Oscar Pistorius thread

Its an odd one because if he thought there was an intruder behind the door the first thing you would do is check the bed behind you while pointing the gun at the door. Guy deserves to be locked up for a very long time.

They can't prove murder obviously but there is little doubt he meant to kill whoever was behind the door and there is little doubt in my mind that he knew exactly who it was.
 
atpbx said:
It is just beyond belief that anyone could think he didn't intend to kill her.

You couldn't make it up.
Click to expand...

i can see it tbh, not his story but not intending to kill. on a lot of hormones so hes not going to be thinking competently straight hes known to have no idea about gun safety (set one off in a restaurant once) and known to have a bad temper and a liking of guns.


I can see them having an argument him really losing his temper and yelling, she locks her slef in the bathroom he has the gun in his hand cause it was near the bed he shoots the door in anger not thinking/ intending to kill her then after realizes what hes done.

people throw things punch things etc, putting a gun in the hand of some whos thinking that way an a squeeze of a trigger aint that much, especially when its at something solid.
 
I never thought they would get him for the premeditated murder of Reeva. There just simply isn't enough proof ( even though i strongly believe he did kill her, and on purpose). However i cant believe the judge threw out second degree murder.

He intended to kill the person behind that door. That is totally unquestionable. He fired FOUR shots through the door that he himself said someone was coming out of (or so he thought). You don't fire four shots using a semi automatic weapon by accident. He wanted to kill that person behind the door. No question. There is no other intention that matches his actions.
 
Here's a question I'd be interested in some thoughts on.

The prosecution spent a long time at the trial showing how much Pistorius enjoyed using guns, and was impulsive towards their use. His shooting the gun out the sunroof of a car, and in the restaurant, goes further towards showing that he used guns without thinking than with any thought process.

This, to me, appears to support the defence case that it was culpable homicide and not murder. Clearly, Gerrie Nel is not a stupid man. If I'm right, then he would have known about the implications of that evidence.

As such, I think he was trying to play it safe and guarantee himself a culpable homicide conviction, with a small possibility of it being "upgraded" to murder. Or have I missed something?

If he was going flat out for a murder conviction, I cannot see why he would have pushed that evidence so hard.
 
manic111 said:
Here's a question I'd be interested in some thoughts on.

The prosecution spent a long time at the trial showing how much Pistorius enjoyed using guns, and was impulsive towards their use. His shooting the gun out the sunroof of a car, and in the restaurant, goes further towards showing that he used guns without thinking than with any thought process.

This, to me, appears to support the defence case that it was culpable homicide and not murder. Clearly, Gerrie Nel is not a stupid man. If I'm right, then he would have known about the implications of that evidence.

As such, I think he was trying to play it safe and guarantee himself a culpable homicide conviction, with a small possibility of it being "upgraded" to murder. Or have I missed something?

If he was going flat out for a murder conviction, I cannot see why he would have pushed that evidence so hard.
Click to expand...

You make a good point, and perhaps that evidence was to ensure he got a long sentence if convicted of culpable homicide as it demonstrates him as a reckless and dangerous individual.

I still think however that he absolutely knew firing four shots through that door would kill the person behind it and therefore he should have been charged with murder.
 
Last edited:
Jono8 said:
I never thought they would get him for the premeditated murder of Reeva. There just simply isn't enough proof ( even though i strongly believe he did kill her, and on purpose). However i cant believe the judge threw out second degree murder.

He intended to kill the person behind that door. That is totally unquestionable. He fired FOUR shots through the door that he himself said someone was coming out of (or so he thought). You don't fire four shots using a semi automatic weapon by accident. He wanted to kill that person behind the door. No question. There is no other intention that matches his actions.
Click to expand...

Apparently in South Africa the prosecution is required to prove he intended to kill his girlfriend specifically, whereas his defence was that he was firing at an intruder. I think over here a general intent to kill is sufficient.

On a side note, does anyone else think it is a bit weird that he is on trial for murder and manslaughter at the same time? I'd have thought that it would fall under some kind of double jeopardy laws in most other countries.
 
lord filbuster said:
Apparently in South Africa the prosecution is required to prove he intended to kill his girlfriend specifically, whereas his defence was that he was firing at an intruder. I think over here a general intent to kill is sufficient.

On a side note, does anyone else think it is a bit weird that he is on trial for murder and manslaughter at the same time? I'd have thought that it would fall under some kind of double jeopardy laws in most other countries.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. At one point the judge specifically said that the identity of the intruder did not matter. You could set out to kill person A but actually, through, lets say mistaken identity kill person B. You would still get done for murder though.

That is why i don't understand why he hasn't got done for murder. He didn't just fire one warning shot up high or low to warn/scare the perceived intruder. He didn't try and knock them out with a cricket bat. He didn't, lets say, aim for their legs in the hope of incapacitating them but still keep them alive. No, he fired four rounds through the middle of the door. He intended to kill whoever he thought was there.
 
Last edited:
Jono8 said:
I don't think so. At one point the judge specifically said that the identity of the intruder did not matter. You could set out to kill person A but actually, through, lets say mistaken identity kill person B. You would still get done for murder though.
Click to expand...

In that case I'm less certain about the judge's decision. Still, I doubt the prosecution would be able to appeal against her reasoning.
 
Jono8 said:
You make a good point, and perhaps that evidence was to ensure he got a long sentence if convicted of culpable homicide as it demonstrates him as a reckless and dangerous individual.

I still think however that he absolutely knew firing four shots through that door would kill the person behind it and therefore he should have been charged with murder.
Click to expand...

You may well be right. But in my opinion, the assumption of intent, particularly after the prosecution brought forward the evidence of OP's previously reckless use of guns, is not beyond reasonable doubt.

I would rather exist in a justice system by which somebody like OP gets 10-15 years rather than 20 than one in which a lower standard of proof is required for criminal convictions.

Yes, he may have intended murder. But the point of the culpable homicide charge is that, in a case where intent is unclear, the defendant will still get significant time.

If at sentencing he ends up getting a fine or a token jail sentence I will change my view. At the moment, though, I am of the opinion that the Judge has handled a high profile trial incredibly well, has come to the correct decision based on the evidence put before her, and I have no reason to believe that she will not sentence appropriately.
 
manic111 said:
You may well be right. But in my opinion, the assumption of intent, particularly after the prosecution brought forward the evidence of OP's previously reckless use of guns, is not beyond reasonable doubt.

I would rather exist in a justice system by which somebody like OP gets 10-15 years rather than 20 than one in which a lower standard of proof is required for criminal convictions.

Yes, he may have intended murder. But the point of the culpable homicide charge is that, in a case where intent is unclear, the defendant will still get significant time.

If at sentencing he ends up getting a fine or a token jail sentence I will change my view. At the moment, though, I am of the opinion that the Judge has handled a high profile trial incredibly well, has come to the correct decision based on the evidence put before her, and I have no reason to believe that she will not sentence appropriately.
Click to expand...

I can see the point that was well raised about the evidence of his recklessness with guns. Perhaps this was why the judge thought she couldn't 100% say he had intent, as he had fired guns wildly, even in public, before. However, he is a grown, proven sane man and to think that he did not understand the consequences of firing four shots at someone (ie, they will be killed) is bordering on ludicrous.

IF, however she does hand out a very large sentence for the manslaughter verdict then her decision will perhaps be more palatable. If , as you say it is a token fine/suspended sentence then it will be a bit of a joke.
 
She is not known for her leniency. She gave a rapist recently a 232 year sentence for example. She is considered to be rather the opposite to lenient.
 
I think the judge has screwed up on this one, she's seemingly contradicted herself now with the verdict. I hope they can appeal...

From a personal, non-legal, standpoint - even if his account is to be believed firing five shots at an unknown person behind the door of a small room is 'murder' IMHO... anyone is well aware that in doing so you're likely to kill someone.
 
dowie said:
I think the judge has screwed up on this one, she's seemingly contradicted herself now with the verdict. I hope they can appeal...

From a personal, non-legal, standpoint - even if his account is to be believed firing five shots at an unknown person behind the door of a small room is 'murder' IMHO... anyone is well aware that in doing so you're likely to kill someone.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom