Oscar Pistorius thread

Haggisman · 11 Sep 2014 at 14:14

Jono8 said:
But that is my point. He DID intend to kill the person behind the door. His actions display this. There is no other possible reason or explanation for firing four shots through a door that you know someone is standing behind.

Yes there is, fear and panic.

In the heat of the moment, when you're scared for your/your family's life, still bleary from having just woken up, it's entirely possible you would do the first thing that came to mind, without fully considering the consequences.

Not saying that is what happened in this case, as there are too many other factors that don't quite add up, but it's certainly not an impossible scenario.

Jono8 · 11 Sep 2014 at 14:17

Castiel said:
It's doesn't.

His actions alone simply show he fired into a cubicle where he thought an intruder posed a threat to him and his GF. That doesn't imply intent to kill, but negligence insofar that he should have realised his actions could have killed.

But that just doesn't work. Otherwise every murderer could just say " oh when I shot that person I hadn't realised that this would have killed them" and get away with manslaughter. It is not as cut and dry as you make out.

If he had, lets say for an example, waited for her to come out of the toilet and hit her around the head with a cricket bat, killing her, then it would be far more believable that he only intended to injure who he thought was the intruder. Getting manslaughter for this would be understandable.

However, firing four bullets at someone through that door has pretty much no other outcome other than that person dying. Yes it could have still just injured Reeva, but the same could be said for any murder case. HIs intent was clear from his actions. He intended to kill the person behind that door.

I understand your point. All I am saying is that in this case, I believe the judge is wrong ( I am not the only one who is surprised that second degree murder charge has been thrown out). She seems to have thrown it out just because Oscar has said he hadn't intended to kill the person behind the door. His actions, for me clearly say otherwise and only point to one conclusion - he intended to kill the person behind the door.

Castiel · 11 Sep 2014 at 14:18

Jono8 said:
But that just doesn't work. Otherwise every murderer could just say " oh when I shot that person I hadn't realised that this would have killed them" and get away with manslaughter.

No, because the prosecution can demonstrate that they had intent regardless of what they say. It is just in this case that intent has not been adequately established.

Tuppy_Glossop · 11 Sep 2014 at 14:19

Or execute someone with a gun right against the back of the head and claim, "I didn't intend to kill them, I was only trying to scare them but my finger twitched." Bish bash bosh, culpable homicide.

Castiel · 11 Sep 2014 at 14:21

Tuppy_Glossop said:
Or execute someone with a gun right against the back of the head and claim, "I didn't intend to kill them, I was only trying to scare them but my finger twitched." Bish bash bosh, culpable homicide.

Sure, that would fly and is just like firing blind through a closed door. Not!

Anyway, whatever people believe doesn't mean diddly squat, it's what they can prove that matters.

Jono8 · 11 Sep 2014 at 14:27

Castiel said:
No, because the prosecution can demonstrate that they had intent regardless of what they say. It is just in this case that intent has not been adequately established.

But the intent is demonstrated by his actions. He grabbed a weapon, he went towards the perceived intruder and then shot four rounds through the door that the person was behind.

Tombo · 11 Sep 2014 at 14:29

Castiel said:
Because firing a gun doesn't automatically imply intent to kill.

However firing a gun at or near someone should be assumed to kill.

Castiel · 11 Sep 2014 at 14:29

Jono8 said:
But the intent is demonstrated by his actions. He grabbed a weapon, he went towards the perceived intruder and then shot four rounds through the door that the person was behind.

Only in your opinion, the prosecution failed to adequate prove this.

MooMoo444 · 11 Sep 2014 at 14:30

Tombo said:
However firing a gun at or near someone should be assumed to kill.

Especially four shots. You could argue one shot is just to injure someone in "self defense" but four shots just has no excuse, none whatsoever.

Castiel · 11 Sep 2014 at 14:30

Tombo said:
However firing a gun at or near someone should be assumed to kill.

Except it's not. So that's moot.

Jono8 · 11 Sep 2014 at 14:31

Castiel said:
the prosecution failed to adequate prove this.

In the judges opinion.

There is simply no other logical intention that Oscar could have had in relation to his actions.

Tombo · 11 Sep 2014 at 14:32

Castiel said:
Except it's not. So that's moot.

To someone who knows nothing about guns maybe, you'd expect someone who owns a gun for defence to understand that any shot could be fatal.

Castiel · 11 Sep 2014 at 14:45

Jono8 said:
In the judges opinion.

There is simply no other logical intention that Oscar could have had in relation to his actions.

And it's the Judge and her associates that matter here and who the prosecution failed to demonstrate the intent adequately to.

Castiel · 11 Sep 2014 at 14:46

Tombo said:
To someone who knows nothing about guns maybe, you'd expect someone who owns a gun for defence to understand that any shot could be fatal.

COULD. That's the point I made earlier, refer back there.

Jono8 · 11 Sep 2014 at 15:03

Castiel said:
And it's the Judge and her associates that matter here and who the prosecution failed to demonstrate the intent adequately to.

Im not sure what else there is to prove. His actions prove his intent.

You cannot say " I picked up my gun, then fired four shorts at where I perceived the intruder to be, but I didn't intend to kill him". It sounds ridiculous.

Castiel · 11 Sep 2014 at 15:15

Jono8 said:
Im not sure what else there is to prove. His actions prove his intent.

You cannot say " I picked up my gun, then fired four shorts at where I perceived the intruder to be, but I didn't intend to kill him". It sounds ridiculous.

It still has to be proven, people have mentioned things that impact a persons actions such as panic, fear, thoughtlessness and so on. Actions do not prove intent by default.

Cosimo · 11 Sep 2014 at 15:59

Jono8 said:
His sister is hot.

Both need plenty of time to thaw.

div0 · 11 Sep 2014 at 16:34

Jono8 said:
But why else would a sane man fire four bullets blindly through a door behind which he knows someone is standing/sitting behind? He intended to kill the person behind that door. There is logically no other explanation.

Clearly there is.

As he has been declared sane and the judge has also cleared him of any intent to kill.

Just because it should be obvious to any sane, rational person that his actions would lead to someone's death - doesn't prove that there was also intent to kill.

It may be that there was no other logical outcome to his actions - other than someone's death - but that still doesn't prove intent.

Quite simply his defense is that he acted rashly, instinctively, panicked, out of fear, or what ever and this has effectively been sufficient to cast doubt on any intent.

Someone else already said it, but this is South Africa and not leafy Kent. Break-ins and burglaries do regularly result in violence towards the homeowner. It is very difficult for someone in this country to realistically consider things from that sort of perspective.

Don't get me wrong, I don't personally buy his version of events, but that doesn't mean that the Judge's verdict so far isn't logical.

neoglow · 11 Sep 2014 at 21:23

He's a lying piece of ****.

Nate75 · 11 Sep 2014 at 21:32

neoglow said:
He's a lying piece of ****.

yup