Oscar Pistorius

[Nazzie]

Not sure if you read all my postings, but I don’t struggle to accept that he “might” have killed her.

What I d not accept are opinions that basically say “THIS“ is what he thought and “THAT” is exactly what he did. Because how should they know?
If these people then continue to call everyone who dares to doubt something stupid then I respect their views even less.

It is these opinions that I find to be firm. I explored whether there “might” have been a possibility that things were different, that he didn’t intend to murder her in cold blood.
I am not saying “this is what it was”, I wondered whether there was a possibility.
Just like you he looked insincere “in your opinion”, but you didn’t say he was insincere as you cant know this for sure.


And the (experienced and accomplished) judge also did, as the first verdict was manslaughter



I respect your opinion, but want to correct a few facts:

- Culpable homicide is what manslaughter is called in South Africa. Here we don’t have the term “culpable homicide”.
- Intention is NOT irrelevant to murder. If you kill some unintentionally it is manslaughter, if you intend to kill them it is murder.
- Can you please tell me what the serious error in the first judgement was? And in the sentencing?
To my knowledge she found reasonable doubt which is a permissible interpretation of the facts and the sentence was the correct sentence for manslaughter. Where did she apply the law incorrectly? It is a genuine question.

I have read that there was a lot of pressure on the court to increase the sentence and that the judge was called names.

With all due respect, you are mistaken.

This was a South African trial....he was convicted of culpable homicide. It’s meaning is close to our “manslaughter” but it’s not identical.

More importantly, I did not say (or even imply) that intention is “irrelevant to murder“. I said whether Pistorius knew it was Reeva or not is irrelevant to his status as a murderer. His crime is no less heinous even if his (frankly ludicrous) version was true. He murdered a human being with intention.

The serious error formed the basis of the appeal. There are degrees of murder in South Africa - the two we need to be aware of is “dolus directus” and “dolus eventualis” (although there is another one I won’t go into).

Dolus Directus is when your intention is to murder the person who died. Your intent was direct: “I want to kill X so I shoot X”.

”Dolus Eventualis” is that you behave in such a way that the death of a human being is very probable, and you don’t care. If you walk into a bank firing a gun, although not at anyone specifically, and someone gets hit, you’re a murderer. You may not have been thinking “I want to kill” but the fact that you know someone very well might die and carry on regardless, then you are still a murderer.

In Masipa’s verdict she dismissed Dolus Directus as she could find no evidence that Pistorius specifically targeted Reeva.
When she addressed “Dolus Eventualis” she cleared him of that on the basis that he “thought Reeva was in bed”...and that was a huge mistake because she made the identity of the deceased person relevant when it wasn’t for Dolus Directus. Regardless of whether he thought Reeva was in bed or not, he knew there was a human being in the toilet and he fired into it knowing they would likely die. And he had no legal justification for doing so.

Making identity central to DE was a very serious error in law & that’s why they appealed....and won. Go
listen to the appeal & the judgement. It explains it very well, far better than I have here.

Masipa also failed to address why she was accepting his putative private defence claim, when by his own admission he didn’t intend to fire the gun, or it was an accident (whichever of his stories you believe). If you are claiming self defence then you are necessarily admitting that you intentionally fired because you felt (even mistakenly) that your life was in danger. With his whole “I didn’t intend to shoot” nonsense - even though he aimed the gun straight at the person behind the door - he invalidated his defence completely. Again, the appeal court judges address this very clearly & I suggest you go and listen.

Once they’d thrown out her verdict & properly convicted him of murder he was sent back to her for sentencing. Murder dolus eventualis attracts a mandatory sentence of at least 15 years. A judge is only permitted to sentence less than that if there are extremely credible and serious mitigating factors. Masipa thought she’d found them and gave him 6 years minus time served. The state appealed again and said that, in fact, his mitigating factors were not strong enough to justify such a large reduction and, again, the supreme court agreed and he was given the minimum of 15 years minus time served.

There no way that the supreme court of SA, chaired by it’s most senior judges, would overturn the conviction of a lower court without a very, very good reason...not just because of a “media outcry”. Masipa got the law wrong..simple as that.

So, to clarify - Masipa found that he had no intemtion of specifically murdering Reeva. This was a finding of fact and the supreme court could not challenge that, even if they wanted to. They can only concern themselves with matters of error in the application of law. In their judgement they unanimously agreed that Pistorious deliberately murdered a human being and never offered an acceptable reason for doing so. It was very obvious that none of them believed his version, but murder dolus eventualis was the best they could do.

 

[Moobiemoo]

He did murder her
I also wasn’t disputing that or trying to build some kind of defence case for him. He is in jail, I have no influence over it and didn’t even comment on his sentence

I was just talking about HIS defence case that he put forward himself at the time. I found it interesting as it had some plausible elements to it. It also had some elements that did not seem as plausible.

the prosecution elements were just to try to build a picture of him and came across as a little out of context at times, this is normal when prosecution are building a case against someone. Of course they will pick out 4 of the worst texts and none of the nicer ones. They will ask your friends about an incident that was arrogant and idiotic like letting a gun off in a restaurant, but didn’t appear to be malicious with intent to harm his friends, in a county where gun crime and carrying weapons is commonplace. Being televised, this then blew up more and more, with small parts of information such as this becoming ‘fact’

What I found annoying about the whole case was the speculation and clearly things that were misrepresented in the media - if you want to accuse someone of something, do it with a fact or as much of it as you know to be true, right? He spent a night in jail about a disturbance incident at his house that happened at a party, police did not attend his house due to DV arguments with Reeva.

The reasons this case were not cut and dried DURING THE TRIAL was what interested me. Like if you take out your own personal experiences and whether something is moral, you look at whether something was legal. Cheating on someone isn’t illegal for instance but it’s immoral.

I watched all of the Casey Anthony trial in the same way. It was an awful awful case, it was also fascinating from a legal perspective. A court trial is to look at evidence and reach a conclusion, that is interesting to me and I thought it might be to others too?

I think the confusion here for me is:

- You can look objectively at a defence or prosecution case to see what makes sense to you, without actually needing to come to a conclusion on the conviction or the sentence. I’m allowed to do that. Part of learning and life is about looking a different sides of things!

- you can discuss and look at 2 sides of something that is as morally and legally wrong as murder, and shouldn’t be accused of supporting the perpetrator for having an interest. being interested in a defence case does not mean you support the defendant or are saying he is innocent and vice versa. I don’t know why people make that assumption. If I said that the history of Hitler was interesting (or inaccurate) does that automatically mean I am a Hitler supporter?

- the legal system is set up to allow the defendant the right to defend themselves. This is just as interesting as the prosecution case. I don’t believe anyone should be convicted in a trial by media, this case was guilty itself of the media influencing it to an extreme level

- the media are a huge problem when it comes to politics and crime. They no longer report ‘the news’ in a simple format it has become a massive propaganda machine for lots of different agendas and I am interested in that too. Imagine being a defence or a prosecution lawyer in today’s media world. Kind of mind blowing. Let alone for the victims family or the defendant who hasn’t yet been convicted

I think we all agree he murdered poor Reeva and she died. I apologise for offending anyone who misinterpreted my interest in his defence

 

[Nazzie]

He did murder her
I also wasn’t disputing that or trying to build some kind of defence case for him. He is in jail, I have no influence over it and didn’t even comment on his sentence

I was just talking about HIS defence case that he put forward himself at the time. I found it interesting as it had some plausible elements to it. It also had some elements that did not seem as plausible.

the prosecution elements were just to try to build a picture of him and came across as a little out of context at times, this is normal when prosecution are building a case against someone. Of course they will pick out 4 of the worst texts and none of the nicer ones. They will ask your friends about an incident that was arrogant and idiotic like letting a gun off in a restaurant, but didn’t appear to be malicious with intent to harm his friends, in a county where gun crime and carrying weapons is commonplace. Being televised, this then blew up more and more, with small parts of information such as this becoming ‘fact’

What I found annoying about the whole case was the speculation and clearly things that were misrepresented in the media - if you want to accuse someone of something, do it with a fact or as much of it as you know to be true, right? He spent a night in jail about a disturbance incident at his house that happened at a party, police did not attend his house due to DV arguments with Reeva.

The reasons this case were not cut and dried DURING THE TRIAL was what interested me. Like if you take out your own personal experiences and whether something is moral, you look at whether something was legal. Cheating on someone isn’t illegal for instance but it’s immoral.

I watched all of the Casey Anthony trial in the same way. It was an awful awful case, it was also fascinating from a legal perspective. A court trial is to look at evidence and reach a conclusion, that is interesting to me and I thought it might be to others too?

Actually, firing a gun in a restaurant is an extremely serious offence, regardless of whether it was an accident or not. As is possessing bullets that you don’t have a licence for & then lying and saying that they belonged to your father. As is shooting out of the roof of a car. All serious offences which is why he was charged with them.

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

With all due respect, you are mistaken.

This was a South African trial....he was convicted of culpable homicide. It’s meaning is close to our “manslaughter” but it’s not identical.

More importantly, I did not say (or even imply) that intention is “irrelevant to murder“. I said whether Pistorius knew it was Reeva or not is irrelevant to his status as a murderer. His crime is no less heinous even if his (frankly ludicrous) version was true. He murdered a human being with intention.

The serious error formed the basis of the appeal. There are degrees of murder in South Africa - the two we need to be aware of is “dolus directus” and “dolus eventualis” (although there is another one I won’t go into).

Dolus Directus is when your intention is to murder the person who died. Your intent was direct: “I want to kill X so I shoot X”.

”Dolus Eventualis” is that you behave in such a way that the death of a human being is very probable, and you don’t care. If you walk into a bank firing a gun, although not at anyone specifically, and someone gets hit, you’re a murderer. You may not have been thinking “I want to kill” but the fact that you know someone very well might die and carry on regardless, then you are still a murderer.

In Masipa’s verdict she dismissed Dolus Directus as she could find no evidence that Pistorius specifically targeted Reeva.
When she addressed “Dolus Eventualis” she cleared him of that on the basis that he “thought Reeva was in bed”...and that was a huge mistake because she made the identity of the deceased person relevant when it wasn’t for Dolus Directus. Regardless of whether he thought Reeva was in bed or not, he knew there was a human being in the toilet and he fired into it knowing they would likely die. And he had no legal justification for doing so.

Making identity central to DE was a very serious error in law & that’s why they appealed....and won. Go
listen to the appeal & the judgement. It explains it very well, far better than I have here.

Masipa also failed to address why she was accepting his putative private defence claim, when by his own admission he didn’t intend to fire the gun, or it was an accident (whichever of his stories you believe). If you are claiming self defence then you are necessarily admitting that you intentionally fired because you felt (even mistakenly) that your life was in danger. With his whole “I didn’t intend to shoot” nonsense - even though he aimed the gun straight at the person behind the door - he invalidated his defence completely. Again, the appeal court judges address this very clearly & I suggest you go and listen.

Once they’d thrown out her verdict & properly convicted him of murder he was sent back to her for sentencing. Murder dolus eventualis attracts a mandatory sentence of at least 15 years. A judge is only permitted to sentence less than that if there are extremely credible and serious mitigating factors. Masipa thought she’d found them and gave him 6 years minus time served. The state appealed again and said that, in fact, his mitigating factors were not strong enough to justify such a large reduction and, again, the supreme court agreed and he was given the minimum of 15 years minus time served.

There no way that the supreme court of SA, chaired by it’s most senior judges, would overturn the conviction of a lower court without a very, very good reason...not just because of a “media outcry”. Masipa got the law wrong..simple as that.

So, to clarify - Masipa found that he had no intemtion of specifically murdering Reeva. This was a finding of fact and the supreme court could not challenge that, even if they wanted to. They can only concern themselves with matters of error in the application of law. In their judgement they unanimously agreed that Pistorious deliberately murdered a human being and never offered an acceptable reason for doing so. It was very obvious that none of them believed his version, but murder dolus eventualis was the best they could do.

In response to your comments:

a)

Culpable homicide - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

South Africa[edit]
"Culpable homicide" has been defined (in South African law) simply as "the unlawful negligent killing of a human being", the rough equivalent of involuntary manslaughter in Anglo-American law.[8]
Where do you see the exact differences? There is no manslaughter term in SA.

b) You said that it was irrelevant whether he intended to kill Reeva or not.

c) No, the Dolus Eventualis test is whether a reasonable person could foresee the outcome. She ruled that he did not foresee that his shooting would kill the person behind the door and the appeal judges ruled that this conclusion was incorrect.
In UK terms that would mean his action was “reckless”.

I bet that she is not the only judge who would have drawn this conclusion (state of mind etc), but see why this conclusion was overturned.

d) Judgements are appealed and overturned all the time. It is NOT uncommon. Just look at the Johnny Depp case where an appeal has been filed.
Judges interpret the law and different judges would draw different conclusions from the same situation.

e) As you have explained yourself it was found that he murdered her, but not that it was specifically her he wanted to murder. It was found that he wanted to murder the person behind the door.


I still believe that if it wasn’t such a high profile case and there wouldn’t have been such an outcry the appeal might not have been necessarily granted.
There are many violent burglaries in SA, many intruders get killed and there are quite a few cases in which family members have been killed as they were believed to be intruders.

There was definitely a special interest due to his huge fame.

 

[Inforapenny]

To make this whole episode even more traumatic is atrocious sentencing.

Here in the UK if a woman is murdered in a domestic setting there is a law to pretty much protect the preparator aka husband/boyfriend/ always a man.
So for example if you get stabbed in the street the sentence for the attack could be 14 years but put the setting in a house and it'll be 6 years.
The law here is archaic and does not protect women.

 

[Moobiemoo]

Actually, firing a gun in a restaurant is an extremely serious offence, regardless of whether it was an accident or not. As is possessing bullets that you don’t have a licence for & then lying and saying that they belonged to your father. As is shooting out of the roof of a car. All serious offences which is why he was charged with them.

Yes it’s a serious offence but this is not the U.K., it is SA and gun crime has been out of control for many years. Accidentally discharging a weapon in a restaurant which caused no injury, vs about 50 people shot per day? Which one do you think the underfunded overwhelmed police force will mostly focus on? If you grow up in a culture of weapons being both a necessity and legal, it has clearly led to serious issues. In 2019 a lawyer was shot accidentally in court when presenting a gun as evidence. To me, being British and living in a middle class town, this is a culture I have never experienced. He was only indicted on those charges AFTER he had already been arrested for Reeva’s murder, not even before, at the time when they happened.

 

[LennyBriscoe]

I don’t think you read my posts at all.
I donot “have a theory”. I was discussing whether there might be the possibility that he really believed there was an intruder. At some stage I said his version sounds unlikely.

I don’t have a problem accepting any opinion - but I will form my own and not have anyone else’s opinion forced on me. I have a brain, thank you very much.

What I dont appreciate are offensive comments like “this is horse tit, she is full of tit, you are stupid, you are ridiculous“ etc etc. Especially if those people describe Pistorius to be aggressive and offensive. Ironic much?

No, they didn’t tell me why they think that.

And you didn’t answer my questions.

Plus: Someone here said that his lawyer was the first person he called. This isnt true. I first believed what the poster said but then did my own research and found out that the poster was incorrect.
He called the property manager that lived close by for him to get help:

Oscar Pistorius 'broken' after shooting Reeva Steenkamp

South African athlete Oscar Pistorius "was broken" after shooting his girlfriend, his neighbour says, as the murder trial resumes after a break.

www.bbc.com

I didn’t answer your questions because I don’t know the answers; I didn’t post the info about about the SA legal system so I can’t help you.

The one question you asked me was how would people know what was said or done. Well they wouldn’t and to be honest, I don’t recall anyone saying with 100% certainty what he said or did - they were talking about the evidence. But the opposite side is how do you know that he didn’t make a conscious decision to shoot four times into the bathroom knowing it was Reeva in there? (Rhetorical question). The research you found about him phoning his lawyer, unless it was in a Court transcript and accepted as evidence by the Judge, how can you be sure it’s 100% accurate (another rhetorical question)

Im sorry you’re offended by what people of said to you but none of them were made by me so there’s nothing I can do about it. People can react strongly to things they see as a glaring difference to the circumstances as they’ve heard/seen them but I doubt it’s personal.

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

I didn’t answer your questions because I don’t know the answers; I didn’t post the info about about the SA legal system so I can’t help you.

The one question you asked me was how would people know what was said or done. Well they wouldn’t and to be honest, I don’t recall anyone saying with 100% certainty what he said or did - they were talking about the evidence. But the opposite side is how do you know that he didn’t make a conscious decision to shoot four times into the bathroom knowing it was Reeva in there? (Rhetorical question). The research you found about him phoning his lawyer, unless it was in a Court transcript and accepted as evidence by the Judge, how can you be sure it’s 100% accurate (another rhetorical question)

Im sorry you’re offended by what people of said to you but none of them were made by me so there’s nothing I can do about it. People can react strongly to things they see as a glaring difference to the circumstances as they’ve heard/seen them but I doubt it’s personal.

Ok, but I asked questions based on your comments.

Yes, some people here said with 100% certainty what he did, just one quote as an example:
“He intended to kill Reeva. And the poor girl died in the most horrific way at the hands of the man who should have been her protector. Trying to argue that he has been wrongly convicted is disgusting. Trying to imply that this was some sort of miscarriage of justice and that Oscar Pistorius was some sort of poor, scared man, terrified of an intruder is just horseshit.” (Betty Crocker)

To answer you’re rhetorical question:
- I don’t know what conscious decisions he made and never claimed I would. I was entertaining POSSIBILITIES
- I guess the BBC reporting from the trial is accurate and they clearly looked at his phone so conclude it is true that 5he first person he called was his neighbour, not his lawyer. Yes, they reported about the trial

You don’t need to apologize for other people, they don’t offend me but I find it annoying.


I understand the psychology of people forming their own truth and seeing it as 5he only objective truth, but this is exactly where the danger lies with media reporting etc.


And frankly: if it would have been an intruder and Oscar a standard middle class South African nobody would have beat an eye lid.
If I would kill a burglar here in this way, him hiding in the bathroom, I would be in trouble. But burglers in SA can be brutal - kill people, rape women, torture children.
I think it is not impossible that a disabled man is scared of being the victim of violent intruders.

Think about this UK couple that was killed in a taxi a few years ago: they took their money, raped the woman, killed the man.

There is also a big problem with this drug Tik that eats the brain and can turn people into violent monsters.

Context is important

 

[Moobiemoo]

The estate manager gave evidence at the trial I believe, OP asked him for physical help, not legal help the time and no suggestion OP was trying to cover up what he had done in so far as he openly said he had harmed her and was aware he had, even at that point he claimed he had mistaken her for an intruder.

Misinformation is clearly already on the thread, it’s also not supporting his defence to just point out that the lawyer rumour was just a rumour. I’m sure he did call a lawyer at some point

He wasn’t found guilty for shooting out of the sunroof but guilty of reckless endangerment with a suspended sentence for the restaurant incident.

The entire trial was based on circumstantial evidence of whether it was murder or manslaughter. He deserved to go to prison for murder. But he was not convicted on the basis that he must have known it was Reeva he was going to kill. He was re sentenced for murder on the basis that he ‘would have known he was likely to kill someone by firing a gun’ and also there wasn’t enough evidence his life was in danger - he did not have any evidence it was an intruder. This is why it is an interesting trial.

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

The rumor here was that his lawyer was the very first person he called, which wasn’t the case.

 

[Moobiemoo]

I didn’t answer your questions because I don’t know the answers; I didn’t post the info about about the SA legal system so I can’t help you.

The one question you asked me was how would people know what was said or done. Well they wouldn’t and to be honest, I don’t recall anyone saying with 100% certainty what he said or did - they were talking about the evidence. But the opposite side is how do you know that he didn’t make a conscious decision to shoot four times into the bathroom knowing it was Reeva in there? (Rhetorical question). The research you found about him phoning his lawyer, unless it was in a Court transcript and accepted as evidence by the Judge, how can you be sure it’s 100% accurate (another rhetorical question)

Im sorry you’re offended by what people of said to you but none of them were made by me so there’s nothing I can do about it. People can react strongly to things they see as a glaring difference to the circumstances as they’ve heard/seen them but I doubt it’s personal.

I’m not offended it’s interesting to be able to debate this sensibly and rationally to be honest

But yes people did make statements about OP on this thread and rumours

Then when I said that I found some of his defence plausible in an interesting way (but not all) I was told I condone domestic violence and am defending a murderer

 

[Ceelea]

Hopefully when he's released from prison he'll do Community Service as a bike stand.

 

[Nazzie]

In response to your comments:

a)

Culpable homicide - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

South Africa[edit]
"Culpable homicide" has been defined (in South African law) simply as "the unlawful negligent killing of a human being", the rough equivalent of involuntary manslaughter in Anglo-American law.[8]
Where do you see the exact differences? There is no manslaughter term in SA.

b) You said that it was irrelevant whether he intended to kill Reeva or not.

c) No, the Dolus Eventualis test is whether a reasonable person could foresee the outcome. She ruled that he did not foresee that his shooting would kill the person behind the door and the appeal judges ruled that this conclusion was incorrect.
In UK terms that would mean his action was “reckless”.

I bet that she is not the only judge who would have drawn this conclusion (state of mind etc), but see why this conclusion was overturned.

d) Judgements are appealed and overturned all the time. It is NOT uncommon. Just look at the Johnny Depp case where an appeal has been filed.
Judges interpret the law and different judges would draw different conclusions from the same situation.

e) As you have explained yourself it was found that he murdered her, but not that it was specifically her he wanted to murder. It was found that he wanted to murder the person behind the door.


I still believe that if it wasn’t such a high profile case and there wouldn’t have been such an outcry the appeal might not have been necessarily granted.
There are many violent burglaries in SA, many intruders get killed and there are quite a few cases in which family members have been killed as they were believed to be intruders.

There was definitely a special interest due to his huge fame.

I don’t have any intention of debating the difference between manslaughter & culpable homicide with you. Pistorious was NOT convicted of manslaughter as you keep insisting. There is no such charge in SA, so how could he be? CH & M are roughly equivalent but not quite the same (manslaughter has more scope).

You have completely misunderstoond every word I wrote & indeed whatever you quickly searched for on the internet. Do you actually think YOU (who is not a lawyer even in this country) are right and 5 eminent high court justices in South Africa are wrong? Really? That’s some arrogance right there.

It is IRRELEVANT to his status as a MURDERER whether he intended to kill Reeva in the toilet or some imagined black kid with a gun. Both are human beings. He murdered a human being...it happened to be Reeva. That is quite clear. What part are you struggling with exactly? You are suggesting that if he genuinely thought it was a black kid with a gun that is somehow better than if he knew it was Reeva. It’s not. A human life is a human life and he is no less a disgusting psychopath whoever he thought he was killing.

From a legal dictionary regarding dolus eventualis....”However, the test always remains whether the accused person subjectively foresaw the possibility of the death of the deceased and associated himself therewith”

In other words - did he know that his actions could result in someone’s death, reconciled himself with that and carried on? Importantly, the IDENTITY of the person you kill is irrelevant here. You just need to know that a human being could be killed & continue with your actions regardless.

Masipa made the identity of the deceased relevant when she said that he could not have foreseen that the person behind the door would die because “he believed Reeva was in bed”. Not only does that make no logical sense it’s a misunderstanding and misapplication of the test for dolus eventualis.

Even on his own version he knew SOMEONE was in the toilet and he murdered them. That’s the point that you and Masipa have completely missed.

If this is still unclear to you, go listen to the judgement on YT.

You asked me to explain what errors Masipa made and I explained them. So what’s the problem? A simple “Ah, right” would have sufficed. That she made a serious error is beyond dispute. If she hadn’t her verdict could not have been thrown out, whatever you think.

You were completely, 100% wrong when you stated (and apparently continue to state) that it was media/public outcry that got the verdict overturned. It wasn’t...it was the correction of Masipa’s extremely serious error that did that.

Sorry if none of this supports your personal narrative of “poor, misunderstood terrified Ozzie, a victim of a corrupt legal system and hostile press” - but facts matter and, on the facts, you are mistaken.

Oh, and of course verdicts get overturned and of course people appeal. So what? Sometimes judges make mistakes, that’s what the appeal court exists for. To correct mistakes, as they did with Masipa’s. So what’s your point, exactly?

Rhetorical question. I cannot legitimately engage with a non-legal internet bod who thinks they are more knowledgeable than the 5 most eminent judges in South Africa, so I’ll leave it here. A word of advice, though - next time you want to make legal declarations on a forum, do your research first. Otherwise someone like me shows up, and that’s just embarrassing. And ”OK, my mistake” goes a long way.

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

I don’t have any intention of debating the difference between manslaughter & culpable homicide with you. Pistorious was NOT convicted of manslaughter as you keep insisting. There is no such charge in SA, so how could he be? CH & M are roughly equivalent but not quite the same (manslaughter has more scope).

You have completely misunderstoond every word I wrote & indeed whatever you quickly searched for on the internet. Do you actually think YOU (who is not a lawyer even in this country) are right and 5 eminent high court justices in South Africa are wrong? Really? That’s some arrogance right there.

It is IRRELEVANT to his status as a MURDERER whether he intended to kill Reeva in the toilet or some imagined black kid with a gun. Both are human beings. He murdered a human being...it happened to be Reeva. That is quite clear. What part are you struggling with exactly? You are suggesting that if he genuinely thought it was a black kid with a gun that is somehow better than if he knew it was Reeva. It’s not. A human life is a human life and he is no less a disgusting psychopath whoever he thought he was killing.

From a legal dictionary regarding dolus eventualis....”However, the test always remains whether the accused person subjectively foresaw the possibility of the death of the deceased and associated himself therewith”

In other words - did he know that his actions could result in someone’s death, reconciled himself with that and carried on? Importantly, the IDENTITY of the person you kill is irrelevant here. You just need to know that a human being could be killed & continue with your actions regardless.

Masipa made the identity of the deceased relevant when she said that he could not have foreseen that the person behind the door would die because “he believed Reeva was in bed”. Not only does that make no logical sense it’s a misunderstanding and misapplication of the test for dolus eventualis.

Even on his own version he knew SOMEONE was in the toilet and he murdered them. That’s the point that you and Masipa have completely missed.

If this is still unclear to you, go listen to the judgement on YT.

You asked me to explain what errors Masipa made and I explained them. So what’s the problem? A simple “Ah, right” would have sufficed. That she made a serious error is beyond dispute. If she hadn’t her verdict could not have been thrown out, whatever you think.

You were completely, 100% wrong when you stated (and apparently continue to state) that it was media/public outcry that got the verdict overturned. It wasn’t...it was the correction of Masipa’s extremely serious error that did that.

Sorry if none of this supports your personal narrative of “poor, misunderstood terrified Ozzie, a victim of a corrupt legal system and hostile press” - but facts matter and, on the facts, you are mistaken.

Oh, and of course verdicts get overturned and of course people appeal. So what? Sometimes judges make mistakes, that’s what the appeal court exists for. To correct mistakes, as they did with Masipa’s. So what’s your point, exactly?

Rhetorical question. I cannot legitimately engage with a non-legal internet bod who thinks they are more knowledgeable than the 5 most eminent judges in South Africa, so I’ll leave it here. A word of advice, though - next time you want to make legal declarations on a forum, do your research first. Otherwise someone like me shows up, and that’s just embarrassing. And ”OK, my mistake” goes a long way.

You must be very frustrated judging by your tone.

Firstly, I am an employment lawyer although I don’t know what you mean with “this country” as I don’t know where you are.

Secondly, if you don’t want to “debate” legal terms then dont bring it up. Manslaughter is an equivalent, albeit the definitions are slightly different, and using the UK term in a layman forum shouldn’t be a problem - especially as nobody wants to debate the differences. Do you actually know them? Even reputable UK press used the term manslaughter.

Thirdly, I did of course NOT say, that the media overturned the verdict. How could they? I said they put additional pressure on the appeal court. And they did: have you seen the headlines? South Africa struggles to play a role in the global market and the perception that they are lenient in these situations diesn‘t help them.

Fourthly, you are confusing things. The first verdict said the was reckless, acting in a way that could harm someone and accepting it without any intent. In the UK this is called reckless. The appeal found that he acted not reckless, but with intent, that he accepted his actions would kill whoever was behind the door - and if it was Mickey Mouse. This means murder as there was intent - and contrary to what you say intent is highly relevant.
That is the difference between the two verdicts.

No verdict ever found that he intended to kill Reeva, as there wasn’t sufficient evidence to conclude that he knew that she was behind the door.

So yes, the appeal found he murdered her as she was behind the door but if it would have been a clown behind the door the verdict would have bern the same.

This brings me to the “errors” made: the first judgement applied the same test but drew a different conclusion from the circumstances.
It was felt that he did not foresee that shooting at the door would kill the person behind it.
Given that nobody can look insight his head I argue that this is not an unreasonable conclusion, especially if he was in a panic as he stated and his mind was clouded.
There are actually lawyers that argue the first verdict was more correct.


It is my personal opinion that if it would have been an intruder, maybe someone on drugs even, they wouldn’t have bothered to overturn the verdict. There are many shootings in South Africa and many people get killed and the courts wouldn’t even have the capacity to deal with every situation in this detail.
This was a high profile case involving a global celebrity and a beautiful woman and a brutal act in unusual circumstances.
Have you bern to SA.

To be honest, I don’t even know what your point is.

My point regarding the appeal? You said it must have bern a huge mistake a judge made for it to go to appeal and that’s not the case - it happens all the tI expect. This was my point.

By the way: your rhetorical question was no question but a statement.

It seems people get very aggressive here if their opinions are being challenge.d. I don’t think you presented yourself well.
I will leave it at this.

 

[Ceelea]

My only other question is, when they convert Oscar into a public bike stand should he be painted orange or yellow ?

 

[Whaaaaat]

You must be very frustrated judging by your tone.

Firstly, I am an employment lawyer although I don’t know what you mean with “this country” as I don’t know where you are.

Secondly, if you don’t want to “debate” legal terms then dont bring it up. Manslaughter is an equivalent, albeit the definitions are slightly different, and using the UK term in a layman forum shouldn’t be a problem - especially as nobody wants to debate the differences. Do you actually know them? Even reputable UK press used the term manslaughter.

Thirdly, I did of course NOT say, that the media overturned the verdict. How could they? I said they put additional pressure on the appeal court. And they did: have you seen the headlines? South Africa struggles to play a role in the global market and the perception that they are lenient in these situations diesn‘t help them.

Fourthly, you are confusing things. The first verdict said the was reckless, acting in a way that could harm someone and accepting it without any intent. In the UK this is called reckless. The appeal found that he acted not reckless, but with intent, that he accepted his actions would kill whoever was behind the door - and if it was Mickey Mouse. This means murder as there was intent - and contrary to what you say intent is highly relevant.
That is the difference between the two verdicts.

No verdict ever found that he intended to kill Reeva, as there wasn’t sufficient evidence to conclude that he knew that she was behind the door.

So yes, the appeal found he murdered her as she was behind the door but if it would have been a clown behind the door the verdict would have bern the same.

This brings me to the “errors” made: the first judgement applied the same test but drew a different conclusion from the circumstances.
It was felt that he did not foresee that shooting at the door would kill the person behind it.
Given that nobody can look insight his head I argue that this is not an unreasonable conclusion, especially if he was in a panic as he stated and his mind was clouded.
There are actually lawyers that argue the first verdict was more correct.


It is my personal opinion that if it would have been an intruder, maybe someone on drugs even, they wouldn’t have bothered to overturn the verdict. There are many shootings in South Africa and many people get killed and the courts wouldn’t even have the capacity to deal with every situation in this detail.
This was a high profile case involving a global celebrity and a beautiful woman and a brutal act in unusual circumstances.
Have you bern to SA.

To be honest, I don’t even know what your point is.

My point regarding the appeal? You said it must have bern a huge mistake a judge made for it to go to appeal and that’s not the case - it happens all the tI expect. This was my point.

By the way: your rhetorical question was no question but a statement.

It seems people get very aggressive here if their opinions are being challenge.d. I don’t think you presented yourself well.
I will leave it at this.

Oh I could SO tell you were involved in some form of litigation. I used to be in litigation but changed to a different area as I found the nitpicking over pointless details to score points so tedious.

I think he definitely knew it was her behind the door. He was so scared of intruders that he went to sleep with the doors open? Absolutely not.

Everything he said was implausible. His pathetic little balancing act, looking all vulnerable on his stumps in court was cringe inducing - there were plenty of witnesses who confirmed he was perfectly stable and confident on them.

Even if we consider he *might* have believed it was an intruder, why didn’t he check where she was? And he had a gun - filled with explosive bullets and he shot 4 times. He intended to kill whoever he believed was behind that door - therefore murder. He would have had no defence of self defence because the person behind the door was not posing an immediate threat to him. They were locked in the bathroom, so his correct response should’ve been to call the police and wait with the gun pointed at the door. If the person came and attacked him - shoot. We all know he was a brilliant shot by the watermelon video.

I personally think they had a row and for some reason she was scared. She ran to the bathroom and locked the door (I think this detail is important as who locks the door in the night?), he tried to get in and couldn’t and went and got his gun and in a blind rage, he shot her.

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

Oh I could SO tell you were involved in some form of litigation. I used to be in litigation but changed to a different area as I found the nitpicking over pointless details to score points so tedious.

I think he definitely knew it was her behind the door. He was so scared of intruders that he went to sleep with the doors open? Absolutely not.

Everything he said was implausible. His pathetic little balancing act, looking all vulnerable on his stumps in court was cringe inducing - there were plenty of witnesses who confirmed he was perfectly stable and confident on them.

Even if we consider he *might* have believed it was an intruder, why didn’t he check where she was? And he had a gun - filled with explosive bullets and he shot 4 times. He intended to kill whoever he believed was behind that door - therefore murder. He would have had no defence of self defence because the person behind the door was not posing an immediate threat to him. They were locked in the bathroom, so his correct response should’ve been to call the police and wait with the gun pointed at the door. If the person came and attacked him - shoot. We all know he was a brilliant shot by the watermelon video.

I personally think they had a row and for some reason she was scared. She ran to the bathroom and locked the door (I think this detail is important as who locks the door in the night?), he tried to get in and couldn’t and went and got his gun and in a blind rage, he shot her.

Yes, it’s your personal opinion and I respect that. But this has not been proven as a fact.

Some people here don’t seem to understand this and insult everyone who has a different opinion or entertains a different scenario

I personally believe that their is the possibility of a different scenario.

If, as a disabled famous and rich man living in one of the most dangerous areas in the world, he perceived himself as an easy target to the point of being hyper vigilant or even paranoid - then he might have felt so threatened and scared that he acted out of an impulse. Did he then know at the moment when he shot that this would kill the person behind the door? Maybe not rationally. Maybe he felt threatened by the perceived presence of an intruder so that he shot first.

Do you think there would have been an appeal and the sentencing would have been what it turned out to be if the person behind the door would have been an intruder (possibly armed, drugged, previous offender)?
I seriously doubt that

And by the way: I always lock the bathroom door regardless of the time, automaticall,without even thinking about it

 

[rememberwayne]

To make this whole episode even more traumatic is atrocious sentencing.

Here in the UK if a woman is murdered in a domestic setting there is a law to pretty much protect the preparator aka husband/boyfriend/ always a man.
So for example if you get stabbed in the street the sentence for the attack could be 14 years but put the setting in a house and it'll be 6 years.
The law here is archaic and does not protect women.

Not aware of this, that is absolutely crazy. Is crime of passion the ''get out'' clause if you will in this?

 

[Whaaaaat]

If, as a disabled famous and rich man living in one of the most dangerous areas in the world, he perceived himself as an easy target to the point of being hyper vigilant or even paranoid - then he might have felt so threatened and scared that he acted out of an impulse. Did he then know at the moment when he shot that this would kill the person behind the door? Maybe not rationally. Maybe he felt threatened by the perceived presence of an intruder so that he shot first.

Do you think there would have been an appeal and the sentencing would have been what it turned out to be if the person behind the door would have been an intruder (possibly armed, drugged, previous offender)?
I seriously doubt that

I don’t think he did perceive himself as an easy target. I think he perceived himself as untouchable. And it was that arrogance that caused him to act irrationally.

If it had been an intruder behind the door I think there would have been more public sympathy, but it was still an error of law the judgement was based upon so an appeal should have happened. His sentence could’ve been more lenient as there would’ve been stronger circumstances for his actions, but the reality is he would still be a murderer.

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

Yes, there should have been an appeal but I doubt there would have been. And if there would have been an appeal I think there was a fair chance that the original verdict would have been upheld

in any case, it is good to exchange points of view without being insulted.