Place your bets – Pistorius

I agree, toj – “somebody” is on one side of the door, you fire a gun through the door. You must be intending to seriously harm if not kill the person on the other side of the door, IMO.

especially having experience with firearms, and being aware that there are hollowpoint bullets in the gun. And, according to the judge, it being to some extent a premeditated act (can’t find the details but she did say yesterday that he could have called for help, phoned security, several other things, but he chose to shoot instead). It wasn’t a blind panic as someone was rushing at him.

I too don’t understand the logic that says he couldn’t know he might kill someone. He fired 4 shots into a small space knowing there was someone inside.

I still say he gets a long sentence, he’s been shown to be reckless and negligent with guns.

part of the reason the judge gave was his actions after the death. he was crying, tried to resuscitate her etc.

seems a bit strange to me, of course he would have been upset if he did it on impulse, and then it hit him…

Murder has to be premeditated, they have to prove he planned to kill her.

it cannot be said that he foresaw that either the deceased or anyone else for that matter might be killed when he fired the shots at the toilet door”

As others note how can you not forsee that the person you are shooting at might die as a result?

Who on the planet does not realise that shooting someone four times might kill them?

That this is South African law makes it a little harder for us to appreciate all the nuances than it would if it were UK law, but it appears that it still allows for murder (their lesser murder charge, where premeditation is not a factor) when

knowing someone might be killed and still firing a gun.

which is the one part of the judge’s reasoning I can’t quite fathom.

(As an aside, murder in English law does not require an intention to kill. If the intention is to cause serious injury but the outcome is death then that is also murder).

As others note how can you not forsee that the person you are shooting at might die as a result?

Who on the planet does not realise that shooting someone four times might kill them?

I’d hope no one but they have to prove he planned to kill her, he claims he didn’t know it was her they can’t prove otherwise.

“The state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder,” she said. “There are just not enough facts to support such a finding.”

The judge found that he consistently said he had fired in the belief there was an intruder and she had no reason to disbelieve him.

Verdict is in, and like all these things it comes down to proof as opposed to likelihood or balance of probability. Having not sat through the whole thing, I can’t make a judgement on that.

What I still can’t understand is why given the facts as the judge has stated them, she has come to a different conclusion to the one I’d come to based on the same facts.

Now to the conjecture bit, which is worthless now but anyway. WTF if you think there’s an intruder in the house, would you start shooting before KNOWING where your girlfriend was. Just a simple ‘Reeva, is that you?’ and this would have been all avoided. Which leads me back to thinking that on the balance of probabilities, i think he’s ‘got away with it’.

I disagree here Drac, and maybe it’s ignorance of SA law, but my understanding of the lesser murder charge is not that he cold blooded planned to kill her, but acted in a way where you can reasonably foresee that someone could get killed, and then act in that way anyway. In that case doesn’t even have to be distinct to her, but to anyone, which people more knowledgable than you and I were saying is why there was a strange adjournment yesterday while the judge and lawyers checked and agreed their understanding of that bit of the law.

I disagree here Drac, and maybe it’s ignorance of SA law, but my understanding of the lesser murder charge is not that he cold blooded planned to kill her, but acted in a way where you can reasonably foresee that someone could get killed, and then act in that way anyway.

He claimed he didn’t know it was her, they couldn’t prove otherwise. That’s all there is to it.

For the premeditated murder charge, yes. I think what theotherjonv is saying is that it is not required that he knew it was Reeva for the lesser common law murder charge, which is also my understanding of it based on the judges own comments.

I’d hope no one but they have to prove he planned to kill her, he claims he didn’t know it was her they can’t prove otherwise

the quote says her or anyone else

it cannot be said that he foresaw that either the deceased or anyone else for that matter might be killed when he fired the shots at the toilet door

I agree we dont know whether he meant to kill her – that has not been proved – but it is clearly true that firing four shots at someone that anyone reasonable should be able to forsee that death is a possibility

I see no way where you can say firing four dum dum bullets at someone it is not possible to see that death MIGHT occur.

From the BBC (so assuming they get it right too:)

Common-law murder
She also ruled this out, saying: “The accused had the intention to shoot at the person behind the door, not to kill.”

He could also have been convicted of a lesser charge of murder, if he had unlawfully intended to kill in the heat of the moment but without “malice aforethought”.

This could have covered either shooting at the door intending to kill, or knowing someone might be killed and still firing a gun.

This would also apply if he had intended to kill an intruder but had instead killed his girlfriend.

But judge Masipa also dismissed this, saying: “The evidence failed to prove the accused had intention.”

“Clearly he did not objectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door.”

This could have covered either shooting at the door intending to kill, or knowing someone might be killed and still firing a gun.

It seems to have been dismissed on the basis that he didn’t foresee that putting 4 hollowpoint bullets through a door when ‘someone’ is behind it might lead to killing them. Which is why i can’t square her comments on the legal basis vs her interpretation of the facts.

I reckon it’ll be no time in jail based on time served and trial time and corruption.

the quote says her or anyone else

Yes, which is why it’s not murder.

It seems to have been dismissed on the basis that he didn’t foresee that putting 4 hollowpoint bullets through a door when ‘someone’ is behind it might lead to killing them. Which is why i can’t square her comments on the legal basis vs her interpretation of the facts.

Yeah I don’t get either I will add, the purpose of a gun is to kill. If he’d fired at the ceiling it then ricocheted off and killed her then maybe but not firing at the source of the disturbance directly.

Ah wait.

The penny drops. I was referring to premeditated murder others were talking about common-law murder.

OJ Simpson Deja Vu.

The penny drops. I was referring to premeditated murder others were talking about common-law murder.

🙄 , but in a tongue in cheek way 😉

Sometimes i worry that saying the same thing over and over is just arguing in a ‘la la, not listening’ way. Sometimes it’s valid.

well sentencing i on 13/10/14

one very long drum roll

Cripes, is he still on bail?

The judge didn’t seem that confident

So, what’s the max he can now get 15? Out in what 5-6?

No doubt what happened in my mind, they had a massive row, she ran to hide, the red mist came down, he shot her through the door.

The ‘Intruder’ claim? Why didn’t he check to make sure she was alright before ‘defending’ her as well as himself, total nonsense. If you even think you hear a noise, you wake your partner or at least check it’s not her moving about.

So it may not have been premeditated but it was a deliberate act, for which he should do serious time, anything less than life is ridiculous.

So how, as a matter of interest, can you ever PROVE that the shooter is doing so with the intent to kill ? Surely now any murderer can stand up in court and claim that he may have shot someone down in a hail of Uzi fire, but he was only planning to give him a bit of a fright. Precedent – Pistorius 2014, m’lud ??

Is this just me? Oscars defence this week are constantly saying it’d hurt, it’d affect, it’d destroy him (its all about him). No one else. Not the remorse he feels for her, her death etc. Just about him.

The Probationary Officer- is she paid off? She literally said he’d be beaten up in prison by prisoners using his prosthetics, there wouldn’t be disability facilities, he’d suffer and it’d turn out a broken man from jail.

WTF.

I’ve been listening to some of it on radio 4 this week. Unbelievable that it does appear he will actually get away with it!

According to the prosecution he will be competing again with a new bird on his arm by the end of the month!