Trial Discussion Thread #29

[Julian]

Do you think its possible some may confuse premeditation and intent?

I'm sure quite a few here have, yes...

 

[Emz73]

Claiming that he did not intend to shoot the gun at the intruder is neither self-defense or putative self-defense.

What exactly is OP's defense?

Two different guns on two separate occasions fired 5 shots without him intending either gun be fired.

Involuntariness. Or something. " I'm not going to admit to anything" Oscar world defence.

 

[Murphys_Law]

I suppose it depends on how much you believe his version, OP himself stated that when he first used the bat on the door that he broke a small piece off that he was able to peer through and see RS. Nell interrupted him to clarify it and OP apparently(off camera) seemed to correct himself and then said it was the right panel that broke off at which point he reached in for the key and it wasn't there so broke more of the door down to get in and find it when he saw it on the floor.

At 31:00 is where OP testifies a small piece(he then corrects himself and apparently identifies it was the right panel) breaks off the door when he hit it and he peered in and saw RS.
Oscar Pistorius Trial: Tuesday 15 April 2014, Session 1 - YouTube

Thank you for pointing that out!
Also, note the change in voice tone after Nel has picked up on the significance and asks him to show which piece on the door broke off. When he returns to the witness box his voice is quivering ...quite a contrast to the voice heard before Nel's pick up.

 

[liesbeth]

My understanding is that putative private defense goes to the state of mind of the accused - whether or not he genuinely believed that he was in imminent danger. I haven't read anything pertaining to whether or not he knew his actions were unlawful. I would be interested in reading about that, if you have a link to SA law on the matter.

IMO, I don't think OP has proved that he genuinely believed that he was in imminent danger. He used the words terrified, scared, etc., but other than that, he hasn't provided evidence to support his alleged state of mind when he shot & killed Reeva.

BBM. For me this is one of the reasons I can not believe his version. If something horrible like that happens to you, you do not feel terrified or scared, etc during the incident. You only feel those emotions afterwards once the reality of what had happened to you kicks in.

http://www.linguisticstatementanalysis.com/SOTM/Pistorius.pdf

 

[minor4th]

Still not saying he intentionally pulled the trigger in self defence though. Still I didn't think and pulled the trigger. Involuntariness defence.

That's not involuntary action - he's just saying he didn't have time to really deliberate over what he was doing. He's not saying he was unconscious or asleep or having muscle spasms or that aliens took control of his body

He pulled the trigger and he meant to pull the trigger.

 

[TipDog]

I think the following redirect examination well establishes that OP's defense is putative self defense and not involuntary action. If anyone else is still confused and thinks the defense has changed, that's fine, but I obviously disagree.


Oscar Pistorius Trial: Tuesday 15 April 2014, Session 2 - YouTube

ROUX: Did you consciously pull the trigger or not?

OP: Not, m'lady. I didn't think about pulling the trigger. As soon as I heard the noise, before I could think I pulled the trigger.


I'm terribly confused, I admit it.

He's saying he fired involuntarily, is he not? He did it without conscious. How can that be self defense?

 

[IfIMay]

Nope, you can use whatever currency you wish. If a home is a multi million dollar property it should be *worth that same value wherever you are.

OP's home isn't a multi-million dollar property. It's worth about 277K GBP approx. 465K USD.

*ETA, perhaps worth the same value is misleading. The point being made is that it was indicated that OP's property is a 'multi-million dollar' property.

So if someone pays "multi-million" SA rand for it, it's still not "multi-million" because it doesn't translate to your currency as such? Sounds Oscar-like to me. Real estate is all "location location location". And your country location is not the same as his. What am I missing?

 

[Julian]

He doesn't have to prove it - it only has to be reasonably possibly true.

And he did provide evidence of his state of mind when he shot through the door.

Minor, if you're still there - where does the term "reasonably possibly" come from?

In South African law, I am aware of the term of someone believing something "honestly" - a gradient of the norm of subjectivity - but not that of believing something to be "reasonably possibly" true.

Just me, though, I suspect...

 

[Val1]

That's incorrect

Then I guess Nel is lying iyo.

 

[minor4th]

ROUX: Did you consciously pull the trigger or not?

OP: Not, m'lady. I didn't think about pulling the trigger. As soon as I heard the noise, before I could think I pulled the trigger.


I'm terribly confused, I admit it.

He's saying he fired involuntarily, is he not? He did it without conscious. How can that be self defense?

I dont think he's saying he fired involuntarily or it was beyond his control - I think he's saying he did it without thinking it through or without reflection or without having the actual thought in his head "I am going to pull the trigger now and kill the intruder who's about to attack me."

 

[Emz73]

My understanding is that putative private defense goes to the state of mind of the accused - whether or not he genuinely believed that he was in imminent danger. I haven't read anything pertaining to whether or not he knew his actions were unlawful. I would be interested in reading about that, if you have a link to SA law on the matter.

IMO, I don't think OP has proved that he genuinely believed that he was in imminent danger. He used the words terrified, scared, etc., but other than that, he hasn't provided evidence to support his alleged state of mind when he shot & killed Reeva.

I'll find where I read it. I'm not very good at putting things in lawyer speak. I read then explain in my own words.

 

[minor4th]

Then I guess Nel is lying iyo.

Nel is making an unpersuasive and unsound legal argument IMO

 

[liesbeth]

There is no concrete definition of "premeditation" that I can find. The caselaw suggests that it involves some amount of planning - something beyond a moment. From what I have read, premeditation in SA is a bit higher standard of reflection and planning than in the US. But it is not crystal clear and it is also not totally consistent from case to case.

Apologies for butting in. Here's an interesting article about premeditation that could help. Or not.

http://ideablawg.squarespace.com/bl...hat-is-murder-in-canada-may-not-be-murde.html

 

[minor4th]

Minor, if you're still there - where does the term "reasonably possibly" come from?

In South African law, I am aware of the term of someone believing something "honestly" - a gradient of the norm of subjectivity - but not that of believing something to be "reasonably possibly" true.

Just me, though, I suspect...

Caselaw and interpretion of the law of putative self defense. It's not that the accused has to believe something to be reasonably possibly true; it's that it has to be reasonably possibly true that he believed what he's claiming he believed (that an intruder was about to come out and attack him)

 

[TipDog]

I'm sure quite a few here have, yes...

:blushing:

 

[TipDog]

That's not involuntary action - he's just saying he didn't have time to really deliberate over what he was doing. He's not saying he was unconscious or asleep or having muscle spasms or that aliens took control of his body

He pulled the trigger and he meant to pull the trigger.

Forgive me, Minor, for I am using the Merriam-Webster Definition:

in·vol·un·tary adjective \(&#716in-ˈvä-lən-ˌter-ē, -ˌte-rē\

: not done or made consciously

: not done by choice

 

[Julian]

He pulled the trigger and he meant to pull the trigger.

But that is, in effect, Pistorius's problem. You may well argue that he did, indeed, mean to pull to trigger. That is was a conscious decision. That, in other words, this is a case of putative self defense.

The problem is, however, that in saying - many times, on the stand - that he "did not mean to pull the trigger" - Pistorius is negating the intent which is required for the putative self defense argument.

What he's effectively saying is that he "just shot". He didn't shoot believing that to be just and necessary - he just shot but just because - well, just because it was all soooo frightening.

And if that is the case, he's just a man with a gun who fires on someone without a valid reason.

Which leads us back to murder.

 

[Hatfield]

I don't think it establishes anything except confusion. Pistorius clearly has been trying to do two things which, in his mind, are both advantageous, but which contradict each other.

Now, it might well be that the judge will be lenient on him, and will indeed assume that his defense is that of putative self defense only.

However which way one looks at the matter, though, Pistorius has clearly made his own defense a lot more difficult. He has damaged himself greatly, I feel.

I agree that if he would have just stuck strongly with his thought it was an intruder and never tried to also exclaim the gun went off by accident or involuntarily sort of thing. As well as other obvious attempts to twist answers to make him sound favorable like saying he doesnt want to be contradictional to his own answers and stuff like that. He was giving himself away that he had long talks with his lawyer and was trying too hard.

His original story was his best chance he had and unlikely as I first thought it would be when I first heard the news when we got to the actual trial it really was a pretty good attempt if he would have just stuck strongly with that alone. He has hurt his own case by deviating from that story and trying too hard to not be guilty of anything.

 

[Emz73]

That's not involuntary action - he's just saying he didn't have time to really deliberate over what he was doing. He's not saying he was unconscious or asleep or having muscle spasms or that aliens took control of his body

He pulled the trigger and he meant to pull the trigger.

Why doesn't he blimin well just say it then!!! That's not self defence either!
Remember Prof James Grant said it was involuntary defence.

Aliens Snort. He may say the devil, angry poltergeists took him over. Was 3am, witching hour.....

 

[sorrell skye]

He doesn't have to prove it - it only has to be reasonably possibly true.

And he did provide evidence of his state of mind when he shot through the door.

Shooting through the door 4 times is evidence of his fear of an alleged intruder?

If that's the case, then anyone could shoot their intimate partner through a door and claim putative self defense.