No. I'm not trying to twist anything. You're not answering the question asked. I just want to know for a trained shooter what the correct procedure would be for dealing with the imminent (perceived) danger described by OP as he stood at the bathroom door.
Its no good testing what he should have done. That's taken care of by the CH.
OK. You are setting your own terms here. You are not accepting a person's opinion. Simple as that.
You have your opinion of your answer and if people don't match that, in your opinion they are not answering the question.
But, you should accept other people's opinions regardless if they differ from yours. That is my first point in reply to your question.
Second point is my opinion as there is no set answer as everyone will act differently, although that is no excuse for OP killing Reeva or for forgetting all his training IMO.
The main thing is, to protect your loved ones and yourself. So, you get in touch with security, police and get the hell out of danger. You do not go towards the danger. Assess the situation and look at the safest thing to do. No harm in a country like SA to arm yourself with a gun, but, you don't shoot willy nilly without checking on loved one's.
And, if you make a mistake, you hold up your hands, implore the relatives in the humility that you are guilty of being a fool and don't challenge the police or prosecution to a game of catch me out. ;-)
OK. You are setting your own terms here. You are not accepting a person's opinion. Simple as that.
You have your opinion of your answer and if people don't match that, in your opinion they are not answering the question.
But, you should accept other people's opinions regardless if they differ from yours. That is my first point in reply to your question.
Second point is my opinion as there is no set answer as everyone will act differently, although that is no excuse for OP killing Reeva or for forgetting all his training IMO.
The main thing is, to protect your loved ones and yourself. So, you get in touch with security, police and get the hell out of danger. You do not go towards the danger. Assess the situation and look at the safest thing to do. No harm in a country like SA to arm yourself with a gun, but, you don't shoot willy nilly without checking on loved one's.
And, if you make a mistake, you hold up your hands, implore the relatives in the humility that you are guilty of being a fool and don't challenge the police or prosecution to a game of catch me out. ;-)
I'm just trying to get to grips with a situation that is totally alien to me. I just have no first hand feel of how I would react in the situation OP describes. I don't fire guns and if you gave me one I would probably end up shooting everyone else by mistake and maybe even myself.
Evidently no one is capable of discussing a hypothetical without getting bogged down with "OP the murderer"
No, factual findings by the judge CAN'T be overturned by the Supreme Court, that's the whole point. The prosecution can only appeal the verdict on points of law. That's why I think it's going to be difficult for the prosecution to get a murder conviction, considering the judge made a factual finding that OP feared for his life when he shot, and gave clear reasons for thinking that.
Factual finding???
It is a view by the judge. That is all.
The judge cannot read OP's mind.
His clear reasons are your interpretations of Masipa's judgement. A thought is not a fact.
I'm just trying to get to grips with a situation that is totally alien to me. I just have no first hand feel of how I would react in the situation OP describes. I don't fire guns and if you gave me one I would probably end up shooting everyone else by mistake and maybe even myself.
Evidently no one is capable of discussing a hypothetical without getting bogged down with "OP the murderer"
I doubt anyone here has the kind of experience you are seeking. But people in S Africa who have a perchance for such things are up to speed on all things safety and legal . We heard from the gun guy who set the rigorous tests for OP. Your average home owner/gun owner in S Africa don't often shoot their girlfriends despite the plethora of guns.
The main eye witness said they did so I'm testing elements of his story.
There's no point in doing that if you don't do so within the context of his version. That only seems fair.
The "main" eyewitness was the only eyewitness trying to avoid a murder charge. There were a few ear-witnesses though whose evidence doesn't tie in with op's fabricated testimony.
I'm just trying to get to grips with a situation that is totally alien to me. I just have no first hand feel of how I would react in the situation OP describes. I don't fire guns and if you gave me one I would probably end up shooting everyone else by mistake and maybe even myself.
Evidently no one is capable of discussing a hypothetical without getting bogged down with "OP the murderer"
Porky the situation is simple.
Whatever type of training one goes through for the use of firearms for protection in the home there is a common thread.
That is never ever shoot until you can see your target, even then you have to be convinced the target is armed and yours or a member of your family’s life is in imminent danger.
I can vouch for this for having family in the States who are gun owners but even there the penalty for shooting an unarmed person is severe.
So on his version Pistorius failed on this very basic rule.
Of course had there actually been an unarmed intruder I’m sure Pistorius would not have shot him. In reality all this crap about fearing for his life from an 'intruder', etc, etc is merely a smokescreen thrown up to try and cover the fact he murdered Reeva.
Sorry to butt in, however, am I reading the news right, that Pistorius could lose the appeal and be found to be a murderer, but that his sentence can't be changed? I don't get that at all!
Sorry to butt in, however, am I reading the news right, that Pistorius could lose the appeal and be found to be a murderer, but that his sentence can't be changed? I don't get that at all!
No, the sentence for culpable homicide can't be changed, but if the conviction is changed to murder his sentence will increase accordingly.
I'm just trying to get to grips with a situation that is totally alien to me. I just have no first hand feel of how I would react in the situation OP describes. I don't fire guns and if you gave me one I would probably end up shooting everyone else by mistake and maybe even myself.
Evidently no one is capable of discussing a hypothetical without getting bogged down with "OP the murderer"
I understand where you're coming from.
Forget about OP and the whole case.
You want to put yourself into the scenario of feeling threathened in SA by an intruder, right?
OK.
From what we have learnt of SA and it's crime rate etc.
Now, put yourself into a scenario of living in an estate where you pay highly for security and want to feel safe 24/7. It costs money to to have that security. So, if you can afford it, you pay. You now feel you can leave your balcony windows open, ladders hanging about in the garden and not bother getting a downstairs window repaired. You have only to press a button for security. Security constantly patrol the whole estate and no one can get in to the estate without the proper pass. Electric fences surround the estate. So, you can relax knowing you have payed for a good security system.
That's how secure you feel.
On to ear witness evidence. Someone hears arguing which keeps them awake. Screams are heard. Then gun shots. Neighbours call security. A neighbour goes to the source of the commotion who happens to be a DR. Sees a house full of blood and a dead body.
The house owner says they thought it was an intruder. The neighbours wonder how an intruder can get in with all this security.
So, the house owner claims an intruder broke in to their house and they say they were defending themselves. In their evidence, they say they seen no one. They shot at a noise which could be anything. A bird, a child or a loved one. But, at the very least an intruder. An intruder is the least possible reason on an estate like this.
However, you continually use a scenario that is about an intruder breaking into any house in any country under circumstances that do not include the security of this particular estate and which you question people how they would react to an intruder on an ordinary estate or house that does not include this type of security and how they would react.
His clear reasons are your interpretations of Masipa's judgement. A thought is not a fact.
Why do you keep saying this?
A factual finding in a legal context is a conclusion reached by the judge about the facts of the case. The prosecution aren't allowed to appeal those findings, they're only allowed to appeal on points of law. Hence something like "I accept that the accused believed his life was in danger for the following reasons" is a factual finding, and can't be appealed unless there's some legal issue underpinning it. That doesn't include rehashing the facts of the case, like arguing about phone calls or ear witnesses.
Just wondering hypothetically if you were in OP's position in the bathroom, scared for your life and there was an armed intruder in the toilet about to emerge and shoot you dead what the procedure is?
I've mentioned several times that when a competent shooter is holding a gun the responsibility is pretty much instinctive. You don't need to think about it, it's just there. You learn at a very early stage of shooting training that the gun in your hand is a lethal weapon.
I can't really answer your question because I've never been in that position, neither I must add has OP.
No, factual findings by the judge CAN'T be overturned by the Supreme Court, that's the whole point. The prosecution can only appeal the verdict on points of law. That's why I think it's going to be difficult for the prosecution to get a murder conviction, considering the judge made a factual finding that OP feared for his life when he shot, and gave clear reasons for thinking that.
A factual finding in a legal context is a conclusion reached by the judge about the facts of the case. The prosecution aren't allowed to appeal those findings, they're only allowed to appeal on points of law. Hence something like "I accept that the accused believed his life was in danger for the following reasons" is a factual finding, and can't be appealed unless there's some legal issue underpinning it. That doesn't include rehashing the facts of the case, like arguing about phone calls or ear witnesses.
I wasn't asking for what he should have done. We all know there were better courses of action. In fact he is in prison now for making those and other wrong decisions. I was asking for the correct procedure in the situation he described.
But your premise depends on presuming that OP's version is true prior to getting his gun and believing his version after the shooting.
Neither are sufficiently reasonably possibly true.
Exactly. It would have been a shorter distance to cover to reach the bedroom door, which itself was protected by a short corridor.
In his position (a hypothetical one), I would quietly communicate with my OH, press the alarm button if available, pick up the keys and go the few steps to the exit. One of us would quietly open the door, while the other, taking advantage of the cover offered by the wall, waited with the gun trained on the bathroom corridor. Once the door was open, we would both leave, locking it behind us.
If,as is OP's argument,he was motivated by protecting Reeva he would have ensured communication with her and got her to seek proper safety even if he did intend to confront any intruder.
Just about every step of OP's version is questionable
Huh? You were saying a judge's factual finding can be overturned if it's incorrect. I was pointing out that it can't. Her ruling can only be overturned on points of law, not fact.
Masipa did give a series of clear reasons why she accepted (or at any rate accepted there was a reasonable possibility that) OP feared for his life. Even if you disagree with them they were there.
I wonder if those persons on here who insultingly denigrate the likes of Professor James Grant to level of mere ‘media talking heads’ noticed him in court alongside Gerrie Nel.
After the success of the leave to appeal in which his part was acknowledged by Gerrie Nel can these people actually now credit him with knowing what he is talking about.
I wonder if Brother Carl will now quietly forget his vow to grow his beard until Oscar comes home, as the prospects of him looking like Rip Van Winkle in 15 years’ time moves one step closer
I wonder if Brother Carl will now quietly forget his vow to grow his beard until Oscar comes home, as the prospects of him looking like Rip Van Winkle in 15 years’ time moves one step closer
Comments
Yes but that's all covered by the CH. That's a done deal we all agree on.
OK. You are setting your own terms here. You are not accepting a person's opinion. Simple as that.
You have your opinion of your answer and if people don't match that, in your opinion they are not answering the question.
But, you should accept other people's opinions regardless if they differ from yours. That is my first point in reply to your question.
Second point is my opinion as there is no set answer as everyone will act differently, although that is no excuse for OP killing Reeva or for forgetting all his training IMO.
The main thing is, to protect your loved ones and yourself. So, you get in touch with security, police and get the hell out of danger. You do not go towards the danger. Assess the situation and look at the safest thing to do. No harm in a country like SA to arm yourself with a gun, but, you don't shoot willy nilly without checking on loved one's.
And, if you make a mistake, you hold up your hands, implore the relatives in the humility that you are guilty of being a fool and don't challenge the police or prosecution to a game of catch me out. ;-)
I'm just trying to get to grips with a situation that is totally alien to me. I just have no first hand feel of how I would react in the situation OP describes. I don't fire guns and if you gave me one I would probably end up shooting everyone else by mistake and maybe even myself.
Evidently no one is capable of discussing a hypothetical without getting bogged down with "OP the murderer"
Factual finding???
It is a view by the judge. That is all.
The judge cannot read OP's mind.
His clear reasons are your interpretations of Masipa's judgement. A thought is not a fact.
Why do you keep saying this?
I doubt anyone here has the kind of experience you are seeking. But people in S Africa who have a perchance for such things are up to speed on all things safety and legal . We heard from the gun guy who set the rigorous tests for OP. Your average home owner/gun owner in S Africa don't often shoot their girlfriends despite the plethora of guns.
The "main" eyewitness was the only eyewitness trying to avoid a murder charge. There were a few ear-witnesses though whose evidence doesn't tie in with op's fabricated testimony.
What's not covered with CH is, four shots and the fact there is no sight of any intruder ever IMO.
Porky the situation is simple.
Whatever type of training one goes through for the use of firearms for protection in the home there is a common thread.
That is never ever shoot until you can see your target, even then you have to be convinced the target is armed and yours or a member of your family’s life is in imminent danger.
I can vouch for this for having family in the States who are gun owners but even there the penalty for shooting an unarmed person is severe.
So on his version Pistorius failed on this very basic rule.
Of course had there actually been an unarmed intruder I’m sure Pistorius would not have shot him. In reality all this crap about fearing for his life from an 'intruder', etc, etc is merely a smokescreen thrown up to try and cover the fact he murdered Reeva.
No, the sentence for culpable homicide can't be changed, but if the conviction is changed to murder his sentence will increase accordingly.
I understand where you're coming from.
Forget about OP and the whole case.
You want to put yourself into the scenario of feeling threathened in SA by an intruder, right?
OK.
From what we have learnt of SA and it's crime rate etc.
Now, put yourself into a scenario of living in an estate where you pay highly for security and want to feel safe 24/7. It costs money to to have that security. So, if you can afford it, you pay. You now feel you can leave your balcony windows open, ladders hanging about in the garden and not bother getting a downstairs window repaired. You have only to press a button for security. Security constantly patrol the whole estate and no one can get in to the estate without the proper pass. Electric fences surround the estate. So, you can relax knowing you have payed for a good security system.
That's how secure you feel.
On to ear witness evidence. Someone hears arguing which keeps them awake. Screams are heard. Then gun shots. Neighbours call security. A neighbour goes to the source of the commotion who happens to be a DR. Sees a house full of blood and a dead body.
The house owner says they thought it was an intruder. The neighbours wonder how an intruder can get in with all this security.
So, the house owner claims an intruder broke in to their house and they say they were defending themselves. In their evidence, they say they seen no one. They shot at a noise which could be anything. A bird, a child or a loved one. But, at the very least an intruder. An intruder is the least possible reason on an estate like this.
However, you continually use a scenario that is about an intruder breaking into any house in any country under circumstances that do not include the security of this particular estate and which you question people how they would react to an intruder on an ordinary estate or house that does not include this type of security and how they would react.
A factual finding in a legal context is a conclusion reached by the judge about the facts of the case. The prosecution aren't allowed to appeal those findings, they're only allowed to appeal on points of law. Hence something like "I accept that the accused believed his life was in danger for the following reasons" is a factual finding, and can't be appealed unless there's some legal issue underpinning it. That doesn't include rehashing the facts of the case, like arguing about phone calls or ear witnesses.
I've mentioned several times that when a competent shooter is holding a gun the responsibility is pretty much instinctive. You don't need to think about it, it's just there. You learn at a very early stage of shooting training that the gun in your hand is a lethal weapon.
I can't really answer your question because I've never been in that position, neither I must add has OP.
By all means point out points of law.
BIB. Is that your opinion or Masipa's?
But your premise depends on presuming that OP's version is true prior to getting his gun and believing his version after the shooting.
Neither are sufficiently reasonably possibly true.
If,as is OP's argument,he was motivated by protecting Reeva he would have ensured communication with her and got her to seek proper safety even if he did intend to confront any intruder.
Just about every step of OP's version is questionable
I may be wrong, but I think the Supreme Court could overrule Masipa's sentence anyway. They surely have the power to do that.
Huh? You were saying a judge's factual finding can be overturned if it's incorrect. I was pointing out that it can't. Her ruling can only be overturned on points of law, not fact.
Masipa did give a series of clear reasons why she accepted (or at any rate accepted there was a reasonable possibility that) OP feared for his life. Even if you disagree with them they were there.
After the success of the leave to appeal in which his part was acknowledged by Gerrie Nel can these people actually now credit him with knowing what he is talking about.
Contradiction in terms?
What does BIB mean?
Name and shame?
'Bit In Bold'