Trial Discussion Thread #29

[Hatfield]

Well but this is a self defense case.

That is if you believe OP story that he thought there was intruder in the house.

Me thinks the judge does not believe him. Time will tell.

 

[IfIMay]

I don't know why he didn't ask her. He should have asked. He made a lot of unfounded assumptions that night, obviously, or we wouldn't be here.

But, we can attribute all his actions to fear.

YOU can. I attribute it to the fact that he is concocting a version to cover the fact that he shot his girlfriend in cold blood.

 

[Val1]

That is what it says at the top, but look at page 3, point 5

http://www.pod702.co.za/Eyewitnessnews/docs/130819pistoriusindictment.pdf

Why would that be in there at all?

Simple clarification that it doesn't matter the name of the victim, that the accused killed the victim with intent which in and of itself constitutes pre-meditated murder. ie:fired 4 shots through a closed door

http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/4sq13iqikg3jp1lk/images/8-d6b0723774.jpg

 

[nastasya]

Just noticed something else interesting about these photos that proves OP executed Reeva:

OP testified that the first hit from the cricket bat broke a small hole in the door through which he could see Reeva.

Reeva was slumped over on the toilet.

The only place where OP could have been standing and seen Reeva is directly where he stood when he fired the shots. If he stood directly in front of the door he wouldn't have been able to see Reeva. The angle would be wrong.

There's some websleuthing for ya! Hope Nel reads WS...

 

[TipDog]

My definition would be that he intended to kill Reeva. I don't think that's been proven.

I don't think it's been proven that OP acted in self defense.


And really - you can't get around the law with respect to shooting through a closed door. So, I think we are going to see a CH conviction for sure, which in theory, kind of leans in the favor of premeditation since there was no threat to OP other than him "thinking" there was (in his version).

 

[molly333]

The judge can definitely throw the case out after hearing the prosecution rest if they feel there is no case to answer.

However, in reality the judge did not throw the case out. So anybody saying that the PT didn't prove pre-meditation is spinning opinion rather than fact.

Yes, it's just my opinion of course.

 

[Hatfield]

If you are going for self defence, you normally need to show you are in imminent threat of harm.

On OP's own version, he walked towards danger, admitted he had other reasonable options, yelled at the 'intruder' to get out (Edit: Rather than pointing out he was armed), and shot 4 times at the first sound (without any sign of being in danger).

That is not self defence.

Right. That is another good point that we talked about days ago.

His life was not in danger at that particular point because he was the aggressor doing the pursuing. He could have retreated and gone for help.

There was a case of a pharmacist that shot a robberer here in the states. He was convicted because he shot and killed the robber with many shots. Once the guy was down he kept shooting till he was dead. Too much overkill.

If pharmacist would have stopped shooting and called for help he would not have been found guilty.

Similar here. OP was the aggressor.

 

[Really?]

Head injury or Ears ringing or whatever but i will quote a few sentences from OP's sworn affidavit ..that is making my ears ring now!



If his ears where really ringing, how could he immediately shout out to Reeva to phone the police?



A man suffering from sudden loud protracted ringing in his ears due to firing four shots from his powerful handgun in an confined small room, will he be able to maintain his balance and stand on his feet, leave alone be able to shout at the top of his voice immediately, then run around all over his house, open his baloney and scream out for help three times?

I admit....hatfield is correct about the damage to ears and hearing...

does anyone think that b'strd put plugs in his ears before shooting Reeva?....my God,....that would be sick. But not improbable.

 

[molly333]

I don't think it's been proven that OP acted in self defense.


And really - you can't get around the law with respect to shooting through a closed door. So, I think we are going to see a CH conviction for sure, which in theory, kind of leans in the favor of premeditation since there was no threat to OP other than him "thinking" there was (in his version).

Defense case isn't over yet.

CH, maybe.

 

[Viper]

Purposeful for sure and I think what takes it way beyond an impulse or "mistake" is the pause and then three more shots. I think Nel will hammer that on closing. Also it is beyond the scope to think Reeva did not cry out when she was hit...he heard her and kept firing. End of story for me.

:thumb: Absolutely correct!

Quote:
Provincial police spokesman Colonel Vincent Mdunge said in KwaZulu-Natal murders that are premeditated are more prevalent in political killings, love triangles and revenge attacks.

Mdunge gave the example of a person who had stabbed someone more than 20 times.

“If it wasn’t premeditated, the person would have stopped after stabbing the person the first time,” he said.

The State intends arguing that the murder was premeditated, which could increase his sentence should he be found guilty, he said.

http://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/opinion/expert-clarifies-premeditated-murder-1.1573253#.U1FV0r-9LTr

 

[BritsKate]

Well but this is a self defense case.

Actually it isn't. Its putative self-defence. SA law is crystal clear as to the definition of self-defence and this crime doesn't meet the requisites. Putative self-defence means Oscar believed his life was so in danger he had to defend himself.

'I never intended to shoot anyone'; 'I didn't have time to think' (while I was pondering the evolutionary cycle of wombats ); 'it was never my intention' contradicts his own defence - there had to have been some intent to defend himself.


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[DebinGA]

I admit....hatfield is correct about the damage to ears and hearing...

does anyone think that b'strd put plugs in his ears before shooting Reeva?....my God,....that would be sick. But not improbable.

Or grabbed a pair of ear protectors he used at the gun range.

 

[TipDog]

Defense case isn't over yet.

CH, maybe.

Fair enough, but it's not going well so far, if you ask me.


And how do you figure CH is only a "maybe" in this case?

 

[wb180]

Defense case isn't over yet.

CH, maybe.

You r right. Defense isn't over yet. I hope they do better because right now, OP is going to jail on murder as his testimony and experts trying show he did it as an accident/fear and trying to discredit other witness testimony are pretty bad and frankly embarrassing.

 

[Lyra500]

Then to my mind, the prosecutor has to prove he killed Reeva Steenkamp with intent, not some imaginary burglar

There's no evidence of premeditation to kill Reeva.

Unless he can prove the screams are hers, and so far, he can't.

I think you are fundamentally wrong in that interpretation.

He is charged with intentionally killing someone in the toilet cubicle. It happens to be Reeva, but even by his own admission he shot thinking it was an 'intruder'. If his and bull story were true, then he would be in court charged with intentionally killing the 'intruder' and their name would be the one listed on the charge sheet.

 

[Clutchbag]

Simple clarification that it doesn't matter the name of the victim, that the accused killed the victim with intent which in and of itself constitutes pre-meditated murder. ie:fired 4 shots through a closed door

http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/4sq13iqikg3jp1lk/images/8-d6b0723774.jpg

Quite. For me, the line beetween lawful self defence / killing and murder is unclear here from the OP / defence team perspective.

IS it legally self defence to shoot at an invisible target in a small room without knowing who they are, without knowing if they are armed, without knowing you are in danger? But knowing (as in beleif) there is a human in there? i think not but Im not a lawyer. Sorry, Im sure this has been answered before, just hard to get my head round it.

Then we have the I was defending myself but there was no intention to shoot, just to put myself between the threat and Reeva, the noise/fear/panic/desire to protect made him pull the trigger...somewhat accidentally as well.

Wouldnt it set a precedent for others killing their partners and saying I thought it was an intruder?

Oh well the judge knows the law and I cant see him walking out scot free of all charges. Does he have mitigating circumstances? Will she give a suspended sentence and ban him from owning guns?
hmmmmm

 

[Lochlynsmom]

Defense case isn't over yet.

CH, maybe.

I have been thinking about this. Who could the defense call to bolster OP's version? I will be very surprised if there are more then a couple additional witnesses/experts.

 

[Val1]

Well but this is a self defense case.

It was a self-defense case. OP kinda nixed that himself.

 

[TipDog]

It was a self-defense case. OP kinda nixed that himself.

OP was the gift that kept on giving in this respect.

 

[shane13]

Legally it doesn't matter if he killed some intruder with intent or Reeva with intent.

1. The killing of an innocent bystander in the commission of another murder is still murder with intent.

2. There is no mistaken identity defense. If I hired a hit man to kill somebody, and they killed the person's twin instead, it's still intent to murder.

Imagine this scenario:

If Lee Harvey Oswald aimed for JFK's head, and instead hit Jackie Kennedy, do you think he would get manslaughter or culpable homicide?

Of course not. That's ridiculous.

Lee Harvey Oswald didn't fire a gun at anybody on Nov. 22, 1963.
Was himself seen seconds or so later in the cafeteria several stories below.
Was himself a CIA/ONI agent with that fake legend/fake defection.
You still cannot get a copy of his W-2 IRS tax form (for the obvioius reason--his intel agency employee records will show up.)

During his Marine training frequently got 'Maggies' drawers" rating, meaning he missed the entirety of the target. Ordinarily would have been thrown out of Marines, but he was sent off as an intel agent.

Laughable that the govt picked the worst shot in the military as their patsy for the incredible marksmanship involved. Except that the video I gave you several weeks ago about Asst WH Press Secretary Kilduff telling all the reporters at Parkland Hospital at 1:30 PM where the fatal head shot entered JFK, which also tells you who did the shoot.

Oswald was actually working with the FBI and tracking some of those involved. Agent Hosty then flushed all his dealings with LHO

Told the world at a press conference (before they yanked him away) that he was "just a patsy."

Etc. etc.