Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

[BabaJ]

The fact that he had the intruder "trapped" is really not so relevant because an armed intruder in the toilet cubicle can just as easily shoot through the door as OP did.

With all due respect, I believe that the intruder would have been in dis-advantage as Oscar could have being hiding behind the corner so the intruder would have to first expose himself. While OP shooting through the door had almost 100 % chance of hitting anybody in the bathroom.

 

[TorisMom003]

Look at the last 3 pages - there are several people talking about what the law is and how it's applied, and most of them are not lawyer anywhere, much less SA lawyers.

And out of those how many exactly have said "I know how the law is applied"? Only one that I can see. Hence my question. How is it known?

 

[minor4th]

I hear ya but let's face it, Oscar had a MUCH larger space in which he would not have been a trapped - he could have kept moving around or protected himself much easier than that intruder confined to a 4x4 locked toilet closet.

It's really neither here nor there because I do get your point.


Can you clarify for me because maybe I misunderstood but my understanding is that under SA law it doesn't matter if murdered Reeva specifically, but the fact that he murdered who he says he thought was an intruder before discovering her body - well, the way the law is worded it doesn't matter legally speaking, is that correct? I mean in relation to the charges.

That's not correct. If he is to be convicted or murder (meaning intentional) he had to either specifically intend to kill Reeva or he had to have known that shooting through the bathroom door could kill Reeva and he decided to do it anyway.

According to OP, he was shooting at what he thought was an armed intruder who had come to harm him and Reeva. He believed Reeva was in bed, so he would not have thought that he could kill Reeva by shooting through the bathroom door. He believed he was shooting in self defense - he believed he was acting lawfully. If it's reasonably possibly true that he believed that, then he cannot be found guilty of murder (intentional).

 

[BabaJ]

I'm not arguing the law any more. I have read the law, I've read tons of case law and I know how it is applied in South Africa - anyone who disagrees is free to do so.

Oh please do not take this as arguing :truce: As I said, it is very interesting for me as a layman for example to hear a legal point of view.

 

[minor4th]

And out of those how many exactly have said "I know how the law is applied"? Only one that I can see. Hence my question. How is it known?

Through study of the law. I really don't care if you don't believe me or if you think that there's some other application of the law.

 

[minor4th]

Oh please do not take this as arguing :truce: As I said, it is very interesting for me as a layman for example to hear a legal point of view.

I wasn't referring to you - and that's why I continue to engage in this discussion with you. You're not arguing.

 

[molly333]

Question 1

Did Oscar believe he was shooting Reeva or shooting an Intruder?

If Intruder go to

Question 2

Did Oscar believe he was in imminent danger of bodily harm ?

If yes

Acquit

 

[minor4th]

Question 1

Did Oscar believe he was shooting Reeva or shooting an Intruder?

If Intruder go to

Question 2

Did Oscar believe he was in imminent danger of bodily harm ?

If yes

Acquit

Except, if he really believed he was shooting at an intruder and if he really believed he was in imminent danger, he can still be found guilty of culpable homicide.

 

[kaos]

Question 1

Did Oscar believe he was shooting Reeva or shooting an Intruder?

If Intruder go to

Question 2

Did Oscar believe he was in imminent danger of bodily harm ?

If yes

Acquit

Why do you believe he should be acquitted if he believed he was in imminent danger? If that was so then it would be everybody's defence in a murder charge.

 

[clearskies1]

Thus far, circumstantial evidence of intent to kill:

1. Screaming patterns heard by neighbors
2. 4 shots
3. stopped shooting immediately after the final, clearly fatal shot
4. Baba testimony re OP says "everything is fine"
5. Time lag before calling 911
6. calls friend before calling 911.

JMO.

 

[molly333]

Except, if he really believed he was shooting at an intruder and if he really believed he was in imminent danger, he can still be found guilty of culpable homicide.

wow. why?

 

[beach]

Intent to defend oneself is not intent to murder.

I totally agree.

But he has to pick ONE - it's either self-defense or an accident. It can't be both.

This is why this case makes me feel motion sick 90% of the time. ullhair:


Bottom line - One thing I am 100% convinced of is that Oscar Pistorius is a loose cannon that has a documented, checkered history of careless handling of firearms. And he is only 27 yrs old FGS! I guess he was 26 at the time this happened?

Oh, and it bugs the living heck out of me that he paints himself as a poor, mistreated victim of circumstance every. single. time. It's ALWAYS somebody else's fault....If <insert name of choice> had only done xyz differently, <insert subject issue> wouldn't have happened at all. He might well have had a chance of convincing me if he would've conceded SOMETHING instead of always making excuses and pointing the finger at the other person involved. At the very least the reckless firearm charges...even one of them... I mean those he could've sacrificed at little and it probably would've paid off in much more important ways.

 

[molly333]

Why do you believe he should be acquitted if he believed he was in imminent danger? If that was so then it would be everybody's defence in a murder charge.

I was just trying to figure out the Judge's decision tree.

Looks like I got it wrong.

 

[minor4th]

wow. why?

Because there wasn't actually a threat to his safety and he made a mistake and took an innocent person's life. Those kind of mistakes, with such severe consequences (loss of life) are not simply excused or justified.

 

[Val1]

So Oscar is 5'1' on his stumps. Anyone know how tall Reeva was? I don't think she was that tall. I notice she is always wearing platform shoes in pictures.

Height 5 ft 7.5 in (1.71 m)[1]

Reeva Steenkamp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[beach]

That's not correct. If he is to be convicted or murder (meaning intentional) he had to either specifically intend to kill Reeva or he had to have known that shooting through the bathroom door could kill Reeva and he decided to do it anyway.

According to OP, he was shooting at what he thought was an armed intruder who had come to harm him and Reeva. He believed Reeva was in bed, so he would not have thought that he could kill Reeva by shooting through the bathroom door. He believed he was shooting in self defense - he believed he was acting lawfully. If it's reasonably possibly true that he believed that, then he cannot be found guilty of murder (intentional).

Okay, thanks so much for clarifying, Minor.

So, what my understanding more the threshold for culpable homicide? Where on earth did I get that? lol I know I read it here somewhere several days (weeks, now? ) ago.

 

[minor4th]

I totally agree.

But he has to pick ONE - it's either self-defense or an accident. It can't be both.

This is why this case makes me feel motion sick 90% of the time. ullhair:


Bottom line - One thing I am 100% convinced of is that Oscar Pistorius is a loose cannon that has a documented, checkered history of careless handling of firearms. And he is only 27 yrs old FGS! I guess he was 26 at the time this happened?

Oh, and it bugs the living heck out of me that he paints himself as a poor, mistreated victim of circumstance every. single. time. It's ALWAYS somebody else's fault....If <insert name of choice> had only done xyz differently, <insert subject issue> wouldn't have happened at all. He might well have had a chance of convincing me if he would've conceded SOMETHING instead of always making excuses and pointing the finger at the other person involved. At the very least the reckless firearm charges...even one of them... I mean those he could've sacrificed at little and it probably would've paid off in much more important ways.

Well, I agree that he cannot reasonably claim it was an accident and at the same time claim that he was shooting at an intruder who he believed would kill or harm him.

He has gotten himself into some trouble during cross examination, so I think it's possible that the judge could reject his version. Either way, I don't think there's evidence or proof that he intentionally shot Reeva or that he knew she was in the toilet.

I agree with you also that he has not done well with his explanations of the Tasha's incident and the illegal ammunition. I do not know the legal ramifications of pleading guilty to any of those charges, so I can't say whether he should have or not. But keep in mind that every defendant has the right to plead not guilty and put the state to its proof, no matter how strong the evidence against him.

 

[molly333]

Because there wasn't actually a threat to his safety and he made a mistake and took an innocent person's life. Those kind of mistakes, with such severe consequences (loss of life) are not simply excused or justified.

I'm getting confused, now.

So are you saying no matter what he will be convicted of CH because he made a mistake and took an innocent person's [Reeva] life?

 

[Linda7NJ]

If he believed he was shooting an intruder, why did he break down the door ...why hit it with the cricket bat?
Why wouldn't he think she ran outside? He didn't run outside calling her name. Did he go outside and even look?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kaos]

I was just trying to figure out the Judge's decision tree.

Looks like I got it wrong.

I wasn't saying you were wrong, just wondered why you thought his belief that he was in imminent danger meant he should be acquitted.

I still think as he went towards this danger, he was the one making it imminent. If he'd have waited at the beginning of the passage and switched on the light he could have guarded the passage while Reeva called the police. There really was no earthly reason to move into the passage.