Trial Discussion Thread #53 - 14.12.9, Day 42 ~ final verdict~

[bajas]

Interesting read. I agree with his and milady's interpretation of the law. I don't think that the prosecution proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OP knew Reeva was behind that door.

I agree too; you expressed it better than I did

 

[bajas]

I knew this verdict was coming. This is the same country where rugby player Rudi Visagie shot and killed his own 19 year old daughter because he thought she was a car thief. He didn't even lose his gun license. His poor daughter told her father she was leaving early in the morning to surprise her boyfriend on his birthday, but he forgot. She was pulling out of the family drive way at 5am and her father jumped out of bed, grabbed his gun, hung out the window and opened fire on the car. His daughter was stuck in the neck and killed. Everyone in the country seemed to agree this was a reasonable reaction to hearing a car pulling out of your driveway in SA. He faced no charges because his was suffering from killing his own daughter. It's ridiculous because it shouldn't matter if it was his daughter or not, but that's the way SA is. I expected nothing less from the Oscar Pistorius trial because of the mindset of the SA people.

Careful, you might offend some SA people with that generalisation

 

[Nali87]

I knew this verdict was coming. This is the same country where rugby player Rudi Visagie shot and killed his own 19 year old daughter because he thought she was a car thief. He didn't even lose his gun license. His poor daughter told her father she was leaving early in the morning to surprise her boyfriend on his birthday, but he forgot. She was pulling out of the family drive way at 5am and her father jumped out of bed, grabbed his gun, hung out the window and opened fire on the car. His daughter was stuck in the neck and killed. Everyone in the country seemed to agree this was a reasonable reaction to hearing a car pulling out of your driveway in SA. He faced no charges because his was suffering from killing his own daughter. It's ridiculous because it shouldn't matter if it was his daughter or not, but that's the way SA is. I expected nothing less from the Oscar Pistorius trial because of the mindset of the SA people.

I could understand not prosecuting a father for accidently killing his own daughter. Especially if it was an honest (and careless) mistake. He didn't think she was at home. The fact that the man's daughter is dead at his own hands, seems to me, to be the worst kind of punishment anyone could imagine. It doesn't matter that he's not behind bars; mentally he is. I pity him.

 

[jassy writer]

An idiotically dumb thing to do... the difference here is that at least we can be sure that Rudi really loved his daughter - grief would be truly genuine.

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

Interesting read. I agree with his and milady's interpretation of the law. I don't think that the prosecution proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OP knew Reeva was behind that door.

He intended to kill whoever was behind that door, regardless of whether it was Reeva or not. He fired those 4 shots to nullify the threat. HIs intent was to kill. It is irrelevant whether he thought it was Reeva behind the door or not.

 

[IndianSummer]

Sorry if this has been posted.

Reeva Steenkamp’s Parents Say ‘Justice Was Not Served’ in Oscar Pistorius Verdict

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/pi...ps-parents-say-justice-was-not-served-n202081

ETA - there is a short video segment here.

Oh wow they want to meet with Oscar .....
Good for Reeva's mom...
I'd look him square in the eye, then I would KNOW.


Karma is patient
JMO

 

[KarenUK]

I often wonder how the Pistorius family can ever really feel safe around a (convicted) killer who has anger issues, even if he is a son, brother, nephew.

Do they think they’re exempt from that anger ... and violence?

(Do they sleep with their bedroom doors locked ... as well as the gun safe?)

I understand - they don't believe its true in the slightest. They really cannot genuinely believe OP is hyper-vigilant and was prone to shooting through a closed door which no idea whats behind it, or they would not live in a house with him for fear of being shot

 

[RainCheck]

I'm sure not all SA residents think this way, but it is the predominant cultural norm to believe this behavior is acceptable due to the rampant issues with crime.

 

[RainCheck]

I could understand not prosecuting a father for accidently killing his own daughter. Especially if it was an honest (and careless) mistake. He didn't think she was at home. The fact that the man's daughter is dead at his own hands, seems to me, to be the worst kind of punishment anyone could imagine. It doesn't matter that he's not behind bars; mentally he is. I pity him.

No, he absolutely knew his daughter was at home. It's what makes his behavior so dangerous. I do not pity him in the least. Opening fire on a car pulling out of your driveway is NOT an accident. He pulled the trigger with purpose hanging out of a window but not knowing who was in the vehicle. He knew his daughter was home and thought she was in bed. She told him she was leaving early and instead of taking time to think he grabbed a gun and opened fire. His life was not in danger, it was only a car. Many people are sorry and haunted by killing someone, I still don't think we should substitute "mind prisons" for real ones.

 

[Nali87]

He intended to kill whoever was behind that door, regardless of whether it was Reeva or not. He fired those 4 shots to nullify the threat. HIs intent was to kill. It is irrelevant whether he thought it was Reeva behind the door or not.

In my opinion, it is relevant. SA criminal law is very similar to Dutch law. If I understand everthing correctly, if the prosecutor couldn't prove it was Reeva than Milady accepted OP's version of events; that it was an intruder. Murder then goes out the window (for me). Because even if he did shoot to kill, he shot thinking he was neutralizing a serious thread. In the heat of the moment, he shot more than once. Since it was self defense, then there would have been a killing yes, but not an unlawful killing.

If the prosecutor had proved that he knew that it was indeed Reeva then it would've obviously been murder.

I see people critizing this law/ruling when the USA has the "Stand your ground" law, which in my opinion, is one of the worst laws ever.

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

I'm sure not all SA residents think this way, but it is the predominant cultural norm to believe this behavior is acceptable due to the rampant issues with crime.

Yes you are right, not all SA residents (or expats for that matter) think this way. What OP did is absolutely inexcusable, even in a country riddled with crime.

 

[Nali87]

No, he absolutely knew his daughter was at home. It's what makes his behavior so dangerous. I do not pity him in the least.

My mistake. You typed that he forgot that his daughter would be leaving. Well then, he obviously didn't expect it to be her. I pity him. His behaviour was reckless and stupid. But I doubt he meant to kill his child.

 

[Viper]

I knew this verdict was coming. This is the same country where rugby player Rudi Visagie shot and killed his own 19 year old daughter because he thought she was a car thief. He didn't even lose his gun license. His poor daughter told her father she was leaving early in the morning to surprise her boyfriend on his birthday, but he forgot. She was pulling out of the family drive way at 5am and her father jumped out of bed, grabbed his gun, hung out the window and opened fire on the car. His daughter was stuck in the neck and killed. Everyone in the country seemed to agree this was a reasonable reaction to hearing a car pulling out of your driveway in SA. He faced no charges because his was suffering from killing his own daughter. It's ridiculous because it shouldn't matter if it was his daughter or not, but that's the way SA is. I expected nothing less from the Oscar Pistorius trial because of the mindset of the SA people.

Actually the NPA did initiate prosecution of the father for murder, they had no way of knowing whether or not he intentionally killed his own daughter, as some parents have done, as she drove out of the property in his pickup truck before dawn. The mother stepped forth and supported his version, telling the NPA that he told her someone was stealing his truck, and she watched as he fired a single shot at the truck from his bedroom window. After she gave her statement the humane decision was made to not move forward with the prosecution because of the groundswell of public support for the family and their tragic loss.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

By doing that she confirmed what I have thought...she is very aware of the uncle and his position in SA society and influence on government projects etc. She wants everything to go well so she can permanently release his little nephew to his watch in lieu of prison time. I don't know what the timing will be but as soon as OP can I bet he leaves SA with money he has tucked away.

I don't know the blonde girl/woman beside Aimee (yesterday). But I don't think it's Leah (pic). (Poor girl that she is. Better she would take a fly to Mosambique ......)

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

In my opinion, it is relevant. SA criminal law is very similar to Dutch law. If I understand everthing correctly, if the prosecutor couldn't prove it was Reeva than Milady accepted OP's version of events; that it was an intruder. Murder then goes out the window (for me). Because even if he did shoot to kill, he shot thinking he was neutralizing a serious thread. In the heat of the moment, he shot more than once. Since it was self defense, then there would have been a killing yes, but not an unlawful killing.

If the prosecutor had proved that he knew that it was indeed Reeva then it would've obviously been murder.

I see people critizing this law/ruling when the USA has the "Stand your ground" law, which in my opinion, is one of the worst laws ever.

In South Africa, a perpetrator can be convicted of murder if he or she had foreseen that their actions would lead to someone's death and still proceeded with that course of action. Even if the someone is a perceived intruder.

 

[JuneBug67]

People who are genuinely capable of and interested in empathy don't pick and choose who gets it. If you have empathy, you can have it equally for everybody in the case.

 

[Cherwell]

The guy is a flat out danger to society. And, after all this, nothing's changed. He's still on the streets.

"I always win". "We piss on Zuma".

It couldn't be clearer what's gone on here.

However - I predict that he will come to a bad end.

 

[RainCheck]

I know the initial charges, but in the end NOTHING happened to him. He opened fire on a vehicle pulling out of his driveway from his window. No excuse for that!

 

[RainCheck]

Actually the NPA did initiate prosecution of the father for murder, they had no way of knowing whether or not he intentionally killed his own daughter, as some parents have done, as she drove out of the property in his pickup truck before dawn. The mother stepped forth and supported his version, telling the NPA that he told her someone was stealing his truck, and she watched as he fired a single shot at the truck from his bedroom window. After she gave her statement the humane decision was made to not move forward with the prosecution because of the groundswell of public support for the family and their tragic loss.

Yes, the public in SA thinks shooting at a truck from your bedroom window is perfectly acceptable, at least for athletes, which was my original point. Apparently, shooting through your bathroom door at what you think is an intruder is A OK as well.

 

[Nali87]

In South Africa, a perpetrator can be convicted of murder if he or she had foreseen that their actions would lead to someone's death and still proceeded with that course of action. Even if the someone is a perceived intruder.

But in South Africa, based on the article you posted:

"Why is all of this relevant? Because if Pistorius intended to kill anyone who was behind that door, and also believed completely in his mind that whoever was behind that door was a threat to his life, then he has a successful defence to murder of putative self-defence. This is an intention-based defence – he did not intend to kill unlawfully. And such an intention (which he did not have) is an essential element of any murder conviction."

If he believed there was an intruder and that his life was in serious danger, it would be self defense if the judge thinks that his belief was genuine and reasonable. In that case he would have gone free. But milady seems to think that even though his belief was genuine a reasonable person wouldn't have immediatly thought there was danger warrenting a shooting; which is why he was found guilty of a lesser charge.

I understand her conclusion on this case; her arguments supporting her decision is what I find weak.