Trial Discussion Thread #9 - 14.03.18, Day 12

[Trooper]

he has admitted to shooting an intruder.. ('I thought it was an intruder!!")

he hasn't admitted to shooting Reeva.. he says, he is not guilty of killing Reeva.

the state says.. he knew it wasn't an intruder, and therefore

he aimed and shot at Reeva.

 

[MeeBee]

OP has plead Not Guilty... but admits the shooting. That IS a claim of justifiable killing (self defense).

I have read that justifiable killing is not the same in SA. He can't have had the belief that someone was in there and shoot, even if there was an intruder in his Home. In SA, if he has the opportunity to get away without Any harm being done then he is obligated to. If he is not actually being attacked, then he cannot shoot the person. And especially if he can't see the person behind the door.

 

[Trooper]

the unfortunate fact that the 'intruder' and Reeva occupy the same ( now dead) body is the point at which the claim of Oscar and the claim of the State veer off into the opposite direction from each other.

 

[minor4th]

That doesn't meet the legal requirement for self defense, under SA law.

Firearms expert, Sean Rens, laid it all out for the Court when he testified about the firearms competency tests that are required prior to purchasing firearms - tests which OP took, passed, and signed off on.

Believing that an intruder is in one's toilet room and discharging 4 rounds through a door at an unknown, unseen person who has posed no expressed threat to one's safety or life does not meet the legal requirement for self defense according to SA law, but may result in OP being found guilty of either culpable homicide or premeditated murder.

This is why Roux is trying so hard to discredit all the witnesses - because he knows (as an attorney with many years experience) that the law is not on his client's side. So he's attacking the investigation and the witnesses. He has no other option.

Well, I'm not saying it's a good defense or that he will be successful, but that's what I understand his defense to be. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on SA law - I don't think any of us understand all the nuances and such.

I disagree about Roux' tactics - I think he is defending against the State's indictment for premeditated murder. And that is what all opposing counsel do during the other party's case in chief - they cast doubt on the witness testimony and evidence. What else can he do during the State's case in chief? He's not just going to sit there and allow the witnesses to say whatever they want without challenging it. That's not "attacking" though, it's defending, and in this case Roux has done a good job of bringing to light the weaknesses of the State's witnesses - there are clearly weaknesses and contradictions and suspicious testimony.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

If I understand, OP is without a doubt already guilty according to SA law of the "culpable homicide charge". So, even without any trial, the claims within his Bail Hearing statement qualify him to be found guilty on that charge.

Then, in addition to and on top of the culpable homicide, the State charged him with the premeditated murder charge. Because that's what they believe happened.

So at this point, is this trial really just about whether he gets the higher amount of jail time that the premeditated murder charge brings? Because that is what it seems like to me.

Almost like Roux knows he can't get him off totally but he can throw enough mud to induce the judge to go for the "compromise verdict" - the lesser charge of culpable homicide.

 

[minor4th]

I have read that justifiable killing is not the same in SA. He can't have had the belief that someone was in there and shoot, even if there was an intruder in his Home. In SA, if he has the opportunity to get away without Any harm being done then he is obligated to. If he is not actually being attacked, then he cannot shoot the person. And especially if he can't see the person behind the door.

IMO it is not so black and white as that. There is a judgment call that the judge will have to make about the reasonableness of his fear of imminent harm.

 

[Rumpole]

I have read that justifiable killing is not the same in SA. He can't have had the belief that someone was in there and shoot, even if there was an intruder in his Home. In SA, if he has the opportunity to get away without Any harm being done then he is obligated to. If he is not actually being attacked, then he cannot shoot the person. And especially if he can't see the person behind the door.

IANAL especially not a SA lawyer... so I'll accept what you say.

So... even if the State fails to convince the Judge that OP is lying, and she evaluates the case from the perspective of OP having a reasonable belief that there WAS an intruder, the Judge will then have to decide based on SA law as you suggest. She will in efect be evaluating OP's actions as it there was an intruder and NOT considering that OP attacked, chased, trapped, and shot Reeva.

 

[G.bng]

I think when it goes to culpable homicide and his belief of there being an intruder In there, then yes, maybe. But the state believes he knew Reeva was in there and shot her on purpose, for whatever reason.

I could be wrong. But you're saying to prove premeditation they have to prove Oscar intended to kill the person behind the door, regardless of who it was or why? In that case, easy peasy, lol.

It may be the State believes OP knew Reeva was in the toilet when he shot but I would be surprised if they believed he shot her on purpose, rather that there was a nasty argument that got out of hand and an enraged OP shot at the door when she refused to open it. Otherwise what motive is there to adduce ?

On your other point, that is my understanding of how the charge of murder works in SA law but I could be wrong although I recall I read something to this effect at the time of the incident as well. From what I understand the important thing is that he should have known the possibility of killing any occupant within, or that his intention was to kill the burglar even if he inadvertently shot Reeva.

 

[MeeBee]

IMO it is not so black and white as that. There is a judgment call that the judge will have to make about the reasonableness of his fear of imminent harm.

Your life must be in danger to shoot. But you have a responsibility to get out if you can. Killing must be the last resort. I suppose the judge will have to decide whether Oscar was reasonable in believing his life was in danger of the person behind the door and that he had no other options. I think her decision will be pretty easy though.

 

[Rumpole]

I wonder if SA authorities would consider starting half an hour earlier, shortening tea breaks to a bare 10 minutes, and working another hour or two later?
The Court days provide less play than a day's test cricket.

 

[Trooper]

Minor.. how did you come to this belief .. he shot in self defense, believing a bathroom intruder was about to come out and attack him and Reeva. that this was how the trial was proceeding and was Oscar's foundation for pleading not guilty to Pre meditated murder??


was about to come out and attack him and Reeva<----- this bit.. the belief that the intruder was about to come out etc.. where is that in any affidavit, or statement Oscar has made??

the only reference to 'out' is Oscar shouting, he says, as a consequence of a 'noise in the bathroom' for this 'intruder' to' get out, get out. '

say the intruder.. if there had been one actually behind the locked door.. and he gets only injured and not killed.. he could then say. well. I was INVITED to come out. !!

 

[minor4th]

Your life must be in danger to shoot. But you have a responsibility to get out if you can. Killing must be the last resort. I suppose the judge will have to decide whether Oscar was reasonable of believing his life was in danger of the person behind the door and that he has no other options. I think her decision will be pretty easy though.

I don't know - based on what some of the SA posters have said about rampant violent crime and home invasions with violence and rape. The judge will consider the totality of the circumstances, including whether OP was vulnerable and if that contributed to his fear and his actions.

Like I said, I don't think there is a formula that dictates how every case is decided - I think the judge has to consider whether OP's fear of imminent harm was reasonable under all of the circumstances. I have no way to know how she'll come down on this issue.

 

[Trooper]

I don't know - based on what some of the SA posters have said about rampant violent crime and home invasions with violence and rape. The judge will consider the totality of the circumstances, including whether OP was vulnerable and if that contributed to his fear and his actions.

Like I said, I don't think there is a formula that dictates how every case is decided - I think the judge has to consider whether OP's fear of imminent harm was reasonable under all of the circumstances. I have no way to know how she'll come down on this issue.

Almost certainly the judge will take into account, on that aspect. of how many women get murdered by their partners who then claim it was an accident.. how vulnerable Reeva was in the circumstances she found herself before she was plugged with 3 bullets, one a missed shot..

Oscars perceived vulnerability, and Reeva's actual and consequent vulnerability ( 3 bullets is in anyones estimation awful undeniable proof of how vulnerable she was ) will be weighed up, for sure.

 

[MeeBee]

I don't know - based on what some of the SA posters have said about rampant violent crime and home invasions with violence and rape. The judge will consider the totality of the circumstances, including whether OP was vulnerable and if that contributed to his fear and his actions.

Like I said, I don't think there is a formula that dictates how every case is decided - I think the judge has to consider whether OP's fear of imminent harm was reasonable under all of the circumstances. I have no way to know how she'll come down on this issue.

I don't think there's a formula, but there is a law to abide by and it's at the judge's discretion on how to apply it. If Oscar had, essentially, a duty to retreat, instead of kill, then the judge has to decide if his decision to shoot was truly a last resort action. I don't think anyone can objectively look at his actions and say they were reasonable. He had options.

All IMO!

 

[Trooper]

the judge will get a clue as to how vulnerable Reeva felt and judged by results , was, by the quality and timing of her screams as heard by the ear witnesses that night..

 

[sorrell skye]

SA law doesn't have a castle doctrine, nor does it have a stand your ground defense.

When discharging a firearm, SA law is very strict about when it's legal to do so.

OP's actions on the early morning of February 14, 2013 do not meet SA's legal requirement for self defense.

To get an idea of OP's sense of entitlement that he should be allowed to gun down & kill someone in his house, here are his own words from his bail hearing affidavit:

I fail to understand how I could be charged with murder, let alone premeditated murder, as I had no intention to kill my girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp (&#8220;Reeva&#8221.

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2013/02/19/copy-of-oscar-pistorius-affidavit-click-to-read/

Sean Rens' testimony has revealed that OP took, passed, and signed off on the firearms competency test. OP was aware that the legal requirement to use lethal force in self defense requires that the assailant must be seen, must have access to him, must be armed with a deadly weapon, must express the intent to harm or kill him, and must approach him.

His actions DO NOT meet the legal requirements for self defense, according to SA law.

He discharged 4 rounds through a closed door. IMO, that alone shows that he was hell-bent on killing whomever was behind that door, whether he knew it was Reeva behind the door or not.

Oh - but he fails to understand how he could be charged with murder, let alone premeditated murder??? GMAB

As far as I'm concerned, Oscar Pistorius is one scary individual. I hope he gets locked up for a very loooong time.

 

[redheadedgal]

hey sleuths. i don't normally come on and ask questions... i really try to find answers myself, but i haven't been able to follow this trial thoroughly. has anyone from OP's camp tried to explain why there was blood on the headboard (or was it the bedroom wall... maybe it was both?). thanks !

 

[MeeBee]

SA law doesn't have a castle doctrine, nor does it have a stand your ground defense.

When discharging a firearm, SA law is very strict about when it's legal to do so.

OP's actions on the early morning of February 14, 2013 do not meet SA's legal requirement for self defense.

To get an idea of OP's sense of entitlement that he should be allowed to gun down & kill someone in his house, here are his own words from his bail hearing affidavit:

I fail to understand how I could be charged with murder, let alone premeditated murder, as I had no intention to kill my girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp (&#8220;Reeva&#8221.

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2013/02/19/copy-of-oscar-pistorius-affidavit-click-to-read/

Sean Rens' testimony has revealed that OP took, passed, and signed off on the firearms competency test. OP was aware that the legal requirement to use lethal force in self defense requires that the assailant must be seen, must have access to him, must be armed with a deadly weapon, must express the intent to harm or kill him, and must approach him.

His actions DO NOT meet the legal requirements for self defense, according to SA law.

He discharged 4 rounds through a closed door. IMO, that alone shows that he was hell-bent on killing whomever was behind that door, whether he knew it was Reeva behind the door or not.

Oh - but he fails to understand how he could be charged with murder, let alone premeditated murder??? GMAB

As far as I'm concerned, Oscar Pistorius is one scary individual. I hope he gets locked up for a very loooong time.

Yes, from what I read they are very strict in SA about this and when you shoot someone in your home essentially, you are now looked at as the criminal and every action you took is thoroughly scrutinized. You must be arrested and charged, regardless, with murder though it doesn't mean you'll be convicted (for those who feel OP is being unfairly targeted or overcharged). This is how it is in SA. And that the person shot and killed wasn't even an assailant makes it even worse. Just a flush of bad judgments made, all around. I just can't imagine the judge not holding him accountable for that.

 

[Trooper]

I wonder if SA authorities would consider starting half an hour earlier, shortening tea breaks to a bare 10 minutes, and working another hour or two later?
The Court days provide less play than a day's test cricket.

yesterday , the judge didn't agree to bad light and didn't call stumps.. even though Nel requested it.. hopefully today will get the full quota of overs in.

we can hardly complain though.. its not as if we are paying test cricket entry fees for this contest..

 

[MeeBee]

The law and rules and gun ownership, which Oscar understood, are clear.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/02/28/gun-laws-personal-defense-and-the-oscar-pistorius-shooting/

&#8220;You can&#8217;t shoot through a closed door,&#8221; Pretorius said in an interview with The Associated Press. &#8220;People who own guns and have been through the training, they know that shooting through a door is not going to go through South African law as an accident.&#8221;

In the same article, Johannesburg attorney Martin Hood said Pistorius&#8217; account, that he acted in self-defense, is unacceptable, according to South African law, which says a person may only use lethal force when directly faced with an attack&#8212;or the threat of an attack&#8212;that could result in serious injury or death.

So by Pistorius&#8217; own account, Hood said, the runner is guilty of the South African equivalent of manslaughter&#8212;not much of a defense.

&#8220;If he fired through a closed door, there was no threat to him. It&#8217;s as simple as that,&#8221; Hood said. &#8220;He can&#8217;t prove an attack on his life &#8230; In my opinion, at the very least, he is guilty of culpable homicide. &#8230; He should have tried to get out of the situation.&#8221;