Trial Discussion Thread #13 - 14.03.25, Day 15

[Carol70]

Irrationally walking down two passages in the dark, gun drawn, to kill somebody is still premeditated murder.

It's not self-defense. The trigger wasn't pulled accidentally. The shooter knew the victim was in his line of fire -that's why he shot.

Yes I know that. I have never disputed that fact at all. I have stated many times that OP intended to kill whoever was behind that door when he aimed his gun at it. Yes, I do believe he needs to be punished. Regardless of circumstances, at the end of the day, an innocent girl is dead.

 

[Viper]

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's 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.

Bit in bold, do you have a link? I only request one because I have read much and I believe that is incorrect, there is the reasonable person test, so I would like to clear that up.

 

[kittychi]

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.

Yup. Add to that all of the LE bungling..if I was a juror, i would have a problem with that.

 

[kaos]

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.

He was shooting blindly, apparently without knowing who his target was and according to the gun license questionnaire he filled out, if he doesn't have a target, he should not be shooting at all.

Going by what you've posted, he's free to open up shooting regardless of whether he can see them or not.

 

[steveml]

Bit in bold, do you have a link? I only request one because I have read much and I believe that is incorrect, there is the reasonable person test, so I would like to clear that up.

The principle to remember is that if you have the belief that this person would injure you or someone close to you and even possibly kill you as a result of this attack, you may use any and all means to defend yourself.

http://www.dutoitattorneys.com/legal-services/criminal-law1/self-defense

 

[Viper]

This SA case may be what Minor was referring to as far as to what the accused perceived:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_v_De_Oliveira

Anyway, the facts are what they are and perception of a threat cannot be entirely created in ones mind, as is the case with OP; for putative self defense to work OP has to have seen more than a door in a dark bathroom. He would have had to have actually seen a person, a person doing something.

 

[minor4th]

Bit in bold, do you have a link? I only request one because I have read much and I believe that is incorrect, there is the reasonable person test, so I would like to clear that up.

http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/oscar-pistorius-criminal-law-101/

 

[minor4th]

This SA case may be what Minor was referring to as far as to what the accused perceived:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_v_De_Oliveira

Anyway, the facts are what they are and perception of a threat cannot be entirely created in ones mind, as is the case with OP; for putative self defense to work OP has to have seen more than a door in a dark bathroom. He would have had to have actually seen a person, a person doing something.

That's incorrect.

 

[Viper]

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.

The principle to remember is that if you have the belief that this person would injure you or someone close to you and even possibly kill you as a result of this attack, you may use any and all means to defend yourself.

http://www.dutoitattorneys.com/legal-services/criminal-law1/self-defense

Bit in bold: What person? OP did not see a person, he saw a door!

 

[minor4th]

He was shooting blindly, apparently without knowing who his target was and according to the gun license questionnaire he filled out, if he doesn't have a target, he should not be shooting at all.

Going by what you've posted, he's free to open up shooting regardless of whether he can see them or not.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Trial Discussion Thread #13 - 14.03.25, Day 17

 

[Britlaws]

Bit in bold, do you have a link? I only request one because I have read much and I believe that is incorrect, there is the reasonable person test, so I would like to clear that up.

Sorry, not posted here in a long time, so hope I get it right. I have been interested in this case. Does this article help? http:// http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/oscar-pistorius-criminal-law-101/

ETA Minor beat me to it!

 

[Gryffindor]

I sincerely hope Oscar does take the stand. Checking Twitter accounts to hopefully see it verified before tomorrow morning.

 

[Duchy]

:tos::tos:

Yep, and this is why for me Sean Rens(the firearms dealer's) Testimony was the most damning of all for Pistorius.

:tos::tos::tos:

 

[TorisMom003]

The principle to remember is that if you have the belief that this person would injure you or someone close to you and even possibly kill you as a result of this attack, you may use any and all means to defend yourself.

http://www.dutoitattorneys.com/legal-services/criminal-law1/self-defense

Did you read anymore of that site? Specifically the Comment: Oscar Pistorius Trial? Number 4 on that page is Self Defense. It states that "there can never be talk of self-defence during this trial". It goes on to explain why that is.

 

[minor4th]

I think Oscar has to take the stand (not that he is legally required, but his defense depends on it.)

I definitely think he will testify and his whole defense will fall apart if he doesn't.

 

[minor4th]

Did you read anymore of that site? Specifically the Comment: Oscar Pistorius Trial? Number 4 on that page is Self Defense. It states that "there can never be talk of self-defence during this trial". It goes on to explain why that is.

There is no claim of self defense in this case.

 

[steveml]

Bit in bold: What person? OP did not see a person, he saw a door!

The nature of the threat only has to be imminent.

You don't have to visibly see an attacker.

 

[minor4th]

The nature of the threat only has to imminent.

You don't have to visibly see an attacker.

Yes, to suggest that you must see the would-be attacker in every instance would lead to absurd results. You could never shoot a masked intruder because you could not definitively determine that it is a stranger and not your brother. You could not defend yourself if a would-be attacker is obscured by darkness or shadows.

 

[TorisMom003]

The principle to remember is that if you have the belief that this person would injure you or someone close to you and even possibly kill you as a result of this attack, you may use any and all means to defend yourself.

http://www.dutoitattorneys.com/legal-services/criminal-law1/self-defense

There is no claim of self defense in this case.

The above post is the one I was responding to about self defense. The link that was provided takes one to self defense. Because of that I then supplied a page also on the link provided that said self defense could not be brought up in this trial.

 

[minor4th]

The above post is the one I was responding to about self defense. The link that was provided takes one to self defense. Because of that I then supplied a page also on the link provided that said self defense could not be brought up in this trial.

I see. Well, there's no claim of self defense (obviously he is not claiming Reeva was threatening his physical safety). But I think he is claiming that he believed he was lawfully acting in self defense - that would be a defense to murder, but not to culpable homicide.