Oscar Pistorius

[Footsoldier]

Ah, convicted already. Needn't bother with the trail then.

He is guilty. He thought it was a burglar? Really? Thought the burglar was in the toilet and no girlfriend in bed next to him. Really? He killed her out of jealous rage.

 

[cjd]

I will be quite surprised if Pistorius takes the stand.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

While I do believe in innocent until proven guilty, I do struggle to believe any sensible human being would shot at a bathroom door without first :

a) shouting out a challenge
b) noting if your partner is still in bed with you

If I woke up in the middle of the night and my girlfriend wasn't in the bed I would notice.

 

[KZNSeagull]

I'n not able to read that at the minute but definitely will later, thank you for pointing it out.

Without me having read the article, so this could be way off, you're only able to justifiably kill an intruder if you live in a dodgy area?

That does sound bizarre, surely you're not likely to attract a higher class of criminal on a secure estate, just a better one (they got on the estate affer all). Once a criminal's in your house, they're in, external security doesn't really mean a lot at that point surely?

No. The article says you have to take all the circumstances into consideration - the bit about where Oscar lives was me talking, not the article

My point is that it is that the chances of a burglar getting into Oscar's house would be very small, so his reaction to that chance was disproportionate in my view. Plus he did not make a reasonable attempt to ensure the safety of all in the house first (other than the burglar).

Here is the article - it is not great but gives some idea:

Durban - When can a person legally be allowed to open fire on an alleged burglar?
Former Durban criminal attorney and Acting High Court Judge Kessie Naidu SC, speaking in general terms and not specifically about the Oscar Pistorius case, said the circumstances and whether a person used reasonable steps to avert danger, would be the key in deciding whether he was acquitted of murder or charged with culpable homicide.
“If a person is in the sanctuary of your home, and someone enters and the householder feels endangered, the householder is entitled to defend himself,” he said.
Naidu said the householder would be entitled to “take reasonable steps to avert any harm to family members or themselves who might be harmed”.
He used the example of a child trespassing to retrieve a ball and being shot by a householder, and said those circumstances would not be of a reasonable nature, because there would be no potential harm to anyone.
“If it is found by a court of law that the householder took reasonable steps, depending on the circumstances of the case, he would be entitled to be acquitted (of murder),” he said.
Naidu used another example: “If a burglar wants to get in your property, and you can see him approaching, shooting him on the least fatal body part would be permitable because the circumstances are different,” he said.
“Until the facts appear in court, it is unfair to speculate (on the Pistorius case). We must wait until these facts are tested in court before we make judgments,” he said.
“It must be shown that a reasonable man in the position of the household owner would not have acted the same way. If it is accepted that there was an intruder, then you have to look at the potential danger. Has the householder acted in a manner that a reasonable man would not have? Then he may be convicted of culpable homicide.”
In 2004, former Springbok rugby player Rudi Visagie shot his daughter Marlé, who was 19 at the time.
He mistook her for a car thief. He was charged with culpable homicide after she died from her injuries. He was not prosecuted for the incident in court after the National Prosecuting Authority withdrew the charges saying that justice would not be served if he was prosecuted.

 

[Footsoldier]

Like to add he'll be found not guilty as he's white and famous.

 

[symyjym]

While I do believe in innocent until proven guilty, I do struggle to believe any sensible human being would shot at a bathroom door without first :

a) shouting out a challenge
b) noting if your partner is still in bed with you

If I woke up in the middle of the night and my girlfriend wasn't in the bed I would notice.

Yep I struggle with all this as well, he fired four 9mm bullets wth intent to kill someone behind a toilet door without even saying "is that you Reeva?". There was only one person fearing for their life that night, but Oscar is using that excuse for himself.

What makes it worse is that he knows he is guilty and he still wants to get away with it. If I had lost it in a rage and shot my girlfirend I wouldn't want to live with my freedom and I would accept my guilt.

 

[London Irish]

Ahh, rolling out the old amputee jokes. Original.

Come on, you have to be Stevie Wonder not to see that one coming

 

[helipilot]

Another thing that should go against him is that the pathologist has revealed today that the ammo used was called Black Talon (or Ranger), which is designed to flatten on impact causing maximum damage. So his ammo was designed to kill, not stop.

Well as someone who legally carries a concealed firearm for self protection at times I can tell you that anyone that does will use a similar round of ammunition. You want your first round to 'stop' someone and that means using a round that causes hydrostatic shock, and if it causes death as a consequence then so be it. Hollow points in the various flavours are what you use for this and Black Talon is just one type.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Yep I struggle with all this as well, he fired four 9mm bullets wth intent to kill someone behind a toilet door without even saying "is that you Reeva?". There was only one person fearing for their life that night, but Oscar is using that excuse for himself.

What makes it worse is that he knows he is guilty and he still wants to get away with it. If I had lost it in a rage and shot my girlfirend I wouldn't want to live with my freedom and I would accept my guilt.

I don't think it's as cut & dried as that, there are inconsistencies on both sides. I do know that fear makes people do very illogical/irrational things. We know he shot her, but I have no idea if he is guilty or not.

 

[symyjym]

I don't think it's as cut & dried as that, there are inconsistencies on both sides. I do know that fear makes people do very illogical/irrational things. We know he shot her, but I have no idea if he is guilty or not.

I am not too sure what inconsistency on both sides you are talking about.

The prosecution was not there so they haven’t got the luxury of knowing the exact detail. Pistorius knows exactly what happened, and if his side is inconsistent the problem is on his part.

 

[Triggaaar]

I still can't get my head around no jury. In this day and age, how can a justice system in a democracy work like this!?

I didn't know there was no jury! Bloody hell.

I heard the detail of the first witness describing the screams she heard before the gunshots were fired. Either she was lying, or Oscar is. And I take it others heard screams too? If anyone heard a lady in the house screaming before Oscar fired, then how can he be anything but guilty?

 

[Tricky Dicky]

I am not too sure what inconsistency on both sides you are talking about.

The prosecution was not there so they haven’t got the luxury of knowing the exact detail. Pistorius knows exactly what happened, and if his side is inconsistent the problem is on his part.

Well, I've not watched it all, but the first one that springs to mind is the first prosecution witness claimed to hear a womans' screams after the 4 bullet shots, when it was showed that she would have been unable to scream due to her injuries - unless I misunderstood. To be clear, I'm not defending him, I'm just saying I don't know.

 

[Gullflyinghigh]

Another thing that should go against him is that the pathologist has revealed today that the ammo used was called Black Talon (or Ranger), which is designed to flatten on impact causing maximum damage. So his ammo was designed to kill, not stop.

I can't think of a more effective way of stopping someone personally. That said, I can think of many that would've been better for all concerned.

Regarding the ammo choice, If I were afraid/paranoid of being burgled to the point that OP might have been and I lived in a country where firearms are easily obtained, I would probably also opt for something similar, reduces any chance of anything perceived as a threat being able to shoot back.

Grim way of looking at it but makes some sort of sense I think.

 

[symyjym]

Well, I've not watched it all, but the first one that springs to mind is the first prosecution witness claimed to hear a womans' screams after the 4 bullet shots, when it was showed that she would have been unable to scream due to her injuries - unless I misunderstood. To be clear, I'm not defending him, I'm just saying I don't know.

Yep I know you're not defending him, but I don't think that how the nieghbours remember the order in which they heard the event is significant. There were four bullets that were fired, one in the right hip, right shoulder, right ear, and one that missed. Unless the first shot was the fatal one to her head she would have had plenty of time to scream after the first one, two or three shots were fired.

To be woken up at in the middle of the night it may be hard to recall exactly how they heard it, but screaming and gun shots seem to have been heard.

 

[Gullflyinghigh]

No. The article says you have to take all the circumstances into consideration - the bit about where Oscar lives was me talking, not the article

My point is that it is that the chances of a burglar getting into Oscar's house would be very small, so his reaction to that chance was disproportionate in my view. Plus he did not make a reasonable attempt to ensure the safety of all in the house first (other than the burglar).

Here is the article - it is not great but gives some idea:

Durban - When can a person legally be allowed to open fire on an alleged burglar?
Former Durban criminal attorney and Acting High Court Judge Kessie Naidu SC, speaking in general terms and not specifically about the Oscar Pistorius case, said the circumstances and whether a person used reasonable steps to avert danger, would be the key in deciding whether he was acquitted of murder or charged with culpable homicide.
“If a person is in the sanctuary of your home, and someone enters and the householder feels endangered, the householder is entitled to defend himself,” he said.
Naidu said the householder would be entitled to “take reasonable steps to avert any harm to family members or themselves who might be harmed”.
He used the example of a child trespassing to retrieve a ball and being shot by a householder, and said those circumstances would not be of a reasonable nature, because there would be no potential harm to anyone.
“If it is found by a court of law that the householder took reasonable steps, depending on the circumstances of the case, he would be entitled to be acquitted (of murder),” he said.
Naidu used another example: “If a burglar wants to get in your property, and you can see him approaching, shooting him on the least fatal body part would be permitable because the circumstances are different,” he said.
“Until the facts appear in court, it is unfair to speculate (on the Pistorius case). We must wait until these facts are tested in court before we make judgments,” he said.
“It must be shown that a reasonable man in the position of the household owner would not have acted the same way. If it is accepted that there was an intruder, then you have to look at the potential danger. Has the householder acted in a manner that a reasonable man would not have? Then he may be convicted of culpable homicide.”
In 2004, former Springbok rugby player Rudi Visagie shot his daughter Marlé, who was 19 at the time.
He mistook her for a car thief. He was charged with culpable homicide after she died from her injuries. He was not prosecuted for the incident in court after the National Prosecuting Authority withdrew the charges saying that justice would not be served if he was prosecuted.

I read it slightly differently, though agree that circumstance seems to play a part (as it should really) in deciding culpability.

An example given in the article states that shooting someone in a non-fatal area would be effectively permissable if someone was trying to get into your home. In the OP case, he will (presumably) state that he believed someone was inside and potentially armed. In that different circumstance a fatal shot would presumably (sort of) be ok.

I'm not actually saying it is, but I could see how it would be interpreted, all he thought was someone was in bathroom and 'invading', without going in it could be anything (Schrodinger's threat?) and going in could result in a fatal.shot to himself.

None of that addresses that he apparently didn't check where his partner was though.

 

[Goldstone1976]

From what I've read, the prosecution are arguing that the screams were female and before the shots were fired, the defence that they were male (OP screaming after realising what he'd done) and after the shots.

Hmmm.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Well as someone who legally carries a concealed firearm for self protection at times I can tell you that anyone that does will use a similar round of ammunition. You want your first round to 'stop' someone and that means using a round that causes hydrostatic shock, and if it causes death as a consequence then so be it. Hollow points in the various flavours are what you use for this and Black Talon is just one type.

Ok, fair enough. As someone who carries a gun, do you think though that his actions were reckless in the extreme?

If there was an intruder, they were in a locked toilet - they were not going anywhere. The logical course of action is call out to whoever is in there and, if they are not someone you want in the house, train your gun on the door whilst you call security - they will be there in 2 minutes.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

OP's version of events. I found this interesting.

 

[KZNSeagull]

I can't think of a more effective way of stopping someone personally. That said, I can think of many that would've been better for all concerned.

Regarding the ammo choice, If I were afraid/paranoid of being burgled to the point that OP might have been and I lived in a country where firearms are easily obtained, I would probably also opt for something similar, reduces any chance of anything perceived as a threat being able to shoot back.

Grim way of looking at it but makes some sort of sense I think.

If OP was as paranoid as made out, he would have set his burglar alarm.

 

[father_and_son]

Is shooting to kill when being burgled considered unreasonable force in SA? Not being facetious, I just genuinely don't know considering the different attitudes between here and there.

No expert in ZA law, but surely, in every civilised nation there should be a defense of "reasonable force", but this is negated if the person is in a different room and you shoot blindly through the door. Fair enough, some armed psychopathic individual is in the same room or bearing down on you then let off a few shots with the gun you are holding (I would), but when they are on the other side of a [locked] door in a room you believe is otherwise empty, then I'm guessing its slightly unreasonable to be shooting at them..?! Just me?