Trial Discussion Thread #17

[Rumpole]

Congratulations, you are still alive.

Thanks... I do my best

I did edit my post and added a clarification:

I missed the start of this where the hypothetical was posed. I assume it is that there was an armed intruder in the toilet.
Personally I take a dim view of "home invaders"... I would "err" on the side of shooting them BEFORE they had a chance to do me harm. Perhaps overpower me and use my own weapon against me and any others in the house. If somebody invades your home then I do not feel any burden to ascertain the limits of their intent.... assume the worse.... that they are armed and will kill you. I certainly would NOT give them the benefit of any doubt.. wait and see if they do have a gun, let them shoot first before retaliating. etc ( All this is MORE SO... given that it is SA, where home invasion, rape, torture and murder are well known, if not common occurrences)

So... if I genuinely believed (knew for the purpose of the hypothetical) that there was an armed intruder in the toilet I would shoot. I think I might empty the magazine. OP showed restraint in only firing 4 shots.

To clarify:
BEYOND this hypothetical where a person KNEW there was an armed intruder in the toilet. This case involves ascertaining IF OP did genuinely believe that.. and was he in someway reckless in drawing that conclusion ( if he did). The State's case presented has been that OP is lying and that he did not believe that at all. That he shot at the door KNOWING Reeva was behind it. IMO they have failed to prove that. And so far they have barely addressed the issue of was OP reasonable in thinking there was an intruder. Again IMO the State can not address that issue so long as they do not concede that OP thought there was an intruder at all. I think Nel is gambling on being able to prove that OP knew Reeva was in the toilet. I can not see him doing that.
.

 

[MeeBee]

Really? So now our hero, who has "a sense of terror rushing over him", and has images of rape, torture, mutilation, and other violations of the UN Charter dancing in his brain, is all of a sudden James Bond, perhaps sipping a martini along the way, quietly negotiating the hallway, calculating his distance from Reeva and the bed every step of the way so that at the perfect moment he can demand, perhaps in a woman's voice, "Get out of my house!" (how is not explained). Is that the picture we get from reading

"I grabbed my 9mm pistol from underneath my bed. On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed."

Really? He's either charging down the hall like the cavalry or calmly walking up to it while sipping a martini? There's no middle ground?

 

[Noisy Fan]

For no one's benefit! In your scenario which I imagine is your expanded version of OP's defence scenario his shouting out would not benefit him or Reeva. He has given away his location and for all he knew when he was in the hall "the intruder(s)" were in the bathroom, not the toilet, as he heard the noise from the bathroom. Going straight to the bathroom is reckless rather than taking safe cover (himself and Reeva) with a view ready to shoot the first threatening intruder that leaves the bathroom. In your scenario with noise of an intruder coming in from the bathroom window (that the intruder just slid open) Oscar walks straight to the bathroom and gets shot. Bang, he's dead, Reeva not at all protected.

No. In my scenario Oscar proceeds to the first corner to get a little separation from Reeva and at the corner but not around it makes his vocalizations. If he is concerned for Reeva like he says, he has not warned her up until this point between her and the intruders. My contention is that most of that was to make Reeva aware that there was a threat (actually giving her a chance to leave the room maybe to the deck if the door was indeed locked). Otherwise it was more than foolish. Oscar is not charging down the hall. He is being careful and ready to shoot after trying to diffuse the situation with his challenge to retreat. It's not protocol but what would you do with intruders not more than 4 - 5 seconds from the bed?

 

[MeeBee]

Yikes.....don't want to go there....the first time I saw the police pics......the high up shooting downward angle of the camera was enough.:moo:

Why would the ballistics expert say he was on his stumps if he wasn't?

 

[Really?]

He only hears what occurs after the fans are off and brought in and the room is closed up and the world around him is now quiet.

According to Det. Whatshisname....the fan was plugged in and in the "on" position at the investigation following the "incident".

 

[Bazinga]

I missed the start of this where the hypothetical was posed. I assume it is that there was an armed intruder in the toilet.
Personally I take a dim view of "home invaders"... I would "err" on the side of shooting them BEFORE they had a chance to do me harm. Perhaps overpower me and use my own weapon against me and any others in the house. If somebody invades your home then I do not feel any burden to ascertain the limits of their intent.... assume the worse.... that they are armed and will kill you. I certainly would NOT give them the benefit of any doubt.. wait and see if they do have a gun, let them shoot first before retaliating. etc ( All this is MORE SO... given that it is SA, where home invasion, rape, torture and murder are well known, if not common occurrences)

So... if I genuinely believed (knew for the purpose of the hypothetical) that there was an armed intruder in the toilet I would shoot. I think I might empty the magazine. OP showed restraint in only firing 4 shots.

To clarify:
BEYOND this hypothetical where a person KNEW there was an armed intruder in the toilet. This case involves ascertaining IF OP did genuinely believe that.. and was he in someway reckless in drawing that conclusion ( if he did). The State's case presented has been that OP is lying and that he did not believe that at all. That he shot at the door KNOWING Reeva was behind it. IMO they have failed to prove that. And so far they have barely addressed the issue of was OP reasonable in thinking there was an intruder. Again IMO the State can not address that issue so long as they do not concede that OP thought there was an intruder at all. I think Nel is gambling on being able to prove that OP knew Reeva was in the toilet. I can not see him doing that.
.

Do you know what is legal in your area? It is one thing to say you would ERR on shooting an intruder but do you know if it's legal? Would you do that if it's illegal and you risk a prison sentence. And would you worry about an "innocent" intruder such as a friend of a teenager living in the home sneaking in to your home or another plausible situation where you could mistake a non-intruder to be an intruder.

 

[minor4th]

I would risk a prison sentence before I would risk my life.

 

[Viper]

Really? He's either charging down the hall like the cavalry or calmly walking up to it while sipping a martini? There's no middle ground?

Both are incorrect. He was actually better than Bond, he moved quietly and with purpose in each movement. His steps were silent and minimal, his breathing slow and calm, he was invisible to the naked eye - like a Ninja! All the way up to his screaming "Get out if my house!" and "Reva call the police!"

 

[MeeBee]

Do you know what is legal in your area? It is one thing to say you would ERR on shooting an intruder but do you know if it's legal? Would you do that if it's illegal and you risk a prison sentence. And would you worry about an "innocent" intruder such as a friend of a teenager living in the home sneaking in to your home or another plausible situation where you could mistake a non-intruder to be an intruder.

I don't know about anyone else's area but where I'm from we have a duty to retreat. However, the prosecutors here usually go easy on people if they reasonably believe the person acted in their best interests. Here's a case going on in my area where a dad shot his daughter's boyfriend after denying knowing him.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/1...ton-dad-accused-shooting-daughters-boyfriend/

"What was going on in the person's mind at the time of the shooting, [not] what they found out after the fact" is key, Diepraam said. "They're looking at what he was thinking when he made the decision to shoot."

 

[Rumpole]

Do you know what is legal in your area? It is one thing to say you would ERR on shooting an intruder but do you know if it's legal? Would you do that if it's illegal and you risk a prison sentence. And would you worry about an "innocent" intruder such as a friend of a teenager living in the home sneaking in to your home or another plausible situation where you could mistake a non-intruder to be an intruder.

I have answered the hypothetical with my hypothetical response.

We are heading down an off topic, and personal "rabbit hole" of what I would do.

If Nel gets around to putting the argument that OP was unreasonable in believing there was an intruder, and in fact criminal in taking the action he did, then it may well be game on finally for this trial... but that is not what the State has argued so far.

 

[MeeBee]

Both are incorrect. He was actually better than Bond, he moved quietly and with purpose in each movement. His steps were silent and minimal, his breathing slow and calm, he was invisible to the naked eye - like a Ninja! All the way up to his screaming "Get out if my house!" and "Reva call the police!"

That's amazing.

 

[minor4th]

I say I would risk a prison sentence before I would take my chances and risk my life, but it's really impossible to predict exactly what you would do in the situation. That one time that there was someone trying to get into my house - I was so scared I was literally almost paralyzed. I could not think clearly at all.

 

[kittychi]

Also,
It sounds to me like you think oscar definitely shouted and gave away his position in the hall putting himself at risk to warn Reeva. That you think this is a fact?
Of course, stepping out of this hypothetical story where Oscar truly believes there is an intruder in his bathroom his explanations and descriptions of shouting might be to explain any shouting heard by neighbours. When he wrote his BH statement he knew that neighbours heard things. He knew because the noises from his house made Dr Stipp come quickly to his house.

Exactly. He also knew his lawyer planned to contact neighbors. The DT knew exactly what was heard and seen by neighbors and over 5 days a perfectly tailored affidavit was hatched. All they had to do is account for the screaming woman, hence claiming that "Oscar screams like a woman." IMO



.

 

[minor4th]

I don't know about anyone else's area but where I'm from we have a duty to retreat. However, the prosecutors here usually go easy on people if they reasonably believe the person acted in their best interests. Here's a case going on in my area where a dad shot his daughter's boyfriend after denying knowing him.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/1...ton-dad-accused-shooting-daughters-boyfriend/

"What was going on in the person's mind at the time of the shooting, [not] what they found out after the fact" is key, Diepraam said. "They're looking at what he was thinking when he made the decision to shoot."

There's not really a duty to retreat in Texas if you are in imminent fear for your safety.

 

[kittychi]

I dunno. First of all, it's hard for me to believe that he was thinking clearly at all to have a plan of shooting her in the head first. I believe he was in such a uncontrollable rage and could not face losing her. After the first shot, he hesitated and might have had a very brief reality check but then when she started screaming he knew there was no hope and no turning back. He then made the decision to finish her off and stopped shooting when the screaming stopped.

Yup. I am on the exact same wavelength here. How utterly sad this story is.

 

[MeeBee]

There's not really a duty to retreat in Texas if you are in imminent fear for your safety.

I admit to not knowing the inner workings of the law.

I still think this SA judge won't be as strict as people think she will be. People say the law is written in a way that, either way, no matter which scenario she accepts he is guilty of murder. That doesn't really make sense since he doesn't deny shooting Reeva or shooting to kill for his safety. If he was guilty regardless then this whole thing is pointless. I read the law on culpable homicide and murder and the judge will have to decide if OP acted as a reasonably man who feared for his life. So sounds like she actually does have a decision to make.

 

[Rumpole]

Do you know what is legal in your area? It is one thing to say you would ERR on shooting an intruder but do you know if it's legal? Would you do that if it's illegal and you risk a prison sentence. And would you worry about an "innocent" intruder such as a friend of a teenager living in the home sneaking in to your home or another plausible situation where you could mistake a non-intruder to be an intruder.

The hypothetical is that THERE IS an armed intruder. So making such mistakes is beyond the scope of the hypothetical.

This case is about making such a mistake.. obviously

Nel has not been addressing that. He contends that OP made no mistake at all... he shot the door knowing Reeva was behind it.

 

[Bazinga]

No. In my scenario Oscar proceeds to the first corner to get a little separation from Reeva and at the corner but not around it makes his vocalizations. If he is concerned for Reeva like he says, he has not warned her up until this point between her and the intruders. My contention is that most of that was to make Reeva aware that there was a threat (actually giving her a chance to leave the room maybe to the deck if the door was indeed locked). Otherwise it was more than foolish. Oscar is not charging down the hall. He is being careful and ready to shoot after trying to diffuse the situation with his challenge to retreat. It's not protocol but what would you do with intruders not more than 4 - 5 seconds from the bed?

I never said charging. What would I do? I would alert my partner before anything else. I would aim to keep as much distance as possible between me and intruder. I'm fairly sure I'd attempt escaping over an attempt to kill the intruders. I'd assume the intruders first priority is to steal valuable goods. My understanding is that stealing is more often the reason for a home invasion than to murder someone.

 

[TorisMom003]

He SAYS he shouted. His entire account is suspect, and this "I told them to get out of my house" is equally suspect.

Well he doesn't know exactly what the neighbors heard during his argument with Reeva. He knows what was yelled out really loud so he incorporates those in his story but attributes them to him believing there was an "intruder" in the house.

MOO

 

[Really?]

he never thought there was an intruder.....this is his way to explain as to why Reeva is dead.

Let us not forget the argument heard roughly at 1:58 a.m.