Trial Discussion Thread #29

[Val1]

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?.

Four possibilities imo:
1)the light wasn't inoperable until OP "fixed" it(ricochet or during that trip upstairs when Dr.Stipp saw him go up),
2)it was during a struggle for her cell phone before she either locked herself or was locked in the toilet room,
3)she was about to use it to call the police so had some illumination,
4)was after OP knocked the initial hole in the door through which OP testified he could see her through.

 

[Emz73]

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.

I read it was putative private self defence as in he shoot in self defence not in agreement of self defence laws but he didn't know that it was against the law. The person "thought" it was self defence.

 

[minor4th]

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.

Yes, I think he intended to kill what he thought was an intruder coming out to attack him - even though he refuses to use the word "intent." Even if he didn't have time to think about whether he wanted the intruder to die or not, he certainly was aware that shooting 4 shots into a tiny space would likely result in death. Either way, that's intent.

If he thought he was shooting to defend himself from imminent harm, then he does not have the necessary "intent" or mental state or mens rea, as we say here in the US, to commit murder. At best it is a negligent killing - i.e. culpable homicide.

 

[liesbeth]

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.

Yes. And don't forget that the judge has known from the start that she will have to take his word for it. Which means she's been watching him very closely to see if he is reliable and credible. Because after all is done she will have to give written reasons for her finding.

 

[Feynman]

That exact scenario was not presented in the competency exam. The exam did have Oscar that it's necessary to identify you target. However, the exam was not a complete treatment of the law and does not cover putative self defense; it simply gave a few rather obvious scenarios and asked whether it was lawful to shoot in self defense. Oscar is not claiming self defense.

Of course the exact scenario is not there. How could it fer chrissakes? I'm going with the gentlemen below until I see a good reason not to.

"In an interview with ABC News today, Andre Pritorius, the man who wrote the exam that Pistorius and all South Africans take before getting licensed to own a gun, said that shooting Steenkamp through a bathroom door without knowing for certain who was on the other side violated that rule.

"That came as a big surprise to the general public because ... he got the answers correct when he took the test not too long ago, but unfortunately the night of the shooting he's broken every rule," Rens said.

http://abcnews.go.com/International...ight-shot-girlfriend-expert/story?id=22952866

 

[TipDog]

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.

I tried to remove that post, Minor, as it was wrong of me to call what you believe into question. I again apologize for doing so.

I just find it hard to believe myself that his aim would have been so precise with that final shot to her head. And I don't believe he didn't hear her screaming,thus firing at the sound of her voice (although, I'm not sure I buy that he could see her...yet). We're coming from different perspectives.

 

[Julian]

Masipa could find that Oscar did not believe there was an intruder in the house and therefore did not mistakenly believe he was shooting an intruder. Then she can find him guilty of murder with intent, but not necessarily premeditated murder.

If she finds that it's reasonably possibly true that Oscar believed he was shooting at an armed intruder and believed that he was about to be attacked, then she cannot find him guilty of murder at all because Oscar lacked the intent necessary for murder. (If one believes one is using lethal force to prevent imminent harm to themselves, then one believes he is acting lawfully in self defense). Murder requires that the shooter have an intention to kill another person and knows that the killing is unlawful.

(BBM)

The part in bold does not seem correct, Minor. In the scenario you envision, it's not a question of intent, but of unlawfulness*. If Pistorius shot thinking there was a burglar in the toilet and that he had to protect himself from that burglar, he shot with intent. That is not in dispute.

The only question then is whether the shooting was lawful.

This why it is so important whether or not Pistorius is claiming that he "shot accidentally" or whether he is claiming he shot to defend himself. The first negates intent; the second requires it.

As for Roux's "redirect" - as I've said before, I seen no reason at all why this would change the basic duplicity of Pistorius's defense (his own defense, as testified to on the witness stand).

______

(*) Murder is the unlawful and intentional killing of someone. If you think you have to kill someone in order to protect yourself, you are killing that person intentionally. However, you (think you) are doing so lawfully.

 

[soozieqtips]

More from the Sky News round up from yesterday from Defence Attorney, Martin Hood, also a licenced gun holder who carries a gun. This is about the grouping of the shots. Typed exactly as he said it.
----------------------------

"The evidence has been that Oscar was shooting one handedly from a position where the gun was at his waist level, and in my experience, and I own more than one firearm, in order to shoot a group like that, you have to have a very firm grip on the firearm, and normally that group is with two hands. And the fact that the group is relatively small, shows that Oscar knew how to hold the fiream properly, and in all probability in my view, and if I were called to be an expert, I would say this - he held it with two hands, and he held it very deliberately to get that grouping at that level.

When you're holding a firearm with one hand, and you're in that very excited state of mind that Pistorius said he was in, you're going to have a lot of shake, and you're not going to get such a small group as that. It's going to be all over the place. The fact that it isn't, in my view suggests that he had far more control than he actually is prepared to admit".
----------------------------------
He said he was surprised the State didn't bring in a firearms expert to show how the grouping could have been made.

 

[Mr Ron]

Quite simple really, after the first sound's there was screaming, after the 2nd there wasn't.

Stipp says she also heard a man screaming but she couldn't hear what he was saying. Everything went silent after "the second set of shots."

Van der Merwe: after hearing the four shots there was total silence.

Sorry, I've just realised that the defence came up with a credible alternative reason for the fact that she didn't hear screaming.

Mrs Van Der Merwe also reported hearing an argument outside the Pistorius house on the evening of the 21st February 2014 and seeing what appeared to be a white SUV drive away.

Roux explained that they were conducting scream tests (both a man and a woman) on that night from Pistorius' bathroom. She testified that she heard nothing of these screams, only an apparent argument between two men.

There is also the fact that she never heard screams emanating from the Pistorius house at any point during the night of the 14th, either before or after the gunshots.

 

[Carmelita]

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.

It is my belief that the extenuating circumstances of Oscar's disability, his documented paranoia, his mental/emotional state and the climate of home invasion in SA will all be argued by Roux in his closing statement as to why Oscar in particular thought there was an intruder in the home and felt that he and Reeva were in imminent danger.

 

[Hatfield]

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

Can you explain the difference between putative SD and regular SD?

I could google but I respect your opinion and think you maybe able to explain better in laymans terms.

 

[Feynman]

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.



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.

Yes but van der Merwe heard no screams of terror. She heard "fighting" voices - almost all of them a woman's voice. I do agree it's natural for her to go on to say it was a woman crying at the end - kind of like the Stipps thinking all the loud bangs were gunshots.

 

[liesbeth]

Yes, I think he intended to kill what he thought was an intruder coming out to attack him - even though he refuses to use the word "intent." Even if he didn't have time to think about whether he wanted the intruder to die or not, he certainly was aware that shooting 4 shots into a tiny space would likely result in death. Either way, that's intent.

If he thought he was shooting to defend himself from imminent harm, then he does not have the necessary "intent" or mental state or mens rea, as we say here in the US, to commit murder. At best it is a negligent killing - i.e. culpable homicide.

According to S.A. law you are not allowed to fire at an attacker (even a perceived attacker) unless you have no other way of escape. OP had a way out. And he knew the law because he passed the firearm proficiency test.

 

[james83]

Sorry, I've just realised that the defence came up with a credible alternative reason for the fact that she didn't hear screaming.

Mrs Van Der Merwe also reported hearing an argument outside the Pistorius house on the evening of the 21st February 2014 and seeing what appeared to be a white SUV drive away.

Roux explained that they were conducting scream tests (both a man and a woman) on that night from Pistorius' bathroom. She testified that she heard nothing of these screams, only an apparent argument between two men.

There is also the fact that she never heard screams emanating from the Pistorius house at any point during the night of the 14th, either before or after the gunshots.

Van der Merwe said the arguing continued for “about an hour”, but she couldn’t make out what was being said.

She testified to looking outside her window in an attempt to see what was happening but couldn’t see anything.

She dozed off after trying to block the sound of the argument with a pillow.

The couple woke up after hearing four “thud sounds” at around 3am.

“It sounded like bang bang…From where I was sleeping, they were shortly one after the other,” she said.

Van der Merwe said there was “total silence” after the shots.

BIB She slept through it.
It just isn't possible that The Burgers heard screams and Van Der merwe didn't when the Burger were around 100 meters further away from Pistorius house than Van Der Merwe was, if Van Der Merwe heard the first sounds she would have heard screams.

 

[Murphys_Law]

Maybe. But I don't think it impossible that he was actually puking for real. He is fighting for his life, after all. And he faces a very grim future. All of that is influencing his emotions, I'm sure.

Please, no hyperbole - he is NOT fighting for his life. Reeva, on the otherhand did fight for HER life.

At this point he is fighting for what remains of his shredded image and his hugely diminished lifestyle -- he is simply fighting to stay out of jail. That said, I'd be using the green bucket too.

 

[minor4th]

I tried to remove that post, Minor, as it was wrong of me to call what you believe into question. I again apologize for doing so.

I just find it hard to believe myself that his aim would have been so precise with that final shot to her head. And I don't believe he didn't hear her screaming,thus firing at the sound of her voice (although, I'm not sure I buy that he could see her...yet). We're coming from different perspectives.

No problem and I didn't take offense at your post.

I don't think he could have possibly aimed for a specific part of the body, and that's why I do not think he was aiming for the head or heart or leg or whatever - I think he was aiming generally at the person's core. I also do believe that his hearing would be severely impaired for some time after the initial shot. I don't think he can claim that Reeva wasn't screaming - she might have been and he didnt hear it.

I don't know how he could have possibly seen her in there either. Please explain?

 

[Val1]

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.

Hmm, I'm pretty sure he was taken to the medical centre first, then the police station. It was his friend of the family, Brigadier Gerard Labuschagne PhD, who heads the Police’s Investigative Psychology Section, that whisked him away from the crime scene.. before he was booked and spent the next few days in jail.

http://ewn.co.za/Features/oscarpistorius/Witnesses

 

[BritsKate]

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.

RBBM
Right. That's putative self-defence and ultimately it will be for a judge to determine if he was acting reasonably not only by shooting 4 times but also by not firing a warning shot, hitting a panic button, calling security, or leaving through the bedroom door. And if he was acting reasonably when he screamed at the intruder to get out and gave no time (and possibly escape route, depending on size of window in toilet) to do so before firing.

BBM 2...and that's the problem really. He didn't say it once or twice. He's on record saying it repeatedly and even when Nel was very cautiously walking him through that minefield. In addition it fits his pattern of never being willing to accept any culpability even when there is almost irrefutable evidence to the contrary. So again, a judge will weigh it. I think him even dipping his toes into lack of intent was enough to heavily damage his initial putative self-defence claim but that's just my opinion.

 

[liesbeth]

It is my belief that the extenuating circumstances of Oscar's disability, his documented paranoia, his mental/emotional state and the climate of home invasion in SA will all be argued by Roux in his closing statement as to why Oscar in particular thought there was an intruder in the home and felt that he and Reeva were in imminent danger.

BBM. Do you have a link?

 

[TipDog]

According to S.A. law you are not allowed to fire at an attacker (even a perceived attacker) unless you have no other way of escape. OP had a way out. And he knew the law because he passed the firearm proficiency test.

This exactly.

1. wasn't being threatened
2. had an escape, chose not to use it
3. headed toward not away
4. fired gun without identifying target (or threat, for that matter)