Oscar Pistorius

skipper734 · Sep 12, 2014

You have to remember that this is the home of this. Which is thought to be an entirely reasonable way of preventing unwanted travellers getting in your car.

KZNSeagull · Sep 12, 2014

Creaky said:
One of the most common ways of proving intent is to prove that there is a strong motive for the defendants actions - this wasn't done in this case byond suggesting OP may have lost his temper.

The second way is to show premeditation - provide evidence to show that the defendants actions had been planned. Again not shown in this case.

Knowing that a certain action is likely to cause death and then carrying out does not prove murder - the difference between murder and manslaughter is that in the former you intend to cause the death of someone and in the latter you just don't care if it does, (reckless disregard for the consequences).

So the constant harping on about OP must have known that four bullets into a door would kill someone proves it is murder is wrong - he just didn't care if it did, i.e. manslaughter.

His motivation was to protect himself against a perceived intruder. He armed himself, took the safety catch off and held his weapon in front of him in a firing position. His intention was clear - to fire his weapon.

The NPA have said that they will wait until after sentencing to decide what further action to take, if any.

Rod Marsh · Sep 12, 2014

I've not read the entire thread. However, it just seems the state did a piss poor job. The judge pretty much dismissed everything they argued. I think the she did an excellent job seeing through all the rubbish. A lot of the commentators in South Africa predicted culpable manslaughter. It all depends on the sentence for me. That's how people will see if any sort of justice is served. If he walks with a huge fine. Let's see how that goes down!

Creaky · Sep 12, 2014

kevo said:
You've said a lot on this thread but are apparently completely unaware that South African law contains the offence of Common Law murder.

If OP fired his gun at the door (which he admits) in the knowledge that anyone in the toilet (whether he thought it was an intruder or his girlfriend) might be killed, he should have been found guilty of common law murder. So you are wrong, it doesn't matter if he intended to kill or not.

This is the difference between the three charges:

Premeditated murder - acquitted

Intended and planned to unlawfully kill Reeva Steenkamp, or an intruder

Common-law murder - acquitted

Unlawfully intended to kill in the heat of the moment but without "malice aforethought". Either: Shot door intending to kill, or knew someone might be killed and still fired gun

Culpable homicide (manslaughter) - guilty

No intention to kill. Takes into account disability, but actions negligent and not in keeping with a reasonable person

For Common Law murder you still have to show intent not just negligent disregard for the consequences it is not an either or situation, both have to be proved - it is defined as, "the unlawful and intentional killing of another human being"

Culpable Homicide - Nothing to suggest other than that OP didn't care if someone was killed when he shot through the toilet door - Culpable Homicide is defined as, "the unlawful, negligent causing of death of another human being"

http://www.issafrica.org/crimehub/t...f-crimes-used-to-compile-the-crime-statistics

Easy 10 · Sep 12, 2014

Creaky said:
For Common Law murder you still have to show intent not just negligent disregard for the consequences it is not an either or situation, both have to be proved - it is defined as, "the unlawful and intentional killing of another human being"

Culpable Homicide - Nothing to suggest other than that OP didn't care if someone was killed when he shot through the toilet door - Culpable Homicide is defined as, "the unlawful, negligent causing of death of another human being"

http://www.issafrica.org/crimehub/t...f-crimes-used-to-compile-the-crime-statistics

But it states in the case of Common-Law Murder:

"Either: shot door intending to kill, or knew someone might be killed and still fired gun"

So you HAVE got an either / or there - and if the first part (intending) wasn't proven, OP is still clearly guilty of the 2nd part, ie knowing that someone MIGHT be killed (whether he cared about it or not). How can that be denied ?

Creaky · Sep 12, 2014

Easy 10 said:
But it states in the case of Common-Law Murder:

"Either: shot door intending to kill, or knew someone might be killed and still fired gun"

So you HAVE got an either / or there - and if the first part (intending) wasn't proven, OP is still clearly guilty of the 2nd part, knowing that someone MIGHT be killed (whether he cared about it or not). How can that be denied ?

Where?

Easy 10 · Sep 12, 2014

Creaky said:
Where?

As per what [MENTION=11720]kevo[/MENTION] posted, grabbed from the BBC site.

Creaky · Sep 12, 2014

Easy 10 said:
As per what @kevo posted, grabbed from the BBC site.

Maybe this is where the confusion has arisen - One source the BBC, the other the actual definition of common law murder.

Think about it - if the entire BBC definition is accurate then what is the difference between common law murder and culpable homicide, apart from their definition of common law murder being self contradictory - the first part of the BBC 'definition' for each is accurate, the second part an attempt to simplify that definition for their readers.

Bold Seagull · Sep 12, 2014

Creaky said:
Maybe this is where the confusion has arisen - One source the BBC, the other the actual definition of common law murder.

Think about it - if the entire BBC definition is accurate then what is the difference between common law murder and culpable homicide, apart from their definition of common law murder being self contradictory - the first part of the BBC 'definition' for each is accurate, the second part an attempt to simplify that definition for their readers.

If you've been following the legal reaction in South Africa, and around the media, you'll know it's not just the BBC that is the source for confusion. The judge has interpreted the law according to tests she has applied. That doesn't mean we all have to agree that is right, or that our definitions are incorrect.

KZNSeagull · Sep 12, 2014

Bold Seagull said:
If you've been following the legal reaction in South Africa, and around the media, you'll know it's not just the BBC that is the source for confusion. The judge has interpreted the law according to tests she has applied. That doesn't mean we all have to agree that is right, or that our definitions are incorrect.

And it would appear that the legal fraternity here believe that she has interpreted the law incorrectly.

Don Quixote · Sep 12, 2014

Disgraceful

Creaky · Sep 12, 2014

Bold Seagull said:
If you've been following the legal reaction in South Africa, and around the media, you'll know it's not just the BBC that is the source for confusion. The judge has interpreted the law according to tests she has applied. That doesn't mean we all have to agree that is right, or that our definitions are incorrect.

Of course not but the contra also applies.

Uncle Spielberg · Oct 13, 2014

The Circus is carrying on today. One witness who is a trauma " expert " has said Pistorius should get 16 hours a week Community service. It seems that Pistorius is the victim in all this and is a " broken man " What do you reckon the sentence will be ? I have a horrible feeling it will be a fine

Cian · Oct 13, 2014

Uncle Spielberg said:
I have a horrible feeling it will be a fine

We're already being told he's skint and can't earn any more, so they're trying to work that one down too.

Pretty pink fairy · Oct 13, 2014

Uncle Spielberg said:
The Circus is carrying on today. One witness who is a trauma " expert " has said Pistorius should get 16 hours a week Community service. It seems that Pistorius is the victim in all this and is a " broken man " What do you reckon the sentence will be ? I have a horrible feeling it will be a fine[/QUOTE I KNOW SOMEONE WHO GOT 120 HRS FOR ABH
regards
DR

Eeyore · Oct 13, 2014

Shows what being able to afford the best lawyers can do. The law has always been weighted against the poorest in most societies.

SAC · Oct 13, 2014

Brighton Lines said:
Shows what being able to afford the best lawyers can do. The law has always been weighted against the poorest in most societies.

Whilst being true, I'm not sure what the relevance is here as both Pistorius and his girlfriend were both rich.

severnside gull · Oct 13, 2014

Cian said:
We're already being told he's skint and can't earn any more, so they're trying to work that one down too.

Maybe the proposed community service will include help to write his side of the story ............ Should be a multi-million rand earner

Goldstone1976 · Oct 13, 2014

Brighton Lines said:
Shows what being able to afford the best lawyers can do. The law has always been weighted against the poorest in most societies.

I agree with your second sentence, but not the first in the Pistorius case - the State's counsel is widely regarded as the best prosecuting barrister in the Country. So it's a case of the best v the best.

Uncle Spielberg · Oct 13, 2014

A big defeat for Nel. He will not like that

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Oscar Pistorius

Registered ruffian

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Brain dead MUG SHEEP

Well-known member

Brain dead MUG SHEEP

Well-known member

strong and stable with me, or...

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park

Well-known member

Well-known member

We Got Calde in!!

Well-known member

Share this page