Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #69 *Appeal Verdict*

[aftermath]

You might re-read Sherbert's post # 601 which quotes an earlier post of mine where I was sorting through these issues. I had been hung up thinking of "knowledge" of lawfulness as the kind of factual knowledge that he would have demonstrated on his firearms exam. But yes, your approach is more correct. See also Mr. Jitty's posts #647 & 649 above.

Not sure though how anyone could believe he would have thought he was acting lawfully firing 4 lethal rounds at an unidentified person through a closed door. He went to confront a supposed intruder, he located someone in his toilet, he aimed, he fired, and he killed someone before bothering to ascertain if they even were an intruder. He was unable to justify his actions as a lawful PPD response.

I don't see it that way though...

If, on his version, he was sure Reeva was in the bedroom with him, then the only possible explanation for the noise he heard was an intruder opening the window - which was then confirmed (in his mind) when he heard the door slam and saw the window open. If he genuinely believed Reeva to be in the bedroom, who else- other than an intruder - could have opened the window and made the door slam? So as far as he was concerned, he had confirmed the presence of an intruder. On hearing the wood moving noise he believed the door was opening. (on his version he did not know it was locked at that time). This - again on his version- he interpreted as an attack beginning, panicked and fired - at a door he believed to be opening and to defend against an attack he believed was beginning.

If the door had opened and an armed intruder had begun attacking him, he would have had a lawful PD defence. If he had acted as he did (firing through the door before it actually opened), and an armed intruder had been shot and killed, it wouldn't have been a lawful PD response as he acted too hastily, but if he had genuinely believed the attack was beginning, it would -imo- have been found as CH, as there would not have been an unlawful intent.

As far as I understand it, PPD would always be unlawful, because of the putative element

 

[Tortoise]

What bit of Steyn's comment on knowledge of unlawfulness for dolus don't you agree with?

Knowledge of unlawfulness is dealt with by evaluating the accused's defence of PPD. If a person acts in PPD then they act with a subjective lawful intent - if they don't act in PPD it is by deduction that they act with an absence of lawful intent or in other words, with knowledge of unlawfulness.

The courts establish DE by asking if the accused foresaw and accepted that his actions may cause death. That is all. Then the defence is raised and examined/tested for lawfulness. DE is not established in the first instance by asking whether the accused had subjective knowledge of unlawfulness - as Steyn proposes. The lawfulness comes from the justification for the act if there is one, not the definition of the act.

 

[Tortoise]

I don't see it that way though...

If, on his version, he was sure Reeva was in the bedroom with him, then the only possible explanation for the noise he heard was an intruder opening the window - which was then confirmed (in his mind) when he heard the door slam and saw the window open. If he genuinely believed Reeva to be in the bedroom, who else- other than an intruder - could have opened the window and made the door slam? So as far as he was concerned, he had confirmed the presence of an intruder. On hearing the wood moving noise he believed the door was opening. (on his version he did not know it was locked at that time). This - again on his version- he interpreted as an attack beginning, panicked and fired - at a door he believed to be opening and to defend against an attack he believed was beginning.

If the door had opened and an armed intruder had begun attacking him, he would have had a lawful PD defence. If he had acted as he did (firing through the door before it actually opened), and an armed intruder had been shot and killed, it wouldn't have been a lawful PD response as he acted too hastily, but if he had genuinely believed the attack was beginning, it would -imo- have been found as CH, as there would not have been an unlawful intent.

As far as I understand it, PPD would always be unlawful, because of the putative element

With respect, you are changing his evidence. He did not shoot to ward off a perceived attack. His explanation is he shot without aim, and by startle and that was rejected by Masipa. He did not act in PPD.

 

[aftermath]

With respect, you are changing his evidence. He did not shoot to ward off a perceived attack. His explanation is he shot without aim, and by startle and that was rejected by Masipa. He did not act in PPD.

He also said: 'That split moment I believed somebody was coming out to attack me. That is what made me fire. Out of fear. '

 

[Tortoise]

He also said: 'That split moment I believed somebody was coming out to attack me. That is what made me fire. Out of fear. '

That is not PPD. Have you seen the list of requirements for PPD?

PPD could be where you think someone is armed and it turns out to be an imitation firearm, so there was no actual threat to life but you have a reason for thinking there is.

Pistorius' version fell apart under cross-examination.

 

[aftermath]

That is not PPD. Have you seen the list of requirements for PPD?

PPD could be where you think someone is armed and it turns out to be an imitation firearm, so there was no actual threat to life but you have a reason for thinking there is.

Pistorius' version fell apart under cross-examination.

In the context of South Africa, I think it's understandable that on believing an intruder is in your house that you would also believe they were probably armed.

If he didn't intend to act unlawfully, how can he have had criminal intent?

 

[Tortoise]

In the context of South Africa, I think it's understandable that on believing an intruder is in your house that you would also believe they were probably armed.

If he didn't intend to act unlawfully, how can he have had criminal intent?

That answer is unrelated to any of my points.

But I will answer yours.

The facts of his evidence are that he did intend to act unlawfully, with criminal intent. His explanations were proven to be not reasonably possibly true, therefore he was found to be untruthful about events.

 

[aftermath]

That answer is unrelated to any of my points.

But I will answer yours.

The facts of his evidence are that he did intend to act unlawfully, with criminal intent. His explanations were proven to be not reasonably possibly true, therefore he was found to be untruthful about events.

I don't see how they were not reasonably possibly true. Honestly not trying to be awkward. I just don't see how his explanation leads only to DE with no possibility of CH.

 

[Tortoise]

I don't see how they were not reasonably possibly true. Honestly not trying to be awkward. I just don't see how his explanation leads only to DE with no possibility of CH.

It's there to see in his evidence.

CH would be correct if he had proven PPD but still not acted in the manner of the reasonable man.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Having followed Judge Judi’s link to the article about the OP film that is about to be made, I followed up on Gareth Davies in an attempt to get a feel about his relationship with Oscar. I found a “BBC5 Live” podcast which featured Gareth and others in a discussion with Mark Chapman about Oscar entitled “The Rise and Fall of Oscar Pistorius” which, although rather long (45 minutes), was quite interesting. Gareth is included throughout the discussion but his contribution towards the end made me feel there was going to be no whitewash on Gareth’s part in the making of the film. Here is a link to the podcast:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02t30rq

If you missed JJ’s post there is a link below to the article.

http://www.screendaily.com/festival...ry-in-the-blocks/5100097.article?referrer=RSS
“The new film about the Paralympic athlete will be made in exclusive collaboration with journalist Gareth A Davies, who has known Pistorius since he was 16 years old. The production plans to try to interview Pistorius as well as the Steenkamp family.”

 

[Marfa Lights]

I don't see it that way though...

If, on his version, he was sure Reeva was in the bedroom with him, then the only possible explanation for the noise he heard was an intruder opening the window - which was then confirmed (in his mind) when he heard the door slam and saw the window open. If he genuinely believed Reeva to be in the bedroom, who else- other than an intruder - could have opened the window and made the door slam? So as far as he was concerned, he had confirmed the presence of an intruder. On hearing the wood moving noise he believed the door was opening. (on his version he did not know it was locked at that time). This - again on his version- he interpreted as an attack beginning, panicked and fired - at a door he believed to be opening and to defend against an attack he believed was beginning.

If the door had opened and an armed intruder had begun attacking him, he would have had a lawful PD defence. If he had acted as he did (firing through the door before it actually opened), and an armed intruder had been shot and killed, it wouldn't have been a lawful PD response as he acted too hastily, but if he had genuinely believed the attack was beginning, it would -imo- have been found as CH, as there would not have been an unlawful intent.

As far as I understand it, PPD would always be unlawful, because of the putative element

He hadn't "confirmed" squat and wasn't entitled to think so. He was acting on rash assumptions at best.

Yes, he was certainly negligent not to have checked to see where Reeva was. If he genuinely believed Reeva to be in the bedroom when he heard a noise in the bathroom-- ALL HE HAD TO DO WAS GLANCE IN HER DIRECTION (not buying the pitch dark room story) OR ASK HER (presumably in a low tone) IF SHE WAS STILL THERE to confirm or disprove his suspicions.

The court said that he needed to establish some factual basis for why he believed an attack was IMMINENT (as in he was about to be struck) not just that he heard a noise and thought there was the possibility of an attack and he should strike first.

There is an obvious reason the law forbids you to act rashly in situations like this-- it was a preventable "accident" if Oscar had only acted responsibly (lawfully) with his weapon. And yes, he did act too hastily, real intruder or no intruder. He had no justification for thinking the sound of someone in his toilet meant the door MIGHT open and someone MIGHT come out and attack him. It's just not enough to justify the use of deadly force.

Instead he acted with complete reckless disregard for the life of whoever was in that toilet. Despite his claims to the contrary, he took their life not mistakenly, not accidentally-- but because he deliberately fired four shots into that small cubicle. He had a legal obligation to use lethal force responsibly. He could have. He did not. He chose not too.

Pathetically he could not even stand by his own self-defense story-- and yet we are supposed to believe Mr. big macho going-commando fight-not-flight because that's just the way he rolls suddenly got all goosey with his 9mm weapon of choice and lost control accidentally firing four rounds 1-2,3,4 in a fairly tight grouping right where they hit their intended target. Sure... I bet he just shut his eyes and before he knew it those four rounds went off.

 

[Trotterly]

There is something shifty about this guy. Watch his lack of eye contact when talking to the reporter/camera. The only other option is he is very shy and I doubt that given his status. Do we have a psychologist on board?

I'm not sure, he looks a bit like OP with a stick-on moustache and beard. Is there no end to his shenanigans to avoid jail.

 

[Cherwell]

I'm not sure, he looks a bit like OP with a stick-on moustache and beard. Is there no end to his shenanigans to avoid jail.

That's exactly what I thought :biggrin:

Could he be a relative? :thinking:

 

[Belgarion]

........

Pathetically he could not even stand by his own self-defense story-- and yet we are supposed to believe Mr. big macho going-commando fight-not-flight because that's just the way he rolls suddenly got all goosey with his 9mm weapon of choice and lost control accidentally firing four rounds 1-2,3,4 in a fairly tight grouping right where they hit their intended target. Sure... I bet he just shut his eyes and before he knew it those four rounds went off.

His version of events was so fanciful they served only to insult the intelligence of the vast majority of people. It is surprising that he didn’t put the icing on his cake of total fabrication and claim his finger wasn’t even on the trigger when the four shots were fired. Especially as he had already made claim to what was effectively a divine discharge in Tashas

One wonders when some people are going to realise this was no more than a cold blooded murder committed in a red mist of rage then instantly regretted.

Then and only then did an ‘intruder’ enter the scene as a figment of Pistorius’ imagination to try and save his reputation, his liberty and of course millions of rands in sponsorship deals, any one of which would have been an incentive to conjure up the ‘intruder story’ in double quick time and disseminated it to as many people as possible, which of course he did.

 

[Trotterly]

His version was not just not reasonably possibly true it was impossible. He dropped his defence of PPD midway through cross-examination when he admitted he hadn't aimed at the intruder and it became non-intentional firing, and then Derman was wheeled in to try and rescue the situation. When Derman's evidence of startle-fire was rejected there was no defence left. I'd say the State proved its case to the standard required.

OP repeatedly said he did not intend to fire but that he did fire because he thought he was going to be attacked.

If OP were questioned about if he "intended" to dodge a ball thrown unexpectedly at his head I suspect we would get a similar result.

 

[Belgarion]

OP repeatedly said he did not intend to fire but that he did fire because he thought he was going to be attacked.

If OP were questioned about if he "intended" to dodge a ball thrown unexpectedly at his head I suspect we would get a similar result.

Many years ago persons of a certain persuasion were apt to indulging themselves in philosophical discussions such as how many fairies could dance on the head of a pin.

The world has moved on…..or has it?

I am beginning to get the feeling a small minority have merely replaced the dancing fairies with how many excuses the human imagination can dream up to excuse Pistorius his murderous actions

 

[Tortoise]

OP repeatedly said he did not intend to fire but that he did fire because he thought he was going to be attacked.

If OP were questioned about if he "intended" to dodge a ball thrown unexpectedly at his head I suspect we would get a similar result.

He was not firing in putative self-defence because he never aimed at the 'attacker'.

It has been settled by the five justices of the supreme court already, so quite why anyone is still arguing his case on the evidence escapes me.

 

[Trotterly]

He was not firing in putative self-defence because he never aimed at the 'attacker'.

It has been settled by the five justices of the supreme court already, so quite why anyone is still arguing his case on the evidence escapes me.

He fired when he knew the gun was pointed where he thought there was an intruder who he thought was coming out to attack him.

 

[aftermath]

Many years ago persons of a certain persuasion were apt to indulging themselves in philosophical discussions such as how many fairies could dance on the head of a pin.

The world has moved on…..or has it?

I am beginning to get the feeling a small minority have merely replaced the dancing fairies with how many excuses the human imagination can dream up to excuse Pistorius his murderous actions

I think the majority of posters on here appear to believe that the original verdict should have been DD of Reeva. I am not convinced that had it actually been an armed intruder behind the door people would be so quick to call DE now.

 

[Belgarion]

I think the majority of posters on here appear to believe that the original verdict should have been DD of Reeva. I am not convinced that had it actually been an armed intruder behind the door people would be so quick to call DE now.

One can of course speculate on alternative scenarios.

I would speculate the majority of posters may not have been so quick to call for DE or even DD if they had not been asked to believe.……

- that without a shred of proof Pistorius could actually scream like a woman.

- that a person in a claimed ‘loving relationship’ would somehow failed to check on the whereabouts of his loved one before grabbing a gun and going on an intruder hunt

- that Reeva remained silent whilst Pistorius was screaming his head off and later through the unimaginable pain of being shot.

- Pistorius’ claim that a firearm he was holding discharged itself without him touching the trigger

- that it is possible to remember in minute detail the supposed ‘road attack’ then to ‘forget’ the name of the person who picked him up and could verify the improbable story

Etc, etc

Indeed it was the latter incident that finally convinced me that Pistorius was an absolute liar. A reasonable person wanting to tell such a lie would have said they just drove themselves home after the supposed incident as it would be obvious the name of any witnesses would be asked in court. Effectively they realise even lies have to have some relationship to reality

But not Pistorius, he is a fanciful liar par excellence; he had to embellish the story by inventing a so called ‘rescuer’ and then fully expected to be believed even though he couldn’t produce their name. It was obvious from the laughter in court he was making a fool of himself but he just couldn’t see it otherwise he wouldn’t have said it.

There is a name for persons who act in this manner – they are called pathological liars