Trial Discussion Thread #13 - 14.03.25, Day 15

[Gryffindor]

there is NO blood on Oscar until he breaks down the door with the cricket.. .. the blood is contained behind the locked door..

and since he has ALREADY done 3 runs to the bedroom, one to sit on the bed and realize Reeva isn't in it, one to yelp from the balcony, and turn on the lights... the next one to put on his prosthetics and grab the cricket bat..

from then on, all his activity is in the bathroom, whacking down the door, hunting for the key, releasing the door, dragging Reeva out, and then carrying her downstairs..

NO bedroom stuff, after the toilet door is unlocked = there should be no blood anywhere in the bedroom.

Unless it was when he nipped upstairs to do whatever it was, after carrying Reeva downstairs and after Stipp had arrived and observed him vanishing for a few mins . . . . Hmm

 

[steveml]

Just to be clear - the only possibilities are murder or culpable homicide. The charge of "murder" requires a malicious intent to kill without justification. Culpable homicide is everything else.

"Murder" includes premeditated/ intentional killing. It could also include murder with transferred intent and some forms of reckless murder. "Culpable homicide" would include what we call manslaughter or second degree murder or heat of passion or provocation or mistaken self defense.

Thank you very much.

 

[minor4th]

OP really damaged the front of his prosthetics IIRC in my view of the photos. Those things are really expensive. He must have had a hard time barging open the BEDROOM door! Probably hurt his shoulder too. By the time he saw yet another door he probably thought, "Enough with the doors! That's it!!! I'm getting my gun!" :smile:

In the video "Fastest Man on No Legs" he shows similar damage to his prosthetics and explains that he bangs them up in the course of his very active lifestyle.

 

[Trooper]

Unless it was when he nipped upstairs to do whatever it was, after carrying Reeva downstairs and after Stipp had arrived and observed him vanishing for a few mins . . . . Hmm

ho yes... and Clarice Standar had been faffing around up stairs as well, before Stipp got there. ( she went looking for bigger towels..she says. ) ..


dodgy or what??

 

[patCee]

Transferred intent is a concept that is pretty universally accepted in modern jurisprudence. However, it is not exactly as stated in the post.

An example of transferred intent would be a bankrobber who shoots to kill the bank teller, but misses and instead hits a bystander and causes his death. The killer's murderous intent is transferred from his intended victim to his actual victim.

If Oscar believed that he was lawfully defending himself from imminent harm, then he lacks the requisite intent for murder, so there is no murderous intent to to transfer to the mistaken victim.

But....is lawful belief enough, unless he can show there was aggression towards him? In the UK ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

[TorisMom003]

Just to be clear - the only possibilities are murder or culpable homicide. The charge of "murder" requires a malicious intent to kill without justification. Culpable homicide is everything else.

"Murder" includes premeditated/ intentional killing. It could also include murder with transferred intent and some forms of reckless murder. "Culpable homicide" would include what we call manslaughter or second degree murder or heat of passion or provocation or mistaken self defense.

BBM

And what is described in the bolded part is exactly what OP did. OP took a fully loaded gun (with hollow point bullets in it), went to his bathroom, fired 4 shots into the toilet room closed door, intending to kill whomever was behind that door without ever seeing or knowing (according to him) who was behind the door or seeing a weapon of any kind pointed at him. There was NO threat (immediate) to him and/or Reeva. There was NO justification for firing 4 shots into a small room that he was unable to see into. OP does not claim that he heard the sound of a gun being cocked, or that someone threated to shoot him. OP fired at will without any provocation from whomever was behind the door.

MOO

 

[minor4th]

But....is lawful belief enough, unless he can show there was aggression towards him? In the UK ignorance of the law is no excuse.

In South Africa, believe it or not, ignorance of the law is indeed an excuse.

But I was not really talking about ignorance of the law exactly. I'm saying if he had a genuine belief that he had to shoot through the bathroom door to prevent an intruder from shooting him and Reeva, then he believed he was lawfully engaging in self defense.

 

[Viper]

S:fence:

In the video "Fastest Man on No Legs" he shows similar damage to his prosthetics and explains that he bangs them up in the course of his very active lifestyle.

ROFL!!!!! Thanks for that! "Active lifestyle = terrorizing and murdering his girlfriend". :floorlaugh:

 

[Trooper]

But....is lawful belief enough, unless he can show there was aggression towards him? In the UK ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Oscar has to fulfill a lot of criteria before he can claim lawful defence..


and , as it happens, the bullet casings, not to mention Reevas mangled body knock that one right out of the park.

Oscar specifically, cannot claim ignorance. he had to perform a test to get his gun order and licence.. ... asks all the questions, poses all the scenarios... Oscar signed that he understood.

and not of the criteria for firing at an intruder was met by Our Boy Oscar

 

[minor4th]

BBM

And what is described in the bolded part is exactly what OP did. OP took a fully loaded gun (with hollow point bullets in it), went to his bathroom, fired 4 shots into the toilet room closed door, intending to kill whomever was behind that door without ever seeing or knowing (according to him) who was behind the door or seeing a weapon of any kind pointed at him. There was NO threat (immediate) to him and/or Reeva. There was NO justification for firing 4 shots into a small room that he was unable to see into. OP does not claim that he heard the sound of a gun being cocked, or that someone threated to shoot him. OP fired at will without any provocation from whomever was behind the door.

MOO

Well, you're talking about your subjective interpretation of whether it was justified or not. If he genuinely believed he or Reeva was about to be shot by a burglar, then shooting to defend oneself would be a justification under the law. It still could result in a conviction on culpable homicide, but there is no malicious intent to murder.

 

[steveml]

BBM

And what is described in the bolded part is exactly what OP did. OP took a fully loaded gun (with hollow point bullets in it), went to his bathroom, fired 4 shots into the toilet room closed door, intending to kill whomever was behind that door without ever seeing or knowing (according to him) who was behind the door or seeing a weapon of any kind pointed at him. There was NO threat (immediate) to him and/or Reeva. There was NO justification for firing 4 shots into a small room that he was unable to see into. OP does not claim that he heard the sound of a gun being cocked, or that someone threated to shoot him. OP fired at will without any provocation from whomever was behind the door.

MOO

Thanks. That may indeed be true, but that's a totally different scenario as to what is being portrayed.

I'm sure that OP will be well aware of his totally irresponsible actions at this moment in time, but searching for the truth is what's important now.

 

[Interested Bystander]

The name of the person he killed is not relevant.

Imagine this scenario. Suppose a diabolical killer plots to kill his ex girlfriend. He sneaks over to her house, slips in the back door, goes to her bedroom, and shoots her in her sleep four times.

Only the killer didn't know his ex girlfriend was out of town and it was her sister sleeping in the bed.

Does that make the killer guilty of a lesser crime?

From what I have read the answer is no.

 

[Trooper]

and really. one could argue this point , and never get to the end..

the final arbiter of this is, Could Nel have bought the charges he did against Oscar without the express and specific basis in South African law to do so??


no. he couldn't. so it is what it is.

end of story.

 

[minor4th]

S:fence:

ROFL!!!!! Thanks for that! "Active lifestyle = terrorizing and murdering his girlfriend". :floorlaugh:

Huh?

This was when he was 17 and had been fitted with prosthetics that are similar to the ones that you saw in the crime photos. He was showing the rips and tears in them and talking about how he banged them about doing various activities. There was certainly no accusation of him "terrorizing and murdering his girlfriend" when he was 17.

You must have read my post incorrectly or misunderstood it. Or something ....

 

[Viper]

In South Africa, believe it or not, ignorance of the law is indeed an excuse.

But I was not really talking about ignorance of the law exactly. I'm saying if he had a genuine belief that he had to shoot through the bathroom door to prevent an intruder from shooting him and Reeva, then he believed he was lawfully engaging in self defense.

I know what you are talking about, putative self defense. But the state has made out a case that a reasonable person in Oscar Pistorius’s position could not honestly have believed that he was acting in self-defence. It is not just that he says he felt so scared and vulnerable that he believed that he had no other choice but to kill; the need for self defense is also whether or not a reasonable person would have felt the same under the same circumstance and whether a reasonable person would have killed.

 

[TorisMom003]

Well, you're talking about your subjective interpretation of whether it was justified or not. If he genuinely believed he or Reeva was about to be shot by a burglar, then shooting to defend oneself would be a justification under the law. It still could result in a conviction on culpable homicide, but there is no malicious intent to murder.

The part of trial where the gun dealer testified and shared with the court the gun application questions that OP answered should be remembered when it comes to this line of thought, IMO. For example, below is part of an article that deals with that witness and some of the questions on that application.

"Prosecutor Gerrie Nel questioned Rens on Pistorius' firearm training. He asked the dealer to describe how Pistorius was quizzed on how to handle a firearm in various scenarios, for example when two unidentified men approach the house of a gun owner; then when they break into the house, begin to steal belongings and order the gun owner to leave; and if the men threaten to kill the gun owner, who is behind a security gate in the house.

In each case, Rens said, Pistorius was asked if it was OK to fire at the men and Pistorius correctly answered "no". Pistorius correctly noted he was entitled to shoot at them only if they advanced on him with a gun, according to Rens."

Link to article:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/africa/9838185/Oscar-Pistorius-knew-rules-about-gun-use

Now then, OP answered a question concerning intruders breaking into a home and confronting the home owner. The home owner was behind a security gate, not even a completely closed toilet room door, but a security gate. He answered NO that he could not fire at the man/men. So clearly OP knows the responsible way to handle a gun. And clearly (to me) he just doesn't give a damn when it comes to what he wants to do.

Unfortunately for OP that application proves that OP knew the way to respond, what was reasonable, what wasn't, and he knew enough to answer correctly in order for him to buy more guns. But on the early morning in question he threw all of that out because he simply heard a noise in the bathroom/toilet room? I don't think so.

MOO

 

[kittychi]

The duvet is a mystery to me at the moment .
I have been reading OP's statement through again .
Sequence of events after he shot through the door was that he first went back to the bed and noticed Reeva wasn't there . Could he have thrown the duvet back then ?
Second return to the bedroom was to scream from the balcony and put his legs on .
Third return to the bedroom was to get his cricket bat .
Following this he broke the door down and then dragged Reeva out of the bathroom . This is an important thing to bear in mind because until this point he had not been near any blood.
Importantly he then states that made the phone calls and then left Reeva again to go downstairs to open the door for people to get in .
Next he returned upstairs to pick Reeva up and bring her downstairs.
This is all very important because there is only one opportunity for him to touch the duvet after opening the door and pulling her out and that was when he said he went downstairs to open the door .
So what I would like to know is verify is what type of blood marks were on the duvet and the wall above the bed as i can't see how they could have got there TiA
If they are smear type marks I think they could have been dismissed by the fact that he could say he was looking for his bedroom keys assuming they were not in the door ,any other type of blood marks would be more difficult to explain away unless of course it was not Reeva's blood

Just because there is a photo of the duvet in a heap does not mean that was its first resting place after the shooting. The scene could have been tainted by Oscar himself long before LE went up there. Any of those after shock photos of the scene are suspect to me...where the holster was, where 1 or 2 fans were, location of the cricket bat, location of the phones...all could have been moved or tampered with ahead of the investigation!

:sweep:

 

[minor4th]

I know what you are talking about, putative self defense. But the state has made out a case that a reasonable person in Oscar Pistorius’s position could not honestly have believed that he was acting in self-defence. It is not just that he says he felt so scared and vulnerable that he believed that he had no other choice but to kill; the need for self defense is also whether or not a reasonable person would have felt the same under the same circumstance and whether a reasonable person would have killed.

But that is not the test in South Africa for putative self defense. The test is merely whether it is reasonably possibly true that he believed he was acting in self defense -- whether the belief is reasonable is irrelevant.

There really is no subjective "reasonable man" test in SA. It's either an intentional malicious murder or it's culpable homicide.

So what I'm saying is if it's possible Oscar believed he needed to shoot to defend himself, then it can be culpable homicide whether that's a reasonable belief or an unreasonable belief.

The reasonableness of his actions may have some bearing on the sentence though.

 

[steveml]

Just because there is a photo of the duvet in a heap does not mean that was its first resting place after the shooting. The scene cild have been tainted long before LE went up there by Oscar himself. Any of those after shock photos of the scene are suspect to me...where the holster was where 1 or 2 fans were, lcation of the cricket bat, location of the phones...all could have been moved or tampered with ahead of the investigation!

:sweep:

That's a real problem. The same applies to the cartridge cases, which may have given us a better indication to the distance of the shooting.

Some of these are probably going to work for and against the accused.

 

[minor4th]

The part of trial where the gun dealer testified and shared with the court the gun application questions that OP answered should be remembered when it comes to this line of thought, IMO. For example, below is part of an article that deals with that witness and some of the questions on that application.

"Prosecutor Gerrie Nel questioned Rens on Pistorius' firearm training. He asked the dealer to describe how Pistorius was quizzed on how to handle a firearm in various scenarios, for example when two unidentified men approach the house of a gun owner; then when they break into the house, begin to steal belongings and order the gun owner to leave; and if the men threaten to kill the gun owner, who is behind a security gate in the house.

In each case, Rens said, Pistorius was asked if it was OK to fire at the men and Pistorius correctly answered "no". Pistorius correctly noted he was entitled to shoot at them only if they advanced on him with a gun, according to Rens."

Link to article:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/africa/9838185/Oscar-Pistorius-knew-rules-about-gun-use

Now then, OP answered a question concerning intruders breaking into a home and confronting the home owner. The home owner was behind a security gate, not even a completely closed toilet room door, but a security gate. He answered NO that he could not fire at the man/men. So clearly OP knows the responsible way to handle a gun. And clearly (to me) he just doesn't give a damn when it comes to what he wants to do.

Unfortunately for OP that application proves that OP knew the way to respond, what was reasonable, what wasn't, and he knew enough to answer correctly in order for him to buy more guns. But on the early morning in question he threw all of that out because he simply heard a noise in the bathroom/toilet room? I don't think so.

MOO

First of all, the competency test gave broad and very obvious examples to clarify OP's understanding of the law of self defense.

There was no example given of a burglar has entered your house and is 12 feet away and the only thing that separates you is a wooden door, and you cannot get yourself and your girlfriend out of your locked bedroom while you are on stumps before the burglar starts shooting.

In any event, perhaps it will console you to know that I think he can well be found guilty of culpable homicide, and although he might have believed he needed to shoot to defend himself - in hindsight there was no actual threat.

Reckless? Perhaps. Negligent? Perhaps. Unreasonable? Perhaps.

Intentional murder? No.