|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Pistorius Verdict
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Judge Masipa on why she did not charge Pistorius with common-law murder: quote:
"Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door - let alone the deceased - as he thought she was in the bedroom,"
So, she's saying that he unloaded his gun through the bathroom door but it never occurred to him that he might kill the person behind it.
She obviously bought into his story that it also never occurred to him that the person in the bathroom might be his overnight guest, but it really doesn't matter. He knew someone was behind that door in a very small room. Still, she honestly believes he didn't think his bullets would hurt the person.
Am I missing something?
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Firstly, the judge didn't charge Pistorius. That isn't her job.
Have you deliberately omitted the judge's verduct regarding culpable homicide?
The not guilty verdict on the murder charges cannot be considered without looking at what Pistorius has been found guilty of.
[ 12. September 2014, 11:13: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I thought she was saying that while you can infer intent on P's part, the prosecution did not demonstrate it. However, I stand to be corrected.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I should have said intent to kill his girl-friend; again, according to the judge, not demonstrated by the state.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
I accept that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to murder Reeva, although common sense tells us that when your partner is not in bed and someone is in your bathroom, calling their name to check who's in there is preferable to emptying bullets into the door.
At least he is facing prison now and I certainly hope he gets a custodial sentence - apparently the judge has discretion on the culpable homicide charge in that regard so it's not a given.
Again a stark reminder - in the same week that the Ray Rice/Janay Palmer video shows another athlete abusing a partner - that women are at most risk for their lives from them men they choose to share them with. Tragic.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I'm quite curious as to how the state is meant to demonstrate intent (to murder). I suppose often there are witnesses, that the murderer looked determined, or they say something, or write something. Otherwise, it seems like mind-reading.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
I would assume (risky) that "intent" in the sense of pre-meditation can be demonstrated via patterns of behaviour, preparation, notes, previous threats etc.
After all there's:
- I killed X entirely by accident
- In the heat of the moment I killed X but actually intended to kill Y (whether Y existed or not)
- In the heat of the moment a murderous rage descended and I deliberately killed X, but hadn't meant to up until then
- I have been working out how to kill bloody X for ages, and have finally nailed the bastard
And doubtless various shades in-between.
I would imagine proving either of the middle two would be quite tricky.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Have you deliberately omitted the judge's verduct regarding culpable homicide?
The not guilty verdict on the murder charges cannot be considered without looking at what Pistorius has been found guilty of.
I think it's perfectly possible to wonder why she didn't charge him with one thing without looking at what she did charge him with. But okay. So she says he was negligent. It sounds like she's decided the whole thing was an accident. I think it is ridiculous of her to believe that he fired those shots without the intent to kill.
This judge has been expressing her sympathy for Oscar's tears from the start of the trial. I guess it pays not to use a handkerchief.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
- In the heat of the moment a murderous rage descended and I deliberately killed X, but hadn't meant to up until then.
I think a lot of domestic violence murders are probably closest to this - with the additional point that 'I now hugely regret having killed X, am devastated that I did so and can't really believe I did it or meant to'.
Perpetrators of domestic violence will often argue that black is white to the extent that I think they really believe black is white in their heads.
(Zoey: The police report says there was broken glass from a smashed vase on the sofa and living room floor when they arrived. Alleged perpetrator of the incident: We ain't got no glass vases. Zoey: Your girlfriend says you hit her and caused that large bruise she's got. Alleged perp: I would never hurt my girlfriend. Etc, etc.)
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
I would assume (risky) that "intent" in the sense of pre-meditation can be demonstrated via patterns of behaviour, preparation, notes, previous threats etc.
After all there's:
- I killed X entirely by accident
- In the heat of the moment I killed X but actually intended to kill Y (whether Y existed or not)
- In the heat of the moment a murderous rage descended and I deliberately killed X, but hadn't meant to up until then
- I have been working out how to kill bloody X for ages, and have finally nailed the bastard
And doubtless various shades in-between.
I would imagine proving either of the middle two would be quite tricky.
Snags, in the U.S. in some states premeditated murder can be charged if the murderer only plans for a few seconds before the crime. I don't know how premeditation is determined in South Africa but, in this case, it was ruled out yesterday. I'm fine with that. But in S.A., between premeditated murder and culpable homicide is "common-law murder." and for that no premeditation is needed.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
I would assume (risky) that "intent" in the sense of pre-meditation can be demonstrated via patterns of behaviour, preparation, notes, previous threats etc.
After all there's:
- I killed X entirely by accident
- In the heat of the moment I killed X but actually intended to kill Y (whether Y existed or not)
- In the heat of the moment a murderous rage descended and I deliberately killed X, but hadn't meant to up until then
- I have been working out how to kill bloody X for ages, and have finally nailed the bastard
And doubtless various shades in-between.
I would imagine proving either of the middle two would be quite tricky.
I think 2, 3 and 4 are murder in S. African law, and I think, UK law, but as you say, to demonstrate those states of mind seems difficult, unless they confess.
But this case seems indeterminate, since he blazed away with a gun, yet seemed to claim that he didn't intend to kill her or in fact an intruder.
That does seem odd, but I wonder if 'beyond reasonable doubt' has helped him here, since there might be doubt.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I assume you mean 'convict' rather than 'charge'?
From the moment the judge used the word 'unlawful' yesterday to describe the firing of the weapon, culpable homicide was pretty much a dead-cert today. Reading between the lines of yesterday's verdicts, it was pretty clear she was saying "Look, I'm pretty sure you did murder her, but the prosecution's witnesses have been so piss-poor that I the murder charges haven't come up to proof".
[cp x 3]
The most remarkable thing for me about the whole trial is that you had a privileged male Afrikaner on trial before a black woman, which would have been unthinkable in South Africa only 20 years ago...
[ 12. September 2014, 12:05: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Why did she even need witnesses when he admitted he fired his gun into that tiny room? If everything he says is true about thinking it was an intruder and not his girlfriend. He still shot the person in the stall without asking a single question or determining if the person was armed. S. A law does not say that it's alright to murder burglars. I wonder if this would be such a happy day for race relations if the dead person actually had been a starving black man.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The most remarkable thing for me about the whole trial is that you had a privileged male Afrikaner on trial before a black woman, which would have been unthinkable in South Africa only 20 years ago...
I wish it had been a male judge, though, because the way Pistorius kept saying 'm'lady' was really creepy.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I wish it had been a male judge, though, because the way Pistorius kept saying 'm'lady' was really creepy.
What's odd is that there was once tense exchange where he was being grilled by a male prosecutor, but he insisted on directing all of his responses back to Judge Masipa. So on TV you saw a man addressing Oscar and Oscar replying "m'lady" while the judge was off-screen. Very confusing!
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
Is it not usual for a witness to address his answers to the judge, rather than the person asking the questions? Agree on the weirdness of it, though.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Why did she even need witnesses when he admitted he fired his gun into that tiny room?
I guess because she didn't intend to model her judicial career on that of Caiaphas.
This is how criminal trials usually work. The prosecution says what it's going to try to prove. The prosecutions calls witnesses to try to prove that. The defence asks questions of the witnesses. The defence calls its own witnesses, and the prosecution questions them. Lawyers mouth off for a bit. The judge or jury decide whether the prosecution has proved its case to the requisite (and usually high) standard of proof.
That's what happened here.
You may think that it ought to be criminal to fire a gun four times through a locked door at an unidentified person. As it happens, the judge in this case agrees with you. But she also thinks, quite rightly, that its a different sort of crime to deliberately shooting one's girlfriend. The prosecution called witnesses to try to prove that Pistorius intended to murder his girlfriend. The judge did not think that they proved this to the required standard.
As far as I can see, other than the inordinately long trial to decide a relatively straightforward question, the SA justice system seems to have worked well in this instance.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Is it not usual for a witness to address his answers to the judge, rather than the person asking the questions? Agree on the weirdness of it, though.
I guess it makes sense as in the US you would address your answers to the jury, and in SA they don't have juries so the judge is the analogue.
Just made for odd TV footage, two men speaking to each with "m'lady" being repeated over and over, with no lady visible!
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Is it not usual for a witness to address his answers to the judge, rather than the person asking the questions? Agree on the weirdness of it, though.
Correct: if there is no jury, then the witness is asked questions by the prosecution and defence lawyers but the replies are directed to the judge as it is the judge who needs to hear the witness' evidence; if there is a jury, then the replies should be directed to the jury for the same reason.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Eliab wrote:
You may think that it ought to be criminal to fire a gun four times through a locked door at an unidentified person. As it happens, the judge in this case agrees with you. But she also thinks, quite rightly, that its a different sort of crime to deliberately shooting one's girlfriend. The prosecution called witnesses to try to prove that Pistorius intended to murder his girlfriend. The judge did not think that they proved this to the required standard.
Good summary. There is an ambiguity here, isn't there, that if he thought it was an intruder, it would be murder, if he shot at this person, intending to kill him/her? However, presumably the state did not demonstrate this intention either.
I saw a comment, that she probably thought it was murder, but also thought the witnesses were rubbish.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
If he fired expanding bullets at someone he believed to be in a tiny bathroom and wasn't trying to kill them, what was he trying to do? I don't see how he could be trying to do anything else.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
If he fired expanding bullets at someone he believed to be in a tiny bathroom and wasn't trying to kill them, what was he trying to do? I don't see how he could be trying to do anything else.
Yes, I was wrestling with that. I assume that this is an inference, not a demonstration by the prosecution. But I don't how much balance one can drawn between inference and proof in a trial, since presumably the prosecution is entitled to point out certain inferences to the jury (judge, in this case). And also, 'beyond reasonable doubt' crops up here, or as they say now in English trials, 'are you sure?'
I mean that if I was asked if I'm sure that a man firing four shots into a toilet, intended to kill, I think I would say, no.
[ 12. September 2014, 14:47: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I made the comment about the judge thinking it was murder but that the prosecution didn't come up to proof on that charge.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
As to state of mind required for the charge to be murder, that is often an inference from actions, and often a pretty clear cut one too.
I haven't followed the case all the way through, but it would have been possible for the defence to argue, for example, that the defendant certainly intense to disable an intruder about whom he was in fear, but that his intention was to fire low so as not to kill. Some of what I have seen suggests that line was taken.
I guess we'll get more of a picture of what the judge made of it all when she comes to sentence him.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
As to state of mind required for the charge to be murder, that is often an inference from actions, and often a pretty clear cut one too.
I haven't followed the case all the way through, but it would have been possible for the defence to argue, for example, that the defendant certainly intense to disable an intruder about whom he was in fear, but that his intention was to fire low so as not to kill. Some of what I have seen suggests that line was taken.
I guess we'll get more of a picture of what the judge made of it all when she comes to sentence him.
Yes, I suppose quite often it's an inference that stares you in the face. Man pulls out gun, shouts, 'you bastard, this is for that trick you pulled on me', and shoots someone in the head. Inference: murder?
But this case is so confused by P's disability, his apparent panic at a possible intruder, and so on. Maybe he's just lucky.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I'm not sure what the criterion is for murder in SA but, assuming - reasonably I think - that it is the same as in England and Wales, you have to have unlawful killing (check) with the intent to kill or cause GBH; therefore, even if he had fired with intent to disable, that could be construed as murder.
This is the bit therefore that I'm struggling with in the not guilty murder verdict: if the killing was unlawful - which the judge has found that it was and therefore self-defence not being made out as a legal defence - and given that it is hard not to infer an intention on Pistorius' part to kill or inflict GBH, how come he's not guilty of murder?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
The prosecution fucked up big-style, by charging him as they did. There was never any way that he would be found guilty of setting out to murder his then-current girlfriend with malice aforethought in such a manner. I don't buy all that crap about a deep and loving relationship after 3 months, with a history of publicly arguing. Reeva may well have been gold-digging, but that's neither illegal or relevant. I do wonder whose idea it was to bring such a doomed-to-failure charge, though that might be excessively Machiavellian on my part.
He's an arrogant entitled white guy in South Africa, steeped in a macho culture. Following his initially commendable achievements in sport (considerably tarnished by his petulant behaviour when beaten) he figured he was above the societal rules which govern everyone else - that stuff is for the poor people, and the dark-skinned people, not the Boers.
I've found the judge's performance over the last two days slightly strange. I'm sure that had he been black, and found guilty of culpable homicide, and was known to have liquidated all his major assets, he'd still have been given bail..... I fully expect he'll be across the border by October 13th.
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
From the BBC website: quote:
But judge Masipa also dismissed [a lesser charge of murder], saying: "The accused had the intention to shoot at the person behind the door, not to kill - the evidence failed to prove the accused had intention."
She also said the prosecution had not proven that he "accepted the possibility of killing someone" when he fired a gun four times through the toilet door.
This is a point on which many South Africans, including some legal experts, disagree.
She then went on to look at culpable homicide
quote:
Judge Masipa said that Mr Pistorius had ample time to call for help, rather than going to confront a perceived intruder with a loaded gun.
"The accused had reasonable time to reflect, to think and conduct himself reasonably," she said.
"The accused knew that there was a person behind the door, he chose to use a firearm which was a lethal weapon, was competent in the use of firearms as he had received training."
The judge rejected the defence arguments that Mr Pistorius is more likely to confront danger because of his disability - both his legs have been amputated.
"Vulnerability is not unique - There are many people in this country without any form of security at all," she said.
She summed up by saying: "The accused acted too hastily and used excessive force."
"It is clear that his conduct was negligent."
I particularly like the comment she makes about vulnerability - this goes to comments about Pistorius's sense of entitlement, mentioned upthread.
[ 12. September 2014, 15:58: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Again I ask: If he wasn't trying to kill someone, what was he doing, believing there was a person there, firing into a confined space multiple times?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Again I ask: If he wasn't trying to kill someone, what was he doing, believing there was a person there, firing into a confined space multiple times?
I too would like to see an answer to this. I have a very hard time believing that he wasn't trying to kill someone.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Again I ask: If he wasn't trying to kill someone, what was he doing, believing there was a person there, firing into a confined space multiple times?
I too would like to see an answer to this. I have a very hard time believing that he wasn't trying to kill someone.
Particularly given the type of ammunition used ...
--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!
Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
Too many holes in this story for me. If he wanted merely to frighten the person in the bathroom he could have fired the gun into the air or done something different that didn't result in death. He could have crept quietly down the stairs and phoned the police. Why would an intruder shut himself in the bathroom when he hadn't disturbed anybody up till then? Who fires at a closed door anyway? Wouldn't you assume the bullets might ricochet back off, or get stuck in the wood?
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
It's difficult, and a generally bad idea, to comment on a court case if,
(a) It is under a foreign legal system one doesn't know much about, and
(b) One wasn't actually there, hearing all the evidence and seeing all the witnesses in action.
On (a) I suspect none of us on this thread know enough about South African law, to be able to say anything sensible about it, yet alone the distinction between murder and culpable homicide in that country. Nor for that matter, do we know how self defence is treated in a country where many casual housebreakers are armed. For one thing, I seem to remember their law is Roman Dutch and not Common Law at all.
On (b) there's all the difference in the world between having a few obvious snippets of the story relayed to you by the media, and actually having to decide whether you believe witness X, find him or her persuasive, or think he or she is lying or a spurious self-appointed expert.
One comment I would make, going against what I've just said, is that what one saw of the prosecution barrister in the televised snippets, suggested that he might have shot his own case in the foot. Yes I know that in this context, that statement is in bad taste. This is a legal system where cases are tried by judges not juries. Yet he was pushy, aggressive and partisan in a way that should be over-the-top and counter-productive even with a jury of ordinary people, yet alone a legally qualified judge conditioned to try cases dispassionately.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
One comment I would make, going against what I've just said ...
Then don't tell everyone else their comments are a bad idea!
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
... Yet he was pushy, aggressive and partisan in a way that should be over-the-top and counter-productive even with a jury of ordinary people, yet alone a legally qualified judge conditioned to try cases dispassionately.
Yeah - a cynic might almost think he was being paid to present the case in a manner which would lead to Pistorius being exonerated from the charge.
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
This is the bit therefore that I'm struggling with in the not guilty murder verdict: if the killing was unlawful - which the judge has found that it was and therefore self-defence not being made out as a legal defence - and given that it is hard not to infer an intention on Pistorius' part to kill or inflict GBH, how come he's not guilty of murder?
That might be because in E&W self-defence is an 'all or nothing' thing. If you kill someone as a result of responding to what you honestly believe to be threat, using reasonable and proportionate force, you aren't guilty of any crime at all. If you use excessive force, then self-defence doesn't apply. It can't reduce a murder charge to manslaughter. It's a complete defence, or nothing.
SA law might be different in that respect. The Judge appears to have found that Pistorius shot through the door genuinely believing that there was an intruder who posed a threat (or, at least, that the prosecution hadn't proved otherwise), but that using a gun in that situation was excessive and negligent. If SA law allows for a finding of culpable homicide in those circumstances, I can't see that as being unreasonable. Clearly responding to a perceived threat with excessive force is, morally speaking, significantly less blameworthy than initiating an attack with excessive force.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
I really don't see why we need to know all about South African law or to have watched every minute of the trial (although I believe I did watch most of it) to have an opinion.
Many a man has been convicted of murder with no witnesses if he confessed to the action.
Pistorius has confessed from the very first that he heard a noise in the bathroom, got his gun and went down the hall and shot several times through the door.
Whether or not he was mistaken about who was on the other side of the door should not matter. The prosecution may have failed to prove that he didn't know it was Reeva and according to the judge neither did the witnesses. But why should his conviction depend on him knowing the identity of the person on the other side of the door?
The fact remains that Pistorius shot through the door knowing a human being was on the other side. If he didn't know that his bullets would kill that person then the defense needs to prove an IQ below 60.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Preach it sister.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Whether or not he was mistaken about who was on the other side of the door should not matter.
Of course it matters. That's what the whole trial was about. It was basically the only issue that the judge had to decide.
To demonstrate, suppose (and this is a completely hypothetical supposition) someone comes up with a recording of Pistorius saying (in circumstances where there is no doubt that it reflects his true views) "All that stuff about the burglar and being in fear was bullshit. I'd wanted to kill the bitch for months. I had the idea of shooting her dead in the night and claiming I'd shot at an intruder, and when she went to the bathroom I took the opportunity to get rid of her. I knew exactly what I was doing."
How would you respond to that? You already think Pistorius is a dangerous, irresponsible and stupid man for shooting at an imagined intruder whom he wrongly supposed was threatening him - if you knew for a fact this was premeditated murder of someone whom he knew posed no threat at all you'd think he was even more horribly evil and callous. It would make a difference to know that he acted from deliberate cruelty with no excuse of mistake or fear.
That's why it matters. The law ought to treat these differences as significant. Whether that's by differential sentencing for the same offence, or different grades of offence is less important, but the fact that such distinctions of culpability can be made is an indispensable feature of a just legal system.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
It matters for the premeditated charge, but not for common law murder.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Culpable homicide is still available, right? I read that the judge had released phase 1 of the decision -- not premeditated murder -- but would release phase 2 in a few days -- was it culpable homicide?
I was very pleased that the commentators I've been reading seem to think culpable homicide is likely, because I'm comparing this to what it could so easily have been in the US.
US version: You're in your house? You felt scared? Or worried? Or like a vigilante? You grabbed your gun and shot it? Oops, someone ended up dead? OK, that's fine then, you're not guilty of anything. No need to actually try to do something else in the situation besides grab a gun and start shooting. And oh, yes, we've now expanded the concept of "house" to mean "anywhere you happen to be".
[ 12. September 2014, 20:15: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
He has been convicted of culpable homicide.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
As Doublethink says, it doesn't matter who was behind the door once "premeditated murder," was off the table -- and it was.
I happen to think it was premeditated, because I can't, by any stretch of the imagination, picture hearing someone in the bathroom and not looking to my left to see if my partner was still in the bed before going off fully cocked. But the judge finds that scenario perfectly plausible, so then she was down to whether or not he shot with intent to kill the intruder and even then she somehow thinks he didn't really mean to kill anyone but was just really scared.
I'm heartily sick of gun slinging idiots ending the lives of young innocent people and getting away with it on the grounds that they themselves are cowardly pieces of chicken shit.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I happen to think it was premeditated, because I can't, by any stretch of the imagination, picture hearing someone in the bathroom and not looking to my left to see if my partner was still in the bed before going off fully cocked.
I have to say I do find it difficult to believe that an intruder would come in, make for the bathroom and quietly shut himself in there, while your man leaps out of bed with a gun in his hand, and it never occurs to him to quietly wake up the person next to him, alert them to the situation and whisper "Phone the police, I'm going to investigate" which I'd have thought you might do instinctively because you'd feel the need of backup.
The histrionics in court also made me wonder. If he really was that upset that he had to howl, weep, scream and throw up, why didn't they give him something to help with the anxiety?
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Again I ask: If he wasn't trying to kill someone, what was he doing, believing there was a person there, firing into a confined space multiple times?
I too would like to see an answer to this. I have a very hard time believing that he wasn't trying to kill someone.
Particularly given the type of ammunition used ...
I haven't been following this case so I don't know any of the details, but the ammunition used (hollow point) is the type of ammunition used by law enforcement precisely because it is unlikely to ricochet and does not necessarily penetrate objects and come out the other side; they say it cuts down on the collateral damage.
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I have to say I do find it difficult to believe that an intruder would come in, make for the bathroom and quietly shut himself in there, while your man leaps out of bed with a gun in his hand, and it never occurs to him to quietly wake up the person next to him, alert them to the situation and whisper "Phone the police, I'm going to investigate" which I'd have thought you might do instinctively because you'd feel the need of backup.
I thought he said that he thought the intruder had broken in through the bathroom window because it was left open and some workmen had left some ladders at the house.
Unfortunately his response makes sense to me as someone who lives in a particular kind of violent society where the police are far off and don't necessarily come when called (not the part about not checking to make sure your partner is still in bed with you, but the part where you wake up in a sheer panic because you heard suspicious noises).
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I really don't see why we need to know all about South African law or to have watched every minute of the trial (although I believe I did watch most of it) to have an opinion.
Just 2 questions Twilight, bearing in mind that Pistorius was being tried in a South African court for a breach of South African law:
a. Why do you not need to know the relevant South African law to have an opinion on the verdict? I know enough about SA law to know that people are tried according to law.
b. Why do you not need to have heard all the evidence presented in court? As Ariel suggests, hearing the evidence about the type of ammunition used can cast a lot of things in a different light.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I really don't see why we need to know all about South African law ...
Because the crime was committed in South Africa. Therefore it is tried under South African law. And 'murder' and 'culpable homicide' mean what they mean under South African law, and not what you or anyone else, anywhere else, might think those words mean.
Because the terminology etc differs from country to country, it is a pointless exercise - and a sort of cultural imperialism - to get annoyed because a crime has been classified differently from the way it would have been classified where one happens to live.
As it happens, incidentally, where I'm writing from (England) the term 'culpable homicide' isn't a legal term used in the courts. Nor, for that matter, is murder divided into different varieties, 'first degree', 'second degree' etc.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I really don't see why we need to know all about South African law or to have watched every minute of the trial (although I believe I did watch most of it) to have an opinion.
Just 2 questions Twilight, bearing in mind that Pistorius was being tried in a South African court for a breach of South African law:
a. Why do you not need to know the relevant South African law to have an opinion on the verdict? I know enough about SA law to know that people are tried according to law.
b. Why do you not need to have heard all the evidence presented in court? As Ariel suggests, hearing the evidence about the type of ammunition used can cast a lot of things in a different light.
You might notice that I said I didn't know "all about," South African law, not nothing about it. After watching every day of the trial on Court TV, along with commentary from people who do know all about South African law, I think I do know enough to comment on the case. For example, I now know the criteria in South Africa for verdicts of Common-law murder and Culpable Homicide, terms not used in America.
It always surprises me in highly publicized court cases, the number of people who think it shouldn't be discussed because, "we weren't there," or "people are guilty until proven innocent." We have freedom of speech and our opinions are not going to have any effect on the decision of the judges (or jury when there is one.)
It's my considered opinion, and that of quite a few lawyers who have spoken up on the internet today, that the judge made a bad decision. I get to say that if I want to.
Why do you think you are the only one who gets to speak about this?
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
