Oscar Pistorius: The Appeal

skimread said:
If your lawyer says he is going to lose before the trial then surely that is enough to appeal any negative finding by the court against you.
Click to expand...
Surely the trial is over already? Its only the verdict that's outstanding. At least that's my understanding of things.
 
Masu said:
I hope the appeal fails. In my opinion, you cannot know how you might react if you were in the same position as Oscar being disabled and afraid of crime. Yes, he was hasty in shooting, but when terribly afraid that might be a reaction many people have. It reminds me of the rugby player who shot his daughter mistaking her for a car thief.

Rudi Visagie and his wife were asleep at home when his wife woke up shouting that someone was trying to steal their daughter’s car.

The car was moving out of the gate and Rudi Visagie took his firearm and shot at the car killing the suspected car thief who in fact was his daughter leaving to surprise her boyfriend for his birthday.

It was said that in terms of Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act it was only permissible to use a firearm when a life was threatened and that the Constitution determined that a life was more precious than property.

In the Visagie case I believe that there could have been a murder sentence or at least culpable homicide as the car was leaving the property so the Visagies were in no danger. Of course I agree that no charges be brought against the ex rugby player as it was such a terrible mistake.

I do not know why the same can not be said of Oscars case. There is no proof of intent. If it was for instance his sister or brother in the toilet we would not be having this case or discussion as it would have also most probably been deemed an unfortunate mistake.

The only reason they are gunning for him is that she was a beautiful young lady with her life ahead of her and because she was his girlfriend people automatically want to bring the mighty down and get their vengeance.

In my opinion it would be unfair to have different standards if the person who lost their life was a daughter instead of a girlfriend as this is exactly what is seems to be.
Click to expand...

His testimony and conduct when he doesn't win showed me all the intent he has a anger issue killed her in a rage.

I've seen this guy spoke to this oak I never liked him he has a sketchy air over him.
 
Thor187 said:
His testimony and conduct when he doesn't win showed me all the intent he has a anger issue killed her in a rage.

I've seen this guy spoke to this oak I never liked him he has a sketchy air over him.
Click to expand...

/hauls out Rosetta stone.
 
Cant believe people are still arguing intent.
FFS you dont blow 4 holes into a closed cubicle where nobody could possibly live and not have intent to kill

I am still 100% convinced he did it intentionally
Amazing how everyone forgets the screams that were heard.
I am still of the opinion he murdered her due to a fight
 
No idea what really happened that night...however....

My wife and I don't have kids. Only me and her at home. If I think someone is in the bathroom, and I am certain my wife is not that person, I will empty the clip into the bathroom. The law really does need to change. The fact that someone is in your home without your permission or knowledge in the middle of the night must warrant lethal force. How the hell can you be expected to first see what they want??
 
ambroseg1 said:
No idea what really happened that night...however....

My wife and I don't have kids. Only me and her at home. If I think someone is in the bathroom, and I am certain my wife is not that person, I will empty the clip into the bathroom. The law really does need to change. The fact that someone is in your home without your permission or knowledge in the middle of the night must warrant lethal force. How the hell can you be expected to first see what they want??
Click to expand...

This is not about what the law should be but what about the law currently is.
 
ambroseg1 said:
No idea what really happened that night...however....

My wife and I don't have kids. Only me and her at home. If I think someone is in the bathroom, and I am certain my wife is not that person, I will empty the clip into the bathroom. The law really does need to change. The fact that someone is in your home without your permission or knowledge in the middle of the night must warrant lethal force. How the hell can you be expected to first see what they want??
Click to expand...

The key right there, all that is wrong with OP's defense.
 
marine1 said:
Cant believe people are still arguing intent.
FFS you dont blow 4 holes into a closed cubicle where nobody could possibly live and not have intent to kill

I am still 100% convinced he did it intentionally
Amazing how everyone forgets the screams that were heard.
I am still of the opinion he murdered her due to a fight
Click to expand...

Intent is the bases of the application of the law. I also believe he shot in there with the intent to kill someone behind the door. The problem though is now what if it was an armed robber. Do you think if it was an armed robber behind that door that he should get murder?

He would have gotten Culpable homicide if it was an Armed Robber. It wasn't and it turned out to be a loved one. Why should it be murder now? He's state of mind and intent is very important as you need to apply the law equally and not based on emotions. Unless they can prove without a doubt that he intended on Killing Reeva Steenkamp in cold blood and she was hiding from him behind the door it can't be murder.

Lets assume the following quickly:
I get into an altercation with someone and there is a fist fight. The other guy hits me and I die. Is this now murder? It's not as his intent was never to kill me. It was a possibility but how do you prove he really wanted to beat me to death? If said killer told someone before the altercation that he's going to donner me dead then his intent was to kill me with his bare hands. And that would be murder. Even though he knew the beat down could lead to my death, he didn't intend to kill me. But he should now get Murder 1 because of dolus eventualis? No, it that was the case every driver of a car who killed someone would be in jail for murder.
 
Pitbull said:
Intent is the bases of the application of the law. I also believe he shot in there with the intent to kill someone behind the door. The problem though is now what if it was an armed robber. Do you think if it was an armed robber behind that door that he should get murder?

He would have gotten Culpable homicide if it was an Armed Robber. It wasn't and it turned out to be a loved one. Why should it be murder now? He's state of mind and intent is very important as you need to apply the law equally and not based on emotions. Unless they can prove without a doubt that he intended on Killing Reeva Steenkamp in cold blood and she was hiding from him behind the door it can't be murder.

.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The physical and circumstantial evidence can be used to show that he intended killing whomever was behind the door. that equals murder. Not the fact that it was a person known to OP.
 
pinball wizard said:
Not true. The bench made it clear yesterday that the identity of the deceased in OP's case is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

But it is relevant to the case that was heard by Masipa.

Remember the SCA is not arguing the facts of the case but the application of the law. Masipa was the one having to rule on the facts of the case. There is a difference between killing an armed robber in your house and killing a loved one, based on the facts heard in court Masipa ruled that it could be perceived that it was an armed attacker and thus Culpable Homicide.

Think about all the previous cases heard where people shot loved ones by accident. One of them a Famous ex Rugby player. Sure he knew shooting at the assailant stealing the car will kill him. After the fact it turned out to be his daughter. His sentence? Want to guess?
 
pinball wizard said:
Not necessarily. The physical and circumstantial evidence can be used to show that he intended killing whomever was behind the door. that equals murder. Not the fact that it was a person known to OP.
Click to expand...

Use that in my example above that (The fight)

Do you still come to the same conclusion?
 
Pitbull said:
Intent is the bases of the application of the law. I also believe he shot in there with the intent to kill someone behind the door. The problem though is now what if it was an armed robber. Do you think if it was an armed robber behind that door that he should get murder?
Click to expand...
It doesnt matter what I think, the law is clear
Pitbull said:
He would have gotten Culpable homicide if it was an Armed Robber. It wasn't and it turned out to be a loved one. Why should it be murder now? He's state of mind and intent is very important as you need to apply the law equally and not based on emotions. Unless they can prove without a doubt that he intended on Killing Reeva Steenkamp in cold blood and she was hiding from him behind the door it can't be murder.
Click to expand...
It doesnt matter who was behind the door, it was murder and the Judge in the SCA seems to agree. From the start this has been my stance.
Pitbull said:
Lets assume the following quickly:
I get into an altercation with someone and there is a fist fight. The other guy hits me and I die. Is this now murder? It's not as his intent was never to kill me. It was a possibility but how do you prove he really wanted to beat me to death? If said killer told someone before the altercation that he's going to donner me dead then his intent was to kill me with his bare hands. And that would be murder. Even though he knew the beat down could lead to my death, he didn't intend to kill me. But he should now get Murder 1 because of dolus eventualis? No, it that was the case every driver of a car who killed someone would be in jail for murder.
Click to expand...
How you can even compare the two? If there is a fight, firstly who started it? Who defended and who provoked the attack?
Was the victim the aggressor or the victim?
If said killer said that then he is guilty of murder as his intention was to kill. Murder must have intent.
OP, if he shot 1 x shot, perhaps the outcome would be different however even the firearms control act and the Section 49 of the CPA states clearly when and how you may fire a gun and under what circumstances you may do so.
He broke every rule in the book
 
Pitbull said:
But it is relevant to the case that was heard by Masipa.

Remember the SCA is not arguing the facts of the case but the application of the law. Masipa was the one having to rule on the facts of the case. There is a difference between killing an armed robber in your house and killing a loved one, based on the facts heard in court Masipa ruled that it could be perceived that it was an armed attacker and thus Culpable Homicide.

Think about all the previous cases heard where people shot loved ones by accident. One of them a Famous ex Rugby player. Sure he knew shooting at the assailant stealing the car will kill him. After the fact it turned out to be his daughter. His sentence? Want to guess?
Click to expand...

Which is why we're at the SCA. masipa's application of the law that the difference between a loved one and an attacker should result in different verdicts was incorrect, or so says the state - correctly so in my opinion. As in the case of the ex rugby guy. It would appear that sympathy on the part of the court overrides the application of the law.
 
Pitbull said:
But it is relevant to the case that was heard by Masipa.

Remember the SCA is not arguing the facts of the case but the application of the law. Masipa was the one having to rule on the facts of the case. There is a difference between killing an armed robber in your house and killing a loved one, based on the facts heard in court Masipa ruled that it could be perceived that it was an armed attacker and thus Culpable Homicide.

Think about all the previous cases heard where people shot loved ones by accident. One of them a Famous ex Rugby player. Sure he knew shooting at the assailant stealing the car will kill him. After the fact it turned out to be his daughter. His sentence? Want to guess?
Click to expand...

Again thats not right, in the OP case, if it was a loved one or a robber behind the door it doesnt matter. Did you listen to the Judge yesterday???????
You CANNOT shoot at an unknown target in your house if there is no danger or threat.
In OP there was ZERO threat and he therefore had no legal right to shoot anything nevermind a human being / dog / cat / loved one / robber / Satan / Allah / Jesus or any other being that at that time was alive
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X