oscar pistorias shoots girlfriend

SuperDave84 wrote: Well, I know that the claim was ludicrous, you know that, but that's not the point (at all) here. Whether he was jealous, had issues with Reeva, whatever, is not relevant, as far as this appeal is concerned. All that matters is the finding that, even if it was an intruder, he wasn't entitled to shoot. My post is based on the assumption that he believed it was an intruder, and that's an assumption that underlies the appeal court findings. In those circumstances, all I'm saying is that the position in this country is different: if we assume that he believed it was an intruder, he'd probably have got manslaughter, on the basis of excessive self defence, not murder. The questions for a jury here would have been: 1) Have the State proved that he killed Reeva Steenkamp, having intended to kill or seriously injure Reeva Steenkamp? If so, convict of murder. If not, go to question 2. 2) Have the State proved that he killed Reeva Steenkamp, having intended to kill or seriously injure an intruder? If not, acquit. If so, go to question 3. 3) Have the State proved that he killed Reeva Steenkamp, but that his actions were objectively unreasonable, even if he believed there was an intruder? If so, go to question 4. If not, acquit. 4) Have the State proved that he killed Reeva Steekamp, but that his actions were objectively unreasonable, and that he did not actually believe his actions were reasonable? If so, convict of murder. If not, convict of manslaughter. It seems the difference in South Africa is that once you get to question three, he is guilty of murder if his actions were objectively unreasonable.... Hell, it seems that once you get to question two, you are guilty of murder there.

But why is he getting the benefit of doubt that he thought there was an intruder? (or is he?)
But he got off scott free in the first trial so the laws there can't be too harsh. As a layman I don't understand how he got let off the first time and now hasn't (apparently). 
Again as a layman looking in from the outside it seems to me that the judge being a black woman went easy on him to avoid being seen as racist. I'm sure you will disagree with that but...

Hans Moleman wrote: I think he planned it and coldly murdered her.

Not sure it was planned. Could be they had a fight and he took out the gun, she locks herself in the bathroom and he starts shooting when she wouldn't come out.

Trap junior wrote: But why is he getting the benefit of doubt that he thought there was an intruder? (or is he?) But he got off scott free in the first trial so the laws there can't be too harsh. As a layman I don't understand how he got let off the first time and now hasn't (apparently).  Again as a layman looking in from the outside it seems to me that the judge being a black woman went easy on him to avoid being seen as racist. I'm sure you will disagree with that but...

Errr.... the presumption of innocence and the fact the State have to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt?

Hans Moleman wrote: I agree his story was ludicrous. At the same time, because it was in South Africa and the gun culture and amount of home robberies there, his made up story was very calculated and well thought out. If he was going to kill his girlfriend, which I believe he planned to do, this was a defense where there were plenty of grey areas to get lost in. Basically, once he stuck to his story and never waivered, to do him for murder it looked like they would have to prove that he actually didn't believe there was an intruder in that bathroom! How could you possibly prove his state of mind at that point, unless he gave it up himself.

Not quite: you are entitled to disregard what he has said if all the evidence points the other way. I mean, even though he said throughout it was an intruder, you are entitled to disbelieve that he ever had the belief, if the evidence is clear enough to satisfy you otherwise. You would be entitled to give weight to the history between the parties, the evidence of his jealousy, the evidence of the neighbours that there was an argument, the fact he had a sophisticated alarm system, the fact he never phoned for help before hand, all of that sort of evidence, and disbelieved him saying that he believed there was an intruder, provided you were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. You can infer a state of mind from the objective evidence: that would be enough to prove that he knew it was her, and intended to kill her.

I was replying to Moleman's post there: I was simply saying that, if you wanted to disbelieve him, you could, even though he asserted at all stages that he believed it was an intruder, if the evidence supported it. I never said you *had* to, just that, if you were on a jury here in this case, you'd have been entitled to disbelieve his assertions about the intruder, beyond reasonable doubt, based on the evidence, if that was the conclusion you felt the evidence supposed. This would be in assessing your answer to question 1 of the 5 I posted above, and the evidence might have supported a verdict of murder. (I edited the post and added a fifth, because the earlier four were slightly incorrect).

My other point was, if you feel you cannot come to that conclusion, then you can move on to the other questions, based on the State not disproving the defence that he believed it was an intruder.

The presumption of innocence is only a presumption: if the State prove their case, beyond a reasonable doubt, the presumption no longer applies, and you can find guilt.

Say your thought process goes like this:
1) Have the State proved he knew it was her behind the door? No, he might have believed it was an intruder.
2) Okay. Have the State proved he intended to kill or seriously injure whoever was behind the door? Yes, sure he shot through a door, with someone behind it, he had to know what would happen.
3) Okay. Have the State proved that his actions were nonetheless unreasonable, even though it could have been an intruder? Yes, they've proved his actions were objectively unreasonable.

At that stage, in South Africa, he's guilty of murder.

Here, however, you have to go further:
4) Have the State proved that he actually knew his actions were unreasonable? If so, convict of murder. If not, convict of manslaughter.

That would have been the key question here, had the State not proved he intended to kill *her*. But, even given his assertions and beliefs, you'd be entitled to disbelieve him, that his actions were reasonable, if the State proved it beyond a reasonable doubt, with all the other evidence: the fact he shot straight through the door, without a warning shot, the fact his alarm system hadn't went off, the fact he hadn't checked where his girlfriend was, all of those, could make you believe, beyond reasonable doubt, that his actions were unreasonable, even based on the facts as he believed them, that it was an intruder.


Edited by SuperDave84 - 04 Dec 2015 at 3:14am

Didn't follow it really closely, but it's not the judge who made a mess, necessarily, it could just as easily have been the prosecution, although the main prosecutor (Gerry Nell, I think his name is) did a good job.

The issue, I suppose, is that the original verdict was based on a finding that the State had not proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that he knew it was her behind the door and a not an intruder. Now, as far as I can tell, the appeal has not changed that finding; what the appeal court has done has said that, even if he knew it was an intruder, he shouldn't just have shot through the door. I'm not 100% sure that's correct, but it seems, from the bits and pieces I've heard, that that is the main finding of the appeal court.

Its a sad day when a man cant shoot his girlfriend.

m