Not really, I just feel passionate that a person who killed another person is now free for a few months before the trial.
Oscar Pistorius thread
- Thread starter Gilly
- Start date
Not really, I just feel passionate that a person who killed another person is now free for a few months before the trial.
What about soldiers? Policemen? They kill people intentionally. At times killing somebody is perfectly justified. In this instance, it has not yet been shown that Oscar killed somebody unjustifiably. As such, he must be presumed innocent, and accordingly it would be wrong to lock him up.
How will you feel after the trial when he's acquitted?
On another note, unless something drastical comes to light before the trial, I'm thinking manslaughter is the best they can hope for.
I don't entirely agree - to me, he's going to struggle to show that reasonably believing that somebody locked in his bathroom posed a threat. As such, shooting through the door was not reasonable. He clearly intended to kill whoever was on the other side of the door as he shot four times, at least once at head height. And he did kill somebody. That's sufficient for murder, although probably not premeditated murder.
I am sorry but that is ridiculous comparing OP to a soldier on duty in a war zone. How can you justify the killing of Reeva in this case? Even if his story is entirely true he should be jailed for the reckless use of a firearm.
You were talking in absolute terms.
I agree.
Perhaps, but how would he have known the bathroom was locked? Did he fire any shots AFTER realising it was? Four shots is going to count against him, sure, but he's a double amputee and more vulnerable than your average able-bodied person.
To me it is absolute. He killed his girlfriend so he should be in jail for murder or manslaughter. The trial just needs to prove which it was.
Was the door transparent?
Spit said:
Soldiers kill other people. Policemen kill other people. You said that anybody who kills anybody else should be locked up, even before a trial. They're examples of two situations in which I'd argue strongly that you're incorrect.
If you want one slightly closer to home, if somebody is running at me with a knife, about to stab me, I'd argue that I should not go to jail before a trial for shooting them.
The justifiability (or lack of it) for killing someone is a sliding scale. It's down to your own personal morals where along that scale you think Oscar is, and where along it you think the line should be drawn for sending somebody to jail before their trial. In my opinion, there is enough reason to believe that Oscar was justified in shooting through the door to make sending him to jail now morally suspect.
Jokester said:
I don't understand why that matters? He knew that there was somebody on the other side of the door. He shot through it four times, presumably in different places and at different heights, to have the best possible chance of hitting somebody. He therefore at least intended GBH. In the UK (not sure about SA), intending GBH and killing somebody is sufficient to be found guilty of murder.
EDIT: I'm not saying that he was guilty of murdering his girlfriend, or of premeditated murder. I'm saying that, on current evidence, he was guilty of murdering somebody. The fact that it was his girlfriend is incidental to that point.
Last edited:
That's not what you said though, you said he killed a person therefore should be in jail regardless of circumstance (ie before trial).
That is an absolute that also encompasses policemen and soldiers, as per example given.
Because in SA he is acting within the law to shoot an intruder. Having a spread of rounds make sense to ensure you make a hit if you're firing blind. Firing once and missing allows an intruder to then return fire.
He isn't guilty of murder at all
He is guilty of killing someone, that is all we know.
Fair enough, I didn't know that. But I'd still argue that it was not reasonable - speaking morally rather than legally - to shoot somebody who was locked in your bathroom, as they clearly weren't an immediate threat. If they came out and were an intruder, he could then have shot them.
That said, if it was reasonable for him to believe that the person in the bathroom was an intruder (which still seems like a stretch to me), then I agree that manslaughter is probably how the case will end up. If this belief was not reasonable, then it's murder.
He didn't know that it was an intruder though, he was so quick to grab his gun and go Rambo that he neglected to do numerous things to check if it wasn't his spouse.
Policemen and soldiers have rules of engagement to follow, if they simply go gung ho and kill innocent civilians they will (hopefully) be held to account.
Policemen and soldiers have rules of engagement to follow, if they simply go gung ho and kill innocent civilians they will (hopefully) be held to account.
As I asked above, how did he know someone was locked in there?
And yes, manslaughter is probably how this is going to end up.
Fair point, but I'm not entirely sure whether that's all that relevant. What seems more relevant is that the door was shut - there doesn't appear to have been any immediate threat until/unless the door was opened.
But we don't know the state of his mind at that exact moment. If I was in a country such as SA where life is cheap, and hear a sound at night ... who knows what any of us might do. At disability into the frame and he became one unpredictable man. Unfortunately someone ended up dead.
That establishes a pretty dangerous precedent though, where the first thing anyone will do on hearing somebody in their house is grab their gun and shoot.