the language he uses, I gather he considers the knowledge gained from the required study of the law and firearms training to become a responsible licensed gun owner to be merely some kind of superficial knowledge compared to the "deeper cognitive" and subjective "operative awareness" he feels the courts must consider to determine if the accused acted with knowledge of unlawfulness.

His argument seems to posit that it's okay to forget your knowledge of the law in the heat of the moment. Wouldn't that require some form of certifiable diminished capacity-- and Oscar has already missed that boat.

How does this concept work in SA? I believe I have read in SA that ignorance of the law is, in fact, a legitimate excuse that removes intent, but how about knowing and forgetting in the heat of the moment? You know-- having to have "deep cognitive operative awareness" as opposed to having passed the state gun licensing exam?

I know this third rung of the test for DE has been conveniently added by Dr. Steyn to save Roux and Oscar from drowning, but I wish Nel and Leach had made more of this specific point and the relevance of the firearms exam.

Kudos for reading them. From memory, I think there were quite a lot of pages to get through!

Whilst I've yet to read the articles myself, I think it might be helpful to think of Steyn's argument in terms of the loss of control defence in the UK - formerly known as provocation.

Loss of control is used where, for a example, a battered wife kills her husband. Obviously, she knows that it's unlawful to kill him, but, as a result of fear and suffering - Roux's slow burn - she snaps and grabs the gun in the heat of the moment, shooting him dead.

OP could have argued that he lost control in the sense that, when he fired, his self-control was hijacked by a mixture of fear of serious injury and sheer outrage that a stranger was in his bathroom.

A successful loss of control argument in the UK would have the effect of reducing a murder conviction to manslaughter and the onus of proof would be on the Prosecution to disprove it. The Defence need only lay a thin factual foundation.

 

[Marfa Lights]

I am out of my league here, but find this yet another fascinating aspect of this case and can't resist trying to discuss to better understand this last ditch effort by the defense.

I suspect that if the SA system accepts that ignorance of the law does provide a legitimate excuse or defense, then it stands to reason that basic knowledge or understanding of the law would be necessary to establish fault (or culpability if that is the correct use of the term?).

To determine if fault (guilt? criminal liability?) is the result of negligence or criminal intent would seem to be a separate or secondary inquiry then if I understand correctly.

So, it seems to me that Steyn and Roux are really reaching to create a new standard for knowledge of lawfulness with this "deep cognitive/operational awareness" when that is not really the point: Did the accused know the law or were they ignorant of the law in question?

I don't recall Roux or Oscar ever submitting that Oscar did not know the laws for the use of lethal force. That is a very different question than asking the accused if they thought they were acting lawfully. Of course they will say "Yes, I supposed I was but now I realize I was mistaken. Oops, my bad."

 

[mrjitty]

After Mr. Jitty's loosely made suggestion that we discuss Dr. Roche Steyn's articles, I have been re-reading them (I still have only made it through the first 3 so far) and the thing I am the most struck by is how he gives such short shrift to the relevance of Oscar's written firearms exam as evidence that Oscar did indeed have knowledge of the unlawfulness of his actions.

I only note one brief mention of it and even then he quickly dismisses its significance saying something like you couldn't very well expect him to remember a question on an exam while in the heat of the moment of a (supposed) life-threatening scenario.

From the language he uses, I gather he considers the knowledge gained from the required study of the law and firearms training to become a responsible licensed gun owner to be merely some kind of superficial knowledge compared to the "deeper cognitive" and subjective "operative awareness" he feels the courts must consider to determine if the accused acted with knowledge of unlawfulness.

His argument seems to posit that it's okay to forget your knowledge of the law in the heat of the moment. Wouldn't that require some form of certifiable diminished capacity-- and Oscar has already missed that boat.

How does this concept work in SA? I believe I have read in SA that ignorance of the law is, in fact, a legitimate excuse that removes intent, but how about knowing and forgetting in the heat of the moment? You know-- having to have "deep cognitive operative awareness" as opposed to having passed the state gun licensing exam?

I know this third rung of the test for DE has been conveniently added by Dr. Steyn to save Roux and Oscar from drowning, but I wish Nel and Leach had made more of this specific point and the relevance of the firearms exam.

I agree - Steyn is completely contrived.

First and foremost, DE has never been a three step test.

So right away he is asking for a total departure from long established precedent

Secondly things like foresight, intention etc are legal tests - not an attempt to fathom exactly what was on the accused's mind in a split second.

So in reality, a shooter probably does not conduct a SWOT analysis in the moment of the shooting.

But of course in the seconds leading up to the shooting you are aware that you are wielding a deadly weapon and the responsibilities relating to that.