Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[GR_Turner]

...

shoot first ask questions later - there are views akin to that - the author of that link is simply making a punchier line about the essence of recklessness. It could be RS, it could be an intruder.

It would have been DE of Reeva if he had had any idea at all that it was Reeva you realise. That's why Masipa spent so much time explaining why she didn't think that he had suspected it could be her.

 

[GR_Turner]

.....we know that it was his girlfriend but according to Pistorius at the time, he didn't......Mr T is saying it's ok to carry on shooting if the panic continues.....rather subjective that ....

I'll be interested to see what the SCA think about this. Basically there have been a number of cases in which people have fired one shot and killed an 'intruder'. In each case it hasn't been treated as murder (ultimately). So there must be some logic to this as clearly a person who shoots someone with 1 shot would normally be guilty of murder so it's not the number of shots that matters, it must be the circumstances. The logic appears to be that a person thinking they are about to be attacked in their home can shoot in panic if they have reason to think there's an intruder about to attack (and it will be CH or the police won't press charges if they feel sorry for you).

So what if they shoot multiple times? If one shot is panic, is 4 shots (in quick succession) more panic or something else? Given that one shot is apparently permissible (on the basis that it isn't murder), what is the logic for finding that 4 shots isn't?

I'd argue that if they are 4 in a row then there wasn't time to think between shots (so we are in the same position as a single shot) and in OP's case he was very close to the apparent danger and is disabled so it is understandable that he might have felt greater panic than most.

 

[Trotterly]

Actually, if he cared so much about Reeva why didn`t he tell her to get the hell out of there first and then call the police. She could have been down the stairs, out the door and onto the police in minutes. The way he went about things seems to have put her in more potential danger than if he told her to get out of the house while he dealt with the intruder wouldn`t you think.

The best way to have protected Reeva would have been to shout to her to leave once he reached the bathroom.

 

[lithgow1]

The best way to have protected Reeva would have been to shout to her to leave once he reached the bathroom.

Why then? Why not as soon as he thought there was an intruder in the house? Getting his loved one out of there should have been his priority since according to his own statements as soon as he thought there were intruders he also thought they were likely to be `armed and dangerous`. So why not `Reeva get out and and call the police` as opposed to `Reeva get down and call the police`? I would have thought she would be in much less danger out of the house and on the street especially since he didn`t even know if it was intruder or intruders.

Quote from OP: I am acutely aware of violent crime being committed by intruders entering homes with a view to commit crime, including violent crime.

 

[lithgow1]

I'll be interested to see what the SCA think about this. Basically there have been a number of cases in which people have fired one shot and killed an 'intruder'. In each case it hasn't been treated as murder (ultimately). So there must be some logic to this as clearly a person who shoots someone with 1 shot would normally be guilty of murder so it's not the number of shots that matters, it must be the circumstances. The logic appears to be that a person thinking they are about to be attacked in their home can shoot in panic if they have reason to think there's an intruder about to attack (and it will be CH or the police won't press charges if they feel sorry for you).

So what if they shoot multiple times? If one shot is panic, is 4 shots (in quick succession) more panic or something else? Given that one shot is apparently permissible (on the basis that it isn't murder), what is the logic for finding that 4 shots isn't?

I'd argue that if they are 4 in a row then there wasn't time to think between shots (so we are in the same position as a single shot) and in OP's case he was very close to the apparent danger and is disabled so it is understandable that he might have felt greater panic than most.

Can you recall any cases where the person shot the `mistaken identity` without actually seeing anyone? That is, they shot at a noise and a perception rather than a figure or shadow?

 

[cottonweaver]

It would have been DE of Reeva if he had had any idea at all that it was Reeva you realise.


That's why Masipa spent so much time explaining why she didn't think that he had suspected it could be her.

DE of Reeva if he knew it was her?:facepalm:

do YOU realise what you're typing?

Masipa's explanations? :laughing:
That's the judge that misinterpreted the law as it applies to foreseeability, error in objecto, circumstantial evidence as well as the other raft of bad practices everyone has been discussing on this site for over a year.
The state proved it's case on DE, irrespective of the victim due to the gun training of defendent, number of bullets, type of bullets, by the door being closed, by the size of the bathroom, firing distance, throw in all his flee/warn/sound alarm options- but not for Masipa of course.

 

[GR_Turner]

DE of Reeva if he knew it was her?:facepalm:

do YOU realise what you're typing?

Masipa's explanations? :laughing:
That's the judge that misinterpreted the law as it applies to foreseeability, error in objecto, circumstantial evidence as well as the other raft of bad practices everyone has been discussing on this site for over a year.
The state proved it's case on DE, irrespective of the victim due to the gun training of defendent, number of bullets, type of bullets, by the door being closed, by the size of the bathroom, firing distance, throw in all his flee/warn/sound alarm options- but not for Masipa of course.

Look it up. If the court had believed OP thought for a split second that it might be Reeva and gone ahead and shot anyway then it would have been DE of Reeva.

I seem to recall everyone loving Masipa when they believed she would do what they wanted . No, I'm not convinced they did prove DE. Your arguments don't hold when you compare with other similar cases.

 

[Trotterly]

Why then? Why not as soon as he thought there was an intruder in the house? Getting his loved one out of there should have been his priority since according to his own statements as soon as he thought there were intruders he also thought they were likely to be `armed and dangerous`. So why not `Reeva get out and and call the police` as opposed to `Reeva get down and call the police`? I would have thought she would be in much less danger out of the house and on the street especially since he didn`t even know if it was intruder or intruders.

Remember that he thought the attack could be at any second. A reasonable thought where armed infiltrations are commonplace. It would only have taken a few seconds for an armed intruder to get to the bathroom end of the corridor from where they could fire into the bedroom. So it was better to wait until he could cover the bedroom when Reeva could then slip out without being shot.

 

[lithgow1]

Look it up. If the court had believed OP thought for a split second that it might be Reeva and gone ahead and shot anyway then it would have been DE of Reeva.

I seem to recall everyone loving Masipa when they believed she would do what they wanted . No, I'm not convinced they did prove DE. Your arguments don't hold when you compare with other similar cases.

I think you need to look it up - if he had known it was Reeva and shot anyway it would have been DD - Dolus directus. As it was the shooting of the `intruder` was DE - Dolus eventualis.

 

[GR_Turner]

I think you need to look it up - if he had known it was Reeva and shot anyway it would have been DD - Dolus directus. As it was the shooting of the `intruder` was DE - Dolus eventualis.

No that would be if he knew it was her and deliberately shot her. If he thought 99% it was an intruder but that there was just the tiniest chance it could be Reeva then it would be DE of Reeva.

 

[lithgow1]

Remember that he thought the attack could be at any second. A reasonable thought where armed infiltrations are commonplace. It would only have taken a few seconds for an armed intruder to get to the bathroom end of the corridor from where they could fire into the bedroom. So it was better to wait until he could cover the bedroom when Reeva could then slip out without being shot.

He was covering the bedroom by covering the corridor. And an attack at any second? What on earth are you talking about. A incursion so swift and surprising they would have been down the hallway and into the bedroom before Reeva could have opened the door and run down the stairs? You are getting very close to taking the ... IMO with your absolute refusal to admit to any errors of judgement by Pistorius and your justifications for every single thing he did, no matter how illogical it was.

 

[GR_Turner]

Can you recall any cases where the person shot the `mistaken identity` without actually seeing anyone? That is, they shot at a noise and a perception rather than a figure or shadow?

Boschoff. He heard a noise downstairs, went to investigate and saw and heard nothing, went back to his bedroom, got his gun and saw the door opening and shot once through the door killing his 8 year old daughter. There was no intruder or evidence of one - it was all in his head apparently. Not murder.

 

[Trotterly]

No that would be if he knew it was her and deliberately shot her. If he thought 99% it was an intruder but that there was just the tiniest chance it could be Reeva then it would be DE of Reeva.

You can hear the cogs turning in some posters brains now LOL

 

[lithgow1]

No that would be if he knew it was her and deliberately shot her. If he thought 99% it was an intruder but that there was just the tiniest chance it could be Reeva then it would be DE of Reeva.

My apologies - you are right. Re the bit in bold: yep, that is exactly what I reckon happened.

 

[GR_Turner]

He was covering the bedroom by covering the corridor. And an attack at any second? What on earth are you talking about. A incursion so swift and surprising they would have been down the hallway and into the bedroom before Reeva could have opened the door and run down the stairs? You are getting very close to taking the ... IMO with your absolute refusal to admit to any errors of judgement by Pistorius and your justifications for every single thing he did, no matter how illogical it was.

There's nothing illogical about the idea that an intruder having entered through a window in the connecting room might immediately come into the bedroom. Why would he hang about in the bathroom?

 

[lithgow1]

There's nothing illogical about the idea that an intruder having entered through a window in the connecting room might immediately come into the bedroom. Why would he hang about in the bathroom?

They had to get down the hallway to get to the bedroom didn't they?

 

[aftermath]

Actually, if he cared so much about Reeva why didn`t he tell her to get the hell out of there first and then call the police. She could have been down the stairs, out the door and onto the police in minutes. The way he went about things seems to have put her in more potential danger than if he told her to get out of the house while he dealt with the intruder wouldn`t you think.

I don't know SA crime statistics well enough to answer with conviction, but I can see that if you thought there could be other intruders elsewhere in the house, (plenty of robber-gangs in the press), that covering the bathroom with the gun, knowing the bedroom door was locked, might feel safer than sending your loved one out into the house on her own?
I can also see that in the midst of a panic-crisis situation, that the more immediate need to investigate/protect might compromise strategic thinking

 

[Trotterly]

`Go duck yourself.

Lol. Did the penny drop?

 

[lithgow1]

I don't know SA crime statistics well enough to answer with conviction, but I can see that if you thought there could be other intruders elsewhere in the house, (plenty of robber-gangs in the press), that covering the bathroom with the gun, knowing the bedroom door was locked, might feel safer than sending your loved one out into the house on her own?
I can also see that in the midst of a panic-crisis situation, that the more immediate need to investigate/protect might compromise strategic thinking

But he never said he thought there were robbers elsewhere in the house. Everything centred on the bathroom. I really don`t think you can go putting possible thoughts into his head in order to try and explain something that on the surface seems a poorer choice than the other options open to him.

 

[lithgow1]

Lol. Did the penny drop?

What do you mean? I didn`t notice the bit in your mate`s post about the possibility of it being Reeva as opposed to knowing for sure it was her. When i read his response I replied that he was right[modsnip].