Pistorius Testimony Over, Back to Expert Witnesses

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 03:30:42 PM EST
Tags: Oscar Pistorius (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Oscar Pistorius has completed his testimony. The prosecutor picked apart every little detail hoping to show his version of events was not possible. The state is pushing an alternate theory, however, it sounds like it's nothing more than "it might have happened this way." He didn't get Oscar to admit that any of the elements of his theory were correct. The state's theory is predicated on an argument between the couple, and given Oscar's denial and the lack of any other witnesses present, I don't see how the theory can be considered proved in any way, let alone by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here is the state's version, succinctly put on Twitter by reporter Barry Bateman, who has been in the courtroom every day:

A recap of the state's case as we understand it so far: Oscar and Reeva had an argument. She packed her bag to leave. There was perhaps a tussle over the jeans, which landed up on the floor. Oscar went for his handgun. Reeva fled to the bathroom, fearing for her life. Oscar followed screaming "get the f**k out of my house. Reeva locked herself in the toilet with her cellphone. The argument may have continued there for some time. Oscar opened fire, hitting Reeva in the hip. She screamed and fell backwards onto the magazine rack... now realising what he had done, Oscar put his handgun down and went to fetch his bat.

A good example of how the state has nothing more than a theory it has not proven:

Asked by Nel to repeat the exact words he used at the perceived intruders, Pistorius said he screamed at them to "get the (expletive) out my house." ....Nel said Pistorius did use those words, but to Steenkamp in the midst of a fight the prosecution maintains ended with Pistorius shooting his girlfriend multiple times through the door.

Alternative possibilities are not proof. The prosecutor wants the court to infer from the circumstances that its theory, rather than Oscar's version, is the truth. It can't do that without evidence that definitively refutes Oscar's version, and so far I haven't seen any.

What we have is a prosecutor trying to sell a story that might fit with the facts. Oscar stuck to his version. At best, it's a wash, which means Oscar should prevail, since the state hasn't met its burden of proof.

On redirect by Oscar's lawyer, which was very short, Oscar clarified what he meant by saying on cross it was an accident. He didn't consciously decide to shoot, it was a reflexive response to hearing a noise inside the bathroom.

I don't think the prosecutor came through on his promise to show Oscar’s version is a lie.

Some minor details that came out yesterday: Photos showed the jeans both inside out and right-side in, meaning someone changed them. Reeva had access to a remote alarm in the bathroom. An expert confirmed Oscar's statement that the light in the bathroom was not working. Reeva gave Oscar a Valentine's Day card that read "Roses are red, violets are blue. 'I think today is a good day to tell you that I love you."

The defense is now putting on an array of expert witnesses who will disagree with the findings of the state's experts.

The trial has a few more weeks to go.

< Monday Night Open Thread | Two New Defendants Added to Chicago Sinaloa Indictment >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Pistorius Testimony Over, Back to Expert Witnesses | 32 comments (32 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

One thing is undisputable; (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by NYShooter on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 04:20:38 PM EST

this was a horrible, horrible, heart rendering tragedy.

The unnecessary, violent death of an innocent, young lady is made even more disturbing by the fact that there wasn't even a purpose for it, such as would be the case, for instance, in a robbery.

All deaths are unfortunate, this one just moved me more than most.

: I was watching (none / 0) (#7)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 07:49:51 PM EST

a show on Investigation Discovery the other day that profiled Reeva's parents. Their grace in handling this situation was just amazing. Amazingly she said she had empathy for Oscar.

Thank Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Rumpole on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 05:54:22 PM EST

I must say it's such a relief to just have nel STOP... already.

I have seen Nel compared to Juan Martinez, but it is one thing for a prosecutor to show passion and aggression when confronting somebody whom he has seen convincing evidence against, and another for a Prosecutor to bully and attack a somewhat vulnerable, and quite possibly truthful, defendant. Nel was unpleasant to watch. Juan Martinez a joy.

At the end of all that bullying and badgering Nel comes up with a half-baked vague speculation as a State theory. It is actually not even up to the standard of speculation at True Gossip Forums, and that is never up to standing much scrutiny and analysis.

Anyway, nice to see the Trial back on track with some interesting expert testimony from the Defence side.

Just as an aside:
This application my Nel for a 2 week adjournment??
I imagine the Judge will approve, but I wish she wouldn't. Both sides have wasted time and taken breaks already. I guess one has to allow a defendant to take as much time as he needs, but I see less excuse for the Prosecution. Nel implied one colleague had some other legal matter to attend to, but also hinted the main reason was private commitments (Vacations?). I would love the Judge to rule "No! Mr Nel you can get by without one assistant.. and you can forget vacation plans until you get this trial done." It is not fair to prolong the agony for defendant or others involved. This is a 1st degree Murder Trial, not a Church Picnic.

The Prosecution's Theory is Supported by Evidence (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Alexei Schacht on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 07:13:19 PM EST

The prosecution's theory is supported by evidence, not merely by conjecture, as Jeralyn states. And while that evidence may not be totally compelling it is strong enough (if believed) to warrant a conviction for murder (assuming the statute is similar to ones in the States).

3 witnesses (Michelle Burger, Charl Johnson and Annette Stipp) all testified to hearing a woman scream before the gunshots. Maybe they are mistaken or lying but if the jury believes them on this one point then that alone could lead to a fast conviction as it would mean OP is lying about the most important facts - that he thought she was in bed and they had had no fight.

On top of that, the proof apparently shows that she was standing behind a locked door when the first shot struck her, an odd thing to be doing and one that makes sense if they had been arguing and she locked herself in the bathroom to be away from OP. And while they had many loving WhatsApp messages to each other she also sent him "I'm scared of you sometimes ..."

FYI, there is no trial by jury in South Africa. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:16:39 PM EST

In criminal trials such as this one, the defendant's fate rests in the hands of the presiding judge, which in this case is a middle-aged Xhosa woman, Thokozile Masipa. She is being assisted by two assessors, who are themselves judges that serve as her advisors on matters of law, but will have no say over the final verdict. That call will be hers, and hers alone.

Judge Masipa made a name for herself in legal circles as only the second African woman to ascend to the formerly all-white bench in South Africa back in 1998. She appears to be eminently respected by her peers on the bench and barristers of all races and ethnicities, and by all accounts, most think she's thus far doing an outstanding job presiding over this highly charged trial. She has also compiled a record for coming down quite hard on male defendants accused of abusing or killing women, but we probably should not read too much into that.

Aloha.


you are welcome to disagree but (none / 0) (#10)
by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:35:09 PM EST

nothing you cite is evidence of Oscar's intent to kill Reeva, which the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt for the first murder charge.

AS to the neighbors' testimony about hearing a woman scream, their descriptions of the sequence of shots and screams don't match up, nor do the they match as to number of screams, one was the equivalent of blocks away, and it might have been Oscar they heard. (The defense maintains he screams in a high pitch voice.) Also, some of the witnesses may have confused the sound of the cricket bat hitting the door with sounds of shooting. They did comparison tests. There are several other problems with their testimony as I detailed here, after watching it live.

Hearing a scream is not evidence that Oscar intended to kill Reeva. It's evidence from which an inference can be drawn -- or not.

And there is no jury in this trial, it's a trial by judge with two "assessors" to assist in the factual determinations.

There is conflicting evidence as to her position in the bathroom.

Most importantly, the state's argument rests on the premise, of which there is no evidence, that they were fighting before the shot.


I asked this earlier, in a rather clumsy manner, (5.00 / 3) (#17)
by leftwig on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 08:47:14 AM EST

but what is the states actual burden in showing OP knowingly shot Reeva? Clearly she is dead and he is the one that shot her. Is a completely irrational fear and lack of common sense enough to get you off on a murder charge as long as you don't have visual contact with the person you kill? I can't imagine the burden for the prosecution is to have an eye witness in the room seeing a fight in order to prove that OP more likely than not knew it was Reeva behind that door.

A couple of points I'd like some assistance with. OP is now saying he "accidentally" shot into the door as he was reacting to a noise of what he thought was someone coming out of the wc. Since there are no witnesses to dispute it, must this defense be accepted? Or, is the fact that there were 4 shots fired and that the door was locked enough circumstantial evidence to dispute that claim?

Also, I didn't hear this covered in OP's questioning by defense or the prosecution, but has a call timeline been established for when he talked to security or various other individuals? According to security on site, neighbors called them upon hearing sounds of screaming and shooting. Security says they called OP who said everthing was OK and that OP called back later and just cried before hanging up. OP's laywer said security was incorrect and that OP called them first. Have the call logs established who called whom first and how much time elapsed between the two calls with on site security? Also, I understand OP called the head of security who was not on site. Where did that call fit in the timeline?

Lastly, has a diagram been presented on the forensic evidence of where OP was located when he fired into the wc and what trajectory the 4 shots took? I believe the prosecution mentioned the shots were fired within 6-10 feet of Reeva and OP seemed to indicate he was further across the room looking around the corner when he heard the noise and started shooting? I would think establishing this could lend credence to either story presente.

My take on the evidence so far is that his story is possible, but not very likely. She was awake when he got out of bed to get the fans. He never left the bedroom to retreive the fans as they were situated in the doorway between the bedroom and the patio, so he was never out of the bedroom. He could see well enough to move all of those things around, get his gun and venture down the hallway, but couldn't see well enough to tell whether she was in bed or not? She was already awake, but he didn't get any response from her while he was getting his gun and yelling out to an intruder and for her to call police? We are asked to believe his story that security is calling him after he had been banging on the door with the cricket bat and knew at that point that Reeva was the one that was shot, but he tells security that everything is OK and hangs up?


: To add to my list of things to seek (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by leftwig on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 09:50:31 AM EST

clarification on, here are a couple more. I finished reading the synopsis above and saw this mentioned, "Reeva had access to a remote alarm in the bathroom." Where was this remote alarm and did she have access to it in the wc? Did she use this alarm after hearing OP yell out for her to call police?
Reeva's phone was found on the bathroom floor. Was it established whether she had this phone with her in the wc, or was it brought into the bathroom after the shooting? Did she use the phone in the seconds before the shooting and if so who was called?

The defense has to also get around... (5.00 / 3) (#19)
by Dadler on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 09:23:29 AM EST

...that OP told the first calling responder that everything was okay. The obvious inference is that he was desperately trying to come up with a story to explain what happened. If he'd really accidentally shot her, and thought there COULD be someone in the house still, he would ask for immediate help in a very desperate manner. If he were genuinely in shock, he'd have never answered the phone in the first place. None of his story seems reasonable to me, just doesn't. But I realize it's the job of the defense to be prejudiced in their client's favor, and it's always interesting to hear defense strategies rolled around. Peace to all.

Intent to kill (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Alexei Schacht on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 03:51:02 PM EST

There are different types of intent to kill. OP obviously intended to kill (either RS or an intruder). Anyone who fires 4 shots in anyone else's direction from a few feet away intends to kill that person. So I think intent to kill is a non-issue. However, whether OP intended to kill RS is another much more difficult question and the verdict could reasonably go either way on that point.

If OP is believed by the Judge to be lying and she feels based on the evidence that OP did know that there was no intruder and that RS was in the bathroom then that is the end of the inquiry and it will be a guilty verdict.

And the evidence here includes OP's testimony so some of the criticism of the strength of the prosecution's case fails to take into account that his testimony is part of the proof. I have not seen all of his testimony and don't really have an opinion about it but if the fact finder believes him to be an incredible witness and proven liar then a guilty verdict would necessarily follow. I don't believe that there needs to be affirmative evidence that refutes OP's version. If a witness (OP in this case) makes statements that are absurd or counter to common sense, logic and experience then a fact finder may conclude that that person has lied. Of course, the prosecution would be stronger if it had more and better evidence but a defendant's own words can frequently provide the missing link at trial.

OP may have been better off not testifying as his defense might have been stronger without his own weak explanations for why he believed RS was still in bed with him.

I don't think (none / 0) (#23)
by Rumpole on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 06:34:18 AM EST

you can describe OP's explanation as having been "...statements that are absurd or counter to common sense, logic and experience"

At best Nel's cross raised questions on the odd point. Overall, OP stuck to his version, and (FWIW) it seemed plausible to me. FAR more plausible than a guy in (arguably) a normal romantic relationship having an argument with his girlfriend at 3:00AM and deciding to chase after her on his stumps, and shoot her as she hid in the toilet. It is that scenario (State's case) that does not pass the "Nel Test"... It does not make any sense. There is little evidence to support the State's case in ear witness testimony, and what evidence there is has good plausible alternative explanations in the Defence case.

If "beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard in SA... then the State have failed in regard the issue of OP shooting at the door KNOWING that Reeva was behind it.


I think OP stuck pretty well to his story, (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by leftwig on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 08:39:10 AM EST

but we disagree on the extent to which the prosecution poked holes in that story. I am not sure how the law handles this set of circumstances. I understand innocent until proven guilty, but we have a case where we know one person shot and killed another. With the assumption that the ear witnesses aren't sure exactly what they heard (though in this case, they do seem pretty sure they heard arguing then gunshots), is OP's story to be accepted no matter how unreasonable some of the details and actions are? IE, does the prosecution have to prove with hard evidence that OP knew it RS was behind that door, or do they just have to show how unreasonable it is for OP to have thought it was anyone but her behind that door, thus must have known it was her? I think the former is nearly impossible, but the later is what the prosecution can and has attacked fairly well.

I don't think OP's story is outside the realm of possibilities. I do think its very unreasonable and unlikley to have occurred they way he described. I believe he knew RS was behind the closed wc door. I am not sure the prosecution has met the burden of having proven that under the law. I beleive the judge will convict on the lesser charge of culpable homicide and give him the stiffest penalty available under that charnge because even if his story is completely accepted, his actions that led to her death were about as negligent as they could have been.


I'll go as far (none / 0) (#28)
by Rumpole on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 02:04:52 PM EST

as to say the State case in regards OP knowing Reeva was behind the door was itself dead from the outset.
It is based (largely) on testimony from ear witnesses who heard Reeva screaming (for her life) before the gunshots.

The simple facts are:
1. TWO sets of bangs heard by the nearest (and most reliable) couple who are the State ear witnesses. Both bangs sounding like gunshots to a man with military (gunshot) experience.
2.TWO events known to have made bangs
3. State's own Expert adamant that shots were BEFORE cricket bat bangs.

Roux manoeuvred Nel into Stating on record that the State's case is that gunshots were at 3:17AM (second set of bangs). That is contrary to evidence.
Further, it is physically impossible for gunshots to have been at 3:17AM given even the MINIMUM things that had to then happen before OP was on the phone at 3:19AM and in fact others were on the scene 3:22AM


Part of the problem with your theory (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by jbindc on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 02:12:17 PM EST

as to say the State case in regards OP knowing Reeva was behind the door was itself dead from the outset.

Really? You have an occupant of the house dead from 4 gunshot wounds through a locked door into a small room. And OP has been changing details of his story.

Roux manoeuvred Nel into Stating on record that the State's case is that gunshots were at 3:17AM (second set of bangs). That is contrary to evidence.

Too bad Nel is not a witness, so his words are not "evidence" - no matter Roux allegedly "manuevered" him into.


: I know (none / 0) (#30)
by Rumpole on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 04:00:52 PM EST

that Nel is not a witness?
He is however, the person Stating what the State case is. He has done that unequivocally in open court. He has Zero wiggle room on that now. He is basing the 3:17 time on what 4 of his 5 ear witnesses testified to. The point I was making was that he committed the State to that time being the time of gunshots and not cricket bat. Which is impossible based on the State's own evidence....Expert testimony, lay witness testimony, phone records. Nothing to do with whatever version OP comes up with. Totally independent of any evidence from OP. The gunshots were the earlier set of bangs. I don't see anyway to reasonably argue differently. The Stae's own pathologist testified that there would be no loud sounds from Reeva after the shots, and so ALL OF THE SCREAMs testified to had to be OP and not Reeva at all. It is the screams before shots that the State contend indicate an altercation ending when OP shot Reeva.
The State version is simply impossible based on their own evidence. Nothing to do with OP's version or how well Nel cross examined OP on his version. I honestly can not see WHY the State decided to pursue this line at all. As I have said from the outset, the "intention" (premeditation) was never provable. The State overcharged IMO
The only evidence of screaming and

: Oops (none / 0) (#31)
by Rumpole on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 04:07:29 PM EST

I posted that with a few typos... sorry.
While people "score" how well did in cross examination, highlighting what he sees are small points that "do not make sense". I wonder how well the State's version would stand up to scrutiny of detail?
I would LOVE to hear Nel explain State's Version in DETAIL. Exactly what happened starting just after 3:17 with OP on stumps, firing shots. I would like Nel to talk us through what happened from then until people started arriving at 3:22AM.
It's ONLY a 5 minute period, so I cant see why the State Hypothesis could not provide some detail. Then I would like to hear Roux's response.

Sorry, I Don't Follow (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by RickyJim on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 09:12:56 AM EST

You don't seem to have explained why the witnesses couldn't have heard Reeva screaming before any bangs or shots.


Common Sense (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by Alexei Schacht on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 09:13:27 AM EST

I have a wife and we sleep in the same bed. When there is a strange noise in the night or some problem I immediately know whether my wife is next to me in bed and if I am afraid that a dangerous criminal is nearby (I live in New York City and on one occasion a man was shot in front of my house) the first thing I do/did was to check and see if my wife was ok. I assume I am not an unusual person and that other people are similar to me in this respect.

Who starts shooting a powerful handgun in their own home without knowing where their loved ones are? If OP is telling the truth then at least under New York law (I don't know about SA law) he would be guilty of criminally negligent homicide. People do all kinds of things in a rage that they would not "normally" do. We know OP loves shooting guns and that according to RS's texts she is scared of him. A prior girlfriend said he is scary and dangerous, whatever that means.

Finally, and this is not trial "proof", but is a fact: when a woman is killed in her own home about 99% of the time if is because her husband or boyfriend intended to kill her. Perhaps the prosecution's case here is not totally compelling but to talk about there being a possibility that he is actually factually innocent is absurd. OJ's acquittal does not mean he is "innocent"; it means a jury found that the State did not meet its burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

fwif, I was in a similar situation (5.00 / 4) (#27)
by NYShooter on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 12:33:53 PM EST

and, the knowledge that 99% of the time the "intruder" is someone you know, possibly/probably a family member (drunk?) or a neighborhood kid, for whatever reason, kept me from shooting.

I adopted a defensive crouch, positioned myself at a place where, if he came running out, I would see the (possible) intruder before he could see me. I yelled out to him that I had a loaded gun, was calling 911, and, if I saw the door handle move, I would shoot to kill.

As it turned out I just waited him out. I must have waited 20 minutes, or so, and, figured no one could stay absolutely still for that long, and, so, the incident ended with no harm done.

I was wrong, there were no intruders.

But, the point I want to make here is that, contrary to so many opinions, your mind doesn't go completely bonkers when faced with a potentially dangerous situations. The thought that I could be shooting my teen aged son, who, for whatever reason teens do what they do, could be the person behind that door, was the very first thing that came to my mind. Yes, you can be nervous, and, probably not thinking 100% rationally, but, against what alternative? In my case, the thought of shooting an innocent person was just so much stronger than the potential danger behind that door made it an easy decision to do what I did.

Everyone is different, I realize that. But, the question in cases like we have in S.A. is "What's reasonable?" And, in my opinion only, what Oscar did was completely unreasonable, even if killing Reeva was off the table.


: I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by IndiDemGirl on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 08:27:48 PM EST

I keep wondering how OP could ever have children or sleep in a house with young children, if he's so prone to fire at washing machines and his girlfriend. Kids move around and night, they hide and jump out at you, etc.
I do believe the defense has done a good job. I also believe the OP is devastated at what happened and did care about RS. I even find myself having sympathy for him. But, his version of what happened is just not believable to me. Of course, I'm not the decider in this case.
I do have questions about why RS was standing facing the door. Why her phone was with her. Why she had locked the small door.

we Are all HUMANS!!!!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by ez on Sun Apr 20, 2014 at 11:43:08 AM EST

You are all very quick to judge. I am not saying the fact that Oz shot Reeva is right. But accidents do happen. Everyone is against Oscar, but what about that guy who shot his PREGNANT wife? She opened the bathroom door, meaning he saw her. And still shot her... The life of a unborn baby LOST.... No one hears anything that he is heartless or whatever. It's just because it is Oscar, now this is such a big thing..... that only because he is famous?????!!!!Wake up people, even the famous are allowed to make mistakes that is why we are ALL called sinners. #justsaying

Roux's re-direct of Pistorious (none / 0) (#3)
by kookbook on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 06:52:37 PM EST

The article above points out that "On redirect by Oscar's lawyer, which was very short, Oscar clarified what he meant by saying on cross it was an accident. He didn't consciously decide to shoot, it was a reflexive response to hearing a noise inside the bathroom." Very interesting. My first and only comment ever to TalkLeft was two nights ago and it suggests exactly that that is what Roux should do on re-direct. Very coincidental or maybe he reads TalkLeft.

The lesser (none / 0) (#4)
by bmaz on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 06:53:47 PM EST

The lesser included ( I assume it will be put in play) seems to be the problem. And, assuming it is, it strikes me that it is far too convenient of a hat hook for the court to find. And the sentence is still a potential sledgehammer. Roux was full of manure, but from the recaps I have seen, may have made some headway. Interesting case.

: Isn't the problem (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by NYShooter on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 07:21:27 PM EST

that even if there had been an intruder in the bathroom Oscar would have still been liable for the, seemingly, reckless manner in which he discharged his firearm?
Since, I assume, the standard for finding guilt, or, not, is about the same in S.A. as it is in the States how far can you stretch the "reasonable man" standard if your defense is, "I thought I heard a noise behind a door, so, my first (reasonable) choice was to blast four 9 mm bullets in rapid succession through it?"

Despite the Prosecution's Overreaching (none / 0) (#9)
by RickyJim on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:01:19 PM EST

Is there anyone who thinks Culpable Homicide has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Just a thought (none / 0) (#11)
by Rumpole on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:46:37 PM EST

IANAL (obviously)

My (simplistic) view is that the State failed to prove that OP shot KNOWING Reeva was behind the door. And so NOT murder at all.

OP is "vulnerable" as a double amputee. It is SA where home invasion, rape, torture, murder are well known. Perhaps it is understandable (justifiable?) to react (in self defence) to a perceived intruder?

Just speculation... one way of viewing things. How would it fly if one considers that OP (in his mind) fired at an intruder, but in effect MISSED and shot Reeva by mistake. An accident?


The Judge Has to be Convinced (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by RickyJim on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 08:08:23 AM EST

that Pistorius was "reasonable" in firing at the door in order for him to escape conviction for culpable homicide. So it has to be reasonable that he was sure that Reeva was not behind the door and instead it was an intruder that was about to come out and harm him. I, for one, think his actions of not checking on Reeva who he claims he thought was in bed, failing to stay out of the alcove, not turning on the light, going down the alcove on his stumps screaming "Get the ** out of my house!" and then firing at the door without waiting for a reply to be totally unreasonable.


What is reasonable (none / 0) (#14)
by Rumpole on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 08:20:14 AM EST

would surely have to be... what is reasonable for a "vulnerable" amputee. Less able to defend himself if he delays etc. Easily disarmed etc etc

Also I do NOT have a problem with 4 shots. No different from one shot if you consider it as a volley. If a single shot IS ok then so too is a short (or even long) volley.
We see incidents all the time (eg police shootings) where they do not fire one shot by accident, but rather unload a magazine. In some instances multiple policemen unload entire magazines.


His Vunerability Makes What He Did (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by RickyJim on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 08:34:39 AM EST

even more unreasonable. I mean going into the dark alcove on his stumps. Turning on the light, getting out his gun and putting on his feet would have been thing a reasonable double amputee would have done.


: This was my thought as well. (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by leftwig on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 08:59:44 AM EST

If he feels so vulnerable, why is he taking an aqggressive/offensive position of going down a dark hallway towards the percieved imminent danger instead of taking a defensive position? He goes down this dark hallway not knowing what he might find around the corner in the bathroom, but then is overcome with fear of what might be behind a locked wc door that he has to shoot at it 4 times? I don't find that explanation remotely reasonable given the actions taken.

That might fly (none / 0) (#12)
by jbindc on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 06:59:11 AM EST

How would it fly if one considers that OP (in his mind) fired at an intruder, but in effect MISSED and shot Reeva by mistake. An accident?

If he had shot her in the dark, and shot once. It doesn't really seem probable, IMO, in this case, when he shot 4 times through a locked door.

Also, what is the standard in South Africa? Do they have a form of the castle rule, whereby he could shoot an intruder first without having to attempt a retreat?


The Best Explanation of CH Online (none / 0) (#15)
by RickyJim on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 08:22:51 AM EST

that I have found is here. This paragraph, in particular, seems relevant to the OP case.

The test for negligence is an objective one, as opposed to the test for intention in murder, which is subjective. For example, if it is shown that a man ought to have foreseen the possibility of killing someone when he fired a gun, negligence is present and he is guilty of culpable homicide. If it is shown that he must have foreseen the possibility of death resulting from his actions or that he intended to kill, intention is proved and he is guilty of murder.