Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #69 *Appeal Verdict*

[GR_Turner]

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.

Putative - you know what that means? It's totally irrelevant that there was no actual threat, so why keep repeating that he was mistaken? Common sense conviction... totally lacking in sense rather.

 

[soozieqtips]

@ aftermath...

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?

 

[Tortoise]

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?

How do you think they could have done that? Only one witness was there and he lied, so what do you make of his reasons for lying?

 

[GR_Turner]

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.

That no side brought the Netcare or Frank to court totally proves him guilty, sure. I think that's what you're trying to say...

 

[aftermath]

@ aftermath...

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?

Which photographic evidence do you mean?

 

[Tortoise]

Putative - you know what that means? It's totally irrelevant that there was no actual threat, so why keep repeating that he was mistaken? Common sense conviction... totally lacking in sense rather.

I haven't said once that he was mistaken.

Murder is not accidental.

 

[GR_Turner]

How do you think they could have done that? Only one witness was there and he lied, so what do you make of his reasons for lying?

It was only the idea that he had no intention to shoot at all that was regarded as untruthful - nothing else.

 

[Tortoise]

It was only the idea that he had no intention to shoot at all that was regarded as untruthful - nothing else.

You are mistaken. The judgement is scathing. He has not explained why he murdered.

 

[soozieqtips]

Which photographic evidence do you mean?

The photographic evidence of the bedroom which was not successfully challenged by the defence and which clearly showed the murderer's version/versions were not possible.

 

[aftermath]

The photographic evidence of the bedroom which was not successfully challenged by the defence and which clearly showed the murderer's version/versions were not possible.

Duvet /jeans?

 

[soozieqtips]

You are mistaken. The judgement is scathing. He has not explained why he murdered.

Scathing is right. Roll on April when he can be removed from society and start paying for his crime. He's a murderer, not an icon.

 

[Marfa Lights]

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.

The legal standard is that he had knowledge of the unlawfulness of his actions and his firearms exam proved that he did. He may have been entitled to his mistaken belief that there was an intruder, but given his knowledge of the law regarding the use of lethal force against an intruder, he clearly would have known that he was not entitled to kill them under the circumstances that night.

Irrational or unjustified fear and panic in such a situation does not negate his responsibility to use lethal force lawfully.

He tried, of course, to claim he fired involuntarily and should not be held accountable for his actions, but this was not fully compatible with his PPD claim and it was also not found to be reasonably possibly true given that intention could be said to have formed earlier when he took up his weapon and went on the offensive supposedly to prevent a possible attack.

Although it was held that Pistorius may have believed there was an intruder in his house and he had reason to be fearful, he nevertheless failed to establish any reasonably possibly true basis for believing his life was in imminent danger or that there was a legitimate provocation for such a lethal response. Furthermore it was also not reasonably true that he could possibly believe firing four shots into a toilet cubicle might not cause death.

 

[Marfa Lights]

Isn't identity key, though?

Only for DD, irrelevant for DE.

 

[LemonMousse]

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.

What on earth are you talking about? There is a vast difference between one and four shots. One could be accidental....four could not. Once could be an automatic reaction to fear...four could not.

And it's not just four shots, is it? It's four shots with a pause and a change of trajectory in the middle. That proves rational deliberation. Murder.

Saving his life? From what? A magazine rack?

He tried to get help for himself. Not for Reeva.

The SCA DID say that they did not believe it was a genuine accident...because they found him guilty of murder. Did you miss that bit?

Cognitive dissonance has an awful lot to answer.

 

[Marfa Lights]

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.

I am sorry, but your response to my comment is so off-base, I don't know where to start.

 

[aftermath]

Only for DD, irrelevant for DE.

But if identity is linked to intent then identity is important

 

[Marfa Lights]

But if identity is linked to intent then identity is important

Identity is only linked to intent in DD.

 

[Tortoise]

But if identity is linked to intent then identity is important

The law says identity is irrelevant. Why persist with this line?

 

[LemonMousse]

But if identity is linked to intent then identity is important

It's irrelevant to DE.

If identity was relevant to the actions of the murderer it would become a matter of DD. The clue is in the terms "directus" and "eventualis".

 

[LemonMousse]

Let's be clear....

If the SCA thought it was an accident, they would not have found him guilty of murder.
If the SCA thought it was PPD, they would not have found him guilty of murder.

Both of these things, if accepted, are a defence to murder. The very fact that they found him guilty of murder proves that they don't believe it was an accident or that he was acting to defend himself.

To then try and pretend that they didn't believe he deliberately shot Reeva because they didn't specifically say that is illogical and silly.

They basically did say that by saying that they did not believe his version. If they believed he actually thought there was an intruder....what was there left for them to disbelieve? Why call him a liar?

Because they know....as 95% of all objective, unbiased, rational people do....that he knew perfectly well who was behind that door.