Oscar Pistorius thread

[Castiel]

almost 16?

16 wounds, but many are exit and entry and possibly a bit is shrapnel as well... It unimportant, the point is that firing a gun at a door doesn't automatically mean the shooter has intent or foresight that they will kill someone. There is insufficient evidence to show that OP knew he would kill someone and this is what the Judge has to base her judgement on.

 

[cheesyboy]

Some chatter that it may be a legal error to restrict dolus eventualis to RS

https://twitter.com/CriminalLawZA/status/510028185715879936

Of course, a murder charge re an intruder would need to overcome the defense of self-defense. In the UK that wouldn't fly, due to the lack of direct threat, but perhaps in SA self-defense would be applicable?

 

[Jono8]

Some chatter that it may be a legal error to restrict dolus eventualis to RS

https://twitter.com/CriminalLawZA/status/510028185715879936

To Castiel. This is my point

 

[Danthus]

16 wounds, but many are exit and entry and possibly a bit is shrapnel as well... It unimportant, ........

So why mention it?

 

[Castiel]

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.

Culpable homicide can be with or without intention to kill. It can simply be negligent. That is why it's still available and why the person behind the door in that context is irrelevant.

 

[Castiel]

So why mention it?

To illustrate that the amount of bullets fired doesn't necessarily mean you will kill someone or that the shooter has an automatically assumed intent to kill.

 

[Danthus]

Culpable homicide can be with or without intention to kill. It can simply be negligent. That is why it's still available and why the person behind the door in that context is irrelevant.

Are you adding South African law to your plethora of knowledge now?

 

[Wizzfizz]

To illustrate that the amount of bullets fired doesn't necessarily mean you will kill someone or that the shooter has an automatically assumed intent to kill.

But i'm guessing you wasn't stood directly behind a door whilst being shot at upto 16 times?

 

[Castiel]

To Castiel. This is my point

Which is no point as the case is about the murder of Reeva not whoever (it was Reeva which makes it irrelevant) was behind the door. As someone pointed out, it was referenced as a point of fact, not a point of law.

 

[Castiel]

But i'm guessing you wasn't stood directly behind a door whilst being shot at upto 16 times?

I was pretty much, not exactly behind a door, but in an relatively enclosed space.

 

[willems]

anyone think a jury would have arrived at a much different decision?

 

[Jono8]

Which is no point as the case is about the murder of Reeva not whoever (it was Reeva which makes it irrelevant) was behind the door. As someone pointed out, it was referenced as a point of fact, not a point of law.

So why, when the charge of the premeditated murder of Reeva was thrown out, was there still the charge of second degree murder to cover ( which was also later thrown out , and what I a disagree with)?

 

[Castiel]

Are you adding South African law to your plethora of knowledge now?

Why are you? Does this mean I can't comment but everyone else can? Are you all South African lawyers?

 

[willems]

16 wounds, but many are exit and entry and possibly a bit is shrapnel as well... It unimportant, the point is that firing a gun at a door doesn't automatically mean the shooter has intent or foresight that they will kill someone. There is insufficient evidence to show that OP knew he would kill someone and this is what the Judge has to base her judgement on.

good to hear youre ok!!

i am struggling to grasp how firing a gun bears no intention to kill. isnt that what they do?

 

[Havana_UK]

16 wounds, but many are exit and entry and possibly a bit is shrapnel as well... It unimportant, the point is that firing a gun at a door doesn't automatically mean the shooter has intent or foresight that they will kill someone. There is insufficient evidence to show that OP knew he would kill someone and this is what the Judge has to base her judgement on.

Weren't most of the shots also fired at waist level (as OP was on his stumps) as well?

 

[atpbx]

I personally cannot envisage a situation where I would fire a gun more than once at someone if I did not intend to kill them.

Its a fairly ludicrous argument to suggest you would do so for any other reason.

 

[Castiel]

So why, when the charge of the premeditated murder of Reeva was thrown out, was there still the charge of second degree murder to cover ( which was also later thrown out , and what I a disagree with)?

Because she said that there was insufficient evidence to prove either premeditated (Murder One) or intentional (Murder Two). Next is unlawful negligence.

That's how I read it.

 

[AJK]

I personally cannot envisage a situation where I would fire a gun more than once at someone if I did not intend to kill them.

Its a fairly ludicrous argument to suggest you would do so for any other reason.

Law and reality don't always overlap though, unfortunately.

 

[Danthus]

But we aren't talking about Reeva anymore, we are talking about the person behind the door, whoever it may have been ( in Oscar's view at the time).

She said who was behind the door was irrelevant.

The deceased is Reeva, the Judge was referring to her.

Who is dead is irrelevant.

 

[Havana_UK]

I personally cannot envisage a situation where I would fire a gun more than once at someone if I did not intend to kill them.

Its a fairly ludicrous argument to suggest you would do so for any other reason.

OP didn't fire a gun at someone. He fired through a door, where he believed an intruder was hiding. I concede that there's only a hair's breadth between the definitions, but they are important, nonetheless.