Oscar Pistorius

[KZNSeagull]

Just watched one of the SA news channels asking people on the street what they think. Of the 6 interviewed, 3 said guilty of murder, 1 said culpable homicide, 2 said not guilty of anything because " he has won a lot of medals for SA and wont be able to do that whilst sitting in jail" and "if someone breaks into your house, you should be able to anything you like to them".

 

[Phat Baz 68]

Its amazing how many people on here must have been first hand eyewitnesses to what happened that
fateful day !!
Some of you sure seem to know exactly what and how everything happened.
FFS none of you were there , none of you saw /heard what happened, none of you have heard ALL the court testimonies yet, and none of you were in the Court either.

Pray tell oh Oracles how are you so wise and knowledgeable about such things ?

May we learn from you oh masters of South African Law and Order.

 

[Easy 10]

"He did not forsee it as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door"

I just cannot even begin to get my head around that statement. You fire four shots at close range through a door, into a confined toilet space, but you don't think there's a possibilty that it might kill someone.

The judge is not fit for purpose.

 

[Triggaaar]

Condescending for others to say that any Jury cannot give a measured decision. I have served twice and found all round sensible, considered decisions.

In South Africa? Because of current sex and race issues, it's different there than it is here.

 

[Triggaaar]

"He did not forsee it as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door"

I just cannot even begin to get my head around that statement. You fire four shots at close range through a door, into a confined toilet space, but you don't think there's a possibilty that it might kill someone.

The judge is not fit for purpose.

Did the judge actually say that? Of course one could argue that he didn't 'know' he would kill anyone, and possibly argue that he didn't 'think' he would kill someone, but if the judge has said that he couldn't forsee it as a possibility, then she's an idiot.

 

[Easy 10]

Did the judge actually say that? Of course one could argue that he didn't 'know' he would kill anyone, and possibly argue that he didn't 'think' he would kill someone, but if the judge has said that he couldn't forsee it as a possibility, then she's an idiot.

Yup, she actually said that.

Apparently he was "negligent and had acted hastily with too much force". Right-o. Negligent.

Next time I fancy shooting someone in the face, I'll say I neglected to take into account that it might kill them.

 

[Creaky]

"He did not forsee it as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door"

I just cannot even begin to get my head around that statement. You fire four shots at close range through a door, into a confined toilet space, but you don't think there's a possibilty that it might kill someone.

The judge is not fit for purpose.

Not what she said - here is the full quote

"He took a conscious decision, he knew where he kept his firearm and he knew where his bathroom was. This is inconsistent with lack of criminal capacity."
"The intention to shoot however does not necessarily include the intention to kill."
"Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door."


"The state clearly has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder."
"Viewed in its totality, the evidence failed to establish that the accused had the requisite intention to kill the deceased, let alone with premeditation."

"The accused therefore cannot be found guilty of murder."

 

[Easy 10]

Not what she said - here is the full quote

"He took a conscious decision, he knew where he kept his firearm and he knew where his bathroom was. This is inconsistent with lack of criminal capacity."
"The intention to shoot however does not necessarily include the intention to kill."
"Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door."


"The state clearly has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder."
"Viewed in its totality, the evidence failed to establish that the accused had the requisite intention to kill the deceased, let alone with premeditation."

"The accused therefore cannot be found guilty of murder."

Sorry, unless I'm being thick I still don't see how that absolves him of murder.
He knew someone was behind the door (whether he knew it was Reeva or not). He knew someone was there. He fired no warning shots. He fired straight through that door, at a height that would hit a person on the other side of that door, FOUR times.

How, in the name of frig, could he NOT have forseen that those actions could "possibly" kill the person on the other side of the door ? Its a nonsense.

 

[Creaky]

Sorry, unless I'm being thick I still don't see how that absolves him of murder.
He knew someone was behind the door (whether he knew it was Reeva or not). He knew someone was there. He fired no warning shots. He fired straight through that door, at a height that would hit a person on the other side of that door, FOUR times.

How, in the name of frig, could he NOT have forseen that those actions could "possibly" kill the person on the other side of the door ? Its a nonsense.

For murder you have to prove intent - the prosecution failed to do this.

 

[Hamilton]

Do they have diminshed responsibility in SA law. Could they say homicide with DR and give a light sentence?

I stole a reading lamp from a shop once and got away with a light sentence.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Do they have diminshed responsibility in SA law. Could they say homicide with DR and give a light sentence?

It can be part of a defence, but that has already been rejected - he was not suffering from an anxiety disorder or anything else at the time of the shooting.

 

[Easy 10]

For murder you have to prove intent - the prosecution failed to do this.

So it would seem.

So if we accept his claims that he didn't think it was Reeva in there, what exactly was his intention when firing four shots through a door at someone who was in his toilet ?? I just cannot understand how an argument can be made that he could not have forseen that this may possibly result in the death of the person on the other side of the door. This man is familiar with firearms, he knows full well the consequences of unloading 4 shots at close range into someone.

At the very leastm, he's GOT to go down for culpable homicide / manslaughter surely. If he doesn't serve some serious porridge for this then it looks like a horrific miscarriage of justice to me. Her poor family.

 

[sir albion]

He knew what he was doing....He's a great actor that's for sure

 

[KZNSeagull]

For murder you have to prove intent - the prosecution failed to do this.

The thing is, I am pretty sure that they did. One of the lawyers today read out the record from earlier in the trial when Nel asked Oscar something like "did you realise you could kill someone when firing those shots?" and he answered "Yes".

 

[One Love]

I wonder whether the judge adjourned until tomorrow because she realised or was advised that she wasn't getting this right.

I really hope that after all this time the verdict and sentence doesn't turn out to be an O J Simpson.

 

[Creaky]

The thing is, I am pretty sure that they did. One of the lawyers today read out the record from earlier in the trial when Nel asked Oscar something like "did you realise you could kill someone when firing those shots?" and he answered "Yes".

How does that prove intent?

Now if he'd been asked, "did you realise you would kill someone . . . . ", and he'd answered, "yes", then that would show intent.

 

[KZNSeagull]

How does that prove intent?

Now if he'd been asked, "did you realise you would kill someone . . . . ", and he'd answered, "yes", then that would show intent.

Please explain how you are supposed to prove what someone was thinking.

My quote is NOT a direct quote as I cannot find it (and hence why I wrote "something like"), but the lawyer on the TV was convinced that Nel had extracting from him during cross-examination, that he knew the possible consequences of his actions when he fired the gun. ie he knew he could kill someone but he fired anyway.

 

[Creaky]

Please explain how you are supposed to prove what someone was thinking.

My quote is NOT a direct quote as I cannot find it (and hence why I wrote "something like"), but the lawyer on the TV was convinced that Nel had extracting from him during cross-examination, that he knew the possible consequences of his actions when he fired the gun. ie he knew he could kill someone but he fired anyway.

Knowing the possible consequences of your actions and carrying them out with negligent disregard for those consequences resulting in someone's death is manslaughter in the UK.

Carrying out an action with the intent to kill someone is murder. Evidence to support intent normally comes from providing a credible motive together with evidence of premeditation.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Knowing the possible consequences of your actions and carrying them out with negligent disregard for those consequences resulting in someone's death is manslaughter in the UK.

Carrying out an action with the intent to kill someone is murder. Evidence to support intent normally comes from providing a credible motive together with evidence of premeditation.

Isn't cupable homicide the same as manslaughter?

 

[The Truth]

Isn't cupable homicide the same as manslaughter?

Yes.