Again then, why after she had discounted the charge of the premeditated murder of Reeva, was there still the possibility that he would be charged with common law murder?
Oscar Pistorius thread
- Thread starter Gilly
- Start date
Again then, why after she had discounted the charge of the premeditated murder of Reeva, was there still the possibility that he would be charged with common law murder?
Soldato
Then why after she had discounted the charge of the premeditated murder of Reeva, was there still the possibility that he would be charged with common law murder.
I haven't seen the whole verdict.
What's the distinction between "premeditated murder" (which I thought was the definition of murder anyway) and "common-law murder"?
This is what she said:
"did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased"
Reeva was the deceased, no one else.
I think they meant second degree murder. Something like
"Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life."
I feel wrong for laughing so hard at this!
But that is my point and why I don't understand the judge came to that conclusion. He should have foreseen he would kill the person behind the door. He fired 4 rounds through a tiny cubicle, knowing there was someone inside.
Also stop saying that no one else is dead, everyone knows that. However if you go to kill someone and end up killing someone else, you will still get done for murder : /
Both first and second degree murder have been dismissed.
Caporegime
Looks like he's going to walk away from this.
That doesn't mean anything. Firing into the bathroom (as opposed to a tiny cubicle) doesn't imply the shooter has intent to kill.
I am watching it, the Judge clearly said who was behind the door was irrelevant.
I am not sure what point your are arguing and I am not alone.
The judge said:
"did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased"
In other words he did not set out to kill anyone, least of all the deceased (Reeva)
I don't know why people are having difficulty with this, it's very straight forward.
Soldato
That's open to interpretation that one. hehehe
But that is my point - The judges says "did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door..."
She had previously said that he could be found guilty of murder if he could have reasonably foreseen that his actions would have lead to the death of someone.
I think he should have been able to foresee that as he fired four gunshots through a small cubicle that someone was in.
I'm lost as well. My whole point was that I was taking objection to the fact that judge thought he could not reasonably foresee that he would kill someone with his actions. I would argue that he bloody well should have done as he fired 4 shots into a small cubicle with someone in it!
Why?
I got shot almost 16 times and I'm not dead. The point is that just because someone fires a gun into a door, doesn't mean they necessarily foresee that they might kill whoever is in or attempting to break into the room on the other side. The Judge made this clear.
Soldato
The question of "who was behind the door" being irrelevant was down to there being no motive.
almost 16?
So a defence would be: "I shot at this person 16 times but I never foresaw that this would result in their death"
Ridiculous.Even though he thought someone was behind the door he was firing at?
Part of his defence was the fact that he thought the person behind the door was not Reeva Steenkamp.
Hence why culpable homicide is still available as a verdict, hence why the judge said who was behind the door is irrelevant.