Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #69 *Appeal Verdict*

[soozieqtips]

Thank you.x
I find it harder to believe that- on believing there was an intruder -Pistorius (or anyone) would then decide essentially to execute that intruder through a door, knowing full well that he was acting completely unlawfully.
Why jeopardise his future/life/career /reputation?

BIB - yes, why? Unless it's because he knew it was Reeva and killed her in a rage. If there had really been an intruder, it would have made no sense for OP to have jeopardised everything by killing them (when he wasn't under attack at any point). The 'intruder' was the one at risk with OP armed and pointing his gun at the door. Plus, most murders are carried out by people known to the victim. OP murdering Reeva in a fit of anger makes a lot more sense to me than him executing an intruder who was behind a closed door and of absolutely no threat to him.

 

[Marfa Lights]

Along those same lines, I still don't think enough was made of what a really bad day Oscar had on the 13th.

Whatever happened, something pushed him over the edge.

If he had told the whole story (the truth) he might have garnered some sympathy for being overwhelmed by a series of events and losing it that night. I guess that would enter into the territory of provocation?? Or heat-of-the-moment loss of control?

Whatever, I think an honest account with genuine remorse would have ultimately served him better than trying to appear to be the unfortunate victim/hero.

 

[aftermath]

Of course it’s hard to actually believe that.

But the good news is - you don’t have to struggle

Why?

Because there was no intruder, Pistorius made it all up, but don’t tell everyone

What really happened is gun fanatic Pistorius lost his well-known temper and in a moment of blind rage shot Reeva because she defied him for some reason forgetting it was not her but ego obsessed Pistorius was the one who called the shots (literally)

Now, that makes much more sense than some ridiculous noisy intruder story doesn’t it

Actually, based on what was presented about him, no, it doesn't make more sense at all.

 

[Tortoise]

Actually, based on what was presented about him, no, it doesn't make more sense at all.

Carry on wondering then, why he would murder an intruder, if that makes more sense to you. Because it was murder according to the law, the evidence and the Supreme Court.

 

[aftermath]

That isn't answering my question.

Sorry... I don't know what you are asking then. Do you mean how can unlawful intent -in general- be proved? (and not specifically in this particular case?)

 

[Tortoise]

Sorry... I don't know whst you agree asking then. Do you mean how can unlawful intent -in general- be proved? (and not specifically in this particular case?)

yes, if it has been proven that there was no lawful intent.

 

[aftermath]

Carry on wondering then, why he would murder an intruder, if that makes more sense to you. Because it was murder according to the law, the evidence and the Supreme Court.

It wasn't murder DD of Reeva though according to either high court or appeal court. And it wasn't murder DE (mistaken intruder version) according to the high Court. So it's not exactly a clear cut case.

 

[Tortoise]

It wasn't murder DD of Reeva though according to either high court or appeal court. And it wasn't murder DE (mistaken intruder version) according to the high Court. So it's not exactly a clear cut case.

It has become clear cut since the state took it to the SCA. They sorted out the trail of destruction the trial court left in its wake.

And since you know it could never be overturned to murder DD of Reeva - because the State could not appeal the factual findings, even though swathes of the evidence were ignored by the trial court - it lends no credence to your statement about the SCA's new verdict.

 

[Marfa Lights]

How on earth can you ever prove what an accused says they thought about the lawfulness of their crime?

Surely this was settled by the Romans or the Greeks.

 

[aftermath]

It has become clear cut since the state took it to the SCA. They sorted out the trail of destruction the trial court left in its wake.

And since you know it could never be overturned to murder DD of Reeva - because the State could not appeal the factual findings, even though swathes of the evidence were ignored by the trial court - it lends no credence to your statement about the SCA's new verdict.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I disagree with your calling it clear cut and saying that swathes of evidence was ignored by the trial court. (my opinion)

 

[aftermath]

How on earth can you ever prove what an accused says they thought about the lawfulness of their crime?

Surely this was settled by the Romans or the Greeks.

I think maybe context comes into play then. Eg if you decide to rob a bank you know this is an unlawful act. There is no possibility where robbing a bank is lawful. (at least, i can't think of one) So if the robber was caught and said he didnt realise that robbing the bank was unlawful, I doubt his claim would be given much credibility. The problem with the Pistorius case is that the principle of self defence is not an unlawful one.

On the intruder version, at what point do you think Pistorius began acting unlawfully?

 

[Sherbert]

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I disagree with your calling it clear cut and saying that swathes of evidence was ignored by the trial court. (my opinion)

I think it was a clear-cut case that, as a result of Masipa's unfortunate errors, has become somewhat farcical due to the fact that its focus has shifted to the welfare of the non-existent intruder.

 

[Marfa Lights]

I think maybe context comes into play then. Eg if you decide to rob a bank you know this is an unlawful act. There is no possibility where robbing a bank is lawful. (at least, i can't think of one) So if the robber was caught and said he didnt realise that robbing the bank was unlawful, I doubt his claim would be given much credibility. The problem with the Pistorius case is that the principle of self defence is not an unlawful one.

On the intruder version, at what point do you think Pistorius began acting unlawfully?

I think he began acting unlawfully when he pulled the trigger. Up until then he was simply investigating a noise.

He could have easily covered the toilet cubicle from the relative safety of his position behind the wall while he asked the intruder to identify themselves.

If he was really brave he could have told them he was armed and asked them to come out with their hands up.

Do you think a policeman investigating a break-in would be entitled to shoot under those same circumstances?

 

[aftermath]

I think he began acting unlawfully when he pulled the trigger. Up until then he was simply investigating a noise.

He could have easily covered the toilet cubicle from the relative safety of his position behind the wall while he asked the intruder to identify themselves.

If he was really brave he could have told them he was armed and asked them to come out with their hands up.

Do you think a policeman investigating a break-in would be entitled to shoot under those same circumstances?

I agree with you that up to the point of pulling the trigger he was acting lawfully, investigating a noise and that when he pulled the trigger he was acting unlawfully. The difference is that I don't think he necessarily knew he was acting unlawfully when he pulled the trigger and that's why I think CH is a fairer verdict.

No- i don't think a policeman -or anyone - is entitled to pull the trigger under those same conditions. But I don't think that pulling the trigger in those conditions is immediately and unquestionably DE. It would depend on what the person pulling the trigger believed at the time.

 

[LemonMousse]

It's not about assisting my argument at all. I take it you believe it was DD of Reeva. I would just be interested to know if there have been any posters who accept the intruder version but also believe the verdict to be DE. I have seen only one such poster on a different forum. From what I can see, posters who accept that the intruder version could reasonably possibly be true also believe that the CH verdict was correct.

I don't agree that I am making no sense.

I am 99.9% certain that Pistorius knew it was Reeva in the toilet if that's what you're asking.

The (mercifully) few people I have come across who believe the intruder story think that Pistorius is essentially innocent and so yes, think it should have been CH.

But that's because they have never, ever managed to accept that even if Pistorius thought he was shooting at an intruder he could still be guilty of murder....a point that I and countless others have been making on this thread and elsewhere since the case started.

Even now when 5 of SA's top judges have vindicated and validated every single thing we've said, there's still a refusal to face facts.

So let me say this.....even if Pistorius thought there was an intruder, he murdered them. Intentionally and willingly murdered them. That is why he is now a convicted murderer, because the SCA had to work from the basis that he didn't think Reeva was in the toilet and their response to that is the exact one we've all had for nearly two years....so what?

It is a crime to gun down a human being who is not threatening you. If you have no legal justification for taking another person's life then you are guilty, by definition, of murder.

"i was scared and not thinking straight" is not, not, NOT, a good enough reason for killing someone. It is not. And it staggers me that you continue to think it is.

 

[aftermath]

I am 99.9% certain that Pistorius knew it was Reeva in the toilet if that's what you're asking.

The (mercifully) few people I have come across who believe the intruder story think that Pistorius is essentially innocent and so yes, think it should have been CH.

But that's because they have never, ever managed to accept that even if Pistorius thought he was shooting at an intruder he could still be guilty of murder....a point that I and countless others have been making on this thread and elsewhere since the case started.

Even now when 5 of SA's top judges have vindicated and validated every single thing we've said, there's still a refusal to face facts.

So let me say this.....even if Pistorius thought there was an intruder, he murdered them. Intentionally and willingly murdered them. That is why he is now a convicted murderer, because the SCA had to work from the basis that he didn't think Reeva was in the toilet and their response to that is the exact one we've all had for nearly two years....so what?

It is a crime to gun down a human being who is not threatening you. If you have no legal justification for taking another person's life then you are guilty, by definition, of murder.

"i was scared and not thinking straight" is not, not, NOT, a good enough reason for killing someone. It is not. And it staggers me that you continue to think it is.

It staggers me that you still believe I think that 'i was scared ' is a good enough reason for killing someone. It is not and I don't think that it is. CH is not a verdict that says killing someone out of fear was either lawful or okay. It is a verdict, however, that reflects that the person who fired the gun may not have intended to act unlawfully.

 

[LemonMousse]

Have tried to respond to your points in bold and italics above

"Not impossible"....and there in lies the rub.

Not impossible is a pathetically low standard of proof and that is not what "reasonable doubt" means. This is something that I think you continually either failed to grasp or refuse to accept.

Do I agree that it's not impossible that Pistorius's version is true? Of course. But a zillion other things are not impossible either. In fact, every single explanation we could dream up would fall under the umbrella of "not impossible".

In a universe where almost anything is possible we need some better way of deciding what is most likely to be true.

So, is it "possible"? Sure. Is it "reasonably " possible. Given all the facts, no, I'm afraid it is not. The only scenario that makes sense of all the evidence is that an angry man shot and killed his girlfriend in a fit of rage and then lied about it.

You want to believe differently and that's up to you. But please, enough with the "it's not impossible" stuff. That's so far beside the point it's barely worth a mention.

 

[aftermath]

"Not impossible"....and there in lies the rub.

Not impossible is a pathetically low standard of proof and that is not what "reasonable doubt" means. This is something that I think you continually either failed to grasp or refuse to accept.

Do I agree that it's not impossible that Pistorius's version is true? Of course. But a zillion other things are not impossible either. In fact, every single explanation we could dream up would fall under the umbrella of "not impossible".

In a universe where almost anything is possible we need some better way of deciding what is most likely to be true.

So, is it "possible"? Sure. Is it "reasonably " possible. Given all the facts, no, I'm afraid it is not. The only scenario that makes sense of all the evidence is that an angry man shot and killed his girlfriend in a fit of rage and then lied about it.

You want to believe differently and that's up to you. But please, enough with the "it's not impossible" stuff. That's so far beside the point it's barely worth a mention.

Okay. Substitute my 'not impossible ' for 'reasonably possible 'then.

Your opinion that it is not reasonably possible. My opinion that it is.

 

[LemonMousse]

It staggers me that you still believe I think that 'i was scared ' is a good enough reason for killing someone. It is not and I don't think that it is. CH is not a verdict that says killing someone out of fear was either lawful or okay. It is a verdict, however, that reflects that the person who fired the gun may not have intended to act unlawfully.

It is a verdict that says that a man who shoots willingly at another human being, without justification, was being careless.

If he had a justification....if his PPD defence was accepted...CH would be the right verdict.

But it was not accepted so CH is not appropriate.

Shooting someone in the head is not careless. Not in my world.

 

[Marfa Lights]

I agree with you that up to the point of pulling the trigger he was acting lawfully, investigating a noise and that when he pulled the trigger he was acting unlawfully. The difference is that I don't think he necessarily knew he was acting unlawfully when he pulled the trigger and that's why I think CH is a fairer verdict.

No- i don't think a policeman -or anyone - is entitled to pull the trigger under those same conditions. But I don't think that pulling the trigger in those conditions is immediately and unquestionably DE. It would depend on what the person pulling the trigger believed at the time.

I appreciate your determined defense of Pistorius in this regard, but without a legitimate justification for PPD it is sufficient for finding DE that he had the foresight that his actions could cause death and proceeded regardless.

I do not understand how we would ever convict anyone if the State was required to prove the accused thought or "knew" they were acting unlawfully in cases of murder like this. That's why the burden is on the accused to justify a homicide and provide evidence why they believed they were acting lawfully.

Like Michael Dunn in the U.S. who shot and killed a teenager in a parking lot for disrespecting him about turning down their loud music, and the guy in Detroit who shot the 19 year-old drunk girl on his porch in the wee hours of the morning, everyone would claim they thought they were acting in lawful self-defense. Michael Dunn kept trying to claim he "thought" he saw a gun, but none was ever found. The Detroit guy claimed he was afraid for his life. Neither defense was successful and both are serving lengthy prison terms.

The court has to evaluate their evidence and determine if they acted lawfully and if they had either direct intention or foresight that their actions would or could cause death.

Otherwise, it would be impossible to hold someone accountable for murder in cases where they claim self-defense.