<p>I’m sorry but the legal system in the US - and I assume South Africa because it is descended from English common law - does not give that much weight to subjective opinion. There might not be enough evidence to convict for premeditation - which the prosecutor said was shown by his walking 7 meters to the bathroom - but that is a problem in many, if not most murders. </p>
<p>I don’t think South Africa has 3 degrees of murder. I think they only distinguish between murder and premeditated murder. That’s more typical but I may be wrong.</p>
<p>The details of Pistorius’ actions matter because they define whether his actions were reasonable. Again, I don’t know S. African law but consider the case of the guy in Georgia who opened fire on a car that pulled into his driveway, killing a young man who was on his way to pick up a friend to go ice skating. He was charged with murder though he claimed he was afraid of a home invasion. The trial has not occurred yet but the details show, so far, that he came out of the house and opened fire without speaking and continued to fire as the car tried to leave his property. In other words, his belief was irrational and his behavior was irrational. We don’t excuse irrational, subjective behavior. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that even if Pistorius actually was afraid, his actions were entirely irrational and thus he committed some form of murder. The details absolutely matter.</p>
<p>This is a topic that has come up in other threads: there is a weird movement in this country to substitute whatever personal subjective belief one has for the reasonable man standard. Have an irrational fear? Doesn’t matter that you kill someone because it was your fear. That turns centuries of legal development on its head and negates the idea of how a society regulates and punishes behavior.</p>
<p>So while he was screaming at the intruder, wouldn’t Reeva cry something out to alleviate Pistorius? Or did he shoot simultaneously or immediately after yelling or simply didnt hear? </p>
<p>And if he heard an intruder, he immediately assumed that Reeva was still safe in bed? He didn’t bother to make sure she was safe and he had sight of her? How big could their bed be? If it was the early morning hours, it couldn’t have been pitch black outside meaning there must be some visibility. He was able to go to his bed and grab his gun, but he was unable to see Reeva in bed and realize that it was her in the bathroom? </p>
<p>I don’t buy his story either, some gaping holes</p>
<p>Cortana, he probably has selective vision. It was too dark and thought he saw Veera on the bed but it was light enough to grab his gun and use the toilet door for target shooting. :o</p>
<p>I also find it odd that he stated he was afraid of violent crimes committed by intruders and yet he went to sleep with the balcony doors open.</p>
<p>If the area is so dangerous and he has a history of being broken into, why in the world was the balcony door open in the first place? I don’t buy that he could fall asleep with the house not secured, yet wake up in the middle of the night ready to shoot at an unknown noise on the other side of a locked door.</p>
<p>It does sound implausible but sometimes things in life that actually happen ARE implausible. I have no idea if he’s guilty or not but I can’t stop thinking about how awful it would be if what he is saying is what truly happened.</p>
<p>He lives in a fancy house in a gated community and the “intruder” somehow gets into the master bathroom rather than one near an entrance to the house?</p>
<p>He is worried about his safety but sleeps with the sliding doors open so he can use a fan to bring air into the bedroom?</p>
<p>He has “mobility with his stumps” and the ability to “rush,” or he has “limited mobility with his stumps”? Which is it?</p>
<p>He has a wonderful girlfriend with whom he claims to be deeply in love and he doesn’t even pat the bed when he is getting the gun in the dark to make sure she is still there and sleeping?</p>
<p>There is one obvious point of difference in the prosecutor’s and Pistorius’ version: he says he put on his prosthetics after shooting while he prosecutor says he put them on and then fired. (See his statement #16.15) This is a matter of forensics: the height and angle of the shots will tell which version is true.</p>
<p>I also note his attorney made a comment that reveals to me something about S. African law: they aren’t admitting this was murder. That suggest the S. African law defines murder and then premeditated murder.</p>
<p>I may have missed it on this thread, but am I the only one contrasting this with George Zimmerman and the Stand Your Ground laws? Granted, very different situations, but both may revolve around subjective belief…well, until it’s her blood on the cricket bat, then I guess Oscar’s story is a fabrication.</p>
This is not really a new thing–it’s partly just that people mix up criminal law and civil law. In criminal law, there has always been a “mens rea” or mental state element of most crimes. The “reasonable person” standard is more applicable in civil cases, such as determining whether something is negligent or not. There are some strict liability crimes, but they don’t include things like murder. Thus, if Pistorius really believed that there was an intruder and that he was defending himself, he can’t be guilty of murder, no matter what a reasonable person would have believed. His problem, though, is that it will be difficult to convince a judge that he really believed something that appears so unreasonable.</p>
<p>Actually I can believe her blood on the cricket bat and her skull being bashed in as a result of him breaking down a door in such a small space. Forensics will determine if he was wearing his legs or not, that is something he better not be lying about.</p>
<p>But Hunt, while I doubt we disagree, the intent when shooting at a person is there so the issue is different than when, for example, you need the specific intent to steal. If you’re trying on watches and forget to take the last one off and wander away, you can argue you had no intent to steal. But you have an intent to kill when you shoot at a person. </p>
<p>This is why the defense lawyer’s comment was important: they are not giving up on some form of completely exculpatory defense, meaning a claim that the entire sequence of events was a reasonable reaction to reasonably perceived fears. Without the essence of rationality in there, he would be guilty of murder, with premeditation as a separate issue, because he still shot at a person and killed. That is like the Georgia case: what the prosecution (and I) perceive as an irrational response to an irrationally perceived threat is murder because he shot intentionally at people. It’s not like he shot in the air or at the ground as warnings. </p>
<p>And Pistorius didn’t shoot in warning either. And while he claims he called for his girlfriend to call the police, he didn’t wait to see who the person was but shot through the toilet door, which makes the claim sound like dressing for a story. Let’s say a child had broken into the house and was hiding in the toilet. And he killed that child. He wants us to imagine an armed man behind the door, but what if it was an 8 year old looking for something loose to steal who thought he could get in and out of an empty house and hid when he heard noise? That version brings out the irrationality of his reactions: firing through a door without making an attempt to find out who is behind it is irrational. Since we know his girlfriend was in the toilet, how long could he have waited before firing after he supposedly called out? How long would it take for her to respond? A second? Two seconds? Four seconds?</p>
<p>And remember, there is video of Pistorius bragging about how accurate he is with a gun. So the idea of fear is diminished compared to a person who has a gun but doesn’t shoot well, who is afraid of it, who has it for protection but avoids firing it. He not only knew how to handle weapons but he was very, very good at it.</p>
This depends on how the defense of self-defense is constructed–does it require a reasonable belief that the shooter was acting in self-defense, or simply a genuine belief that he was doing so? I have no idea what the law on that is in South Africa.</p>
<p>The prosecution has the 2nd day. The gist is this:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The lead detective says the shots were fired at a downward angle, meaning Pistorius was wearing his prosthetics.</p></li>
<li><p>They have a witness who said there was sustained shouting between 2 and 3AM coming from the house. That poses a bunch of problems: he says he didn’t think she was home, let alone the idea of a fight. There is an issue of distance with the detective unsure of how far away the witness was. This being a hearing the actual witness was not present.</p></li>
<li><p>A witness - the same? - says 2 or 3 shots were heard and the lights turned on. That is a bad detail for the defense because it’s exact and descriptive of the actual house. And then 17 minutes went by and 2 to 3 more shots were fired. The exact number of shots, as people may know from experience, is hard to tell because of echoing and cancellation as sound travels. The 17 minutes is also very troubling because it suggests the witness was actively listening, that it wasn’t casual overhearing.</p></li>
<li><p>Her bladder was empty. Raises the question of why she was in the toilet. </p></li>
<li><p>The detective said that if you fired directly at the door, you would not hit the toilet. He said the shots were fired directly at the toilet itself. I’m not sure what that means but it fits the idea that she was hiding in there.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I read the reporting in the South African press of the 2nd day of hearings. It’s being picked up by a number of news sources, probably as I type. I’d bet by the time you read this you’ll have seen it.</p>
<h1>2 is the detective says a witness heard an hour’s worth of shouting coming from the house between 2 and 3 AM. The rest of it is that Pistorius has said she was out with friends and that she wasn’t home while he was awake. I don’t remember if that was in his affidavit or not. The detective was challenged by the defense about how far away the witness was, literally waffling between 600 and 300 meters. Since this is 2nd hand, the actuality has to wait for the real witness, but it is a window into how that kind of testimony is attacked. In this case, they’re trying for bail and there is a presumption against bail for premeditated murder in SA so the need is to impeach the detective.</h1>
<p>BTW, the detective said Pistorius is a flight risk with assets overseas. </p>
<p>And as good news, there was no evidence of a beating or of defensive wounds. I mean good news both for Pistorius and because a beating death is disgusting.</p>
<p>I hope that after this hearing the case will slide off into investigation mode for a while.</p>
<p>What I don’t get is, why was there no light on in the bathroom? If it’s pitch black and I’m going to the bathroom, the only reason I leave the light off is if I left the door open. And it sounds like the door was closed. Wouldn’t a light on in the bathroom have alerted him?</p>