Pro6,663 posts
03 Dec 2015, 10:56
#1
03 Dec 2015, 10:56#1
M urderer of Reeva Steenkamp Oscar Pistorius has had his culpable homicide conviction set aside and been convicted of murder . He remains under house arrest until sentencing .
Pistorius convicted
Started by Wardad32 REPLIES709 VIEWS· 03 Dec 2015, 10:56
Pro3,977 posts
03 Dec 2015, 11:09
#2
03 Dec 2015, 11:09#2
Good news! He was guilty from the get go, and now finally we are seeing justice!
Pro9,905 posts
03 Dec 2015, 11:59
#3
03 Dec 2015, 11:59#3
About friggin time.
Now he can weep for real ...
Captain21,007 posts
03 Dec 2015, 12:11
#4
03 Dec 2015, 12:11#4
Agreed. Isn't it weird though how many women bought his story. Not a single woman in my family thinks he's guilty.
I think he is guilty as F.
Pro3,977 posts
03 Dec 2015, 12:28
#5
03 Dec 2015, 12:28#5
Plum now that you mention it, the only people I know that th ought he was not guilty are woman. Maybe men are just wired differently? Anyway, glad they came to the right conclusion, even though I am convinced he knew who was in there when he pulled the trigger.
Pro6,663 posts
03 Dec 2015, 13:16
#6
03 Dec 2015, 13:16#6
If it were the other way round would us guys be swayed by a pretty face ?Anyway some justice for the poor wee lass and her fa mily.
Pro4,146 posts
03 Dec 2015, 13:20
#7
03 Dec 2015, 13:20#7
Reeva had no chance. I suspect years of roid abuse may have something to do with Pistorius rage - I say suspect because some of the things he did like shooting guns off etc clearly point to someone on an alternate wavelength .
Pro6,663 posts
03 Dec 2015, 13:51
#8
03 Dec 2015, 13:51#8
Hey Hakwa ! How goes it Brother ?Ya been fishing ?I'm chasing flatties and bream on lures the weekend ,caught a few flatties on lures but bream is a whole new bag for me on lures .
Pro4,378 posts
03 Dec 2015, 14:28
#9
03 Dec 2015, 14:28#9
I don't know a single woman who thought he was innocent either, Cloudy. I think what the SA's here should be saying is that their women all thought he was innocent.....it seems the rest of us knew he was as guilty as sin from the moment we heard he had shot his girlfriend ! How anyone believed his story is beyond comprehension to me, it truly is. And I still want to know what they were planning to do with those black bin bags, because I do not believe for one moment that they were trying to stem the flow of her blood with them !!!!!
Captain30,741 posts
03 Dec 2015, 15:00
#10
03 Dec 2015, 15:00#10
Find it difficult to see how they could prove murder......its a bloody farce......only in SA.
Pro7,008 posts
03 Dec 2015, 15:42
#11
03 Dec 2015, 15:42#11
Saffex
Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 14482RE: Pistorius convicted
December 03, 2015, 15:00:18
Actually no Dave
See the complete legal outcome link I posted below
He knew that his actions could have had fatal consequences, and that's all they needed to prove. Nobody can say that they expected to fire four deadly hollow point bullets, into a small confined area, and not expect someone to be killed, whilst not being physically in any danger yourself, at any point in time ..... simple
I have pasted just one portion here, but a very interesting read indeed, and I agree 100% with it
"In order to disturb the natural inference that a person intends the probable consequences of his actions, the accused was required to establish at least a factual foundation for his alleged genuine belief of an imminent attack upon him.
This the accused did not do. Consequently, although frightened, the accused armed himself to shoot if there was someone in the bathroom and when there was, he did. In doing so he must have foreseen, and therefore did foresee that the person he was firing at behind the door might be fatally injured, yet he fired without having a rational or genuine fear that his life was in danger.
The defence of putative private or self-defence cannot be sustained and is no bar to a finding that he acted with dolus eventualis in causing the death of the deceased."
Outcome
Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 14482RE: Pistorius convicted
December 03, 2015, 15:00:18
Find it difficult to see how they could prove murder......its a bloody farce......only in SA.
Actually no Dave
See the complete legal outcome link I posted below
He knew that his actions could have had fatal consequences, and that's all they needed to prove. Nobody can say that they expected to fire four deadly hollow point bullets, into a small confined area, and not expect someone to be killed, whilst not being physically in any danger yourself, at any point in time ..... simple
I have pasted just one portion here, but a very interesting read indeed, and I agree 100% with it
"In order to disturb the natural inference that a person intends the probable consequences of his actions, the accused was required to establish at least a factual foundation for his alleged genuine belief of an imminent attack upon him.
This the accused did not do. Consequently, although frightened, the accused armed himself to shoot if there was someone in the bathroom and when there was, he did. In doing so he must have foreseen, and therefore did foresee that the person he was firing at behind the door might be fatally injured, yet he fired without having a rational or genuine fear that his life was in danger.
The defence of putative private or self-defence cannot be sustained and is no bar to a finding that he acted with dolus eventualis in causing the death of the deceased."
Outcome
Captain30,741 posts
03 Dec 2015, 16:02
#12
03 Dec 2015, 16:02#12
Disagree.....you can only prove intention to kill a particular person if you aim the gun at them and fire with the intention to kill.
You cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to kill when firing through a closed door......the fact that death was probable is not enough.
Circumstances also play a part, he lives in a violent country and given his physical condition, is also a vulnerable man.
Hence the original verdict of negligent killing is correct.
From a legal perspective its a farce.
Pro1,748 posts
03 Dec 2015, 16:21
#13
03 Dec 2015, 16:21#13
Guys we will never know what actually led to this unfortunate incident but the truth is that one person died and two families have had their lives changed dramatically.
Sad, Sad, Sad.
Sad, Sad, Sad.
Captain21,007 posts
03 Dec 2015, 18:14
#14
03 Dec 2015, 18:14#14
I guess he gets to appeal the decision now right?
Yeah Cloudy/Becs I got back to SA just after it happened so didn't have many convos with women other than south african ones about it. But not a single guy I know thought he was innocent and about half to three quarters of the woman I spoke to did. Dunno, maybe because all guys know that it takes a true idiot to fire a gun through a door...without knowing if your partner isn't there. And who the hell wakes up, thinks there is an intruder and doesn't wake your partner or even check where they are? Obviously the first thing anyone would think would be that it was your partner or someone else living in the house who was making the noise. Unless you get broken into all the time...like a few times a month. If they let him off, they pretty much set a nice precedent for the future. You can kill anyone you like...just get em to sleep over, feed them lots of liquid, wait for em to-go to the bathroom...and boom they are eliminated ;)
My take, he was trying to scare her by making her think he was going to kill her...and it went wrong.
Pro4,378 posts
03 Dec 2015, 19:02
#15
03 Dec 2015, 19:02#15
My take has always been that they had a row and he followed her to the bathroom and shot her in a temper....with his disgusting, illegal bullets. Then panicked, not because he had killed the poor girl in the most dreadful of circumstances, but because what would happen to poor Oscar now ?! And, had he simply owned up to any culpability whatsoever instead of making up the most ridiculous of lies, I think some of us might have given him a little bit of credit for that.
I have always given him a great deal of credit for his achievements; I know how difficult life is with only a limited disability. And he has always seemed to be struggling very much with his personal demons, to me. I've had many a discussion about that over the years with people. So, I still, even now, have sympathy for the predicament that I feel is of his own making....and he must be terrified of what is to come ( but so must she have been before/during that attack...)
I've also never believed their relationship was genuine, not for one moment. It simply didn't ring true in so many ways and now look....two lives destroyed, two families destroyed. I don't think it was worth the column inches, was it ?
I have always given him a great deal of credit for his achievements; I know how difficult life is with only a limited disability. And he has always seemed to be struggling very much with his personal demons, to me. I've had many a discussion about that over the years with people. So, I still, even now, have sympathy for the predicament that I feel is of his own making....and he must be terrified of what is to come ( but so must she have been before/during that attack...)
I've also never believed their relationship was genuine, not for one moment. It simply didn't ring true in so many ways and now look....two lives destroyed, two families destroyed. I don't think it was worth the column inches, was it ?
Captain12,893 posts
03 Dec 2015, 19:53
#16
03 Dec 2015, 19:53#16
"My take has always been that they had a row and he followed her to the bathroom and shot her in a temper....with his disgusting, illegal bullets." Agreed, his temper got the better of him although I'm not 100% convinced he meant to kill, however, I believe he lost it bigtime.
Pro9,905 posts
04 Dec 2015, 08:27
#17
04 Dec 2015, 08:27#17
So pumping 4 rounds through a locked door into a small room was merely to scare the occupant ... right Dave?
The thought that one of the four bullets may actually hit the person was never his intention, huh?
Bullsh!t!!
He intended to kill the occupant ... and that's exactly what he managed.
It's wasn't an accident. The gun didn't just go off ... 4 times ... he aimed the weapon and pulled the trigger deliberately ... over and over ... till he was satisfied with the outcome.
I hope he gets to meet an inmate with a pecker as thick as my forearm.
Bast@rd!!
Pro7,008 posts
04 Dec 2015, 08:57
#18
04 Dec 2015, 08:57#18
Really Dave?
Answer me this then, from your legal point of view.
When asked during the court case why he never fired a warning shot first, Oscar replied that he was worried he would be hit by a ricochet from a warning shot.
Really.... and he was in the far bigger room when he fired, being the bathroom itself outside of the toilet.
If he was so worried about being hit or killed by a single "ricochet", in the bathroom itself from just one warning shot, what the hell did he expect would happen to the person in the smaller confines of the toilet itself, with a direct hit or ricochet from four bullets, in a far far smaller space.
This was also mentioned in this latest verdict outcome, and it totally destroys Oscars version of events in that he was defending himself, and never intended to kill the occupant in the toilet
Case closed... and the correct verdict given
Answer me this then, from your legal point of view.
When asked during the court case why he never fired a warning shot first, Oscar replied that he was worried he would be hit by a ricochet from a warning shot.
Really.... and he was in the far bigger room when he fired, being the bathroom itself outside of the toilet.
If he was so worried about being hit or killed by a single "ricochet", in the bathroom itself from just one warning shot, what the hell did he expect would happen to the person in the smaller confines of the toilet itself, with a direct hit or ricochet from four bullets, in a far far smaller space.
This was also mentioned in this latest verdict outcome, and it totally destroys Oscars version of events in that he was defending himself, and never intended to kill the occupant in the toilet
Case closed... and the correct verdict given
Pro3,977 posts
04 Dec 2015, 10:16
#19
04 Dec 2015, 10:16#19
They had an argument, she locked herself in the toilet to escape his bad temper and he shot her! He knew it was her, and at the time he pulled the trigger he wanted to shoot her! When everyone arrived at his house he genuinely regretted it, which is why he was crying and wishing he hadn't done what he had done, but regretting something doesn't mean you didn't intend to do it! In the heat of the moment, he lost his cool and lost control. We've all done stupid things when we've lost our tempers and regretted it afterwards, but most people won't go as far as killing another person! He did, and now he will pay for it!
How do I know all this? 1) The first person/people you protect when you feel you are under siege in your home, is your loved ones. 2) If any sane person gets up late at night and they hear a sound, especially in the toilet, will assume it is their partner/family member. 3) Why did she lock the door in the middle of the night when only her partner was in the house? 4) Was there pee in the toilet? Why did nobody ask this question? If she had flushed the toilet already, it would mean even more certainly to a sane person, that it was a family member in there using the toilet. If the was pee in the toilet , why did she pee, not flush and hide up against locked door?
How do I know all this? 1) The first person/people you protect when you feel you are under siege in your home, is your loved ones. 2) If any sane person gets up late at night and they hear a sound, especially in the toilet, will assume it is their partner/family member. 3) Why did she lock the door in the middle of the night when only her partner was in the house? 4) Was there pee in the toilet? Why did nobody ask this question? If she had flushed the toilet already, it would mean even more certainly to a sane person, that it was a family member in there using the toilet. If the was pee in the toilet , why did she pee, not flush and hide up against locked door?
Captain10,129 posts
04 Dec 2015, 10:54
#20
04 Dec 2015, 10:54#20
OuDawie, bollocks ..... the decision restores some credibility to the SA judicial system .
Stick with your social welfare funded legal aid divorce work .
Stick with your social welfare funded legal aid divorce work .
Captain40,032 posts
04 Dec 2015, 12:07
#21
04 Dec 2015, 12:07#21
It was a crime of passion. Oscar lost hs cool. I believe he genuinely and deeply regrets it. Terrible human tradegy. Oscar has a history of tantrums. W ho knows how having no legs effected him.
Pro6,663 posts
04 Dec 2015, 12:55
#22
04 Dec 2015, 12:55#22
Well we can see how having no brain has affected you baboon-ou and its not good.Plenty of people with disabilities who dont feel the need to butcher their girl friends .
Captain30,741 posts
04 Dec 2015, 12:56
#23
04 Dec 2015, 12:56#23
Case closed my arse.....where in the manual does it say you have to fire a warning shot?
Yes CC firing 4 shots through a closed door means it would be impossible for anyone to prove he intended to kill someone, unless of course he is very special and has x-ray eyes.
From a legal point of view, emotions aside.......the overturned verdict is an injustice. The original verdict was correct. He negligently killed her for it would be impossible to prove intention to kill.
FACT
Captain21,007 posts
04 Dec 2015, 13:10
#24
04 Dec 2015, 13:10#24
If he knew she was in there and could reasonably have foreseen that firing those shots would have killed her, then it is murder right?
I believe he knew she was in there. No different than putting putting one in a revolver, spinning the mag and pulling the trigger point blank at someone's head. One can reasonably forsee what the outcome might be and there is intent.
Pro4,378 posts
04 Dec 2015, 13:11
#25
04 Dec 2015, 13:11#25
So, just another question.....if he has now been found guilty etc, does that mean anyone should stand Trial for Perjury ? Can we keep this going for another twenty years ?!
And don't shout at me, Saffex ! It's just a question....I know you think it is a travesty. This is just a hypothetical question....
And don't shout at me, Saffex ! It's just a question....I know you think it is a travesty. This is just a hypothetical question....
Captain30,741 posts
04 Dec 2015, 14:33
#26
04 Dec 2015, 14:33#26
No Plum, reasonably foreseen carries no weight. You cant prove intention through foresight.
The test for murder is intention. You have to prove intention beyond a reasonable doubt.
Foresight throws doubt into the equation.
Captain21,007 posts
04 Dec 2015, 14:35
#27
04 Dec 2015, 14:35#27
So what would result of the Russian roulette scenario be Saffex? Manslaughter?
Captain30,741 posts
04 Dec 2015, 14:56
#28
04 Dec 2015, 14:56#28
Yeah it would have to be
Captain21,007 posts
04 Dec 2015, 15:06
#29
04 Dec 2015, 15:06#29
Ok hehe one more. We have a fight. I shoot you in the chest and you die. Murder? Considering a lot of people survive chest wounds, and I'm not certain my shooting you will actually kill you. And before the time, at no stage did I say "I am going to kill you!"
Pro4,378 posts
04 Dec 2015, 18:41
#30
04 Dec 2015, 18:41#30
That's manslaughter, Plum.......
sharkbok
Captain23,279 posts
Captain23,279 posts
04 Dec 2015, 18:57
#31
04 Dec 2015, 18:57#31
Initially, I thought that he might get involuntary manslaughter because it could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt his motive was to kill.
If he has no intent- then it must be involuntary manslaughter.
However, the high court overruled this verdict.
By South African laws firing 5 bullets at someone - it is murder- because there is the intent. Only in a self-defence situation is someone allowed to shoot another person.
This puts the onus on Oscar to prove that it was self-defe nse.
If he has no intent- then it must be involuntary manslaughter.
However, the high court overruled this verdict.
By South African laws firing 5 bullets at someone - it is murder- because there is the intent. Only in a self-defence situation is someone allowed to shoot another person.
This puts the onus on Oscar to prove that it was self-defe nse.
Captain21,007 posts
05 Dec 2015, 09:48
#32
05 Dec 2015, 09:48#32
In these circumstances, the accused must have foreseen and, therefore, did foresee that whoever was behind the toilet door might die but reconciled himself to that even occurring and gambled with that person's life. The identity of his victim is irrelevant to his guilt.”
Dolus eventualis. I do still remember some of my legal training...yeay :)
And so via doulis eventualis...the roulette scenario above would also result in a murder conviction. And it seems being reasonably able to forsee the consequence of one's actions is enough to convict. Haha the reasonable man.
After all we naturally call suicide bombers murderers even though don't know the identity nor the number of people they will kill.
I agree with the verdict.
Captain30,741 posts
05 Dec 2015, 11:15
#33
05 Dec 2015, 11:15#33
It's not his job to prove he reasonable foresaw the outcome. It's the prosecutions job to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to kill her in order to convict him of murder.
You cant prove intention when you can't see who you are shooting at. Bomb is different as it will kill you regardless of sight of victim or not.
You throw a grenade into a small room you intend to kill. You fire shots through a door you either want to kill or scare someone into submission. How do you prove which one he intended....especially when there was no motive to kill her.
Your shooting someone in the chest would be murder. Your intention was to shoot the guy. You might not have wanted to kill him but you would have little chance of proving that.
You cant prove intention when you can't see who you are shooting at. Bomb is different as it will kill you regardless of sight of victim or not.
You throw a grenade into a small room you intend to kill. You fire shots through a door you either want to kill or scare someone into submission. How do you prove which one he intended....especially when there was no motive to kill her.
Your shooting someone in the chest would be murder. Your intention was to shoot the guy. You might not have wanted to kill him but you would have little chance of proving that.
— END OF THREAD —
