Oscar Pistorius

[Tommy G]

If you ever want to off your Mrs you know what to do now and where to take her, Dewani must be kicking himself, paying off three blacks to do it when all he had to was just wait until she gets up to go for a piss and then bang.

 

Hmmmmmmm

[leicsmac]

If you ever want to off your Mrs you know what to do now and where to take her, Dewani must be kicking himself, paying off three blacks to do it when all he had to was just wait until she gets up to go for a piss and then bang.

 

Still doesn't answer the question though. Not being able to see the person you're going to kill when such a kill needs precision (as with a gun) does kind of blur the lines a bit. How do you know where to place your shots if your real intent is to kill?

[ScouseFox]

Still doesn't answer the question though. Not being able to see the person you're going to kill when such a kill needs precision (as with a gun) does kind of blur the lines a bit. How do you know where to place your shots if your real intent is to kill?

 

i've played enough call of duty to know if you just continually fire you'll kill them eventually, precise or not 

[David Guiza]

Knew it was only a matter of time until OJ Simpson would be trending on Twitter. If anybody ever bothered to look into facts of a case, rather than the media's portrayal they might actually be able realise what goes/went on.

[leicsmac]

 

In that case anyone who kills someone with a gun is not guilty so long as they can argue they didn't have a clean shot. You don't think shooting someone multiple times is likely to cause death?

 

Not guilty of premeditated murder, yeah. Guilty of manslaughter, absolutely.

 

Unless you're firing multiple (and I mean emptying the clip, not just a couple or a few) shots into an enclosed environment where you are absolutely sure the victim is and as a result can place exactly where they will be for your shots, then how can you be sure that any or all of your shots will hit?

[ADK]

Still doesn't answer the question though. Not being able to see the person you're going to kill when such a kill needs precision (as with a gun) does kind of blur the lines a bit. How do you know where to place your shots if your real intent is to kill?

 

You don't need precision to kill someone with a gun.

[leicsmac]

You don't need precision to kill someone with a gun.

 

You most certainly do. Killing someone outright quickly with one or two shots (or even a couple more) requires aiming at very specific areas of the body. Of course, hitting someone anywhere will cause big problems with blood loss, but that's not instantaneous or even quick.

 

If Pistorious really wanted to kill her and took up the gun with the full intention of doing so, it's pretty likely he'd have fired more than four shots at a target he couldn't even see, in a room where she could move about and therefore it not be known where he needed to aim.

[ADK]

More likely he fired 4 shots and was reasonably convinced he'd killed her.

[leicsmac]

More likely he fired 4 shots and was reasonably convinced he'd killed her.

 

How could he be sure?

 

This is what I'm saying - there's too many questions and as a result too much doubt to prove the level of intent needed for premeditated murder.

 

No disagreement on the culpability, just disagree on the intent.

[Guest MattP]

Still doesn't answer the question though. Not being able to see the person you're going to kill when such a kill needs precision (as with a gun) does kind of blur the lines a bit. How do you know where to place your shots if your real intent is to kill?

 

Well you judge the size of what you are shooting at then fire accordingly. Hence Oscar firing numerous shots into a small bathroom.

 

By the logic you are using anyone could get away with murder of a trusted person with a tiny bit of thought given the situations you would find yourself in.

[Merging Cultures]

What about if you live on a farm on the outskirts of Gauteng? A dog isn't really going to suffice, it would all be about location I'd imagine, a massive difference between isolated land near Pretoria to a gated community on the Cape.

 

Back to the trial;

 

Surprised to see him not guilty to be honest. Very surprised.

 

Most middle class families are not on farms. Most crimes are committed in cities. The outskirts of Gauteng isn't really that rural, it's a relatively small province, but anyway I'd expect anyone on a farm to have a rifle. For hunting and dispatching sick animals, if nothing else. On a farm I'd expect them to have several dogs, I'd love to have a boerboel and a ridgeback. I don't have the space.

 

Mind you, I live in Lesotho... my concept of rural is very different to someone in Gauteng!

[leicsmac]

Well you judge the size of what you are shooting at then fire accordingly. Hence Oscar firing numerous shots into a small bathroom.

 

By the logic you are using anyone could get away with murder of a trusted person with a tiny bit of thought given the situations you would find yourself in.

 

Was the bathroom small enough that she would be framed in such a way that he could be sure of hitting her when shooting through the door in that way? I've not actually seen the size of the room.

 

Anyway, I and you/ADK evidently disagree and I don't think we're going to convince each other otherwise.

[purpleronnie]

Was the bathroom small enough that she would be framed in such a way that he could be sure of hitting her when shooting through the door in that way? I've not actually seen the size of the room.

 

Anyway, I and you/ADK evidently disagree and I don't think we're going to convince each other otherwise.

It was really small, pretty much guaranteeing whoever was behind it would be hit.

[ScouseFox]

Well you judge the size of what you are shooting at then fire accordingly. Hence Oscar firing numerous shots into a small bathroom.

 

By the logic you are using anyone could get away with murder of a trusted person with a tiny bit of thought given the situations you would find yourself in.

 

yeah i thought that. could i just fire a bullet at each limb, watch whoever i've shot bleed to death and then say well obviously it's not murder otherwise i'd have shot the bastard in the head.

[Guest MattP]

Was the bathroom small enough that she would be framed in such a way that he could be sure of hitting her when shooting through the door in that way? I've not actually seen the size of the room.

 

Anyway, I and you/ADK evidently disagree and I don't think we're going to convince each other otherwise.

 

Very small according to the diagram of the room and even smaller given he could be fairly sure she wasn't having a bath at the time.

 

I think you are giving a very easy get out clause to the guy here considering what he has done. I know murder has become a very hard term to prove beyind doubt these days, but I find it very hard to believe from how much of the case I have watched and the situation he was in that he didn't know what he was doing here. The fact they were arguing about her affair, she had locked the toilet door (who does that at 3am when alone with their partner?) and shouting had been heard for hours from the property leads me to believe these weren't the actions of a man who didn't know what he was doing at the time.

 

To go through all that and not check she was in bed next to you before grabbing your ammo, loading you gun and then unloading numerous shots into the bathroom defies belief for me.

 

But you are right, we aren't going to convince each other either way.

yeah i thought that. could i just fire a bullet at each limb, watch whoever i've shot bleed to death and then say well obviously it's not murder otherwise i'd have shot the bastard in the head.

 

In South Africa it appears so!

[Merging Cultures]

Very small according to the diagram of the room and even smaller given he could be fairly sure she wasn't having a bath at the time.

 

I think you are giving a very easy get out clause to the guy here considering what he has done. I know murder has become a very hard term to prove beyind doubt these days, but I find it very hard to believe from how much of the case I have watched and the situation he was in that he didn't know what he was doing here. The fact they were arguing about her affair, she had locked the toilet door (who does that at 3am when alone with their partner?) and shouting had been heard for hours from the property leads me to believe these weren't the actions of a man who didn't know what he was doing at the time.

 

To go through all that and not check she was in bed next to you before grabbing your ammo, loading you gun and then unloading numerous shots into the bathroom defies belief for me.

 

But you are right, we aren't going to convince each other either way.

 

In South Africa it appears so!

 

I think the point is that the state couldn't prove he intended to kill the person behind the door, whoever it was. They couldn't disprove that he was scared and acted irrationally. 

 

Arguing with a partner doesn't mean anything, as the judge said, relationships are dynamic.

 

Innocent until proven guilty, and only he will know what he intended to do that night.

[David Guiza]

I think the point is that the state couldn't prove he intended to kill the person behind the door, whoever it was. They couldn't disprove that he was scared and acted irrationally. 

 

Arguing with a partner doesn't mean anything, as the judge said, relationships are dynamic.

 

Innocent until proven guilty, and only he will know what he intended to do that night.

 That's the key, seems to be lost in modern law debate. It's not for the defence to prove that he didn't intend to kill, it's for the prosecution to prove that he did beyond reasonable doubt.

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

You are aware of the size of the bathroom he was shooting in to? It was basically a cubicle and in his own words 'I just kept shotting and shotting'. To think you weren't going to kill somebody in a toilet that size is a ridiculous thought. I've said all along he'll be found not guilty of murder, given 5 years in a cushty little prison at most, this is South Africa were talking about, not exactly famed for its clean justice system.

[Guest MattP]

I think the point is that the state couldn't prove he intended to kill the person behind the door, whoever it was. They couldn't disprove that he was scared and acted irrationally. 

 

Arguing with a partner doesn't mean anything, as the judge said, relationships are dynamic.

 

Innocent until proven guilty, and only he will know what he intended to do that night.

 

Oh I can see why the judge has came to the verdict given what the state has to prove under South African law, it's also far harder for a lawyer to convince a judge than a jury in a situation like this. Unless you are caught red handed actually committing the act I think it would be possible to throw enough doubt into any case that you could get downgraded to culpable homicide under these conditions.

 

There was a case in Natal in the Times where a man managed to get a CH instead of murder on a claim that he didn't realise a gun could fire bullets as he hadn't been taught how to use one properly, of course the state had to 100% prove he did and as you can't get into someone's mind that proved impossible.

 

'beyond reasonable doubt' is a great legal term and I'm glad we have it in civilised Europe in regard to cases like these.

[ADK]

To be fair I've no real knowledge of the SA legal system and am basing my judgement off our UK system. I'd find him guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

 

I don't believe he wouldn't have known shooting someone 4 times was likely to cause death.

 

His story about believing there was an intruder yet having no knowledge of where his partner was is 100% unbelievable. I don't see how any reasonable person could believe that.

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

The first thing you do if your missus is with you and there is an intruder in the house is check she's okay, not unload bullets in to a bathroom without knowing where she is.

 

The Judge has just read out what she thinks without giving a verdict, what she described to me sounded like a definition of murder.

[Merging Cultures]

 civilised Europe 

 

Bless.

[Guest MattP]

The first thing you do if your missus is with you and there is an intruder in the house is check she's okay, not unload bullets in to a bathroom without knowing where she is.

 

The Judge has just read out what she thinks without giving a verdict, what she described to me sounded like a definition of murder.

 

It's weird isn't it? In Britain i'm convinced this is without doubt murder. South African law appears very very different though. In South Africa it appears you could drive by a Sainsburys, unload 150 bullets into the doorway and then shrug you shoulders say ingit isn't murder as you can't prove I intended to kill anyone.

 

I'd be interested to see just how many cases are handed down of culpable homicide compared to murder over the course of a year nationwide.

 

The South African legal experts on Sky now are expressing huge surprise at the verdict's given the judge's summing up, so maybe it is just a curious case.

[Nick]

They can't prove intent to kill in the moment or in premeditation - so it'll be negligence by unreasonable behaviour...... though it was a strange place to adjourn....... there may be another twist to this sentencing but   if found guilty of the other offences as well, all together he'll get 8 years minimum.

 

I have concerns he'll not be strong enough mentally to get through the next 8 hours, never mind the next 8 years.

[Merging Cultures]

It's weird isn't it? In Britain i'm convinced this is without doubt murder. South African law appears very very different though. In South Africa it appears you could drive by a Sainsburys, unload 150 bullets into the doorway and then shrug you shoulders say ingit isn't murder as you can't prove I intended to kill anyone.

 

I'd be interested to see just how many cases are handed down of culpable homicide compared to murder over the course of a year nationwide.

 

The South African legal experts on Sky now are expressing huge surprise at the verdict's given the judge's summing up, so maybe it is just a curious case.

 

If you drive by Sainsbury's and unload 150 bullets, you've intentionally gone out your way to try to kill people. That is clearly murder. 

 

Whereas in this case, the guy has said he thought someone was breaking into his house, he has a disability and is therefore disadvantaged which causes additional tension, and so he took his gun. While scared he shot through the door. But his stated intention wasn't on going out to kill someone. We don't know his state of mind, but for it to have been premeditated murder, he would have had to have planned to go and kill someone. Like in your fictional Sainsbury's story. The prosecution failed to prove he had planned on killing someone in his toilet, rather than killing some in a reactionary state of mind. However, in the reactionary state of mind, he should could have acted more reasonably, which is why it will be culpable homicide and he isn't acquitted.