and please use their services
Oscar Pistorius 'shoots girlfriend'
- Thread starter PMK
- Start date
Dave *
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,508
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It is, but it seems to have become a mini trial with witnesses being cross examined and the evidence being entered by the prosecution and disputed by the defence.
The way it's going it seems as if the actual trial won't be lasting long.
When your investigating officer admits he didn't even read the full name of the "steroid" which has now ended up being a herbal remedy and the key witness who "heard" the argument and screaming couldn't identify the voices or where they came from (and lives over 600m from the Pistorius house) it doesn't bode well for their case.
Dave *
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,508
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Their correspondent has yet to mention it in his tweets, from today's proceedings:
Edit:
ITV News is now reporting the "testosterone" is legal herbal remedy available over the counter from health shops.
Last edited:
TriggerHappy
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,729
- Name
- Jamie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
neil_g said:
And people think cycling is THE dirty sport. I shouldn't enjoy that revelation as much as I do...provided there isn't a good reason for him possessing it of course.
Dave *
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,508
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
He seems to be doing a good job tearing himself to pieces.
Even the prosecutor has had a go at him
And changing his testimony as he goes
D
Deleted member 60651
Guest
Well from the description it sounds like she was wearing nightwear and 2-3 months into a new relationship, I don't think it would be unheard of to still be locking the loo door! I have such a habit of locking the bathroom door behind me, i've been known to lock me & my husband in the bathroom when brushing our teeth. And the SA police didn't exactly come across as competent when they were forced to admit that they had not looked at phone records so didn't know who he had called first. However, this isn't a trial! It's a bail hearing,.
Sorry, I realise about my comment before, that it didn't matter to her family, was wrong. I meant that any outcomes would not bring her back so the family will be devastated either way tbh.
D
Deleted member 60651
Guest
Does anyone know, if the judge believes him - that he mistook her for an intruder - what would that mean for him? I mean, he still shot someone who was not an intruder after all.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
but shooting an intruder in SA is often considered justifiable homicide in self defence - so if he genuinely believed he was shooting an intruder then he didnt necessarily commit an offence.
the fact that the 'intruder' was locked in the bathroom at the time does cast serious doubts on that line of reasoning though
the fact that the 'intruder' was locked in the bathroom at the time does cast serious doubts on that line of reasoning though
pepi1967
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,856
- Name
- scott
- Edit My Images
- Yes
How did he know the door was locked? Did he know before or after the shooting? You can't tell a door is locked without trying the handle can you?
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
yeah but its difficult to argue self defence when you fire through a closed door with no knowledge of what is on the otherside.
it could be that he might get off a premeditated murder charge, but could still wind up with manslaughter (or whatever they call it in SA),
it could be that he might get off a premeditated murder charge, but could still wind up with manslaughter (or whatever they call it in SA),
pepi1967
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,856
- Name
- scott
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Manslaughter sounds a good call I doubt if he will walkout the court scot free tbh.
TriggerHappy
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,729
- Name
- Jamie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
why, he has prosthetic legs ?
TriggerHappy
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,729
- Name
- Jamie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
big soft moose said:
*sigh* it was just a joke. Tough crowd
pepi1967
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,856
- Name
- scott
- Edit My Images
- Yes
viv1969
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 29,452
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
If it had occurred here, there would be "self defense" defense because the victim was behind a closed door, P had no knowledge of who it was or whether they were armed, and therefore there was no direct threat of iminent bodily harm. I have no idea how that works in SA. Perhaps, given the high rate of armed home intrusions it's acceptable to assume an intruder WILL be armed. All very complicated
viv1969
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 29,452
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
ZoneV
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,163
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If it had occurred here, there would be "self defense" defense because the victim was behind a closed door, P had no knowledge of who it was or whether they were armed, and therefore there was no direct threat of iminent bodily harm. I have no idea how that works in SA. Perhaps, given the high rate of armed home intrusions it's acceptable to assume an intruder WILL be armed. All very complicated
Nope. There is a high rate of armed home invasions (robberies with aggravating circumstances), and it's something you do take into consideration when planning your security system, but that's about it. The legal position on self defence - at home or anywhere else - and using lethal force is pretty much the same as it is in the UK.
D
Deleted member 60651
Guest
But what about Rudi Visagie? He was a rugby player who woke in the night hearing his car being stolen, he shot the driver in the head only to discover that it was his 19 year old daughter borrowing the car without asking first. The prosecution dropped the case because they felt sorry for him. Potentially the same as this case as in they could both be a case of mistaken identity, and in Rudi's case there wasn't even a threat to life.
viv1969
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 29,452
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
Okie Dokie....Thanks.
I wondered if this would come up.
We lived in Joburg when this happened, and I remember it quite well. There are some similarities between the two cases, but they're fairly superficial, and there are some significant differences too.
OP told the court he went onto the balcony to get a fan - it's been very hot on the highveld recently - and heard noises coming from the toilet. The bedroom was dark, he didn't realise that Reeva Steenkamp wasn't in bed, and he suspected there was an intruder; so he fired several shots through the closed door of the toilet because he thought they were in danger. There are a couple of problems with this. OP lives in an upmarket gated community with controlled access and on site security. He didn't call for assistance, and fired blindly through the door without identifying whether there was an imminent and serious threat, or his target.
RV lived on a farm in rural Mpumalanga. There had been a number of vehicle thefts in the area before the incident, and his own family had been targeted. His wife heard a car starting outside the house at about 5am and woke him. He looked out of the window and saw his daughter's car leaving the yard, assumed it was being stolen, and fired a single shot. The investigators reconstructed the events and concluded that his daughter was going to surprise her boyfriend on his birthday - they found a present in the car - but neither of her parents knew about her plans. I should also mention that SA law previously permitted the use of deadly force to protect property - in addition to self defence - in certain circumstances and this had only just been amended. RV made a serious error of judgement by failing to identify his target too, but his conduct was, perhaps, less reckless.
The DPP decided not to prosecute RV because he felt that his own actions would be more of a punishment than anything the state could impose. Was this the right decision? I don't know. You'll have to make up your own mind about that.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
thats the sticking point for me - he retrieved his 9mm from under the bed , but didnt realise that she wasnt in bed - I can't see how that could work,
ie how can it have been so dark he couldnt see the bed was empty , yet light enough for him to retreive his gun, aim, and fire ?
Bernie174
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think there's a few sticking points in his defence.
But that aside, the BBC, who like everyone else are guilt of bad reporting let a few things slip this morning.
The defence doesn't have the forensic reports at the moment. So the suggestion that the 'testosterone' was a herbal remedy is just a suggestion at the moment, not fact.
As are a fair few of their other things being reported as facts, to be fair on both sides.
Someone said this is turning into an OJ Simpson job, I'd agree, nothing to do with Justice and everything to do with a judgment of performance.
But that aside, the BBC, who like everyone else are guilt of bad reporting let a few things slip this morning.
The defence doesn't have the forensic reports at the moment. So the suggestion that the 'testosterone' was a herbal remedy is just a suggestion at the moment, not fact.
As are a fair few of their other things being reported as facts, to be fair on both sides.
Someone said this is turning into an OJ Simpson job, I'd agree, nothing to do with Justice and everything to do with a judgment of performance.
Johnd2000
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,215
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
big soft moose said:
The story is full of holes. Seriously, if you thought an intruder was in the house, would you leave your partner to sleep while you got your gun and tackled the intruder? I'd be wanting the Mrs to get a) out of the house and b) on the phone to the police asap.
Johnd2000
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,215
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
Bernie174 said:
A quick google reveals there are plenty of "herbal remedies" on the market that claim to increase testosterone levels. No idea if they work or not, but if they do, then it's relevant to the police case.
The reporting is very sloppy, I agree. Most of the BBC reports seem to be coming direct from OPs defence team and family. The parallel with the OJ case is a fair one.
Garry Edwards
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,475
- Name
- Garry Edwards
- Edit My Images
- No
In this country (and I very much doubt whether it will be any more difficult for people in other countries where their defence is one of self defence) there is a requirement for the person who uses force to protect themselves, others or their property to be in genuine fear and to truly believe that their actions are appropriate and necessary.
It doesn't matter whether the danger is in fact genuine or not, what matters is the belief of the person who uses force to defend. At present, a lot of leeway is given to the person accused of using self defence in this country, because the Courts recognise that people can take the wrong decisions for the right reasons when they are half asleep, scared witless and have only seconds in which to make their decision. And the degree of force used doesn't need to match the degree of danger either, in linear terms. Proposed changes to the law will give people even more leeway than they have now.
As an obvious example, if you can see someone pointing what turns out to be a toy gun at you, you are perfectly entitled to fire a real one at him. If the police end up shooting a totally innocent person (Stockwell tube) because they wrongly believe that he was armed with a bomb, then that's self defence because of that true, although mistaken belief.
So, if he genuinely believed that there was an intruder in his bathroom, in a country known for violent home intrusions, that should be good enough. And hopefully the evidence will make it clear whether or not his belief was genuine.
It doesn't matter whether the danger is in fact genuine or not, what matters is the belief of the person who uses force to defend. At present, a lot of leeway is given to the person accused of using self defence in this country, because the Courts recognise that people can take the wrong decisions for the right reasons when they are half asleep, scared witless and have only seconds in which to make their decision. And the degree of force used doesn't need to match the degree of danger either, in linear terms. Proposed changes to the law will give people even more leeway than they have now.
As an obvious example, if you can see someone pointing what turns out to be a toy gun at you, you are perfectly entitled to fire a real one at him. If the police end up shooting a totally innocent person (Stockwell tube) because they wrongly believe that he was armed with a bomb, then that's self defence because of that true, although mistaken belief.
So, if he genuinely believed that there was an intruder in his bathroom, in a country known for violent home intrusions, that should be good enough. And hopefully the evidence will make it clear whether or not his belief was genuine.
Barry Roux SC (equivalent to a QC) is a first class heavyweight, who has represented Roger Kebble and other high profile clients. Gerrie Nel who leads the prosecution is also very good indeed. He was previously head of the Directorate of Special Operations (Scorpions), and prosecuted the former National Commissioner of Police, Jackie Selebi, who is currently serving 15 years in prison. This could be interesting.................
Bernie174
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And more to the point proportionate. Which is the one place in this case where he MAY have had a point. If, as has been suggested in SA burglary with a firearm is comon and there was some evidence of threat, then there might be a reasonable defence. Someone who's shut themselves in a bathroom cannot be an immediate threat to him, whatever way you try and present it.
If that were to be tried in the UK, in general, you'd be on a hiding to nothing. Burglary here being mostly committed by kids who will leg it at the first hint of someone being in.
Partly correct, bit not the entire story. The law is along the lines of it is not reasonable to expect a normal man to be able to assess the exact amount of force that is the minimum to achieve a purpose in the heat of the moment.
The other part which you've not mentioned is that it is upon the prosecution to prove that the defendant was not acting in self defence. That isn't as easy as it sounds in most cases.
SA law is I understand still very much based on UK common law, so I'd not be surprised if the same things applied there as here.
Al1944
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,210
- Edit My Images
- No
Someone who's shut themselves in a bathroom cannot be an immediate threat to him, whatever way you try and present it.
Agreed. He could have called the police and simply trained his gun on the door until they arrived. If some stranger did come out then that would be the time to perhaps think about
using his gun.
Al
Al
Agreed. He could have called the police and simply trained his gun on the door until they arrived. If some stranger did come out then that would be the time to perhaps think about
using his gun.
Al
Al