i'm not outraged that he didn't get pre-med, because the state didn't manage to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. i'm convinced of it, but then i'm not the judge. i honestly thought it would be de because i don't see how you can fire four shots into a small cubicle (especially after stating you didn't fire a warning shot into the shower cubicle because you foresaw the possibility that it would ricochet and hit you) and then claim you didn't think you'd kill whoever was behind that door. i also think she applied the law wrongly, because she seemingly only applied eventualis on the state's version. she said he didn't foresee the death of reeva, because he thought she was in bed. well obviously. but on his own version he must have foreseen the death of someone, because what else did he mean by "protecting him and reeva" when all that confronted him was a door? he must have intended to neutralise the threat i.e. kill the "intruder". and it wasn't a direct threat. it was a door that he was confronted with. a simple "reeva where are you?" or "who's there?" would have alerted him to the fact it was reeva in there. or just "come out i'm armed"
really, what it seems the world has taken from this trial is that it's ok to shoot someone behind a door as long as the window is open and you tell people it was an accident. and that's not a good message to send out. in fact, and this is where i will criticise masipa, she actually painted a scenario whereby it would be "excusable" to shoot your partner (if you wake up and they're standing over you and you get scared). that's incredibly daft of her, because now it seems a few killers will get away with their crimes (and i'm not referring to oscar here). this will become case law, and i don't see how anyone can convict someone now if the circumstances are the same
Agree with all this. All you have to do is say you saw your partner in silhouette next to the bed, thought they were an intruder, then it's 'understandable or even excusable' to shoot them dead. >:(:confused:>:(
I think all these points are irrelevant about whether he should have shot through a door not knowing who was behind it.
All the evidence suggests that he knew well who was behind the door and he shot to kill her.
They had an argument, she ran for her life and he shot her through the door. It's the only thing that makes any sense to me.
The reason that people are arguing whether he should or should not have used a gun or whether it was negligent or worse are only having these arguments because it is a really preposterous scenario.
Lots of things only become clear with hindsight...
Either way, I think people are doing m'lady an injustice when they accuse her of being:
i) corrupt
ii) stupid
iii) senile
iv) in love with Pistorius...
to mention just four things that have been thrown around over the last few hours.
She's a highly capable judge and almost everyone had nothing but good words for her when she was appointed.
i don't subscribe to any of those feelings about her, but i do think she was not on the ball the whole time. she needed simple things explaining to her, and thought it was common cause that it was gun then bat. which it wasn't. i'm very, very surprised that nel (seemingly) didn't pull her up on that though
Finally!!!!!! im glad the judge has found him guilty it was obvious. I dont know why they gave him bail and are sentenceing him next month why cant they take him to prison now??? hes gonna do a runner
Very unlikely to do a runner, bail decision was the correct one. He is very famous guy , not likely to put on a fake beard and go hide in the Caribbean.
Also why would he , considering Masipa has been so kindly - he might as well stay put and wait for the final dessert she is about to offer him.
He fired FOUR shots through the door, but deemed no "intent" to kill !
What if he had fired FIVE shots? SIX shots? Used a sub-machine gun? Totally ridiculous !
He just wanted the perceived imminent danger to go away, to be out of his house. When the noise prompted the firing this was in his mind not trying to kill.
Same as anyone else. If you're scared sh1tless you don't want to kill. Wanting to kill comes from a whole different kind of motivation.
Once we accept that OP honestly thought it was an intruder, then, IMO, we should also accept that he would be scared and full of adrenaline. It would be unreasonable to have expected him to rationally consider whether or not the intruder was a threat before acting.
...and certainly if its OK for someone to fire at the person "stealing" his daughter's car, then firing at an "intruder in his bathroom" would, IMO, also be OK.
Now that's the burning question. Do we accept his honesty.
I might be able to see why Masipa gave Oscar CH instead of DE as her being overly cautious instead of biased but not when you add her acquitting him of illegally possessing specialised ammunition despite it being without any doubt he had those black talon bullets in his possession. The excuse she made for why she found him not guilty of that particular issue sets up the rest of her summation as more than a bit iffy.
Masipa only charged OP for the lowest criminal charge bar acquittal for murder which may not have any jail time and a multiple witness event that could not be found anything but guilty yet also with min to no jail time attached . Everything that required a minimum jail term was dismissed.
Once we accept that OP honestly thought it was an intruder, then, IMO, we should also accept that he would be scared and full of adrenaline. It would be unreasonable to have expected him to rationally consider whether or not the intruder was a threat before acting.
...and certainly if its OK for someone to fire at the person "stealing" his daughter's car, then firing at an "intruder in his bathroom" would, IMO, also be OK.
Top paragraph - I don't agree, that's part of the responsibility of owning a lethal weapon and didn't he have to go thro exams about appropriate behaviour? He was at the advantage, he had a weapon for self-defence, he knew where the "intruder" was, and the "intruder" didn't know where he was. OP was able to move to various parts of the rooms/house to get even more advantage like hide with his gun pointing towards the danger, and also ascertain where Reeva was. If the circumstances were more urgent I may think differently.
i'm not outraged that he didn't get pre-med, because the state didn't manage to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. i'm convinced of it, but then i'm not the judge. i honestly thought it would be de because i don't see how you can fire four shots into a small cubicle (especially after stating you didn't fire a warning shot into the shower cubicle because you foresaw the possibility that it would ricochet and hit you) and then claim you didn't think you'd kill whoever was behind that door. i also think she applied the law wrongly, because she seemingly only applied eventualis on the state's version. she said he didn't foresee the death of reeva, because he thought she was in bed. well obviously. but on his own version he must have foreseen the death of someone, because what else did he mean by "protecting him and reeva" when all that confronted him was a door? he must have intended to neutralise the threat i.e. kill the "intruder". and it wasn't a direct threat. it was a door that he was confronted with. a simple "reeva where are you?" or "who's there?" would have alerted him to the fact it was reeva in there. or just "come out i'm armed"
really, what it seems the world has taken from this trial is that it's ok to shoot someone behind a door as long as the window is open and you tell people it was an accident. and that's not a good message to send out. in fact, and this is where i will criticise masipa, she actually painted a scenario whereby it would be "excusable" to shoot your partner (if you wake up and they're standing over you and you get scared). that's incredibly daft of her, because now it seems a few killers will get away with their crimes (and i'm not referring to oscar here). this will become case law, and i don't see how anyone can convict someone now if the circumstances are the same
He just wanted the perceived imminent danger to go away, to be out of his house. When the noise prompted the firing this was in his mind not trying to kill.
Same as anyone else. If you're scared sh1tless you don't want to kill. Wanting to kill comes from a whole different kind of motivation.
This is the problem for those who instantly dismissed Pistorius's story. Once you accepted that it could be true then so many other things fell into place and made 'sense'.
Well it might be Ok to shoot 4 Bullets at and kill a unknown "perceived" Intruder in SA, but here no. If you run this callous disregard for life further, would you just put the body in a dustbin to be collected with the rest of your rubbish and discard's, all to be taken to the Tip when they eventually come round?
Isn't that the feeling you would have if you thought an armed intruder broke into your house? Or would you immediately think "I've got to get my gun and kill them before they kill me"?
Comments
What if he had fired FIVE shots? SIX shots? Used a sub-machine gun? Totally ridiculous !
Unfortunately there have been people queuing up to turn the trial into a black vs. white issue. Fortunately m'lady wasn't one of them.
Agree with all this. All you have to do is say you saw your partner in silhouette next to the bed, thought they were an intruder, then it's 'understandable or even excusable' to shoot them dead. >:(:confused:>:(
Agreed.
No, that is not correct. It's not even close.
i don't subscribe to any of those feelings about her, but i do think she was not on the ball the whole time. she needed simple things explaining to her, and thought it was common cause that it was gun then bat. which it wasn't. i'm very, very surprised that nel (seemingly) didn't pull her up on that though
Just noticed your location. I hope your soul hasn't become weary because of this case.
That would be taking it too far.
Very unlikely to do a runner, bail decision was the correct one. He is very famous guy , not likely to put on a fake beard and go hide in the Caribbean.
Also why would he , considering Masipa has been so kindly - he might as well stay put and wait for the final dessert she is about to offer him.
I foresee no jail time.
He just wanted the perceived imminent danger to go away, to be out of his house. When the noise prompted the firing this was in his mind not trying to kill.
Same as anyone else. If you're scared sh1tless you don't want to kill. Wanting to kill comes from a whole different kind of motivation.
Now that's the burning question. Do we accept his honesty.
Au contraire, I've been in that situation lots of times.
And my girlfriend is just fine.
Masipa only charged OP for the lowest criminal charge bar acquittal for murder which may not have any jail time and a multiple witness event that could not be found anything but guilty yet also with min to no jail time attached . Everything that required a minimum jail term was dismissed.
Top paragraph - I don't agree, that's part of the responsibility of owning a lethal weapon and didn't he have to go thro exams about appropriate behaviour? He was at the advantage, he had a weapon for self-defence, he knew where the "intruder" was, and the "intruder" didn't know where he was. OP was able to move to various parts of the rooms/house to get even more advantage like hide with his gun pointing towards the danger, and also ascertain where Reeva was. If the circumstances were more urgent I may think differently.
A subjective test applies in a number of areas of the law (including in this country), not just in relation to DE.
What, terrified by a noise?
Oscar and Roux played her for a fool and won.
Agree entirely.
Alas, it was weary long before the trial started
Sure is. Did you think it was an armed intruder?
BiB - did OP actually say that ?
Well it might be Ok to shoot 4 Bullets at and kill a unknown "perceived" Intruder in SA, but here no. If you run this callous disregard for life further, would you just put the body in a dustbin to be collected with the rest of your rubbish and discard's, all to be taken to the Tip when they eventually come round?
" get the f*** outta my house" . Sounds like it. He wanted the intruder gone.
He sure did.
Isn't that the feeling you would have if you thought an armed intruder broke into your house? Or would you immediately think "I've got to get my gun and kill them before they kill me"?