Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #69 *Appeal Verdict*

[aftermath]

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.

Do you think he knew he was shooting her in the head then?

 

[LemonMousse]

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

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

There's no equality to our opinions. Never has been.

 

[LemonMousse]

Do you think he knew he was shooting her in the head then?

He knew he was shooting her. He changed trajectory deliberately. Whether he knew it was in the head doesn't matter...he knew he'd kill her.

Although, according to you, he didn't know he wasn't allowed to.

 

[aftermath]

There's no equality to our opinions. Never has been.

Haha- not sure how to respond to that!! Agree to disagree, I suppose! 😉

 

[LemonMousse]

Seriously though....have you ever thought through your scenario?

You've decided that he was rational enough to get his gun, tell Reeva (twice) to call the police, go and confront the danger, scream his prayers to God, find his way in the dark to the right place, point his gun at the right place but....oh dear...he completely lost his marbles at the only important moment and accidentally murdered another human being in the mistaken belief that he was entitled to?

Wow.

 

[aftermath]

He knew he was shooting her. He changed trajectory deliberately. Whether he knew it was in the head doesn't matter...he knew he'd kill her.

Although, according to you, he didn't know he wasn't allowed to.

Deliberately misunderstanding my posts is unhelpful.

 

[Marfa Lights]

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.

And how exactly did he justify that he thought he was acting lawfully? Heard a noise, three noises? The window was open? Someone might come out of the toilet to get him?

Or are you saying he did not have to justify why he thought he was acting lawfully, because the burden is on the state to prove he knew he was acting unlawfully?

 

[aftermath]

Seriously though....have you ever thought through your scenario?

You've decided that he was rational enough to get his gun, tell Reeva (twice) to call the police, go and confront the danger, scream his prayers to God, find his way in the dark to the right place, point his gun at the right place but....oh dear...he completely lost his marbles at the only important moment and accidentally murdered another human being in the mistaken belief that he was entitled to?

Wow.

Not what I have said.

 

[LemonMousse]

Haha- not sure how to respond to that!! Agree to disagree, I suppose! 😉

We'll have to. I shall never agree that being scared is a good enough reason to escape a murder charge. Reeva deserved better that that.

 

[aftermath]

And how exactly did he justify that he thought he was acting lawfully? Heard a noise, three noises? The window was open? Someone might come out of the toilet to get him?

Heard noise of window - assumes intruder as all other people are in bedroom (inital error)
Noise of door slamming - confirms assumption of intruder(s) /danger
Window open - confirms assumption of intruder(s) / danger
Noise of wood moving in cubicle - interpreted as door opening - confirms immediate presence of intruder/danger and of attack beginning

Is it reasonably possible that in that moment he felt he was defending himself against an attack? IMO, yes- however wrong he might have been.

 

[Belgarion]

I am staggered by the statement in a previous post that ‘the intruder version could reasonably possibly be true.’ Even more staggering is there appears to be some who believe this

An intruder by definition has a certain modus operandi. They enter a house by the most convenient access to steal as quietly as possible so as not to awaken possible occupants, they also ensure there is always a means to escape rapidly. I think one can assume those who can overcome the defences of the type of gated community on which Pistorius lived are not rank amateurs.

Having said this don’t those who believe in Pistorius’ intruder story realised that because of the constraints of having to fit a story to the facts he has ‘constructed’ an intruder unlike any other.

There was a broken window downstairs, an ideal entrance for a real intruder, but Pistorius’ intruder ignored that (well he had to so as to fit the story) and choose to climb (somehow) to an upstairs closed window. A window that they had no idea from the ground would even be unlocked. How stupid is that? But of course he had to take the path of stupidity so as to fit the story again

Pistorius’ intruder luckily finds the bathroom window unlocked and proceeds to slam it open with sufficient force that Pistorius heard it above the noise of the fans he was moving. Another stupid unintruder like action, but one necessary to fit the story . Indeed as we saw from the video of the two men examining the house it is quite possible to open that window silently, as of course a real intruder would have done.

Now Pistorius’ intruder does something no real intruder would ever do, they enter a toilet slamming the door behind them leaving no other means of escape. Like, seriously why would an intruder do that? It was certainly not to hide from Pistorius as he had not started shouting and screaming and doing ninja impressions up the corridor at that point

It beggars belief that such a totally inept intruder would ever exist much the same as it beggars belief that anyone can seriously say such an obvious codswallop of a story could ever be reasonably possibly be true

 

[aftermath]

I am staggered by the statement in a previous post that ‘the intruder version could reasonably possibly be true.’ Even more staggering is there appears to be some who believe this

An intruder by definition has a certain modus operandi. They enter a house by the most convenient access to steal as quietly as possible so as not to awaken possible occupants, they also ensure there is always a means to escape rapidly. I think one can assume those who can overcome the defences of the type of gated community on which Pistorius lived are not rank amateurs.

Having said this don’t those who believe in Pistorius’ intruder story realised that because of the constraints of having to fit a story to the facts he has ‘constructed’ an intruder unlike any other.

There was a broken window downstairs, an ideal entrance for a real intruder, but Pistorius’ intruder ignored that (well he had to so as to fit the story) and choose to climb (somehow) to an upstairs closed window. A window that they had no idea from the ground would even be unlocked. How stupid is that? But of course he had to take the path of stupidity so as to fit the story again

Pistorius’ intruder luckily finds the bathroom window unlocked and proceeds to slam it open with sufficient force that Pistorius heard it above the noise of the fans he was moving. Another stupid unintruder like action, but one necessary to fit the story . Indeed as we saw from the video of the two men examining the house it is quite possible to open that window silently, as of course a real intruder would have done.

Now Pistorius’ intruder does something no real intruder would ever do, they enter a toilet slamming the door behind them leaving no other means of escape. Like, seriously why would an intruder do that? It was certainly not to hide from Pistorius as he had not started shouting and screaming and doing ninja impressions up the corridor at that point

It beggars belief that such a totally inept intruder would ever exist much the same as it beggars belief that anyone can seriously say such an obvious codswallop of a story could ever be reasonably possibly be true

If I heard a window opening at 3 am and believed my partner was in the same room as me, Iwould think there was someone else in the house. I doubt in that moment I would give much thought as to his choice of window or the amount of noise he made

 

[Belgarion]

If I heard a window opening at 3 am and believed my partner was in the same room as me, Iwould think there was someone else in the house. I doubt in that moment I would give much thought as to his choice of window or the amount of noise he made

Pardon?

That’s totally irrelevant to my post which was to show how silly people are to believe any intruder would behave as the one dreamed up by Pistorius.

It only takes a modicum of intelligence to realise his ‘intruder’ behaved so oddly because Pistorius had to fit him into the facts to hand.

It was not a good fit to say the least!!

 

[Marfa Lights]

I am staggered by the statement in a previous post that ‘the intruder version could reasonably possibly be true.’ Even more staggering is there appears to be some who believe this

An intruder by definition has a certain modus operandi. They enter a house by the most convenient access to steal as quietly as possible so as not to awaken possible occupants, they also ensure there is always a means to escape rapidly. I think one can assume those who can overcome the defences of the type of gated community on which Pistorius lived are not rank amateurs.

Having said this don’t those who believe in Pistorius’ intruder story realised that because of the constraints of having to fit a story to the facts he has ‘constructed’ an intruder unlike any other.

There was a broken window downstairs, an ideal entrance for a real intruder, but Pistorius’ intruder ignored that (well he had to so as to fit the story) and choose to climb (somehow) to an upstairs closed window. A window that they had no idea from the ground would even be unlocked. How stupid is that? But of course he had to take the path of stupidity so as to fit the story again

Pistorius’ intruder luckily finds the bathroom window unlocked and proceeds to slam it open with sufficient force that Pistorius heard it above the noise of the fans he was moving. Another stupid unintruder like action, but one necessary to fit the story . Indeed as we saw from the video of the two men examining the house it is quite possible to open that window silently, as of course a real intruder would have done.

Now Pistorius’ intruder does something no real intruder would ever do, they enter a toilet slamming the door behind them leaving no other means of escape. Like, seriously why would an intruder do that? It was certainly not to hide from Pistorius as he had not started shouting and screaming and doing ninja impressions up the corridor at that point

It beggars belief that such a totally inept intruder would ever exist much the same as it beggars belief that anyone can seriously say such an obvious codswallop of a story could ever be reasonably possibly be true

Well, in my defense, I don't believe the intruder story, but can accept that Masipa found it met the legal standards to be "reasonably possibly true" and that the State did not disprove the intruder story beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore it was established as a factual finding.

While I don't personally buy the full intruder story, for many of the same reasons you highlight, I also do not consider it an obstacle to finding DE.

I do think it is "reasonably possibly true" (or impossible to disprove) that he could have initially thought an intruder might have entered his house. Beyond that brief moment in the bedroom, however, his intruder story and how he responded becomes a *advertiser censored* and bull story IMO.

 

[Tortoise]

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.

You can't ever prove that subjectively someone had unlawful intent, without a confession.

According to Steyn, Jack the Ripper could not be convicted of murder if he said he did not think he was acting unlawfully. There is no way of proving subjective knowledge of unlawfulness.

The system the courts have developed, of establishing that the act/result of the actions was unlawful, and then determining whether it was done intentionally, and in sound mind, is the only way.

The defence is playing a really dirty game with this, Steyn's opinion is absolute rot, as we have established, and in his world no one would ever be convicted of any crime. It is impossible to determine intent with knowledge of unlawfulness as a separate enquiry.

As Andrea Johnson pointed out, the claim is without merit and contrived. The Con Court should burn it, because Pistorius' defence is all about trickery, seeing how far he can go with no substance to any of the arguments. This time however, it is not Masipa who is listening during her afternoon slumber.

 

[aftermath]

Pardon?

That’s totally irrelevant to my post which was to show how silly people are to believe any intruder would behave as the one dreamed up by Pistorius.

It only takes a modicum of intelligence to realise his ‘intruder’ behaved so oddly because Pistorius had to fit him into the facts to hand.

It was not a good fit to say the least!!

Sorry but it is related... There is no need to resort to implied insults like other posters.

 

[Tortoise]

In your opinion.
I have never said he felt he was entitled to murder someone. Murder is clearly unlawful. He may, however, have (wrongly) felt that he was acting in self defence (not murder).

PPD has been rejected outright by a unanimous bench of senior judges. It isn't up for debate any longer.

 

[aftermath]

PPD has been rejected outright by a unanimous bench of senior judges. It isn't up for debate any longer.

It isn't up for debate if the con court reject the request for the case to be heard

 

[Belgarion]

It isn't up for debate if the con court reject the request for the case to be heard

Would agree , if the ConCourt reject the request for the case to be heard as you say and in my opinion they surely will then PPD can’t be up for debate any longer as it’s the end of the road for Pistorius. The only road he will then be travelling will be back to jail for a long time.

 

[aftermath]

Would agree , if the ConCourt reject the request for the case to be heard as you say and in my opinion they surely will then PPD can’t be up for debate any longer as it’s the end of the road for Pistorius. The only road he will then be travelling will be back to jail for a long time.

Agreed