Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~

[aftermath]

Do you agree then that you are accusing Nel of using the same 'tactics' that you overlooked when Roux used them?

In short, no.
I was commenting on some emotive language used in the state's appeal document. The defense reply/counter argument has yet to be made available for scrutiny.

 

[Colin de France]

Nor any emotive rhetoric from the state to persuade supreme court judges.

.....i suppose as they don't have any proof there's not much else they can do ......

 

[Colin de France]

This really is a big bonus for the state....



If one intends to shoot someone, how can the possibility of death not be foreseen by a trained gun owner?

....i'll keep coming back to this......there is no proof whatsoever that he intended to shoot regardless of what the state said..........not only that there is no proof at all that he intended to murder her.....a doubt exists due to the screams but otherwise it's pure empty diatribe glossed up with the intention of impressing those with an already pre-conceived bias.....let's be objective, read between the lines.........show me one iota of proof.....you can't............

 

[Marfa Lights]

....i'll keep coming back to this......there is no proof whatsoever that he intended to shoot regardless of what the state said..........not only that there is no proof at all that he intended to murder her.....a doubt exists due to the screams but otherwise it's pure empty diatribe glossed up with the intention of impressing those with an already pre-conceived bias.....let's be objective, read between the lines.........show me one iota of proof.....you can't...

I just happened to come across this reader comment regarding inferred intent on Prof. Grant's blog. Might be helpful:

http://criminallawza.net/2014/09/13/pistorius-remains-in-jeopardy-of-a-murder-conviction/

Mark S. says:
September 13, 2014 at 21:28
INFERENCE OF SUBJECTIVE INTENT

"We are required to infer Pistorius’ subjective intent, but we have to do this by means of objective criteria.

The objective fact is that he fired four aimed shots with hollow nosed bullets, all of which hit a person. From this we can only infer that his subjective intention was to kill that person. There is no other reasonable conclusion.

He says that he made a mistake as to the identity of that person. He thought that there was an intruder, but it was actually Reeva. In other words an ‘error in persona’.

We then have to consider a further question of subjective intent. Did he believe that he was lawfully entitled to kill the supposed intruder in self defense? (Putative private defence)

He would only be entitled to do so if he was clearly in danger of death or serious harm. Objectively he was not, since there was in fact no intruder. He knew the law as to the circumstances in which he was entitled to fire on an intruder, because he had passed a written exam for a firearm licence which asked that question. He had also had time to consider his circumstances, since by his own account he advanced slowly and cautiously toward the bathroom holding his firearm in his hands. He said that he then heard a noise in the bathroom. Objectively this is not a sufficient reason for him to believe that his life was immanently in danger.

We cannot reasonably infer that he thought he was lawfully entitled to kill the supposed intruder. Therefore his intentional killing of the supposed intruder was murder.

This is not affected by the error in persona, according to SA law. If you intentionally kill A, thinking that you are killing B, it is still murder in law. The fact that it was Reeva in the bathroom, and not an intruder, is irrelevant, because killing an intruder would have been murder too.

This was not considered or dealt with by Judge Masipa, and therefore there is a legal error in her judgement."

 

[aftermath]

I just happened to come across this reader comment regarding inferred intent on Prof. Grant's blog. Might be helpful:

http://criminallawza.net/2014/09/13/pistorius-remains-in-jeopardy-of-a-murder-conviction/

Mark S. says:
September 13, 2014 at 21:28
INFERENCE OF SUBJECTIVE INTENT

"We are required to infer Pistorius’ subjective intent, but we have to do this by means of objective criteria.

The objective fact is that he fired four aimed shots with hollow nosed bullets, all of which hit a person. From this we can only infer that his subjective intention was to kill that person. There is no other reasonable conclusion.

He says that he made a mistake as to the identity of that person. He thought that there was an intruder, but it was actually Reeva. In other words an ‘error in persona’.

We then have to consider a further question of subjective intent. Did he believe that he was lawfully entitled to kill the supposed intruder in self defense? (Putative private defence)

He would only be entitled to do so if he was clearly in danger of death or serious harm. Objectively he was not, since there was in fact no intruder. He knew the law as to the circumstances in which he was entitled to fire on an intruder, because he had passed a written exam for a firearm licence which asked that question. He had also had time to consider his circumstances, since by his own account he advanced slowly and cautiously toward the bathroom holding his firearm in his hands. He said that he then heard a noise in the bathroom. Objectively this is not a sufficient reason for him to believe that his life was immanently in danger.

We cannot reasonably infer that he thought he was lawfully entitled to kill the supposed intruder. Therefore his intentional killing of the supposed intruder was murder.

This is not affected by the error in persona, according to SA law. If you intentionally kill A, thinking that you are killing B, it is still murder in law. The fact that it was Reeva in the bathroom, and not an intruder, is irrelevant, because killing an intruder would have been murder too.

This was not considered or dealt with by Judge Masipa, and therefore there is a legal error in her judgement."

BIB - This is the bit I don't get. There was a closed door between the shooter and the shot, so how can it be the only reasonable conclusion that the he intended to kill?

 

[Colin de France]

I just happened to come across this reader comment regarding inferred intent on Prof. Grant's blog. Might be helpful:

http://criminallawza.net/2014/09/13/pistorius-remains-in-jeopardy-of-a-murder-conviction/

Mark S. says:
September 13, 2014 at 21:28
INFERENCE OF SUBJECTIVE INTENT.

The objective fact is that he fired four aimed shots with hollow nosed bullets, all of which hit a person. From this we can only infer that his subjective intention was to kill that person. There is no other reasonable conclusion.

[/I]

........and ....that is still inference......that's not proof of any kind and i myself have offered an alternative reason for shooting, marginal as it may be, it is still a valid alternative version.........there is no proof, inference is not proof............ no other reasonable conclusion, he should eat his cornflakes in the morning .....

 

[JudgeJudi]

The following is a 7 minute interview with Ulrich Roux on the appeal.

http://ewn.co.za/Media/2015/08/18/O...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer


David Dadic @ DavidDadic Aug 16
OP will have a couple hours a day out of the house. Judging by the public reaction to his corr. sup. he may ask to stay indoors permanently.


Mandy Wiener @Mandy Wiener 2 h
Is there a way back for the Blade Runner? My column - with thanks to @Scienceofsport http://bit.ly/1Kv14A5


Ross Tucker @ Scienceofsport 18h18 hours ago
I remember when Pistorius was trying to prove he had no advantage, he just shopped around til he found a group willing to say the necessary

 

[Colin de France]

BIB - This is the bit I don't get. There was a closed door between the shooter and the shot, so how can it be the only reasonable conclusion that the he intended to kill?

......true, but as you're not of the same opinion as me the door will have a different meaning.......for me it was something blocking him from entering the WC......

 

[lithgow1]

BIB - This is the bit I don't get. There was a closed door between the shooter and the shot, so how can it be the only reasonable conclusion that the he intended to kill?

I would tend to think that the combo of the small space and the capacity of the ammunition would strongly suggest he intended to kill. What do you think he intended to do with those four shots?

 

[lithgow1]

....i'll keep coming back to this......there is no proof whatsoever that he intended to shoot regardless of what the state said..........not only that there is no proof at all that he intended to murder her.....a doubt exists due to the screams but otherwise it's pure empty diatribe glossed up with the intention of impressing those with an already pre-conceived bias.....let's be objective, read between the lines.........show me one iota of proof.....you can't............

Isn`t your theory that he shot to open the door? So therefore by your argument he intended to shoot to achieve that outcome. I don`t agree with your theory whatsoever but I do think he intended to shoot, largely because he got the gun, cocked it, pointed it and fired it. All sounds pretty intentional to me.

 

[Colin de France]

I would tend to think that the combo of the small space and the capacity of the ammunition would strongly suggest he intended to kill. What do you think he intended to do with those four shots?

......to put a hole in the door......... aka watermelon..........

 

[Marfa Lights]

BIB - This is the bit I don't get. There was a closed door between the shooter and the shot, so how can it be the only reasonable conclusion that the he intended to kill?

Why else would you fire four 9mm Black Talon-type rounds aimed at a noise behind a door? Even his own sports doctor, Derman, testified that “He fired at the sound and I'm sure that was to nullify any threat.”

 

[Colin de France]

Isn`t your theory that he shot to open the door? So therefore by your argument he intended to shoot to achieve that outcome. I don`t agree with your theory whatsoever but I do think he intended to shoot, largely because he got the gun, cocked it, pointed it and fired it. All sounds pretty intentional to me.

............intending to shoot is not intending to kill.........that's the point i'm trying to make.......more than that one could say the 'possible' intention to shoot......and in the intruder version there was no intent to shoot at all or there shoudn't of been......that last one though is open to question....inferring the intention to kill when there's no proof to back it up is not good and for me that shows the lack of stamina in the states version........

 

[Colin de France]

Why else would you fire four 9mm Black Talon-type rounds aimed at a noise behind a door? Even his own sports doctor, Derman, testified that “He fired at the sound and I'm sure that was to nullify any threat.”

........you're not being objective there....i already gave you another reason why....to ask this question when there are other possibilities seems imposing ....

 

[mrjitty]

Why else would you fire four 9mm Black Talon-type rounds aimed at a noise behind a door?

I am afraid some people's demands as to what the prosecution should have to prove are absurd

Meanwhile in real life, when the police bust your classic low life who has just put a few bullets into his "business associate" no one agonises about whether he meant to do it.

 

[Colin de France]

I am afraid some people's demands as to what the prosecution should have to prove are absurd

Meanwhile in real life, when the police bust your classic low life who has just put a few bullets into his "business associate" no one agonises about whether he meant to do it.

......even the very slightest minutest existence of proof would be something.......

 

[aftermath]

Why else would you fire four 9mm Black Talon-type rounds aimed at a noise behind a door? Even his own sports doctor, Derman, testified that “He fired at the sound and I'm sure that was to nullify any threat.”

Intent to respond to a lethal attack and stop it. Not necessarily intent to kill the attacker. The thinking process might not have gone further than simply 'stop the attack'.

 

[lithgow1]

............intending to shoot is not intending to kill.........that's the point i'm trying to make.......more than that one could say the 'possible' intention to shoot......and in the intruder version there was no intent to shoot at all or there shoudn't of been......that last one though is open to question....inferring the intention to kill when there's no proof to back it up is not good and for me that shows the lack of stamina in the states version........

His `core` defence was that he shot at a perceived threat from a perceived intruder so of course there was an intent to shoot.

 

[lithgow1]

Intent to respond to a lethal attack and stop it. Not necessarily intent to kill the attacker. The thinking process might not have gone further than simply 'stop the attack'.

What attack, let alone what lethal attack? Think your comment is missing a couple of `perceived's there.

 

[Marfa Lights]

........you're not being objective there....i already gave you another reason why....to ask this question when there are other possibilities seems imposing ....

Well, gee, I don't know then. Plenty of "possibilities"-- maybe he just wanted to see how four rounds would sound at 3:00 a.m. in that tiled bathroom.