Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~

[Colin de France]

Can't agree with you. If he knew she was in there but didn`t intend to kill her he wouldn`t have fired four hollow point bullets into such a small space, if he was thinking about what he was doing in any way, shape or form. He was aware of their power and the danger of ricochet.

......we know the bullets bounce from what actually happened, but did he at the time......? ....and if he did know they might bounce that makes his avoiding action all the more difficult to explain, i don't think he is a psychopath but he went to a point where he could be accused of being outrightly and knowingly reckless .............in other words he knowingly took a risk......he wasn't in his right mind and i do agree the action to avoid her knowing that bullets might bounce is conflictual.......

 

[Interested Bystander]

.......good......and the same applies to you and everyone else......i don't want to see this thread or discussion brought down to clans where certain ideas are banished because they don't fit....i would like to see the thread open to all new theories........because otherwise there really is no point in participating...........if he had wanted to kill her he would of shot in the direction where he thought she was on the right instead of away to the left.....not only that but going from the bat to "i'm going to kill her" is too much, the jump is too big ......what's more, there was no reason to of made that jump....and lastly why even bother to use the bat why not just fire straight away.......no the murder version really is a lost cause, there's nothing to back it up .........

BIB


I agree BUT you must expect to be questioned if you throw in a new theory. This is a sleuthing community and all of us are trying to get at the truth. Most of us started thinking it was a nasty accident but from the start OP's explanation in his Bail Affidavit was suspect. As the trial progressed it became clearer to the majority that his story just did not ring true. If your theory was remotely possible I really do think in the last 2 years we would have seen it in print before now. However, as I said earlier you are entitled to your opinion but please don't think anyone will agree with you. You will have noticed even our Pistorius supporters do not find it feasible.

 

[Interested Bystander]

IIRC - though you might be correct, OPs alarm had no such data.

Thank you Mr Jitty. I really don't recall reading/hearing that anywhere but you are always on the ball and I take your word for it.

 

[Colin de France]

BIB


I agree BUT you must expect to be questioned if you throw in a new theory. This is a sleuthing community and all of us are trying to get at the truth. Most of us started thinking it was a nasty accident but from the start OP's explanation in his Bail Affidavit was suspect. As the trial progressed it became clearer to the majority that his story just did not ring true. If your theory was remotely possible I really do think in the last 2 years we would have seen it in print before now. However, as I said earlier you are entitled to your opinion but please don't think anyone will agree with you. You will have noticed even our Pistorius supporters do not find it feasible.

....of course i agree to discuss, no problem there........what you and others must realise is that above all i'm defending a theory......what i think about Pistorius is neither here nor there.....it's the theory which interests me..........no one knows whether or not anyone agree's with me, i'm not looking for a medal, i'm simply offering another possibility....or is that not allowed ?.......instead of discussing me and what i think, i would prefer to discuss the subject and if you think i'm wrong then show me the proof.......

 

[mrjitty]

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

This is begging the question.

In most jurisdictions culpable homicide is murder where the accused must have foreseen the risk of death but proceeds to commit an illegal act.

Decided case law in south africa supports this view.

So for example, if whilst hunting, you shoot at an animal and accidentally hit your colleague who was behind the target but you did not see him - that would be manslaughter due to the negligent act, but you did not actually foresee death.

Compare to a situation where in a crowded bar, you fire a warning shot to scare a gang rival, which then kills a stranger who you did not intend to hit.

The later situation has been held to be murder because the risk of death is actually foreseen, even if the shooter is actively trying to only shoot near the target.

For policy reasons, courts tend not to narrow foresight in the manner you suggest.

Because after all, even a child, let alone an experienced shooter, understands the risks of shooting near a person.

This knowledge does not disappear mysteriously in the heat of the moment.

 

[Interested Bystander]

....of course i agree to discuss, no problem there........what you and others must realise is that above all i'm defending a theory......what i think about Pistorius is neither here nor there.....it's the theory which interests me..........no one knows whether or not anyone agree's with me, i'm not looking for a medal, i'm simply offering another possibility....or is that not allowed ?.......instead of discussing me and what i think, i would prefer to discuss the subject and if you think i'm wrong then show me the proof.......

The discussion is purely about whether any of us find your theory feasible. It has nothing whatsoever to do with you personally. If we don't find your theory stands up, I think we are entitled to say that, for us, it does not. You are not meant to take it personally and I am not sure why you do. We all get shot down at times but we don't take it personally.

 

[Colin de France]

This is begging the question.

In most jurisdictions culpable homicide is murder where the accused must have foreseen the risk of death but proceeds to commit an illegal act.

Decided case law in south africa supports this view.

So for example, if whilst hunting, you shoot at an animal and accidentally hit your colleague who was behind the target but you did not see him - that would be manslaughter due to the negligent act, but you did not actually foresee death.

Compare to a situation where in a crowded bar, you fire a warning shot to scare a gang rival, which then kills a stranger who you did not intend to hit.

The later situation has been held to be murder because the risk of death is actually foreseen, even if the shooter is actively trying to only shoot near the target.

For policy reasons, courts tend not to narrow foresight in the manner you suggest.

Because after all, even a child, let alone an experienced shooter, understands the risks of shooting near a person.

This knowledge does not disappear mysteriously in the heat of the moment.

.....it does turn around the word "must" with that i agree.......being purely objective i can see in the heat of the moment the fine line between reason and risk becomes even finer to a point where it disapears.....

 

[Colin de France]

The discussion is purely about whether any of us find your theory feasible. It has nothing whatsoever to do with you personally. If we don't find your theory stands up, I think we are entitled to say that, for us, it does not. You are not meant to take it personally and I am not sure why you do. We all get shot down at times but we don't take it personally.

....that's just what i'm trying to tell you....i'm not bothered at all about what people think about me as long as they stay polite.......i don't need to know how many people agree with me, it's not a competition, there's not a winner, it's not a game.........can we now please keep to the subject.....

 

[mrjitty]

I have posted this before but it is worth repeating...

When do you first foresee the possibility of shooting someone in your house?

1. When you think about buying a gun for self defence?
2. When you get your firearms license?
3. When you buy the gun?
4. When you train with the gun?
5. When you keep the gun loaded under your bed?
6. When you grab the gun in the middle of the night and approach another person?
7. When you point the gun at them?
8. When you pull the trigger?
9. When you find a corpse on your bathroom floor?


If you knowingly shoot a gun in the direction of another person, it is of course a nonsense to claim their death is merely negligent.

It was always an obvious possibility that any sentient adult must have foreseen.

 

[Colin de France]

If you knowingly shoot a gun in the direction of another person,

.....but he didn't shoot in the direction of another person ..........

 

[mrjitty]

.....it does turn around the word "must" with that i agree.......being purely objective i can see in the heat of the moment the fine line between reason and risk becomes even finer to a point where it disapears.....

BIB

This is why you have to read decided cases to see how the Courts interpret the words because policy plays a huge role.

As an example at law school i studied a case where a bank robber pointed a loaded shotgun at a bank teller. The robbers case was he never intended to shoot - but merely to scare the teller to give him money. Instead the teller charged the robber who shot in reaction. The robber claimed the shooting was either accidental or self defence.

Even if the robber's version were true - the Court held this was murder.

When pointing a loaded gun at the teller, the robber must have foreseen the possibility of death and was thus responsible for what came next. For policy reasons, the robber cannot claim the death was merely accidental (or justified) because it was the robber himself who deliberately created the circumstances, and everyone understands the risks of taking a loaded gun to a robbery.

So although there is no hard line, in general courts are likely to hold murder where the accused is intentionally shooting a weapon in the direction of other people.

Manslaughter is more the cases where the discharge of the weapon was 100% accidental or you were not shooting at the victim but were careless (e.g. hunting accident)

I think a case that would be right on the line you be where you are at a BBQ party and shoot your gun in the air to celebrate, and a bullet comes down and kills a neighbour walking his dog.

 

[mrjitty]

.....but he didn't shoot in the direction of another person ..........

No Court would take that argument seriously.

Even Masipa didn't hold that.

 

[Interested Bystander]

....of course i agree to discuss, no problem there........what you and others must realise is that above all i'm defending a theory......what i think about Pistorius is neither here nor there.....it's the theory which interests me..........no one knows whether or not anyone agree's with me, i'm not looking for a medal, i'm simply offering another possibility....or is that not allowed ?.......instead of discussing me and what i think, i would prefer to discuss the subject and if you think i'm wrong then show me the proof.......

BIB

Sorry, but I think you misunderstand most of the responses. They are not directed at you personally. It is difficult to discuss a theory which it seems to most of us is completely illogical. You are finding excuses for various points you disagree with that really don't stand up to scrutiny. What more can I say other than you stick to your theory but I think you will find there will be very little input from the board that would stimulate discussion.

I will respond no longer to your points as it seems to me the most logical option if you are going to take it personally.

 

[GR_Turner]

I have posted this before but it is worth repeating...

When do you first foresee the possibility of shooting someone in your house?

1. When you think about buying a gun for self defence?
2. When you get your firearms license?
3. When you buy the gun?
4. When you train with the gun?
5. When you keep the gun loaded under your bed?
6. When you grab the gun in the middle of the night and approach another person?
7. When you point the gun at them?
8. When you pull the trigger?
9. When you find a corpse on your bathroom floor?


If you knowingly shoot a gun in the direction of another person, it is of course a nonsense to claim their death is merely negligent.

It was always an obvious possibility that any sentient adult must have foreseen.

Isn't there a distinction between foreseeing the possibility of shooting someone and foreseeing the possibility of shooting someone in the actual circumstances under which it happened?

Surely your argument applies equally to someone taking a driving test and then buying a car, who subsequently kills someone by hitting them with the car. A court would only consider the relevant time before the action that led to that action when they judge foreseeability.

Or have I misunderstood the point you were making?

 

[Colin de France]

BIB

This is why you have to read decided cases to see how the Courts interpret the words because policy plays a huge role.

As an example at law school i studied a case where a bank robber pointed a loaded shotgun at a bank teller. The robbers case was he never intended to shoot - but merely to scare the teller to give him money. Instead the teller charged the robber who shot in reaction. The robber claimed the shooting was either accidental or self defence.

Even if the robber's version were true - the Court held this was murder.

When pointing a loaded gun at the teller, the robber must have foreseen the possibility of death and was thus responsible for what came next. For policy reasons, the robber cannot claim the death was merely accidental (or justified) because it was the robber himself who deliberately created the circumstances, and everyone understands the risks of taking a loaded gun to a robbery.

So although there is no hard line, in general courts are likely to hold murder where the accused is intentionally shooting a weapon in the direction of other people.

Manslaughter is more the cases where the discharge of the weapon was 100% accidental or you were not shooting at the victim but were careless (e.g. hunting accident)

I think a case that would be right on the line you be where you are at a BBQ party and shoot your gun in the air to celebrate, and a bullet comes down and kills a neighbour walking his dog.

......i believe Pistorius took avoiding action when he fired the gun....if there is a possibility that he knew he may kill it would be around the bouncing bullets which is not in the same category as you mentioned above........did he, should he, could he are what we need to ask in relation to his knowledge of the bouncing bullets at the time and the risk he took......

 

[Colin de France]

No Court would take that argument seriously.

Even Masipa didn't hold that.

........that's not relative...............Pistorius chose the intruder version instead of the truth about the door..........this theory was never discussed officially ...to my knowledge.....

 

[lithgow1]

......i believe Pistorius took avoiding action when he fired the gun....if there is a possibility that he knew he may kill it would be around the bouncing bullets which is not in the same category as you mentioned above........did he, should he, could he are what we need to ask in relation to his knowledge of the bouncing bullets at the time and the risk he took......

Why does the possibility of causing death only revolve around the ricochet? Unless I am misunderstanding you, he didn`t know exactly where she was in the cubicle so there was as much chance of a direct hit killing her as of a ricocheting bullet, which is exactly what happened.

 

[Colin de France]

Why does the possibility of causing death only revolve around the ricochet? Unless I am misunderstanding you, he didn`t know exactly where she was in the cubicle so there was as much chance of a direct hit killing her as of a ricocheting bullet, which is exactly what happened.

.......as i've said before......he thought she was to the right and whilst going for the gun she had turned slightly.......

 

[lithgow1]

.......as i've said before......he thought she was to the right and whilst going for the gun she had turned slightly.......

Why do you think he thought she was to the right?

 

[Colin de France]

Why do you think he thought she was to the right?

....either due to her screams or that she was on the phone.........we don't even know to what extent was the damage to the door before he went for the gun......