Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #69 *Appeal Verdict*

[LemonMousse]

I think the majority of posters on here appear to believe that the original verdict should have been DD of Reeva. I am not convinced that had it actually been an armed intruder behind the door people would be so quick to call DE now.

Eh?

What armed intruder would have hidden behind a locked toilet door waiting for someone with girly screams to come and shoot them?

This would not have happened and so your attempt at comparison is a bit pointless.

 

[aftermath]

One can of course speculate on alternative scenarios.

I would speculate the majority of posters may not have been so quick to call for DE or even DD if they had not been asked to believe.……

- that without a shred of proof Pistorius could actually scream like a woman.

- that a person in a claimed ‘loving relationship’ would somehow failed to check on the whereabouts of his loved one before grabbing a gun and going on an intruder hunt

- that Reeva remained silent whilst Pistorius was screaming his head off and later through the unimaginable pain of being shot.

- Pistorius’ claim that a firearm he was holding discharged itself without him touching the trigger

- that it is possible to remember in minute detail the supposed ‘road attack’ then to ‘forget’ the name of the person who picked him up and could verify the improbable story

Etc, etc

Indeed it was the latter incident that finally convinced me that Pistorius was an absolute liar. A reasonable person wanting to tell such a lie would have said they just drove themselves home after the supposed incident as it would be obvious the name of any witnesses would be asked in court. Effectively they realise even lies have to have some relationship to reality

But not Pistorius, he is a fanciful liar par excellence; he had to embellish the story by inventing a so called ‘rescuer’ and then fully expected to be believed even though he couldn’t produce their name. It was obvious from the laughter in court he was making a fool of himself but he just couldn’t see it otherwise he wouldn’t have said it.

There is a name for persons who act in this manner – they are called pathological liars

- That his screams could have been mistaken by some as those of a woman - not that he sounds like a woman

-That the idea of checking where she was didn't even occur because he '(thought he) ' knew ' she was there in the bedroom with him

-That she responded to the danger of an intruder in the immediate vicinity by keeping quiet instead of shouting out. That she was shot in quick succession, leaving her little time to scream.

-Fair enough - the Tasha's trigger claim was a step too far. That he didn't intend to fire is pretty likely though. This doesn't make him a murderer of either an unknown intruder or of Reeva though.

- That perhaps the 'friend' who picked him up was no longer a friend since the shooting and was unlikely to corroborate his story in court . Seems like a very strange blatant, easy-to-pick-apart lie to tell on the stand in your own murder trial

 

[LemonMousse]

- That his screams could have been mistaken by some as those of a woman - not that he sounds like a woman

-That the idea of checking where she was didn't even occur because he '(thought he) ' knew ' she was there in the bedroom with him

-That she responded to the danger of an intruder in the immediate vicinity by keeping quiet instead of shouting out. That she was shot in quick succession, leaving her little time to scream.

-Fair enough - the Tasha's trigger claim was a step too far. That he didn't intend to fire is pretty likely though. This doesn't make him a murderer of either an unknown intruder or of Reeva though.

- That perhaps the 'friend' who picked him up was no longer a friend since the shooting and was unlikely to corroborate his story in court . Seems like a very strange blatant, easy-to-pick-apart lie to tell on the stand in your own murder trial

You just proved Belgarion's point.

 

[LemonMousse]

He fired when he knew the gun was pointed where he thought there was an intruder who he thought was coming out to attack him.

Yes.

He aimed the gun at the toilet door knowing there was a human being behind it.

Whether he "thought he was going to be attacked" is entirely beside the point. Anyone could make the excuse that they "thought" someone was going to attack them - the issue is whether that "thought" and the actions subsequent to it were reasonable under the circumstances.

Is it OK if a person in a wheelchair spots a dodgy looking person walking down the street towards them and shoots them because they "thought" they were going to be attacked? In your universe, yes, that's perfectly fine. They were vulnerable and "thought" (rightly or wrongly) they were going to be attacked.

To the rest of us.....no, that's not OK. If that disabled person was of sound mind and had been given no reason to believe they had to shoot to protect themselves, they'd be charged with murder.

Even if Pistorius "thought" he was "in danger", he could furnish no adequate or acceptable reason for thinking that. Nothing happened to make him think that - no one implicitly or explicitly threatened him. No one.

He arbitrarily decided that death to the person in the toilet was his only option. THAT IS MURDER.

He was of sound mind.
He was thinking rationally.
His "vulnerability" was not enough to stop him deliberately choosing confrontation over escape.
He ensured the person died by pumping four shots into that door. FOUR SHOTS.

Because, you see, that matters. Every argument you've attempted is utterly annihilated by that inescapable, undeniable, awfully embarrassing fact....the murderer shot FOUR TIMES into that toilet.

That is 100% incompatible with "too scared to think properly" which is all your many and varied arguments have amounted to.

Pistorius is a murderer. He's been convicted and he WILL go to prison for a decent amount of time....just as he deserves.

Justice has been done. Sorry about that.

 

[aftermath]

Eh?

What armed intruder would have hidden behind a locked toilet door waiting for someone with girly screams to come and shoot them?

This would not have happened and so your attempt at comparison is a bit pointless.

I don't know - is that what you believe Reeva did?

In the context of the comparison, the locked door and the tone/pitch of pistorius's screams are irrelevant.

The point was - if an intruder had been found behind the door and Reeva had in fact been in the bedroom, would people have been so ready to call murder and demand a long jail sentence? I don't think there would have been the same weight of support for a DE finding, which leads me to ask whether, for some, the call for DE and a long sentence is in fact just a 'next best thing ' for those who believe it was DD of Reeva.

Does anyone posting on here actually believe the intruder version AND believe that the verdict should be DE?

 

[Sherbert]

- That his screams could have been mistaken by some as those of a woman - not that he sounds like a woman

-That the idea of checking where she was didn't even occur because he '(thought he) ' knew ' she was there in the bedroom with him

-That she responded to the danger of an intruder in the immediate vicinity by keeping quiet instead of shouting out. That she was shot in quick succession, leaving her little time to scream.

-Fair enough - the Tasha's trigger claim was a step too far. That he didn't intend to fire is pretty likely though. This doesn't make him a murderer of either an unknown intruder or of Reeva though.

- That perhaps the 'friend' who picked him up was no longer a friend since the shooting and was unlikely to corroborate his story in court . Seems like a very strange blatant, easy-to-pick-apart lie to tell on the stand in your own murder trial

I feel that you are failing to apply the correct standard of proof.

Anything is possible - what you state may possibly be true, but, IMO, most of it isn't reasonably possibly true. Not individually and certainly not collectively.

 

[Belgarion]

- That his screams could have been mistaken by some as those of a woman - not that he sounds like a woman

-That the idea of checking where she was didn't even occur because he '(thought he) ' knew ' she was there in the bedroom with him

-That she responded to the danger of an intruder in the immediate vicinity by keeping quiet instead of shouting out. That she was shot in quick succession, leaving her little time to scream.

-Fair enough - the Tasha's trigger claim was a step too far. That he didn't intend to fire is pretty likely though. This doesn't make him a murderer of either an unknown intruder or of Reeva though.

- That perhaps the 'friend' who picked him up was no longer a friend since the shooting and was unlikely to corroborate his story in court . Seems like a very strange blatant, easy-to-pick-apart lie to tell on the stand in your own murder trial

All of which mark him down as a pathological liar who will say anything to save his lifestyle and liberty.

 

[Sherbert]

I don't know - is that what you believe Reeva did?

In the context of the comparison, the locked door and the tone/pitch of pistorius's screams are irrelevant.

The point was - if an intruder had been found behind the door and Reeva had in fact been in the bedroom, would people have been so ready to call murder and demand a long jail sentence? I don't think there would have been the same weight of support for a DE finding, which leads me to ask whether, for some, the call for DE and a long sentence is in fact just a 'next best thing ' for those who believe it was DD of Reeva.

Does anyone posting on here actually believe the intruder version AND believe that the verdict should be DE?

I don't believe the intruder version, but, if I did, I'd say he was furious with the intruder and that his loss of temper caused him to use the intruder as target practice.

 

[aftermath]

Yes.

He aimed the gun at the toilet door knowing there was a human being behind it.

Whether he "thought he was going to be attacked" is entirely beside the point. Anyone could make the excuse that they "thought" someone was going to attack them - the issue is whether that "thought" and the actions subsequent to it were reasonable under the circumstances.

Is it OK if a person in a wheelchair spots a dodgy looking person walking down the street towards them and shoots them because they "thought" they were going to be attacked? In your universe, yes, that's perfectly fine. They were vulnerable and "thought" (rightly or wrongly) they were going to be attacked.

To the rest of us.....no, that's not OK. If that disabled person was of sound mind and had been given no reason to believe they had to shoot to protect themselves, they'd be charged with murder.

Even if Pistorius "thought" he was "in danger", he could furnish no adequate or acceptable reason for thinking that. Nothing happened to make him think that - no one implicitly or explicitly threatened him. No one.

He arbitrarily decided that death to the person in the toilet was his only option. THAT IS MURDER.

He was of sound mind.
He was thinking rationally.
His "vulnerability" was not enough to stop him deliberately choosing confrontation over escape.
He ensured the person died by pumping four shots into that door. FOUR SHOTS.

Because, you see, that matters. Every argument you've attempted is utterly annihilated by that inescapable, undeniable, awfully embarrassing fact....the murderer shot FOUR TIMES into that toilet.

That is 100% incompatible with "too scared to think properly" which is all your many and varied arguments have amounted to.

Pistorius is a murderer. He's been convicted and he WILL go to prison for a decent amount of time....just as he deserves.

Justice has been done. Sorry about that.

If justice really has been done, there is no need to apologise for it.

The wheelchair analogy is flawed as it takes all context out of the picture and it is the context that helps to determine and shape a person's response :

Eg South Africa- crime statistics
Regular media reports of violent home invasions
Guns culture- where guns are legally allowed as home self defence
The 'intruder' was not simply walking down a street- for the analogy to work, the intruder needs to have broken into the disabled person's house at three in the morning and to be only metres away from that disabled person. That might reasonably indicate to the disabled person that he was now in danger.
I can't see anyone agreeing that the actions of the disabled person in your wheelchair example would be okay.

 

[Sherbert]

He also said: 'That split moment I believed somebody was coming out to attack me. That is what made me fire. Out of fear. '

And this is what the SCA said:


S v Pistorius (at [53]): “… 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 ….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.”

 

[aftermath]

I don't believe the intruder version, but, if I did, I'd say he was furious with the intruder and that his loss of temper caused him to use the intruder as target practice.

Thank you for the reply. For me, I don't see that there has been evidence to suggest that this would be the likely way for Pistorius to respond in such a situation.

 

[Sherbert]

If justice really has been done, there is no need to apologise for it.

The wheelchair analogy is flawed as it takes all context out of the picture and it is the context that helps to determine and shape a person's response :

Eg South Africa- crime statistics
Regular media reports of violent home invasions
Guns culture- where guns are legally allowed as home self defence
The 'intruder' was not simply walking down a street- for the analogy to work, the intruder needs to have broken into the disabled person's house at three in the morning and to be only metres away from that disabled person. That might reasonably indicate to the disabled person that he was now in danger.
I can't see anyone agreeing that the actions of the disabled person in your wheelchair example would be okay.

But my understanding of your posts is that fear is the determining factor, not reasonableness.

If the person in the wheelchair were genuinely afraid, then, according to your case, he lacked the mens rea for murder.

 

[Sherbert]

Thank you for the reply. For me, I don't see that there has been evidence to suggest that this would be the likely way for Pistorius to respond in such a situation.

I'd cite his preoccupation with firearms, the evidence that he was trigger-happy, the absence of a warning shot, the change of trajectory and the tight grouping.

 

[Marfa Lights]

I don't know - is that what you believe Reeva did?

In the context of the comparison, the locked door and the tone/pitch of pistorius's screams are irrelevant.

The point was - if an intruder had been found behind the door and Reeva had in fact been in the bedroom, would people have been so ready to call murder and demand a long jail sentence? I don't think there would have been the same weight of support for a DE finding, which leads me to ask whether, for some, the call for DE and a long sentence is in fact just a 'next best thing ' for those who believe it was DD of Reeva.

Does anyone posting on here actually believe the intruder version AND believe that the verdict should be DE?

Well, I certainly don't believe it but it is no obstacle to a finding of DE.

THE INTRUDER VERSION: As you know, the inruder story is what we have to work with now. Masipa established a factual finding that he believed an intruder had entered his house and he took up his gun in fear for his life. The SCA could not review this established fact.

MASIPA ERRED/NEGLECTED TO LEGALLY ESTABLISH HIS PPD CLAIM: Masipa failed to apply the actual tests of a lawful PPD/PD claim and in her statements dealing with justification for PPD her reasoning was so illogical and her conclusion so vague that the SCA could not determined be if she had correctly analyzed his self-defense claim or even if she had ultimately found his claim satisfied the legal requirements. (As you recall she justified his fear by the "facts" that he did find the window open and he seemed so sincere when he cried afterwards.)

The SCA then were able to re examine this issue and found he was not able to justify his actions under the laws of self-defense so his PPD claim was invalid. That established the unlawfulness component.

DETERMINATION OF INTENT: Because Masipa so clearly erred in her application of the test for DE, the SCA had to reevaluate and found Oscar acted knowingly with reckless disregard for the safety of the person behind the door, and knowing the potential consequences of his actions, fired four rounds into a confined space, killing the occupant. (NOTE: The unlawfulness of his actions had already been established in the tests for justifying a lawful self-defense.)

 

[Marfa Lights]

<RSBM>

The point was - if an intruder had been found behind the door and Reeva had in fact been in the bedroom, would people have been so ready to call murder and demand a long jail sentence? I don't think there would have been the same weight of support for a DE finding, which leads me to ask whether, for some, the call for DE and a long sentence is in fact just a 'next best thing ' for those who believe it was DD of Reeva. <RSBM>

Here's how I see this scenario:

If an unarmed intruder had been found behind the door, I would fully expect Oscar to still be charged with DE, since he used lethal force in an unlawful manner and shot with the same intent to kill, but I would also expect him to probably be given a verdict of CH, since he was at least PROVEN justified in his assumptions about an intruder.

Note: it probably does not matter if the intruder was armed or unarmed since Oscar would not have know either way, but if he had been armed, it would add another element that would help justify Oscar's assumptions about the intruder. It still does not alter the lawfulness of Oscar's own actions.

In his actual situation he had no such factual basis to fall back on to help substantiate his assumption it was an intruder. Yes, he could have been correct, but it was PROVEN he was not, and IN BOTH CASES he was not acting in lawful self-defense.

Given the climate of frequent home invasions, and if it was factually proven to be the case that there was an actual intruder, I suspect Oscar would have a very sympathetic case for a finding of CH under those circumstances.

Alternately, given the climate of an extreme number of femicides, and given a problem of increasing numbers of gun owners feeling entitled to shoot first and ask questions later, along with the fact that Oscar was not legally justified in acting in PPD, then the court is obliged to evaluate his actions in terms of DE.

As I see it, a key difference in the alternate scenario you present is that he was proven to have a factual basis for thinking he would be in a self defense situation. As you stated earlier though, he still acted too hastily and was not acting in lawful self-defense. He did, however, establish a factual basis for his belief, which partially justifies his actions.

 

[Sherbert]

Well, I certainly don't believe it but it is no obstacle to a finding of DE.

THE INTRUDER VERSION: As you know, the inruder story is what we have to work with now. Masipa established a factual finding that he believed an intruder had entered his house and he took up his gun in fear for his life. The SCA could not review this established fact.

MASIPA ERRED/NEGLECTED TO LEGALLY ESTABLISH HIS PPD CLAIM: Masipa failed to apply the actual tests of a lawful PPD/PD claim and in her statements dealing with justification for PPD her reasoning was so illogical and her conclusion so vague that the SCA could not determined be if she had correctly analyzed his self-defense claim or even if she had ultimately found his claim satisfied the legal requirements. (As you recall she justified his fear by the "facts" that he did find the window open and he seemed so sincere when he cried afterwards.)

The SCA then were able to re examine this issue and found he was not able to justify his actions under the laws of self-defense so his PPD claim was invalid. That established the unlawfulness component.

DETERMINATION OF INTENT: Because Masipa so clearly erred in her application of the test for DE, the SCA had to reevaluate and found Oscar acted knowingly with reckless disregard for the safety of the person behind the door, and knowing the potential consequences of his actions, fired four rounds into a confined space, killing the occupant. (NOTE: The unlawfulness of his actions had already been established in the tests for justifying a lawful self-defense.)

As I understand it, Steyn's argument is that, irrespective of the test for establishing a successful PPD claim, if, when he fired, Pistorius had no conscious appreciation that he was acting unlawfully, he is not guilty of DE.

Steyn seems to be saying that the SCA didn't delve into this aspect of intent sufficiently.

However, IMO, the SCA, taking into account the fact that he was found by Weskoppies to be capable of appreciating the difference between right and wrong, made it abundantly clear that it simply didn't believe that Pistorius was unaware that he was acting unlawfully.

 

[Marfa Lights]

OP repeatedly said he did not intend to fire but that he did fire because he thought he was going to be attacked.

If OP were questioned about if he "intended" to dodge a ball thrown unexpectedly at his head I suspect we would get a similar result.

Okay... And what's different in OP's situation?? Is it perhaps no self-defensive action was necessary because nothing was coming at him??

Switch out your phrase "going to be" attacked with "might be" attacked. He had no factual basis or knowledge to substantiate his belief that he was "going to be attacked" and in fact, he wasn't.

He went on the offense and made a pre-emptive strike. This does not qualify as lawful PPD.

 

[aftermath]

As I understand it, Steyn's argument is that, irrespective of the test for establishing a successful PPD claim, if, when he fired, Pistorius had no conscious appreciation that he was acting unlawfully, he is not guilty of DE.

Steyn seems to be saying that the SCA didn't delve into this aspect of intent sufficiently.

However, IMO, the SCA, taking into account the fact that he was found by Weskoppies to be capable of appreciating the difference between right and wrong, made it abundantly clear that it simply didn't believe that Pistorius was unaware that he was acting unlawfully.

Knowing right from wrong isn't quite the same thing as knowing that you are acting unlawfully though

 

[Marfa Lights]

As I understand it, Steyn's argument is that, irrespective of the test for establishing a successful PPD claim, if, when he fired, Pistorius had no conscious appreciation that he was acting unlawfully, he is not guilty of DE.

Steyn seems to be saying that the SCA didn't delve into this aspect of intent sufficiently.

However, IMO, the SCA, taking into account the fact that he was found by Weskoppies to be capable of appreciating the difference between right and wrong, made it abundantly clear that it simply didn't believe that Pistorius was unaware that he was acting unlawfully.

I think Steyn tried to attach the words "lawful" to whether or not the accused acted knowingly in determining intent (DE). What the court first wants to know is whether or not the accused was possessed of their faculties at the time of the offense. And then if they acted knowing that the consequences of their actions could result in death, and proceeded anyway.

In Oscar's case or with any self-defense claim, the issue of whether or not the accused had a factual basis or reason to believe or knew they were acting lawfully has already been determined by analyzing the PPD/PD claim.

 

[Sherbert]

Knowing right from wrong isn't quite the same thing as knowing that you are acting unlawfully though

What they meant was that they were entitled to treat him as a rational person and a rational person would have known that he was not entitled to shoot.