Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #69 *Appeal Verdict*

[GR_Turner]

Is it possible (or legally acceptable) for someone to believe their actions are lawful even when it has been entered into evidence that they have the KNOWLEDGE and training to understand such actions are indeed unlawful?

Does the law ask whether they held the belief that their actions were lawful or does the law ask whether or not they had the KNOWLEDGE of the lawful/unlawful nature of their actions?

Is the court obliged to accept the accused's claim that they "thought" or "believed" they were acting lawfully when it has been proven and entered into evidence (i.e. Sean Ren's testimony re: Oscar's firearms licensing exam) that they clearly knew and understood the law regarding the use of lethal force under those circumstances?

Why does this argument only apply in OP's case and apparently in no other similar case of people shooting through doors or roofs in similar curcumstances? That's surely the point here - OP has been treated differently from the people in those cases who, all being legal gun owners, must also have passed those same tests. Why then have those cases not been treated as murder on the basis that the owners must have known they were acting illegally in shooting at someone they can't see?

 

[Tortoise]

Why does this argument only apply in OP's case and apparently in no other similar case of people shooting through doors or roofs in similar curcumstances? That's surely the point here - OP has been treated differently from the people in those cases who, all being legal gun owners, must also have passed those same tests. Why then have those cases not been treated as murder on the basis that the owners must have known they were acting illegally in shooting at someone they can't see?

Each case is judged on its own merits, understandably.

OP was untruthful and his explanation not credible, according to psychiatric evaluation and a full bench of senior judges.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Why does this argument only apply in OP's case and apparently in no other similar case of people shooting through doors or roofs in similar curcumstances? That's surely the point here - OP has been treated differently from the people in those cases who, all being legal gun owners, must also have passed those same tests. Why then have those cases not been treated as murder on the basis that the owners must have known they were acting illegally in shooting at someone they can't see?

If you are thinking of the Mdunge case, the door did slide open and he only fired one shot. There was no screaming heard by anyone beforehand. He immediately took his wife to a medical centre for help and immediately pleaded guilty to CH. A tad different from OP don’t you think? When OP went to move the fans the curtains were open and the security light on the balcony was on. So the room was never dark at that stage and yet he walked past Reeva without seeing that she was not in bed. Not very likely. Screaming was heard by several people before and during second shots and the door never opened.

Was the other case that of Nelson Nobunga? Again he pleaded guilty to CH and was given a 7 year sentence suspended for 5. He shot through the roof in the vicinity where he thought the “burglar” might be. It does seem that one is rewarded by being honest. This is where OP failed dismally.

OP chose to argue that although he was responsible for the shooting, legally he was allowed to do it. Unfortunately for him, he managed to make a pig’s ear of his Defence. IMO he was deceitful during the whole of his trial. Even with witnesses to the events in question, he chose to deny the restaurant shooting, deny shooting through the roof of the car, lied about ammunition in his safe although he had to agree he had been estranged from his father for years. He did not rush Reeva to a Hospital but rather phoned a friend first. He also permitted evidence to be taken from his home by his brother and sister. Besides the phone and RS's bag a memory stick containing his financial information was taken, so important was it that a Locksmith was brought in to break into the safe without permission from the police. OP is fairly obviously a compulsive liar and therefore very little of his evidence is likely to be deemed true.

 

[AW2B]

But OP never claimed that he thought or believed he was acting lawfully. On the contrary. He repeatedly said he fired the four shots "before I knew it" and "before I had time to think."

If he didn't have time to think before shooting, then how could he possibly think he was shooting lawfully? According to him, there was no time to think!

He also said he did not intentionally shoot, that he did not aim, that he did not want to shoot the intruder coming out of the toilet, and that he did not purposefully fire into the door.

If he never intended to shoot, much less intentionally shoot at the perceived attacker to defend himself, then how could he possibly believe he was shooting lawfully? According to him, he never intentionally shot his weapon at all. It's impossible to simultaneously believe you're shooting lawfully, yet not even intend to shoot in the first place.

Roux argued that he fired the shots due to his "increased startle response," that the firing of the shots was the result of "a fright," and that it was an "involuntary reflexive response."

If the shots were fired as a reflex due to a startle and fright, then how could he possibly believe he was firing the shots lawfully? No thought process takes place prior to or during a reflexive action, it just automatically happens. So it would be impossible for him to believe the action was lawful when according to him, the action itself was not even voluntary.

OP unloaded four rounds through a closed door upon hearing a noise. He never even suggested, much less claimed, that at the time he was firing the shots that he honestly and genuinely believed he was entitled to shoot and kill whoever made that noise.

That's precisely the excuse he used to claim that he was not committing a crime..in other words..he didn't break the law..in other words..his actions were lawful---> he didn't think due to severe panic!
However, we all know that he did think when he gave his reason for not firing a warning shot into the shower----> he feared the bullet might ricochet and hit him! He was thinking alright..

 

[Belgarion]

That's precisely the excuse he used to claim that he was not committing a crime..in other words..he didn't break the law..in other words..his actions were lawful---> he didn't think due to severe panic!
However, we all know that he did think when he gave his reason for not firing a warning shot into the shower----> he feared the bullet might ricochet and hit him! He was thinking alright..

……he was also thinking after the murder as well

- quickly coming up with the intruder story, which was so important to disseminate asap to try and save his sorry *advertiser censored* he even rang Stander to tell him before he even thought of getting medical help for Reeva.

- making sure his siblings removed possibly incriminating items from the crime scene

- making sure he 'forgot' the four-digit passcode needed to unlock the mobile phone he was using that night.

- ensuring there was much anguish/remorse and of course praying for Reeva’s life (when there were witnesses of course)

….nope, he never stopped thinking!

 

[LemonMousse]

Why does this argument only apply in OP's case and apparently in no other similar case of people shooting through doors or roofs in similar curcumstances? That's surely the point here - OP has been treated differently from the people in those cases who, all being legal gun owners, must also have passed those same tests. Why then have those cases not been treated as murder on the basis that the owners must have known they were acting illegally in shooting at someone they can't see?

This again.

There have been no other cases similar enough to draw the kinds of comparisons you're attempting.

People who have accidentally shot loved ones - including, notably, one instance through a toilet door - SHOT ONCE.

ONCE
ONCE
ONCE

All of their actions leading up to the event were understandable and explainable. All of their actions after the event - immediately trying to get help and cooperating fully with the police - were consistent with a genuine accident.

That's the difference. Pistorius is being treated differently because every single circumstance was DIFFERENT.

His version was inconsistent, illogical and impossible to believe.
He shot four times.
He never attempted to get any medical help for Reeva.

Why does this same basic point have to be made over and over again?

 

[sinth]

Why does this argument only apply in OP's case and apparently in no other similar case of people shooting through doors or roofs in similar curcumstances?

This argument has been applied in other cases and is NOT unique to pistorius. Take a look at S v De Oliveira.

 

[Trotterly]

This again.

There have been no other cases similar enough to draw the kinds of comparisons you're attempting.

People who have accidentally shot loved ones - including, notably, one instance through a toilet door - SHOT ONCE.

ONCE
ONCE
ONCE

All of their actions leading up to the event were understandable and explainable. All of their actions after the event - immediately trying to get help and cooperating fully with the police - were consistent with a genuine accident.

That's the difference. Pistorius is being treated differently because every single circumstance was DIFFERENT.

His version was inconsistent, illogical and impossible to believe.
He shot four times.
He never attempted to get any medical help for Reeva.

Why does this same basic point have to be made over and over again?

The number of shots is not really relevant if these people thought they were acting in self defence. Where in law does it say you can only fire once to save your life?

The SCA did not say it was not a genuine accident as there was insufficient reliable evidence for that despite how many times it gets brought up to the contrary.

As has been pointed out before people do try to get gunshot victims to hospital themselves and OP did call for help no matter what twist is put on it.

 

[Trotterly]

This argument has been applied in other cases and is NOT unique to pistorius. Take a look at S v De Oliveira.

In Oliveira he could see the intruder(s) were not upon him.

 

[soozieqtips]

The number of shots is not really relevant if these people thought they were acting in self defence. Where in law does it say you can only fire once to save your life?

The SCA did not say it was not a genuine accident as there was insufficient reliable evidence for that despite how many times it gets brought up to the contrary.

As has been pointed out before people do try to get gunshot victims to hospital themselves and OP did call for help no matter what twist is put on it.

BIB - where's the proof? There's a call to Netcare but the content of the call was never established. The fact the murderer dialled a number is proof only that he dialled a number - not that he asked for help (no matter what twist is put on it). Or are you referring to him calling his friend for help lifting the body? That's not getting medical help either (also, no matter what twist is put on it). More likely he called Netcare so there would be a record of him calling the emergency services, which he would need as 'proof' he tried to get help.

 

[Marfa Lights]

Why does this argument only apply in OP's case and apparently in no other similar case of people shooting through doors or roofs in similar curcumstances? That's surely the point here - OP has been treated differently from the people in those cases who, all being legal gun owners, must also have passed those same tests. Why then have those cases not been treated as murder on the basis that the owners must have known they were acting illegally in shooting at someone they can't see?

Perhaps he was a less-than-credible witness compared to the others you mention.

I can think of a few characteristics that may have distinguished him from the others-- several of which clearly did not serve him well in court:

1. Arrogance/Sense of Entitlement/Privilege
2. Recklessness/Carelessness
3. Dishonesty/Evasiveness/Did not take the court into his confidence
4. Inability to take responsibility for his actions
5. Strongly motivated by self-interest/lack of integrity
6. Disrespect for the law/Disregard of Lawful Behavior
7. Trigger-Happy/Infatuated with Guns/Careless with his weapon
8. Abusive and Controlling Behavior toward others

 

[Marfa Lights]

In Oliveira he could see the intruder(s) were not upon him.

Yes, and his murder conviction was upheld on appeal. Your point?

 

[sinth]

In Oliveira he could see the intruder(s) were not upon him.

Likewise in the Pistorius case, he could see that the intruder(s) was/were not upon him. The door handle did not move.

 

[Belgarion]

BIB - where's the proof? There's a call to Netcare but the content of the call was never established. The fact the murderer dialled a number is proof only that he dialled a number - not that he asked for help (no matter what twist is put on it). Or are you referring to him calling his friend for help lifting the body? That's not getting medical help either (also, no matter what twist is put on it). More likely he called Netcare so there would be a record of him calling the emergency services, which he would need as 'proof' he tried to get help.

I find it amazing that those who wish to ‘support’ Pistorius keep referring to the Netcare call as proof of him getting medical help for Reeva.

I have no doubt that even if Pistorius spoke to a Netcare operator (of which there is no proof) he did not explain her injuries nor did he receive the advice he was supposed to have received.

The call was a mere 60 seconds long, hardly time to give his address and of course to tell them he thought it was an intruder (most important of course).

However, let us supposed he managed to tell Netcare that Reeva had a shattered hip and pelvis, an arm which was partially amputated with extensive bleeding from both injuries. Also a massive head wound from which brain tissue was extending. Are we really expected to believe a qualified medical responder would effectively say having received this information, ‘best you bung her in the back of the car and run her over to us’

Along with the ‘miraculously self-discharging firearm’ this is yet another outrageous example of the ludicrous extent to which Pistorius will lie, in this case to justify the need to mess up the crime scene.

 

[Interested Bystander]

But OP never claimed that he thought or believed he was acting lawfully. On the contrary. He repeatedly said he fired the four shots "before I knew it" and "before I had time to think."

If he didn't have time to think before shooting, then how could he possibly think he was shooting lawfully? According to him, there was no time to think!

He also said he did not intentionally shoot, that he did not aim, that he did not want to shoot the intruder coming out of the toilet, and that he did not purposefully fire into the door.

If he never intended to shoot, much less intentionally shoot at the perceived attacker to defend himself, then how could he possibly believe he was shooting lawfully? According to him, he never intentionally shot his weapon at all. It's impossible to simultaneously believe you're shooting lawfully, yet not even intend to shoot in the first place.

Roux argued that he fired the shots due to his "increased startle response," that the firing of the shots was the result of "a fright," and that it was an "involuntary reflexive response."

If the shots were fired as a reflex due to a startle and fright, then how could he possibly believe he was firing the shots lawfully? No thought process takes place prior to or during a reflexive action, it just automatically happens. So it would be impossible for him to believe the action was lawful when according to him, the action itself was not even voluntary.

OP unloaded four rounds through a closed door upon hearing a noise. He never even suggested, much less claimed, that at the time he was firing the shots that he honestly and genuinely believed he was entitled to shoot and kill whoever made that noise.

I think the intention was for OP to go for PPD. I am sure that is what Roux had worked up as the Defence but OP managed to foul up his entire Defence so that nobody knew exactly what he was saying. Roux must have wondered what the hell was going on when OP started blabbing almost anything that came into his head. Another of those "head in hands" days for Roux.

 

[aftermath]

I find it amazing that those who wish to ‘support’ Pistorius keep referring to the Netcare call as proof of him getting medical help for Reeva.

I have no doubt that even if Pistorius spoke to a Netcare operator (of which there is no proof) he did not explain her injuries nor did he receive the advice he was supposed to have received.

The call was a mere 60 seconds long, hardly time to give his address and of course to tell them he thought it was an intruder (most important of course).

However, let us supposed he managed to tell Netcare that Reeva had a shattered hip and pelvis, an arm which was partially amputated with extensive bleeding from both injuries. Also a massive head wound from which brain tissue was extending. Are we really expected to believe a qualified medical responder would effectively say having received this information, ‘best you bung her in the back of the car and run her over to us’

Along with the ‘miraculously self-discharging firearm’ this is yet another outrageous example of the ludicrous extent to which Pistorius will lie, in this case to justify the need to mess up the crime scene.

Where is the evidence to contest the defence claims re the netcare call? Do we really think that someone of Nel's calibre would miss this opportunity to cast doubt? I don't. He is a highly competent lawyer, so would have a pretty good reason for not calling into question the netcare call, IMO.

 

[soozieqtips]

Where is the evidence to contest the defence claims re the netcare call? Do we really think that someone of Nel's calibre would miss this opportunity to cast doubt? I don't. He is a highly competent lawyer, so would have a pretty good reason for not calling into question the netcare call, IMO.

This has been discussed many many times before. You must have missed it. No one knows why the content of the Netcare call wasn't brought up in court. It could have been for many reasons, ie, 60 seconds of silence from OP, a bad line, or call not recorded properly. Who knows? Do you really not think if there was anything redeeming on it for OP that Roux wouldn't have pushed for the details to be known? All that we know here on WS is that a call was made to Netcare which lasted 60 seconds. That's ALL we know to be a fact. We do NOT know that the killer requested help for the woman he'd just murdered. We do NOT know that the killer was told to bring Reeva to the hospital as all we have is the killer's word for it, and his word means nothing, nada, zilch. Given his web of lies and deceit throughout the trial, it's highly unlikely he did request help but just wanted the call on 'record'.

 

[Tortoise]

Where is the evidence to contest the defence claims re the netcare call? Do we really think that someone of Nel's calibre would miss this opportunity to cast doubt? I don't. He is a highly competent lawyer, so would have a pretty good reason for not calling into question the netcare call, IMO.

The evidence that casts doubt on netcare's alleged advice, is in the first phone call he made to Stander.

Pistorius even lied about that. He said he needed Stander's help to carry Reeva down the stairs, and asked Stander to call an ambulance.

Neither of those was the truth.

When he called Stander he wouldn't have known netcare would say move her and bring her in by car.

Neither did he wait for Stander to help him carry Reeva down the stairs, nor need that help.

No one summoned an ambulance until Dr Stipp arrived, yet Pistorius said he sat and waited for the ambulance.

The arterial blood spatter down the stairs shows that Reeva could not have been shot at the earlier time or laid in the toilet and then bathroom for 10-15 minutes while Pistorius searched for her and then did all that shouldering and kicking the door and then batting it and dismantling it, sitting with her and then making the phone calls before carrying her down.

His whole version is a lie. There is the evidence.

 

[GR_Turner]

This again.

There have been no other cases similar enough to draw the kinds of comparisons you're attempting.

People who have accidentally shot loved ones - including, notably, one instance through a toilet door - SHOT ONCE.

ONCE
ONCE
ONCE

All of their actions leading up to the event were understandable and explainable. All of their actions after the event - immediately trying to get help and cooperating fully with the police - were consistent with a genuine accident.

That's the difference. Pistorius is being treated differently because every single circumstance was DIFFERENT.

His version was inconsistent, illogical and impossible to believe.
He shot four times.
He never attempted to get any medical help for Reeva.

Why does this same basic point have to be made over and over again?

So are you now saying that it's got nothing to do with his answer in the gun test? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the gun test in SA says it's ok to shoot 1 shot at someone you can't properly see. If shooting without properly knowing your target means that you have knowingly acted illegally, then it doesn't make any difference whether it was 1 shot or 4, or are you now arguing that if I go up to someone and shoot once, that somehow doesn't really matter, but 4 would??

 

[GR_Turner]

In relation to Netcare, the operator could have been called to testify that OP didn't actually explain what had happened or ask for help, couldn't he or she? It was for the state to prove their case, so they should have led evidence in this matter if there was anything to disprove OP's version. That they didn't either play a recording or call the operator suggests that there was nothing suspicious about the call he made.