Trial Discussion Thread #29

[minor4th]

Because I asked him. Oscars defence is still unclear. That's the problem.

Okay, I can accept that his defense may be unclear to some people. I do not believe there is ultimately going to be an argument about involuntary action - I believe his defense is still putative self defense and that has not changed. And I believe that is what Roux will be arguing in his summation.

 

[Cherwell]

She was fairly non specific stating only that it was "around 03.00".

She was unsure that the sounds she heard were in fact gunshots. She finally termed them 'thud-shots' but only after pressing (She was extremely nervous and highly strung, finding it difficult to get her words out). She said the shots came quickly, the one after the other, and that there were definitely 4. She also said this was around when her husband woke up and he told her they were gunshots.

I found her to be honest, but incredibly vague. She seemed very certain it was a woman's voice she heard during the possible argument heard intermittently between 2am and 3am, but couldn't identify the source. She also managed to mistake Oscar's crying (once the ambulance had arrived) for that of a woman. I think this speaks towards her credibility in this regard.

I don't think it casts doubt on her credibility. If she only heard a woman's voice earlier, then I think it was natural for her to assume that it was the same person who was crying.

BIB - I should have also added that this speaks towards Oscar sounding like a woman when in distress.

There's a difference between screaming in terror and crying (whether the latter springs from pain, grief, shock or whatever). It's really impossible to judge though, as the circumstances wouldn't be replicated in any test.

 

[steveml]

I'M the one who started this multi million $$ myth and I stand seriously corrected; however my point was/is that OP had a high quality home by SA standards with extensive security which would be reasonable given his high profile career. I also stand by my impression that he really used that fear and security (or lack thereof) as part of his defense. It fell far short of what would be needed to justify the results.

Yep, in all fairness I did include in a later post that it would still probably be regarded as a nice middle-class home in SA.

I also mentioned that the SA posters would probably have a better idea.

 

[liesbeth]

IMO a SA judge would assume as any rational person would assume that an intruder entered a home with ill intent. An ill intended intruder inside a small cubicle is a clear and imminent danger.

But there wasn't an intruder. And OP has not yet given the judge a reasonable explanation as to why he assumed it was an intruder.

 

[minor4th]

That's not necessarily true though or the very clear distinction in the law wouldn't exist.

The evidence at hand would be that the intruder was fleeing - shooting someone when they're fleeing is directly at odds with self-defence, much less putative self-defence. Legally, what the intruder intended prior to fleeing is irrelevant except in terms of potential mitigation, if any.

South Africa's self-defence laws are crystal clear for very sound reason - they don't leave a lot of room for interpretation.

(And just so you know...an unseen, 'ill intended intruder' does not represent a clear and imminent danger by SA law which is precisely why Oscar is claiming putative self-defence instead. The belief his life was so in danger he was forced to defend himself...when he never intended to shoot.)

JMO and FWIW

But this isnt self defense, it's putative self defense. And with respect, SA putative self defense laws are certainly not crystal clear.

 

[TipDog]

I don't really get how Oscar could be specifically placing shots as Reeva fell (or as the intruder fell, as Oscar says he believed it was an intruder).

He shot 4 times and they are all rather low and pretty close together. It does not look like aiming at a specific part of the body.

[Removed my own post as I realize I just broke the rules.]

Apologies, Minor. That was uncalled for.

 

[james83]

To followers of the bat was used first theory, would that explain why Mrs Stipp thought the toilet light was on?, because the light from the bathroom was shining through the crack in the toilet door?.

 

[Emz73]

Okay, I can accept that his defense may be unclear to some people. I do not believe there is ultimately going to be an argument about involuntary action - I believe his defense is still putative self defense and that has not changed. And I believe that is what Roux will be arguing in his summation.

That's why I said HE (Oscar) changed it. He couldn't admit shooting an intruder on purpose because he was in danger, as it makes a difficult intent (behind door etc) and because he did know the law. Beside he knows non of it is true

 

[Val1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by minor4th View Post
I swear, every time I see a picture of the door the marks and cracks and holes look totally different

Thanks for saying that. I thought it was just me.

Now we hear that Dixon has some of it, no wonder pieces are missing from it now. Makes one wonder who else has it squirreled away for "testing".

At 24:35 is where Dixon talks about having some of the wood from the door....some of the missing pieces?
Oscar Pistorius Trial: Wednesday 16 April 2014, Session 3
Oscar Pistorius Trial: Tuesday 15 April 2014, Session 4 - YouTube

 

[minor4th]

But there wasn't an intruder. And OP has not yet given the judge a reasonable explanation as to why he assumed it was an intruder.

He has given an explanation as to why he believed it was an intruder and why he thought he was about to be attacked. For purposes of putative self defense, the first inquiry is whether it's reasonably possibly true that he believed that - not whether the belief itself was reasonable.

If it's reasonably possibly true that he believed that an intruder was in the toilet and was coming out to attack him, then the next question is whether his actions in response to that belief were reasonable.

 

[TipDog]

Okay, I can accept that his defense may be unclear to some people. I do not believe there is ultimately going to be an argument about involuntary action - I believe his defense is still putative self defense and that has not changed. And I believe that is what Roux will be arguing in his summation.

And I suspect you are correct.

However, the cat got out of the bag, and it didn't help OP's credibility.

 

[sorrell skye]

OP's claim is not that he was in imminent danger but that he thought he was in imminent danger. There's obviously a big difference.

And there is much testimony as to why he believed that - it was not simply that he heard a noise in the toilet.

Regarding the change in his defense - like I said, it was clarified that his defense remains putative self defense. If you believe otherwise, then we'll see what Roux argues in his summation. I would bet money that Roux is not going to argue involuntary action and will indeed argue putative self defense.

BBM

He allegedly thought he was in imminent danger. That is his subjective claim.

Upon what objective evidence does he base this claim? What occurred on the morning that he fired 4 rounds through the toilet door that justifies his belief that he was in imminent danger at that time?

His claims of being the victim of previous crimes are not supported by evidence (no police reports of crimes against him, except for the assault that was settled by the Hawks, but I suspect he played more of a role in that incident than he's let on, otherwise he wouldn't have been so keen to settle it without pressing charges against his assailant, especially since he has a history of bringing charges when he believes he's been wronged). His claims of being security conscious due to a fear of burglars are not supported by evidence (ladders left outside, unsure as to the status of his security alarm sensors, etc.).

I don't believe his claim that he was convinced there was a dangerous intruder in his toilet room about to come out and attack him, because that claim isn't supported by evidence, either. It's only supported by his alleged belief.

When one alleges something, if one wants others to believe the allegation, one must provide evidence of that allegation, otherwise one's claim will be met with skepticism or downright disbelief.

OP has provided no evidence to support his alleged belief in a dangerous intruder on the morning he shot & killed Reeva.

If OP's defense is still putative self defense, I think his Defense team still have a tough row to hoe to prove that claim.

BTW - for anyone who might be wondering what 'putative' means (not you, Minor, as I'm sure you know what it means): supposed, assumed, alleged, reputed.

 

[BritsKate]

But this isnt self defense, it's putative self defense. And with respect, SA putative self defense laws are certainly not crystal clear.

It was based on a hypothetical of an intruder fleeing...and I think SA has laws much clearer in terms of self-defence, in general, than other jurisdictions. They have to, post-apartheid (an issue many other jurisdictions don't have to consider when passing legislation).

(And I say in my post very clearly that Oscar is claiming putative self-defence, not self-defence.)

MOO

 

[liesbeth]

Yep, in all fairness I did include in a later post that it would still probably be regarded as a nice middle-class home in SA.

I also mentioned that the SA posters would probably have a better idea.

Do you mean to ask if OP's home is in a nice, middle-class neighborhood, steveml?

If you do I can answer that. No, it's not a nice, middle-class area. It's upmarket. Upper middle-class to rich. No average Joes living there.

 

[Murphys_Law]

Regarding his legs. I thought I saw that one of his legs looked all banged up in a photo. I think the photo may have been taken at police station.

My theory on that is he did use his foot to try to kick in the door and one time his leg did go through the door and his leg got scraped injured as it broke through the door. This may have been the point where he really got mad and went and got the gun.

The photos I posted were definitely taken in the garage by van Staden before he was hauled off to the police station, and before he was sent to the Mamelodi Medical Centre where he was tested for drugs and alcohol, and extensively examined and photographed.

Your theory can't be fully discounted at this point, however, one does have to ask why did the defense not put forward something similar? Based on the marks of the door all they have managed to squeeze out is one possible kick.

 

[minor4th]

I've got to rib you on this, because I just can't believe you believe that it was just terribly bad luck for OP and tragically bad luck for RS that three out of four bullets not only struck her, but all three wounds could have and would have proved fatal.

Stranger things have not happened...

I don't think it's bad luck - I think it's a near certainty that shooting 4 bullets into such a small space would kill the person behind the door. If it can be accepted that it's reasonably possibly true that Oscar believed it was an intruder behind the door who was coming out to attack him, then the only reasonable inference that can be made is that he shot the 4 shots knowing that death was a likely result.

Whether Oscar knew he was shooting at Reeva or whether he thought he was shooting at an armed intruder - he intended to stop the person and knew he would likely kill them. I do not believe that he took specific aim after precisely calculating where a falling person's head would be.

 

[Mr Ron]

I don't think it casts doubt on her credibility. If she only heard a woman's voice earlier, then I think it was natural for her to assume that it was the same person who was crying.

That's a good point. However it is also true that she didn't immediately connect the woman's voice she heard earlier to the gunshots. When asked in cross exam why she had not mentioned the earlier voice to her husband she said that it was because she wasn't in any way certain they were related and so kept quiet. She also mentioned being 'shocked' and 'weak' after hearing the 'bangs' and this may have interfered with her perception.

In retrospect I would change the term credibility to reliability.

There's a difference between screaming in terror and crying (whether the latter springs from pain, grief, shock or whatever). It's really impossible to judge though, as the circumstances wouldn't be replicated in any test.

I absolutely agree. It isn't in any way conclusive, but (for what it's worth) it is suggestive.

 

[Greater Than]

No I don't think it's premeditated murder of whoever is moving behind the door. I think it's culpable homicide though.

As I'm sure you are aware, the only difference between murder and culpable homicide is intent versus negligence.

You don't think he intended to kill whoever was in that cubicle when he aimed and fired four times?

A drunk driver getting into an accident and killing the other driver would be guilty of culpable homicide. He acted negligently. Aiming and firing a gun multiple times at a closed door is intention to kill.

 

[minor4th]

It was based on a hypothetical of an intruder fleeing...and I think SA has laws much clearer in terms of self-defence, in general, than other jurisdictions. They have to, post-apartheid (an issue many other jurisdictions don't have to consider when passing legislation).

MOO

That's true about considering post-apartheid issues.

In the US case that was posted, that was a clear case of murder IMO - the guy had already shot the robber and rendered him unconscious. He chased after the other robber who was fleeing. While the injured and unconscious robber was lying on the floor unconscious, he went a retrieved ANOTHER gun and shot the unconscious robber several more times - obviously intending to kill him when he was no longer posing any kind of immediate threat.

The result in SA would be the same as in the US - guilty of intentional murder.

 

[Carmelita]

That's not necessarily true though or the very clear distinction in the law wouldn't exist.

The evidence at hand would be that the intruder was fleeing - shooting someone when they're fleeing is directly at odds with self-defence, much less putative self-defence. Legally, what the intruder intended prior to fleeing is irrelevant except in terms of potential mitigation, if any.

South Africa's self-defence laws are crystal clear for very sound reason - they don't leave a lot of room for interpretation.

(And just so you know...an unseen, 'ill intended intruder' does not represent a clear and imminent danger by SA law which is precisely why Oscar is claiming putative self-defence instead. The belief his life was so in danger he was forced to defend himself...when he never intended to shoot.)

JMO and FWIW

Oscar defense is that he believed that his and Reeva’s live were in danger. He acted on that belief when he heard a noise in the bathroom because he believed they were in imminent danger.

Myself, if I heard a noise in the night I would think it was a person who is a member of my household, if that person were accounted for I would certainly be willing to kill whoever it was making the noise wherever they were in my house. I would not try to discern their intent if they were an intruder in my house at 3am. They would not be selling Girl Scout Cookies.

I have read a small amount of SA Law about deadly defense and their laws do seem to be more stringent than most of our laws in the states.

I know that this is not going to be a popular view but again Roux addressed the "involuntary" firing of the gun already. It is my opinion that when Oscar said he didn't mean to fire the gun or/and he didn't mean to kill anybody even an intruder he is simply saying that he wished the entire incident didn't happen, not that he didn't actually pull the trigger in defense of his own life and Reevas.