Oscar Pistorius

[KZNSeagull]

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.

So if I arm myself, take the safety catch off, shoot you 4 times through a toilet door, with no other witnesses, no imminent threat to my life or well-being, and I knew that what I was doing might kill you, but i did not mean to kill you, that's not murder?

Edit: And I did the first 2 things but claim I did not have any intention of firing.

 

[Creaky]

So if I arm myself, take the safety catch off, shoot you 4 times through a toilet door, with no other witnesses, no imminent threat to my life or well-being, and I knew that what I was doing might kill you, but i did not mean to kill you, that's not murder?

Edit: And I did the first 2 things but claim I did not have any intention of firing.

Unless the prosecution can prove intent to kill me then it would be manslaughter.

Similar to lobbing a lump of concrete from a motorway bridge.

 

[Triggaaar]

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

I stole an elevator and got sent down.

 

[Triggaaar]

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.

Firstly, that's not what we were discussing - we were discussing Easy's point that the judge said:

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

Which is nonsense. Of course he knew it was a possibility, as shown by Nel:

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".

Secondly, re "did you realise you would kill someone . . . . " - most people that have murdered someone with a gun would have to answer 'no' to that, as you don't know for a fact you'll kill someone when you shoot them at any distance. The fact is, he knew there was a chance he'd kill whoever was behind the door, and he fired on purpose.

 

[Creaky]

Firstly, that's not what we were discussing - we were discussing Easy's point that the judge said:
Which is nonsense. Of course he knew it was a possibility, as shown by Nel:


Secondly, re "did you realise you would kill someone . . . . " - most people that have murdered someone with a gun would have to answer 'no' to that, as you don't know for a fact you'll kill someone when you shoot them at any distance. The fact is, he knew there was a chance he'd kill whoever was behind the door, and he fired on purpose.

Which only goes to prove manslaughter not murder which requires the addition of intent to kill.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Which only goes to prove manslaughter not murder which requires the addition of intent to kill.

But that is what is being said, how can there not be intent to kill when you fire 4 shots into a small room that someone is in? If not to kill what was the intent? In the real world, everyone that owns a gun knows a single bullet can kill someone.

As for lobbing a slab of concrete off a bridge - of course you can get done for murder for that!

 

[Bold Seagull]

Unless the prosecution can prove intent to kill me then it would be manslaughter.

Similar to lobbing a lump of concrete from a motorway bridge.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/teen-rock-throwers-guilty-of-murder-1.1503230#.VBHy6kvtG1c

 

[Creaky]

But that is what is being said, how can there not be intent to kill when you fire 4 shots into a small room that someone is in? If not to kill what was the intent? In the real world, everyone that owns a gun knows a single bullet can kill someone.

As for lobbing a slab of concrete off a bridge - of course you can get done for murder for that!

You can know that a certain action could kill someone and still carry out that action in reckless disregard - that doesn't prove you intended to kill - as in the example I gave of lobbing a lump of concrete off a motorway bridge. Has anyone been found guilty of murder for doing so?

It was up to the prosecution to show that OP intended to kill whoever was behind the loo door which they have failed to do. Had it been an intruder behind the door would the same debate be taking place?

 

[Creaky]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3639057.stm

 

[Bold Seagull]

You can know that a certain action could kill someone and still carry out that action in reckless disregard - that doesn't prove you intended to kill - as in the example I gave of lobbing a lump of concrete off a motorway bridge.

It was up to the prosecution to show that OP intended to kill whoever was behind the loo door which they have failed to do. Had it been an intruder behind the door would the same debate be taking place?

Actually, had it been an intruder, I think he would have been more likely to have faced the murder charge due to a clear motive and intent to kill. If the intruder had been unarmed and trapped in the toilet, there would have been little threat, and a means of escape for OP. So the ridiculous thing is, that the judge is not allowing transferred malice in this case, even though you could say if Reeva was actually an intruder at this point, it seems more likely he'd be facing murder right now than the current outcome that simply because she wasn't an intruder, and therefore in his version he wasn't setting out to kill her, he's being found guilty of a lessor charge.

We'll see how this runs, but it looks to me like the judge has got it painfully wrong. Maybe it's the pressure of the media spotlight and being a black female judge who is perhaps over compensating any perceived prejudice she might have toward a famous disabled white male who has shot his girlfriend.

 

[Bold Seagull]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3639057.stm

The lad in that case was charged with murder, but because of learning difficulties a plea of manslaughter was accepted.

The two miners who killed the taxi driver during the strikes were found guilty of murder, but on appeal that was reduced to manslaughter.

The lump of concrete off a bridge analogy doesn't work as an example of intent as it completely straddles the grey area between manslaughter and murder. In most cases the state will go for murder in the event of death of an incident like this.

 

[One Love]

How anyone, let alone a judge, could believe he didn't know it was Reeva in the toilet is beyond me.

 

[dangull]

You can imagine Oscar after all the emotion he's showing in the court room trying to get sympathy, when he gets back to his hotel after today, laughing his head off at how things have gone today.

 

[Triggaaar]

Which only goes to prove manslaughter not murder which requires the addition of intent to kill.

It doesn't prove it's not murder. 'Oscar, what were you intending to do when you shot 4 Reeva 4 times at close range?'

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

You can imagine Oscar after all the emotion he's showing in the court room trying to get sympathy, when he gets back to his hotel after today, laughing his head off at how things have gone today.

having a drink and getting legless , hope not
regards
DR

 

[Wrong-Direction]

having a drink and getting legless , hope not
regards
DR

Haha

 

[Creaky]

It doesn't prove it's not murder. 'Oscar, what were you intending to do when you shot 4 Reeva 4 times at close range?'

What was the motive?

If he intended to kill her why did he call for help, that arrived before she actually died?

The prosecution failed to answer either of those questions.


"On the 13th of February 2013 Reeva would have gone out with her friends and I with my friends. Reeva then called me and asked that we rather spend the evening at home. I agreed and we were content to have a quiet dinner together at home. By about 22h00 on 13 February 2013 we were in our bedroom. She was doing her yoga exercises and I was in bed watching television. My prosthetic legs were off. We were deeply in love and I could not be happier. I know she felt the same way. She had given me a present for Valentine's Day but asked me only to open it the next day.

"After Reeva finished her yoga exercises she got into bed and we both fell asleep. I am acutely aware of violent crime being committed by intruders entering homes with a view to commit crime, including violent crime. I have received death threats before. I have also been a victim of violence and of burglaries before. For that reason I kept my firearm, a 9mm Parabellum, underneath my bed when I went to bed at night.

"During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in and closed the sliding doors, the blinds and the curtains. I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised that someone was in the bathroom.

"I felt a sense of terror rushing over me. There are no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside. Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps. I believed that someone had entered my house. I was too scared to switch a light on.

"I grabbed my 9mm pistol from underneath my bed. On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed.

"I noticed that the bathroom window was open. I realised that the intruder/s was/were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I did not see anyone in the bathroom. I heard movement inside the toilet. The toilet is inside the bathroom and has a separate door.

"It filled me with horror and fear of an intruder or intruders being inside the toilet. I thought he or they must have entered through the unprotected window. As I did not have my prosthetic legs on and felt extremely vulnerable, I knew I had to protect Reeva and myself. I believed that when the intruder/s came out of the toilet we would be in grave danger. I felt trapped as my bedroom door was locked and I have limited mobility on my stumps.

"I fired shots at the toilet door and shouted to Reeva to phone the police. She did not respond and I moved backwards out of the bathroom, keeping my eyes on the bathroom entrance. Everything was pitch dark in the bedroom and I was still too scared to switch on a light. Reeva was not responding. When I reached the bed, I realised that Reeva was not in bed. That is when it dawned on me that it could have been Reeva who was in the toilet. I returned to the bathroom calling her name. I tried to open the toilet door but it was locked. I rushed back into the bedroom and opened the sliding door exiting onto the balcony and screamed for help.

"I put on my prosthetic legs, ran back to the bathroom and tried to kick the toilet door open. I think I must then have turned on the lights. I went back into the bedroom and grabbed my cricket bat to bash open the toilet door. A panel or panels broke off and I found the key on the floor and unlocked and opened the door. Reeva was slumped over but alive.

"I battled to get her out of the toilet and pulled her into the bathroom. I phoned Johan Stander ("Stander") who was involved in the administration of the estate and asked him to phone the ambulance. I phoned Netcare and asked for help. I went downstairs to open the front door. I returned to the bathroom and picked Reeva up as I had been told not to wait for the paramedics, but to take her to hospital. I carried her downstairs in order to take her to the hospital. On my way down Stander arrived. A doctor who lives in the complex also arrived. Downstairs, I tried to render the assistance to Reeva that I could, but she died in my arms.

"I am absolutely mortified by the events and the devastating loss of my beloved Reeva. With the benefit of hindsight I believe that Reeva went to the toilet when I went out on the balcony to bring the fan in. I cannot bear to think of the suffering I have caused her and her family, knowing how much she was loved. I also know that the events of that tragic night were as I have described them and that in due course I have no doubt the police and expert investigators will bear this out."

 

[Bold Seagull]

What was the motive?

If he intended to kill her why did he call for help, that arrived before she actually died?

The prosecution failed to answer either of those questions.

The motive was that he was an insecure jealous individual who completely lost it for a moment, probably after she said she was leaving him or was seeing someone else or something. After losing it, he realised what he'd done and called for help. The prosecution put all this in their case. Pistorius crumbled on the witness stand.

His version just doesn't work at all. If you were worried about your partner you'd make sure they were awake and phoning the police while you armed yourself. There is no logic in his defence. The is no logic in Reeva not replying from within the toilet when she hears him shouting. He has got away with murder, simple as.

 

[Geestar]

The motive was that he was an insecure jealous individual who completely lost it for a moment, probably after she said she was leaving him or was seeing someone else or something. After losing it, he realised what he'd done and called for help. The prosecution put all this in their case. Pistorius crumbled on the witness stand.

His version just doesn't work at all. If you were worried about your partner you'd make sure they were awake and phoning the police while you armed yourself. There is no logic in his defence. The is no logic in Reeva not replying from within the toilet when she hears him shouting. He has got away with murder, simple as.

Hear hear

 

[TrickyOne]

You have got to be joking. ..he's a wrongun whose got lots of money. .rich parents it's never in the interest of SA for him to be convicted. #sham