Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~

[mrjitty]

BIB - why is it so unbelievable?

You've missed Roux's finesse

It's not merely that he doesn't know the exact order of events - he said he doesn't have a memory of turning the alarm off or that he must have turned it off because it didn't go off.

This was a particularly sensitive moment for him when he started crying.

This is important because even if he didn't know exactly when he turned the alarm off /unlocked the door - he surely must be able to confirm that they were locked/activated

But no - he doesn't "have an independent memory of that"

 

[mrjitty]

......that's not polite and rather dispointing........show me where the motivation was to murder her......there isn't any, he never planned to murder her......as the bat didn't work he went for the gun to blow the door open and killed her in the process........

Which is murder.

Also in many jurisdictions there is heavy overlap between sentencing for murder/manslaughter - for instance in NZ such an outrageous act you could get a life sentence even as manslaughter

 

[Deleted member 102539]

......that's not polite and rather disappointing........show me where the motivation was to murder her......there isn't any, he never planned to murder her......as the bat didn't work he went for the gun to blow the door open and killed her in the process........

.... he killed her four times!!! Only to open the door in "this process"?

 

[Colin de France]

.... he killed her four times!!!

.......no....the shots were intended for the door.....

 

[Colin de France]

Which is murder.

Also in many jurisdictions there is heavy overlap between sentencing for murder/manslaughter - for instance in NZ such an outrageous act you could get a life sentence even as manslaughter

....no...it's not murder because the intention to murder was not there..........

 

[Deleted member 102539]

....no...it's not murder because the intention to murder was not there..........

Would every murderer be allowed to shoot through an object at the victim, saying only the object was meant? Is that generally applicable?

 

[GR_Turner]

....no...it's not murder because the intention to murder was not there..........

The only way you could argue that is if he had good reason to believe that the bullets wouldn't go through the door, surely. Otherwise you are talking about the classic case of DE (at least).

 

[Colin de France]

Would every murderer be allowed to shoot through an object at the victim, saying only the object was meant? Is that generally applicable?

....he may well have shot through an object but there is every possibility that he thought he knew where she was located at the time........it's not quite the same...

 

[Colin de France]

The only way you could argue that is if he had good reason to believe that the bullets wouldn't go through the door, surely. Otherwise you are talking about the classic case of DE (at least).

.....no....because firstly he wasn't thinking and it was in the heat of an dispute, secondly the shots were directed away from the victim or so he thought.......but having said that there is the element of whether or not he had fully understood the implications of the bouncing bullets at that very moment .........and fired anyway....

 

[aftermath]

You've missed Roux's finesse

It's not merely that he doesn't know the exact order of events - he said he doesn't have a memory of turning the alarm off or that he must have turned it off because it didn't go off.

This was a particularly sensitive moment for him when he started crying.

This is important because even if he didn't know exactly when he turned the alarm off /unlocked the door - he surely must be able to confirm that they were locked/activated

But no - he doesn't "have an independent memory of that"

BIB - not 'surely'.
We might want him to remember about the alarm one way or another, and some might expect him to remember, but ultimately in a panic/crisis /trauma incident, I don't think it so surprising if he doesn't remember. At that point his focus would have been on getting Reeva downstairs and to hospital... Not necessarily on whether the alarm had to be deactivated or not.

 

[GR_Turner]

.....no....because firstly he wasn't thinking and it was in the heat of an dispute, secondly the shots were directed away from the victim or so he thought.......but having said that there is the element of whether or not he had fully understood the implications of the bouncing bullets at that very moment .........and fired anyway....

He'd have to be thinking at least that he was taking a terrible risk firing a gun off in the rough direction of his girlfriend. That's DE. If you fire into a small cubicle knowing someone's in there then at the least it would be DE unless you could demonstrate that you had very good reason to think you wouldn't hit the person on the other side (or it was self-defense, say). We're talking a very small room here, aren't we. It doesn't matter whether bullets ricochet or not.

The argument against DE must be in relation to an intruder on the basis that he thought he was in danger and thought he was acting legally. There is no similar argument if he knew it was Reeva.

 

[Colin de France]

He'd have to be thinking at least that he was taking a terrible risk firing a gun off in the rough direction of his girlfriend. That's DE. If you fire into a small cubicle knowing someone's in there then at the least it would be DE unless you could demonstrate that you had very good reason to think you wouldn't hit the person on the other side (or it was self-defense, say). We're talking a very small room here, aren't we. It doesn't matter whether bullets ricochet or not.

The argument against DE must be in relation to an intruder on the basis that he thought he was in danger and thought he was acting legally. There is no similar argument if he knew it was Reeva.

..........to put it as simple as i can...........he wasn't thinking at all......

 

[aftermath]

..........to put it as simple as i can...........he wasn't thinking at all......

Actually, whilst I don't think he did know it was Reeva in there, I see the point you are making: ultimately it comes down to whether firstly he intended to kill the person in there, (on your version -reeva. If so whether that intent was knowingly unlawful or whether he believed he was acting lawfully. And then whether he considered the possibility of someone (Reeva /intruder) dying unlawfully as a result of his firing into the cubicle through the door.

If he didn't intend to unlawfully kill the person, it cannot be murder, as far as I understand it....?

 

[Interested Bystander]

......that's not polite and rather disappointing........show me where the motivation was to murder her......there isn't any, he never planned to murder her......as the bat didn't work he went for the gun to blow the door open and killed her in the process........

Apologies, I agree that was not polite but it is used a lot on the forum to show frustration. I was so "gobsmacked" that you could post such a ridiculous suggestion. It would be DE if he did what you say you think he did.

 

[Colin de France]

Apologies, I agree that was not polite but it is used a lot on the forum to show frustration. I was so "gobsmacked" that you could post such a ridiculous suggestion. It would be DE if he did what you say you think he did.

....there's nothing ridiculous in this version whatsoever......it's about someone in a moment of rage.......it's certainly no more ridiculous than the intruder version and far more plausible than murdering the woman you love because you can't get into the WC........it's not at all ridiculous, it's just another version of what may have happened.........

 

[GR_Turner]

..........to put it as simple as i can...........he wasn't thinking at all......

I can't see any reason why the court would conclude this though. The court would have to reject his evidence in order to decide he knew it was Reeva and then accept that he wasn't thinking based on his evidence which they'd just rejected as false. Your version of events is a possibility (among many) but I don't think there's any possibility that the court would find that.

 

[Colin de France]

I can't see any reason why the court would conclude this though. The court would have to reject his evidence in order to decide he knew it was Reeva and then accept that he wasn't thinking based on his evidence which they'd just rejected as false. Your version of events is a possibility (among many) but I don't think there's any possibility that the court would find that.

.......i think you're mixing up things slightly.....if he had come out with the truth at the beginning then the debate would only be about whether he had taken into consideration that he might well kill her at the time .......

 

[Interested Bystander]

....there's nothing ridiculous in this version whatsoever......it's about someone in a moment of rage.......it's certainly no more ridiculous than the intruder version and far more plausible than murdering the woman you love because you can't get into the WC........it's not at all ridiculous, it's just another version of what may have happened.........

When asked, he said he did not fire a warning shot (ie ONE shot) into the shower because it could have recocheted and killed him. How come he suddenly thinks it would be safe to fire FOUR shots into the toilet cubicle and not expect any of them to have killed the occupant?

 

[Colin de France]

When asked, he said he did not fire a warning shot (ie ONE shot) into the shower because it could have recocheted and killed him. How come he suddenly thinks it would be safe to fire FOUR shots into the toilet cubicle and not expect any of them to have killed the occupant?

.....you're right......that was an afterthought to explain why he didn't fire a warning shot for the intruder version.........a mistake on his part ......

 

[GR_Turner]

.......i think you're mixing up things slightly.....if he had come out with the truth at the beginning then the debate would only be about whether he had taken into consideration that he might well kill her at the time .......

Ok so you're assuming that the trial went completely differently. If he said exactly what happened (as you described) I think the court would reject that he wasn't thinking as it'd be far more likely he was, in the absence of mental illness. They'd at the least say it was DE and probably bordering on DD if not outright DD. SA doesn't make exceptions for crimes of passion.