Trial Discussion Thread #11 weekend thread

[minor4th]

He says he perceived a threat, however great he makes that perception out to be, what he is not claiming is that he saw a real threat and that is the key.

We have laws against killing for a reason, to prevent people from killing people. SA laws regarding self defense are not the same as US laws. In SA you are not permitted to use deadly force against a person that is not demonstrating an immediate threat to you or others, that is the law. If an armed theif is stealing your car on your property you cannot shoot at him, you have a responsibility to stay in your home and allow the theif to live. The value to human life is easy to understand from the SA law's intentions, the value of your car that he is stealing or anything else cannot be valued higher than a human's life, including the thief's life.

So OP violated the law. He did not visualize anyone that was immediately intend in causing him great harm or death. Instead he fired four shots, not just one by accident or whatever, fired four shots through a door intending to murder whomever was behind that door. That is against the law. Although he killed Reeva and not an intruder doesnt change the fact that he intended to kill, he fired four shots attempting to kill, and he killed a person - that is murder.

From what I've learned, that is not exactly the law in SA. There is a concept of "putative self defense" that could lead to culpable homicide or even an acquittal.

If an accused uses deadly force with a genuine belief that he is facing an imminent threat of harm (even if in hindsight it is known that there was no actual threat at all) - then he is not guilty of intentional murder. At most he can be guilty of culpable homicide.

Here's an explanation from a SA case where putative private defense was asserted:

The test for private defence is objective – would a reasonable man in the position of the accused have acted in the same way (S v Ntuli 1975 (1) SA 429 (A) at 436 E). In putative private defence it is not lawfulness that is in issue but culpability (‘skuld&#8217. If an accused honestly believes his life or property to be in danger, but objectively viewed they are not, the defensive steps he takes cannot constitute private defence. If in those circumstances he kills someone his conduct is unlawful. His erroneous belief that his life or property was in danger may well (depending upon the precise circumstances) exclude dolus in which case liability for the person’s death based on intention will also be excluded; at worst for him he can then be convicted of culpable homicide.”

http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/2002/71.html

Strangely, the Court overturned one or two of his murder convictions - and not only found him not guilty of intentional murder but also acquitted him of culpable homicide, even though he shot and killed someone who was not posing an actual threat to him.

 

[Viper]

The home owner did not necessarily know what the intruders had. As OP did not know what his (imaginary) intruder might have had. I have already mentioned that the mere presence of an intruder himself is "weapon enough"

Do what! I am speaking of the ballistics officer who said that was the only way the wounds could have been as they were. A bang, a pause, during which time RS would have dropped to the floor and then bang, bang, bang which caused the other injuries. Even Roux struggled with putting up any defence to that argument or perhaps he was out of his depth.

Yes that is my greatest curiosity, today at least. I don't see another forensic person coming in and effective rearranging the order if the shots, especially the one to the head that s/he must assert.

Has anyone tried to think through that?

 

[Cherwell]

OP could NOT assume the (imaginary) burglar would react as you think you would??
I am guessing, but... OP may, for instance, have had in mind home invaders he had heard about who rush homeowners, overpower them, and use the homeowner's own gun to murder them. The point of "self defense" is to avoid harm to yourself rather than wait to be harmed and hope you can regain the upper hand and then defend yourself.

All the more reason to get the hell out of there. Hitting the panic buttons and phoning security as you go.

Oh, and taking your house guest with you. Whom you know to be awake because you were only speaking to her moments earlier. Wait - where is she? :facepalm:

 

[Viper]

From what I've learned, that is not exactly the law in SA. There is a concept of "putative self defense" that could lead to culpable homicide or even an acquittal.

If an accused uses deadly force with a genuine belief that he is facing an imminent threat of harm (even if in hindsight it is known that there was no actual threat at all) - then he is not guilty of intentional murder. At most he can be guilty of culpable homicide.

Here's an explanation from a SA case where putative private defense was asserted:



http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/2002/71.html

Strangely, the Court overturned one or two of his murder convictions - and not only found him not guilty of intentional murder but also acquitted him of culpable homicide, even though he shot and killed someone who was not posing an actual threat to him.

I am going to check out the link in a few, thanks.

But from what you are describing the man was fearful of GBH and he observed something about the deceased that alerted him to that danger, so he took action and killed him. He must have obviously seen the deceased acting in a threatening manner and/or looking threatening I presume? Going for a nonexitant weapon perhaps? Hence he had committed no crime. I do not believe that OPs actions that night pair up to this man's, but that is just my initial thoughts from reading your post.

 

[TorisMom003]

Somewhere on the last thread or this one someone had made comment about how OP had shot Reeva 3 times, shooting at her 4 times, until she was no longer screaming. There is a problem with this. The ballistics expert testified that Reeva was shot first in the hip, then a pause during which time she fell to the floor, the second shot was in her head and the third or fourth shot (he couldn't be sure which of those two was the missed shot) hit her hand/arm. IF I remembered this correctly and this is the way the shots happened, then is it not overkill? Reeva would no longer be screaming after the second shot but yet OP shot twice more.

Someone please correct me if I have that order wrong.

 

[minor4th]

I am going to check out the link in a few, thanks.

But from what you are describing the man was fearful of GBH and he observed something about the deceased that alerted him to that danger, so he took action and killed him. He must have obviously seen the deceased acting in a threatening manner and/or looking threatening I presume? Going for a nonexitant weapon perhaps? Hence he had committed no crime. I do not believe that OPs actions that night pair up to this man's, but that is just my initial thoughts from reading your post.

He shot a man as he was running away and who was unarmed ...

 

[TorisMom003]

All the more reason to get the hell out of there. Hitting the panic buttons and phoning security as you go.

Oh, and taking your house guest with you. Whom you know to be awake because you were only speaking to her moments earlier. Wait - where is she? :facepalm:

Exactly. And then when he really did need help, what does he do? He tells security that everything is fine and yells HELP while on the balcony. He YELLS help instead of picking up one of the many phones that was in that room and bathroom, or hitting that button, or hell even telling security when they called to call for an ambulance and/or police. What did he think his neighbors were going to be able to do when his doors were locked that lead to outside the house, his bedroom door was locked as well, and they couldn't be positive as to exactly where the help that was yelled for was needed.

And some wonder why anyone would think that OP was just buying time and that he intentionally killed Reeva.

MOO

 

[Really?]

I agree, I think his story is enough to create reasonable doubt. I don't believe it, but there is not enough proof of the scenario I believe happened, and that is not enough to convict him IMO.

what about the screaming....he stated they went to bed at 10:00 and slept.....but yet he changed that to he had just spoken to Reeva. And the undigested food in her putting last bite around 1:00 a.m.

4 different witnesses testified under oath they heard screams.....from a woman.

Let us not forget that immediately following the shooting answered a call from security and told them "everything is fine"........also....wth did he run upstairs for after Reeva died at the bottom of his staircase?


just curious

 

[minor4th]

Somewhere on the last thread or this one someone had made comment about how OP had shot Reeva 3 times, shooting at her 4 times, until she was no longer screaming. There is a problem with this. The ballistics expert testified that Reeva was shot first in the hip, then a pause during which time she fell to the floor, the second shot was in her head and the third or fourth shot (he couldn't be sure which of those two was the missed shot) hit her hand/arm. IF I remembered this correctly and this is the way the shots happened, then is it not overkill? Reeva would no longer be screaming after the second shot but yet OP shot twice more.

Someone please correct me if I have that order wrong.

I think you're missing the 2nd shot which was said to be the one that missed her - and he couldnt determine the order of the last two shots

 

[Really?]

The home owner did not necessarily know what the intruders had. As OP did not know what his (imaginary) intruder might have had. I have already mentioned that the mere presence of an intruder himself is "weapon enough"

but....there was no intruder at OP's house that night.

 

[Really?]

You mean the pause that only burger heard and did not mention in her initial statements? The pause that in all likelihood was a pause in cricket bat strikes on the door?

I'll finish this....the cricket bat sounds of OP breaking down the door to retrieve a dead Reeva that he shot and killed before finding out who he was shooting at....as in waiting for a reply when he claims he yelled "Reeva, call the police".

 

[Viper]

He shot a man as he was running away and who was unarmed ...

Ok, go on.... What did the deceased do to lawfully deserve to be shot in the back? And what year did this happen in, 1950? Guessing :smile:

 

[Cherwell]

http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/2002/71.html

Strangely, the Court overturned one or two of his murder convictions - and not only found him not guilty of intentional murder but also acquitted him of culpable homicide, even though he shot and killed someone who was not posing an actual threat to him.

That's not what I understand from this

(a) The appeal against the appellant’s convictions on counts 2 and 3 is upheld to the extent that each such conviction is altered to “guilty of culpable homicide”.

(b) The sentences in respect of counts 2 and 3 are set aside and replaced in each instance with the following: “5 years’ imprisonment.”

(c) The appeal against the conviction and sentence on count 4 succeeds and the conviction and sentence are set aside.

(d) The appeal against the convictions and sentences on counts 5, 6 and 7 is dismissed.

So counts 2 and 3 were reduced on appeal to culpable homicide, and he was cleared on appeal on count 4 (attempted murder, not murder). Unless I've read it wrong?
Either way the man sounds like another dangerous nutter.

 

[TorisMom003]

I think you're missing the 2nd shot which was said to be the one that missed her - and he couldnt determine the order of the last two shots

Thank you for that correction. I had misunderstand the posts concerning his testimony.

I went back and watched this part of his testimony and my eyes were drawn to OP sitting there with a finger in each ear and the rest of his hand shielding his eyes. His behavior reminded me of a child that was refusing to listen to a parent that was fussing at them. If he is man enough to own numerous guns and to shoot guns for fun, out of anger, or because of some "perceived threat" then surely he is man enough to sit there with his eyes and ears open to listen to what he and he alone did.

MOO

 

[Cherwell]

I am sorry but I haven't had time to read all the posts coming here late in the case, but I think it is a misnomer to use the term "premeditation" in this case as it creates so much confusion for those accustomed to the term used in murder trials in anglophile countries where "premeditated murder" has such a very different connotation to what we see here and how it is interpreted under SA law.

I agree about the word "premeditated", and have made a similar comment earlier. Regardless of the legal definition, most people understand it to mean pre-planned, whereas in this context its meaning is closer to "deliberate" or "intentional".

 

[Val1]

This it petty and may be rumor but it is said that he has in fact found a replacement candidate to be the love of his life, a 19 yo paramedic student he met on vacation in Mozambique. They say she attends the trial to lend moral support.

But more directly, OP was dating Reeva for just three months; if he had the characteristic to quickly fall for a girl and stay with her, as many men do and others do not, he most likely would have married his high school sweetheart or
Samantha. JMO

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/last-oscar-pistorius-interview-before-1723955

In his last interview before gunning down Reeva Steenkamp, Oscar Pistorius told how he had yet to find the right girl – despite dating the stunning model at the time.

Seems that RS was not the love of his life or he would have been shouting it from the rooftops, unless she was the one not ready to go public with their relationship?

 

[minor4th]

Ok, go on.... What did the deceased do to lawfully deserve to be shot in the back? And what year did this happen in, 1950? Guessing :smile:

2001

And it's hard to explain lol You should read the case.

Here's a preview:

Across the street in front of the appellant’s house is a large sports ground fenced with a vibracrete wall. The appellant and Hofmeyer entered the sports ground through a gate in Welgelegen Avenue and walked across the length of the sports ground towards the far left-hand corner which abuts Delft Main Road. On approaching that corner they heard voices and on walking further they saw a group of five youths sitting in an “L”-shape against the wall in the corner. These youths were drinking beer and, according to the appellant, smoking what he believed was dagga. The appellant and Hofmeyer walked up to the youths, where, standing from a distance of approximately two to three paces from them, he demanded his wife’s purse from one of them, who fitted the description given to him by his wife as one of her robbers. It is not in dispute that this youth was Marlin Mohammed (Marlin), a 17 year old schoolboy and the deceased in the first count. I shall deal with the detail of what followed later in this judgment but the upshot of it all was that the appellant fired four shots with his shotgun with the result that three of the youths, namely Marlin, Fabian Rossouw (Fabian) (a 17 year old, the deceased in count 2) and Mervyn du Plessis (Mervyn) (also 17 years old, the deceased in count 3) were fatally wounded. Another youth, Ivan Mootjie, 14 years old at the time and the complainant in count 4 (attempted murder), was badly injured in his left upper arm.

http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/2002/71.html

 

[Mrs G Norris]

what about the screaming....he stated they went to bed at 10:00 and slept.....but yet he changed that to he had just spoken to Reeva. And the undigested food in her putting last bite around 1:00 a.m.

4 different witnesses testified under oath they heard screams.....from a woman.

Let us not forget that immediately following the shooting answered a call from security and told them "everything is fine"........also....wth did he run upstairs for after Reeva died at the bottom of his staircase?


just curious

Yes I know what you are saying, I believe the witnesses etc, I just don't have a good feeling here. Sorry to be a downer, hopefully I am wrong

 

[minor4th]

That's not what I understand from this


So counts 2 and 3 were reduced on appeal to culpable homicide, and he was cleared on appeal on count 4 (attempted murder, not murder). Unless I've read it wrong?
Either way the man sounds like another dangerous nutter.

Well, that's why I said it was a strange case because there are all of these dead teenagers, yet they acquitted him on the attempted (?) murder because of his putative private defense - erroneous, but genuine, belief that the "victim" still posed a threat.

In any event, I wasn't really trying to compare the facts at all because there's not much to compare. But the explanation of "private defence" and "putative self defence" was a good, concise summary of the law.

 

[Viper]

He shot a man as he was running away and who was unarmed ...

Well I read it. The numerous deceased were not all unarmed. Some were and they were all attacking as a group in two separate groups - the first group had bottles and the second group had a knife in addition to the fact that they outnumbered the victim/shooter. Some of them sustained wounds to their backs or sides because they turned as the victim fired his shotgun in self defense after the groups initiated their attacks. All of these gang members that were initially described as victims before I read the article were actually assailants with intent to cause defendant great bodily harm, so the law was applied correctly!

I cannot see a ANYTHING in that case that is even REMOTELY similar to what OP did, so I cannot see it helping OP or being indicative in any way to what the outcome of the OP trial will be. I wish that I hadn't spent the time and energy reading it.