Oscar Pistorius

[Guest MattP]

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.

 

But the judge's comments today summing this up has gone against most of the things you have said here.

 

She has stated that she disn't believe his disibility has any impact on the events, she has said she found him a recalcitrant witness whose testimony regarding thinking he was being burgled wasn't believable, she then went on to say his actions in shooting were not those of a reasonable man and that she found it unimaginable that he wouldn't have at least shouted or fired a warning shot in the situation he was faced before taking the action he took. Even Alex Crawford tweeted that the room was fully expecting a guilty verdict to arrive given the explanation and understanding of the events.

 

This is why the legal expert Sky News has on is baffled by the judges summing up compared to the verdict, they were all expecting a guilty verdict after she spent about 80 minutes this morning pretty much explaining why she would reach a guilty verdict.

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

She said almost to the word 'you couldn't of fired 4 shots in to the bathroom and not reasonably expected that a bullet would hit and this shot could result in death' then goes on to say he couldn't be found guilty of murder. Baffling.

[Dan]

Cannot believe there are people trying to jump to the defence of someone who has shot into a tiny bathroom four times saying that it wouldn't be enough to kill someone.

 

Sorry but it's just ridiculous.

[Merging Cultures]

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.

 

 

But the judge's comments today summing this up has gone against most of the things you have said here.

 

She has stated that she disn't believe his disibility has any impact on the events, she has said she found him a recalcitrant witness whose testimony regarding thinking he was being burgled wasn't believable, she then went on to say his actions in shooting were not those of a reasonable man and that she found it unimaginable that he wouldn't have at least shouted or fired a warning shot in the situation he was faced before taking the action he took. Even Alex Crawford tweeted that the room was fully expecting a guilty verdict to arrive given the explanation and understanding of the events.

 

This is why the legal expert Sky News has on is baffled by the judges summing up compared to the verdict, they were all expecting a guilty verdict after she spent about 80 minutes this morning pretty much explaining why she would reach a guilty verdict.

 

Anyway, I am not sure which source you are checking, but on BBC it said:

 

13:18:

In the "reasonableness" test, one must take into account the accused's background, level of education, and gender, the judge says.

13:19:

Defence says the accused's disability made him feel vulnerable, which contributed to him arming himself with a firearm, the judge says.

 

13:19:

In my view, we are dealing with whether a particular act is reasonable or not reasonable. It has to depend on the particular case of each case, the judge says.

13:21:

Security personnel are in place to deal with such circumstances, the judge says. Mr Pistorius could have called for security. There is no reason why he could not have done so before venturing into the bathroom with a loaded firearm, she adds.

13:21: Calling security or calling for help from the balcony probably would have taken as much time as it would have taken for him to go to the bathroom and discharge the four shots, the judge says.

13:22: 

Defence argued that the accused's circumstances should be taken into account, the judge says. This included the fact that Mr Pistorius grew up in a crime ridden area, the judge adds.

 

13:23:

"I agree the conduct of the accused... may be explained by looking at his background. However, the explanation of his conduct is just that - an explanation. It does not excuse the conduct of the accused," says Judge Masipa.

 

 

So yes, the Judge said his background explained his conduct, but did not excuse it.

 

 

It wasn't proven that he intended and planned to kill someone in his bathroom (premeditated murder) and it wasn't proven that he intended (but didn't plan) to kill someone in his bathroom (common-law murder). According to the Judge acted unreasonably, but they were not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt to her that he intended to, i.e. set out to, sought to, had no other purpose other than, killing the person behind the door.

[The Horse's Mouth]

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.

There is literally no comparisons between the two

[leicsmac]

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.

 

Once again...only if you know where you're aiming at.

 

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.

 

Are we really going to make this about the difference between our justice systems just because a verdict has been reached that you don't agree with?

 

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.

 

Personally I'm rather happy that the burden of proof is as high as it is. 

 

Cannot believe there are people trying to jump to the defence of someone who has shot into a tiny bathroom four times saying that it wouldn't be enough to kill someone.

 

Sorry but it's just ridiculous.

 

Where's the jumping to the defence? I think everyone here agrees that he should be sent down, the only disagreement is for what and for how long.

 

BaltimoreBlue above has just pretty much made the point of law for me. They couldn't prove that he specifically armed himself and then shot through the door with the specific intent of killing his girlfriend with malice aforethought. 

 

As some other people have said, it would be interesting to see what kind of verdict would be reached in a similar case involving a jury trial here in the UK.

[Guest MattP]

I was watching it live.

 

The fact she says his background explained the fact he armed himself, but did not excuse the actions pretty much says to me his disibility has been discounted from the verdict she would reach in regards to murder.

 

We're not going to convince each other but I'm with most people here, the fact you can openly fire numerous bullets into an area smaller than a phonebox knowing a person is inside there and not be guilty of intending to kill is quite frankly baffling and probably leaves a lot of people in little doubts as to why crime and murder rates in the country are at such a ridiculous level if there is suck a lack of harsh consequence for personal actions and responsibility.

 

I often said I'd prefer to have a single judge over our jury system, this case has really made me re-evaulate that thought. It seems to be able to turn any case into such a wretch of legal jargon that anything can be argued away to diminishing responsibility of the accused.

Personally I'm rather happy that the burden of proof is as high as it is.

 

So am I, that's what I'm saying. I think 'beyond reasonable doubt' in front of 12 people is fine.

 

I wouldn't want the burden of proof to be so high as it appears to be in South Africa that a murder charge appears impossible to achieve unless you have direct witnesses to the act.

[David Guiza]

There is literally no comparisons between the two

Exactly. Litterally the only similarity between the two is that they were both high profile cases inolving mass media attention. Just another example of people hearing something over time through the media, film, television etc and assuming it's true without ever actually questioning it.

There is no doubt that Pistorius' actions killed Reeva. OJ however there was.

Pistorious is a white man living in South Africa, hardly on the side of oppression.

OJ is/was a black man living in what was, and arguably still is, a nation that favours the white man.

I see comments like 'OJ Simpson's Lawyer working wonders again' - pretty impressive for a dead man. Or 'Clearly the same jury as the OJ trial', impressive considering there is no trial by jury.

 

Anyway, I understood from the judge's comments that the doubt was not as to whether he belived he could have killed her through the door, the doubt was as to who was behind the door? She said something along the lines of 'he could not be sure it was Reeva behind there', clearly arguments can be made against that. If i suspected there was an intruder in my house, the first thing I would check before taking any action was that my girlfriend was safe, along with any children etc if relevant. Which, suppesedly did not happen.

However, people are judging this case by the basis of the English legal system/their own form of justice. The judge has to be 99.99% certain that he intended to kill Reeva that night, and there is any reasonable doubt against that then she simply cannot sentence him to murder.

Personally, from what I have watched and read I don't believe there was reasonable doubt, but a case could be made and she has obviously digested and believed that claim from the defence.

[Merging Cultures]

Cannot believe there are people trying to jump to the defence of someone who has shot into a tiny bathroom four times saying that it wouldn't be enough to kill someone.

 

Sorry but it's just ridiculous.

 

It's the term murder. I am not defending the fact that he killed someone. He should have acted differently. But murder means that he intended and planned to kill someone. I am not sure he got out of bed and thought, hmm there is a noise in the bathroom, let me go kill the person, or that he intended and planned to kill his girlfriend. 

 

He'd have to completely off his rocker to want to mess his life up that badly.

[leicsmac]

I was watching it live.

 

The fact she says his background explained the fact he armed himself, but did not excuse the actions pretty much says to me his disibility has been discounted from the verdict she would reach in regards to murder.

 

We're not going to convince each other but I'm with most people here, the fact you can openly fire numerous bullets into an area smaller than a phonebox knowing a person is inside there and not be guilty of intending to kill is quite frankly baffling and probably leaves a lot of people in little doubts as to why crime and murder rates in the country are at such a ridiculous level if there is suck a lack of harsh consequence for personal actions and responsibility.

 

I often said I'd prefer to have a single judge over our jury system, this case has really made me re-evaulate that thought. It seems to be able to turn any case into such a wretch of legal jargon that anything can be argued away to diminishing responsibility of the accused.

 

So am I, that's what I'm saying. I think 'beyond reasonable doubt' in front of 12 people is fine.

 

I wouldn't want the burden of proof to be so high as it appears to be in South Africa that a murder charge appears impossible to achieve unless you have direct witnesses to the act.

 

That's fair enough. 

 

I think it does raise some important points about the differences between judge and jury trials. Do you go for the convoluted legalese that a bench trial will provide? Or do you put your faith in 12 ordinary human beings with their own level of knowledge and prejudices? Interesting one.

[Guest MattP]

That's fair enough. 

 

I think it does raise some important points about the differences between judge and jury trials. Do you go for the convoluted legalese that a bench trial will provide? Or do you put your faith in 12 ordinary human beings with their own level of knowledge and prejudices? Interesting one.

 

I used to always say the bench over the public, but as I said above, with what the legalese can turn trials into now I'd probably side with the common sense of 12 members of the public to decide on what is right and wrong.

 

The legal game these days seems a maze of immorality and selfish opportunism for personal gratification or even worse, profit. I often think there may have been a bit more than meets the eye to Shakespeare quote of 'The first thing we do, is kill all the lawyers' - I think people will evaluate that in a far different manner in 200 years time than they do now.

 

The bar can still have it's own prejudices as well. You can be treated far differently in a court of law I'd imagine based on social class, political opinion or even appearance.

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

There may or may not be reasonable doubt, he murdered his girlfriend, plain and simple.

[Merging Cultures]

Exactly. Litterally the only similarity between the two is that they were both high profile cases inolving mass media attention. Just another example of people hearing something over time through the media, film, television etc and assuming it's true without ever actually questioning it.

There is no doubt that Pistorius' actions killed Reeva. OJ however there was.

Pistorious is a white man living in South Africa, hardly on the side of oppression.

OJ is/was a black man living in what was, and arguably still is, a nation that favours the white man.

I see comments like 'OJ Simpson's Lawyer working wonders again' - pretty impressive for a dead man. Or 'Clearly the same jury as the OJ trial', impressive considering there is no trial by jury.

 

Anyway, I understood from the judge's comments that the doubt was not as to whether he belived he could have killed her through the door, the doubt was as to who was behind the door? She said something along the lines of 'he could not be sure it was Reeva behind there', clearly arguments can be made against that. If i suspected there was an intruder in my house, the first thing I would check before taking any action was that my girlfriend was safe, along with any children etc if relevant. Which, suppesedly did not happen.

However, people are judging this case by the basis of the English legal system/their own form of justice. The judge has to be 99.99% certain that he intended to kill Reeva that night, and there is any reasonable doubt against that then she simply cannot sentence him to murder.

Personally, from what I have watched and read I don't believe there was reasonable doubt, but a case could be made and she has obviously digested and believed that claim from the defence.

 

It wasn't even who was behind the door. It is that they had to prove he either intended and planned to kill (premeditated) or that he intended to kill, but didn't make plans to kill (common-law). 

 

As I said above, that would have meant that he would have had to have wanted, desired, and thought about killing someone at that particular moment. I can't believe any right minded person, even if they are armed and shoot, intends to kill anyone.

 

They sent him for testing and he didn't have any psychological issues, and so therefore he was deemed to be in his right mind. But the state could prove he killed with malice aforethought. Therefore, culpable homicide is the mostly likely verdict.

[leicsmac]

I used to always say the bench over the public, but as I said above, with what the legalese can turn trials into now I'd probably side with the common sense of 12 members of the public to decide on what is right and wrong.

 

The legal game these days seems a maze of immorality and selfish opportunism for personal gratification or even worse, profit. I often think there may have been a bit more than meets the eye to Shakespeare quote of 'The first thing we do, is kill all the lawyers' - I think people will evaluate that in a far different manner in 200 years time than they do now.

 

The bar can still have it's own prejudices as well. You can be treated far differently in a court of law I'd imagine based on social class, political opinion or even appearance.

 

I think that kind of corruption is horribly bad in the US, especially in civil trials. If you want a judgement in your favour, you just have to pay more for a lawyer than the other guy. Certainly agree the law system is subject to prejudice. I think you're taking a gamble regardless of which you go for.

 

There may or may not be reasonable doubt, he murdered his girlfriend, plain and simple.

 

How can it be simple that he murdered his girlfriend if there may or may not be reasonable doubt? 

 

Sorry, but this isn't as black and white as you say.

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

If I shoot 4 bullets through a door, knowing there is someone directly behind it, and haven't checked whether my girlfriend is in bed with me or not, I wouldn't get done for murder? Be it here or in South Africa? I'd expect to be guilty anywhere in the world.

[leicsmac]

If I shoot 4 bullets through a door, knowing there is someone directly behind it, and haven't checked whether my girlfriend is in bed with me or not, I wouldn't get done for murder? Be it here or in South Africa? I'd expect to be guilty anywhere in the world.

 

Not it it can't be proved that you didn't plan the whole thing. If I remember right, that's what murder is: the intentional and pre-planned ambition to kill a specific person and then carrying it out.

[Merging Cultures]

If I shoot 4 bullets through a door, knowing there is someone directly behind it, and haven't checked whether my girlfriend is in bed with me or not, I wouldn't get done for murder? Be it here or in South Africa? I'd expect to be guilty anywhere in the world.

 

So you would have wanted to and planned to go and kill someone in your bathroom by shooting through the door?

 

Personally, if I were to want murder someone, there are many other ways that I do it without directly implicating myself. I would plan it better and definitely make sure that the person would be dead. Even shooting four times and with the types of bullets he had, might not kill the person when shot through a door. The door could divert their path, I can't see the person so might shoot them in a non-lethal place, the bullet might fragment as it hits the door etc.

 

I think you need to go and look up what murder means. I'll give you a hint, it doesn't mean 'just' killing someone.

[David Guiza]

It's been a while since I stuided fatal offences, but can't the intention to kill develop at any time? If he decided to kill Reeva, and was aware that it was her behind the door, then perhaps he did have the required intention to kill?

I can only speak for English law, but the actus reus of murder is a deliberate, unlawful act resulting in death - all correct. And the mens rea of murder is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm - surely shooting a powerful firearm through a door can be seen as an intention to cause greivous bodily harm? Just playing devils advocate here.

[Guest MattP]

It's been a while since I stuided fatal offences, but can't the intention to kill develop at any time? If he decided to kill Reeva, and was aware that it was her behind the door, then perhaps he did have the required intention to kill?

I can only speak for English law, but the actus reus of murder is a deliberate, unlawful act resulting in death - all correct. And the mens rea of murder is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm - surely shooting a powerful firearm through a door can be seen as an intention to cause greivous bodily harm? Just playing devils advocate here.

 

I'm only having a quick scan read on wikipedia at the minute but the difference appears to be quite large between the countries.

 

As with what you have quouted, over here I've little doubt Oscar is going down for life, in South Africa you seem to have to go to the length is was pre planned over some period of time to secure a premeditated murder conviction. I'm amazed anyone over there gets put down for it and you certainly won't if it's been done in the act as a result of an argument or confrontation etc

[Guest MattP]

So you would have wanted to and planned to go and kill someone in your bathroom by shooting through the door?

 

Personally, if I were to want murder someone, there are many other ways that I do it without directly implicating myself. I would plan it better and definitely make sure that the person would be dead. Even shooting four times and with the types of bullets he had, might not kill the person when shot through a door. The door could divert their path, I can't see the person so might shoot them in a non-lethal place, the bullet might fragment as it hits the door etc.

 

I think you need to go and look up what murder means. I'll give you a hint, it doesn't mean 'just' killing someone.

 

What if it wasn't planned though and he decided to kill her after the argument, surely no legal definition can still not hold that up as not being murder just because he didn't have time to plan it properly in advance?

 

If I stab someone in a pub after a argument I shouldn't be allowed to play the 'it wasn't murder' card as I didn't plan it, the definition is clearly so fcuked up in South Africa its beyond belief.

[Merging Cultures]

It's been a while since I stuided fatal offences, but can't the intention to kill develop at any time? If he decided to kill Reeva, and was aware that it was her behind the door, then perhaps he did have the required intention to kill?

I can only speak for English law, but the actus reus of murder is a deliberate, unlawful act resulting in death - all correct. And the mens rea of murder is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm - surely shooting a powerful firearm through a door can be seen as an intention to cause greivous bodily harm? Just playing devils advocate here.

 

That's their common-law murder. The intention to kill but not premeditated. 

 

I am sure the intention to kill can develop at any time. The state would then have to prove that he intended to kill. They didn't do that.

 

Does intention 'follow the bullet' and therefore use of deadly force is murder? Depends, it could have been used in defense, which would exclude it from murder. It could also be 'voluntary manslaughter' but that doesn't exist in South Africa. 

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

If I have an argument with my girlfriend that gets out of hand, see red, strangle her, with no intention of doing so until I'm actually doing it and regret it immediately after I am, by your rational, not a murderer, because I didn't really mean it?

[Guest MattP]

If I have an argument with my girlfriend that gets out of hand, see red, strangle her, with no intention of doing so until I'm actually doing it and regret it immediately after I am, by your rational, not a murderer, because I didn't really mean it?

 

Pretty much under South African law it appears

[David Guiza]

I'm only having a quick scan read on wikipedia at the minute but the difference appears to be quite large between the countries.

 

As with what you have quouted, over here I've little doubt Oscar is going down for life, in South Africa you seem to have to go to the length is was pre planned over some period of time to secure a premeditated murder conviction. I'm amazed anyone over there gets put down for it and you certainly won't if it's been done in the act as a result of an argument or confrontation etc

Ah that answers a lot of questions. Ridiculous structure if true, assuming that every killing takes place with planning is absurd. I assume it's in place to prevent 'accidental killings' from being sentenced to life, but the knock on affect is pretty large.

 

That's their common-law murder. The intention to kill but not premeditated. 

 

I am sure the intention to kill can develop at any time. The state would then have to prove that he intended to kill. They didn't do that.

 

Does intention 'follow the bullet' and therefore use of deadly force is murder? Depends, it could have been used in defense, which would exclude it from murder. It could also be 'voluntary manslaughter' but that doesn't exist in South Africa. 

I would argue that the use of deadly force is murder, in the correct circumstances of course. I believe i'm right in saying that he was somewhat of an enthusisast of guns? Consequently you'd think he'd be more than aware that using a gun of that calibre is likely to have fatal consequences. In my opinion unless it is in self defence, in which case he would aquited, or very rare circumstances, that would always be the case.

[filbertway]

If I have an argument with my girlfriend that gets out of hand, see red, strangle her, with no intention of doing so until I'm actually doing it and regret it immediately after I am, by your rational, not a murderer, because I didn't really mean it?

 

Isn't that what manslaughter is?

 

I always thought murder was premeditated.