At the end of the day the state failed to prove the "direct intention and premeditation to kill the deceased". That's what it set out to do.
Just because in his weak version of events he shot someone that he thought was an intruder, he still intended to kill that intruder in the heat of the moment.
You fire 4 bullets into a small cubicle which you know has a person behind it.
How can firing 4 times into that space be anything OTHER than murder? Just listen to yourself...
Any person that shoots a gun at any living thing, is intending to kill that living thing. He never said he didn't know anyone was behind that door.
That's wrong on several accounts. For a start, you can shoot at someone to disable them and prevent them getting away or from being a threat without actually killing them. Secondly, he didn't KNOW there was anyone behind the door. He suspected there was because the bathroom window was open and the toilet door was shut and he believed he heard a noise. It could've been a cat or something. Thirdly, if you were going to shoot-to-kill then I believe he would've aimed differently in the first place. Why shoot at the area of someone's hip?? You'd be more likely to aim higher, towards the chest or head. It was sheer bad luck that the last bullet struck Steenkamp in the head.
That's wrong on several accounts. For a start, you can shoot at someone to disable them and prevent them getting away or from being a threat without actually killing them. Secondly, he didn't KNOW there was anyone behind the door. He suspected there was because the bathroom window was open and the toilet door was shut and he believed he heard a noise. It could've been a cat or something. Thirdly, if you were going to shoot-to-kill then I believe he would've aimed differently in the first place. Why shoot at the area of someone's hip?? You'd be more likely to aim higher, towards the chest or head. It was sheer bad luck that the last bullet struck Steenkamp in the head.
Aiming in the middle of the door will hit them standing up and crouching down, as he ably demonstrated.
She did seem very interested in damning every bit of evidence against OP.
And also very keen to express her acceptance of his remorse as he cried a lot.
She's irrational and an embarrassment. Or something else.
I think the problem was she was not very good actress and found it difficult to at hide the game she was playing.
Personally from a comparative legal perspective I found the whole thing utterly distasteful and a stain on their legal system which I had hoped to have seen in a much fairer light.
One can but hope if it gets to the SCA a more unbiased attitude will prevail. We can but hope in the interest of real justice.
His job was to air compelling evidence that OP knew that RS was in the toilet when he fired the shots.
If he failed to do that, it doesn't really matter that OP came over as a poor witness. The onus is on the prosecution to prove their case.
The onus on someone citing PPd, that is THERE WAS NO THREAT, goes back to the accused. His credibility was supposed to be important.
But Masipa believed him even though she admits he is a liar.
I don't know why you are bothered really. It's exactly as some predicted - and the judge feels the same - OP was 'telling the truth' apparantly, and all other evidence was dismissed.
That's wrong on several accounts. For a start, you can shoot at someone to disable them and prevent them getting away or from being a threat without actually killing them. Secondly, he didn't KNOW there was anyone behind the door. He suspected there was because the bathroom window was open and the toilet door was shut and he believed he heard a noise. It could've been a cat or something. Thirdly, if you were going to shoot-to-kill then I believe he would've aimed differently in the first place. Why shoot at the area of someone's hip?? You'd be more likely to aim higher, towards the chest or head. It was sheer bad luck that the last bullet struck Steenkamp in the head.
With respect that is utter rubbish. No one is ever taught to shoot to wound that is a most stupid thing to do and could put you in more danger. Try that and you could finish up with an intruder with a ‘flesh wound’ and he will not be happy with you!!
I think the problem was she was not very good actress and found it difficult to at hide the game she was playing.
Personally from a comparative legal perspective I found the whole thing utterly distasteful and a stain on their legal system which I had hoped to have seen in a much fairer light.
One can but hope if it gets to the SCA a more unbiased attitude will prevail. We can but hope in the interest of real justice.
I think there may be competing pressures here. The legal system will want to assert themselves - it's a really crappy and dangerous judgement, but there will be many who say - 'let's just back her', we'll sort it out with other cases, not OP, and he's a hero you know, best just forget it.
And will want this joke forgotten very quickly.
I don't know who will win, but I suspect the latter - there are already people saying 'oh her judgement was wise' - damage limitation will probably be on the cards.
Massive stain on SA. I've totally lost faith and the world televising wasn't a great idea as we all saw how bloody awful Masipa has been.
But hey. SA have other fish to fry, and they might just sink into some horrible morass like a lot of Africa anyway. Looks like it's heading that way.
I agree. If you listen to her judgement objectively then I think she does a good job of explaining the reasoning behind all her statements.
I agree that most of her reasoning was clear. However I didn't understand her reasoning in regard to dolus eventualis. Most probably because I'm not a legal expert, but there are people knowledgable about SA law who have queried it.
I agree that most of her reasoning was clear. However I didn't understand her reasoning in regard to dolus eventualis. Most probably because I'm not a legal expert, but there are people knowledgable about SA law who have queried it.
Yes, her reasoning was mostly very clear and eloquent.
I agree. If you listen to her judgement objectively then I think she does a good job of explaining the reasoning behind all her statements.
I too agree, I think she's done an excellent job throughout the whole trial.
If any blame is apportioned it must be put at Nels door.
He spent hours on the whatsapp messages which really had no relevance to the case apart from attempting to blacken Oscars character.
He spent further hours arguing about fans and duvets when he could never prove his theories.
He spent hours picking apart a word or sentence until he thought he'd got an admission that what he was saying was correct.
He preferred to mock and belittle expert witnesses instead of concentrating on whatever evidence he thought he had.
He basically implied every defence witness was a liar or a bumbling fool.
He preferred his histrionics instead of listening to what people were saying.
He never did tests of any kind like the defence did.
He didn't think the timeline was important.
His heads of argument were all about how bad a witness Oscar was instead of explaining fully what the state case was.
He knew Fresco was dishonest yet refused to accept it.
He didn't take into account that Judge Masipa might not be impressed with his pitbull tactics.
I doubt very much if he'll appeal, he hasn't scored a single point so I don't think he'll want to humiliate himself further.
I and a few others on here said from the very start that his bully boy tactics would prove his downfall and we've been proven correct.
He aimed for the stars but only shot himself in the foot.
Maybe I just want to think the best of people rather than the worst.
That makes you inexperienced and naive then.
It's okay 'HOPING' for the best, but believing stuff that is ambiguous in a legal context, or even an ordinary context when you deal with people, is NOT what a judge should do.
You are allowed to be foolish Kap. I too am foolish, for different reasons.:D
That's wrong on several accounts. For a start, you can shoot at someone to disable them and prevent them getting away or from being a threat without actually killing them. .
Even shooting to disable you do it with the knowledge there's a massive risk that the person will end up death. But that will be self defence either way and and judged as such, so it has no bearing in this case.
Since when as a civilian can you make a decision to shoot to disable a person that is not threatening you in any way? Regardless you would be accused of attempted murder IF the person did not die. It would still be murder if you shot to disable, but the person died. I do not get your point at all.
He meant to shoot the person behind the door, so he knew that person could die from it. That's murder. If you shoot at someone, and in this violent way, you do it with the knowledge that death is the likely outcome, according to Pistorious' ruling, now murderers can go to court and claim that they cannot predict 100% that the person will die. And it would be true.
Even shooting to disable you do it with the knowledge there's a massive risk that the person will end up death. But that will be self defence either way and and judged as such, so it has no bearing in this case.
Since when as a civilian can you make a decision to shoot to disable a person that is not threatening you in any way? Regardless you would be accused of attempted murder IF the person did not die. It would still be murder if you shot to disable, but the person died. I do not get your point at all. He meant to shoot the person behind the door, so he knew that person could die from it. That's murder. If you shoot at someone, and in this violent way, you do it with the knowledge that death is the likely outcome, according to Pistorious' ruling, now murderers can go to court and claim that they cannot predict 100% that the person will die. And it would be true.
He said on the stand that he fired before he even knew what he was doing, that he didn't even have time to think.
With respect that is utter rubbish. No one is ever taught to shoot to wound that is a most stupid thing to do and could put you in more danger. Try that and you could finish up with an intruder with a ‘flesh wound’ and he will not be happy with you!!
Also any form of exploding bullet is designed to kill, rather than wound. Black Talons spring 6 talons on contact with soft tissue, spin through that tissue causing maximum damage, and upon striking bone fracture and splinter off into different parts of the body, compounding and spreading their devastation. The point of showing the watermelon video was to prove that Oscar knew the effect of these bullets and knew they would kill, not injure, the person behind the door. I had hoped Masipa would understand that but fear it was not spelled out slowly enough for her to grasp.
Also any form of exploding bullet is designed to kill, rather than wound. Black Talons spring 6 talons on contact with soft tissue, spin through that tissue causing maximum damage, and upon striking bone fracture and splinter off into different parts of the body, compounding and spreading their devastation. The point of showing the watermelon video was to prove that Oscar knew the effect of these bullets and knew they would kill, not injure, the person behind the door. I had hoped Masipa would understand that but fear it was not spelled out slowly enough for her to grasp.
But Pistorius said that he never had any intention of killing anyone, that he only believed in retrospect that someone could've been killed, and that he fired the gun before he'd even thought about what he was doing i.e. as an involuntary reaction to the sound in the toilet.
I too agree, I think she's done an excellent job throughout the whole trial.
If any blame is apportioned it must be put at Nels door.
He spent hours on the whatsapp messages which really had no relevance to the case apart from attempting to blacken Oscars character.
He spent further hours arguing about fans and duvets when he could never prove his theories.
He spent hours picking apart a word or sentence until he thought he'd got an admission that what he was saying was correct.
He preferred to mock and belittle expert witnesses instead of concentrating on whatever evidence he thought he had.
He basically implied every defence witness was a liar or a bumbling fool.
He preferred his histrionics instead of listening to what people were saying.
He never did tests of any kind like the defence did.
He didn't think the timeline was important.
His heads of argument were all about how bad a witness Oscar was instead of explaining fully what the state case was.
He knew Fresco was dishonest yet refused to accept it. He didn't take into account that Judge Masipa might not be impressed with his pitbull tactics.
I doubt very much if he'll appeal, he hasn't scored a single point so I don't think he'll want to humiliate himself further.
I and a few others on here said from the very start that his bully boy tactics would prove his downfall and we've been proven correct.
He aimed for the stars but only shot himself in the foot.
I think Nel thought m'lady was finding him 'charming'.
Comments
Just because in his weak version of events he shot someone that he thought was an intruder, he still intended to kill that intruder in the heat of the moment.
Not that I believe his version
That's wrong on several accounts. For a start, you can shoot at someone to disable them and prevent them getting away or from being a threat without actually killing them. Secondly, he didn't KNOW there was anyone behind the door. He suspected there was because the bathroom window was open and the toilet door was shut and he believed he heard a noise. It could've been a cat or something. Thirdly, if you were going to shoot-to-kill then I believe he would've aimed differently in the first place. Why shoot at the area of someone's hip?? You'd be more likely to aim higher, towards the chest or head. It was sheer bad luck that the last bullet struck Steenkamp in the head.
His job was to air compelling evidence that OP knew that RS was in the toilet when he fired the shots.
If he failed to do that, it doesn't really matter that OP came over as a poor witness. The onus is on the prosecution to prove their case.
Aiming in the middle of the door will hit them standing up and crouching down, as he ably demonstrated.
It is a fine kill position. And successful.
I think the problem was she was not very good actress and found it difficult to at hide the game she was playing.
Personally from a comparative legal perspective I found the whole thing utterly distasteful and a stain on their legal system which I had hoped to have seen in a much fairer light.
One can but hope if it gets to the SCA a more unbiased attitude will prevail. We can but hope in the interest of real justice.
The onus on someone citing PPd, that is THERE WAS NO THREAT, goes back to the accused. His credibility was supposed to be important.
But Masipa believed him even though she admits he is a liar.
I don't know why you are bothered really. It's exactly as some predicted - and the judge feels the same - OP was 'telling the truth' apparantly, and all other evidence was dismissed.
Result for you.
With respect that is utter rubbish. No one is ever taught to shoot to wound that is a most stupid thing to do and could put you in more danger. Try that and you could finish up with an intruder with a ‘flesh wound’ and he will not be happy with you!!
I think there may be competing pressures here. The legal system will want to assert themselves - it's a really crappy and dangerous judgement, but there will be many who say - 'let's just back her', we'll sort it out with other cases, not OP, and he's a hero you know, best just forget it.
And will want this joke forgotten very quickly.
I don't know who will win, but I suspect the latter - there are already people saying 'oh her judgement was wise' - damage limitation will probably be on the cards.
Massive stain on SA. I've totally lost faith and the world televising wasn't a great idea as we all saw how bloody awful Masipa has been.
But hey. SA have other fish to fry, and they might just sink into some horrible morass like a lot of Africa anyway. Looks like it's heading that way.
I agree that most of her reasoning was clear. However I didn't understand her reasoning in regard to dolus eventualis. Most probably because I'm not a legal expert, but there are people knowledgable about SA law who have queried it.
Maybe I just want to think the best of people rather than the worst.
Yes, her reasoning was mostly very clear and eloquent.
I too agree, I think she's done an excellent job throughout the whole trial.
If any blame is apportioned it must be put at Nels door.
He spent hours on the whatsapp messages which really had no relevance to the case apart from attempting to blacken Oscars character.
He spent further hours arguing about fans and duvets when he could never prove his theories.
He spent hours picking apart a word or sentence until he thought he'd got an admission that what he was saying was correct.
He preferred to mock and belittle expert witnesses instead of concentrating on whatever evidence he thought he had.
He basically implied every defence witness was a liar or a bumbling fool.
He preferred his histrionics instead of listening to what people were saying.
He never did tests of any kind like the defence did.
He didn't think the timeline was important.
His heads of argument were all about how bad a witness Oscar was instead of explaining fully what the state case was.
He knew Fresco was dishonest yet refused to accept it.
He didn't take into account that Judge Masipa might not be impressed with his pitbull tactics.
I doubt very much if he'll appeal, he hasn't scored a single point so I don't think he'll want to humiliate himself further.
I and a few others on here said from the very start that his bully boy tactics would prove his downfall and we've been proven correct.
He aimed for the stars but only shot himself in the foot.
That makes you inexperienced and naive then.
It's okay 'HOPING' for the best, but believing stuff that is ambiguous in a legal context, or even an ordinary context when you deal with people, is NOT what a judge should do.
You are allowed to be foolish Kap. I too am foolish, for different reasons.:D
Even shooting to disable you do it with the knowledge there's a massive risk that the person will end up death. But that will be self defence either way and and judged as such, so it has no bearing in this case.
Since when as a civilian can you make a decision to shoot to disable a person that is not threatening you in any way? Regardless you would be accused of attempted murder IF the person did not die. It would still be murder if you shot to disable, but the person died. I do not get your point at all.
He meant to shoot the person behind the door, so he knew that person could die from it. That's murder. If you shoot at someone, and in this violent way, you do it with the knowledge that death is the likely outcome, according to Pistorious' ruling, now murderers can go to court and claim that they cannot predict 100% that the person will die. And it would be true.
He said on the stand that he fired before he even knew what he was doing, that he didn't even have time to think.
Also any form of exploding bullet is designed to kill, rather than wound. Black Talons spring 6 talons on contact with soft tissue, spin through that tissue causing maximum damage, and upon striking bone fracture and splinter off into different parts of the body, compounding and spreading their devastation. The point of showing the watermelon video was to prove that Oscar knew the effect of these bullets and knew they would kill, not injure, the person behind the door. I had hoped Masipa would understand that but fear it was not spelled out slowly enough for her to grasp.
But Pistorius said that he never had any intention of killing anyone, that he only believed in retrospect that someone could've been killed, and that he fired the gun before he'd even thought about what he was doing i.e. as an involuntary reaction to the sound in the toilet.
Has it set a president?
Why has other threads not been allowed to go so far and what is a limit?
I wonder...
I think Nel thought m'lady was finding him 'charming'.
I am just pushing out of curiosity
Will it break the internet if it does?
I'm intrigued. ;-)
Oops. It did. Curiosity satiated