Oscar Pistorius 'shoots girlfriend'

[nikonuser]

I think he is going to go down, he hasn't got a leg to stand on!!

 

[ZoneV]

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.

Blimey.

This could be interesting.................

Yes, it will be very interesting to see how this pans out. I think we're in for a masterclass.

 

[Garry Edwards]

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

But what if he thinks that he heard the sold of an automatic weapon being cocked? Guns can be fired through doors from either direction. And anyway, if their had been a violent, armed thief in there and he had come out shooting, he wouldn't have been standing long enough to return fire. In this country, using pre-emptive force in self defence is acceptable, I doubt whether it will be any different in SA

 

[donut]

just wondering if a loud fart could sound like an automatic weapon being cocked

 

[Johnd2000]

just wondering if a loud fart could sound like an automatic weapon being cocked

I feel bad for laughing at that, but I just thought...

Maybe she called out...."hang on, I've got one in the chamber"

 

[srichards]

He must have known she wasn't in the bed. All he had to do was feel. If i thought my other half was in bed I'd be shaking them to wake up or at least checking they were there. Don't buy it at all. He probably sat on the bed to get his legs on too. Why didn't he reach out then?

Even if you have been targeted before it is much more likely the mystery middle of the night bathroom visitor is a resident of the house.

 

[big soft moose]

But what if he thinks that he heard the sold of an automatic weapon being cocked? Guns can be fired through doors from either direction. And anyway, if their had been a violent, armed thief in there and he had come out shooting, he wouldn't have been standing long enough to return fire. In this country, using pre-emptive force in self defence is acceptable, I doubt whether it will be any different in SA

Would he really have heard a faint metalic click through the door - according to his statement he says he thought he heard someone entering through the window - automatic weapons arent mentioned.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Would he really have heard a faint metalic click through the door - according to his statement he says he thought he heard someone entering through the window - automatic weapons arent mentioned.

Well, if that turns out to be his defence then it would be reasonable to assume that someone who has bribed a guard or otherwise gained entry to a secure, gated estate in SA is very likely to be armed - assuming of course that the intruder wasn't one or more of the guards. And yes, if someone had cocked something like an AK47 or one of its many variants, it could certainly be heard through an internal door.

 

[big soft moose]

however it would also be reasonable to check where your partner is before assuming that multiple automatic weapon toting intruders are forcing entry.

Personally If I thought I was facing multiple assailants with automatic weapons i wouldnt be firing blind through the door as that would just waste rounds and invite returned fire

 

[TriggerHappy]

Let the speculation commence

 

[Garry Edwards]

however it would also be reasonable to check where your partner is before assuming that multiple automatic weapon toting intruders are forcing entry.

Personally If I thought I was facing multiple assailants with automatic weapons i wouldnt be firing blind through the door as that would just waste rounds and invite returned fire

I'm not defending him. I'm just thinking aloud about what my defence might be in a similar situation, if I wanted to make up a story to justify my actions.

Bear in mind that (in this country at least) there is no obligation for a Court to agree that they would have reached the same decisions and/or taken the same action.

 

[Bernie174]

But what if he thinks that he heard the sold of an automatic weapon being cocked? Guns can be fired through doors from either direction. And anyway, if their had been a violent, armed thief in there and he had come out shooting, he wouldn't have been standing long enough to return fire. In this country, using pre-emptive force in self defence is acceptable, I doubt whether it will be any different in SA

Behave!
This is about what did happen, not what might have. If Henry the 8th hadn't married Anne, we'd all be Catholic. He did and we aren't!

In any case, taking your rather amusing account of what might and didn't happen, no, in the UK he would be in deep poo. Which would be a problem as the bathroom will clearly be out of action for a while.
You are indeed allowed to strike in advance, but ONLY if you have a bloody good reason. For example, I was arresting a little tinker one night for drink drive. He drew his fist back when I mentioned the immortal words, "You're nicked my old china", so I kneed him in the nuts. Anyway, he tried to make an issue of it in court, which failed miserably. The point is that he had done something which justified my bruising his wedding tackle, ie drew back his fist. He said in court he had no intention of hitting me. Leaving aside how pathetic that sounded, it mattered not a jot what he intended, it's what I thought he intended.

Now, lets go to this perceived burglar in a loo with the door closed. What is the threat? Where does any reasonable person go from thinking there's someone in the bog to he's a dangerous criminal armed with a gun who will come bursting out all Rambo style shooting? They don't, and thats why he is in the poo.

Irrespective of who he thought he was shooting, his actions are beyond self defence as far as the UK is concerned. As SA law is based on UK Common law, I'd say he's in the brown smelly stuff, even if whoever sits in Judgment believes this fairy story.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Bernie,

I'm sure that you would be right if that happened in this country, because it's unusual for burglars to offer violence and extremely unusual for them to armed with guns.

But this defence, if he proffers it, will relate to SA, where armed and violent criminals seem to be far more common, and where public fear of these people seems to be much more highly developed.

 

[Bernie174]

That may well be so, but the fact remains that there is not one shred of evidence supporting the theory there was an armed burglar in the loo. Even if this fairy tale is believed, the issues still remain, was it reasonable and proportionate to start to blaze away? Thats a matter for whoever sits in judgment, but I don't rate his chances.

 

[Dave *]

. Even if this fairy tale is believed, the issues still remain, was it reasonable and proportionate to start to blaze away? Thats a matter for whoever sits in judgment, but I don't rate his chances.

Bernie, you are rationalising from a UK perspective, if you do a little research and see most burglaries are more like home invasions in SA, and almost always seem to involve assailants with firearms and torture, rape and murder often accompany these burglary/invasions.

 

[Russ77]

In a country where armed/violent burglaries are rife, the first thing I would want to do after retrieving my gun is to ensure the safety/whereabouts of my wife if I thought there were intruders in my house.

Easy to say while sitting here in the cold light of day but there's no way I'd want a bullet to leave the chamber until I'd established that basic fact.

Let's put it another way........ if he knew his gf was in the house with him, is it beyond reason that she could have got up and gone to the toilet? What's more likely........ an armed intruder holed up in the bathroom or you gf getting up for pee?

I hope I'm proved wrong here but his story has more holes than Swiss Cheese.

 

[ZoneV]

I don't want to start Columboing various aspects of the case but something that does strike me as odd is, as someone who presumably knows the layout of his own apartment in intimate detail, looking at the floor-plan of the apartment and in particular the bathroom which is an irregular shape, if he thought there was a burglar in there, why did he fire the 4 shots towards the toilet? Did he hear "the burglar" taking a pee? :shrug:

 

[Dave *]

Pistorius has now been granted bail.

@SkyNewsBreak: Oscar Pistorius has been granted bail by magistrate in Pretoria court ahead of full trial accused of girlfriend's murder

 

[andya700]

Pistorius has now been granted bail.

Absolutely unbelievable:thumbsdown:
I wonder if bail would have been granted if he had been an "unknown" black person, or indeed an "unknown" person of any race?

 

[Dave *]

Absolutely unbelievable:thumbsdown:
I wonder if bail would have been granted if he had been an "unknown" black person, or indeed an "unknown" person of any race?

Problem is the State has cocked up their case monumentally, they have produced circumstantial evidence at best, guesswork and supposition by the investigating officer at worst.

Without a lucid, precise laying down of evidence by the State, what other conclusion could the Magistrate have come to?

 

[viv1969]

Problem is the State has cocked up their case monumentally, they have produced circumstantial evidence at best, guesswork and supposition by the investigating officer at worst.

Without a lucid, precise laying down of evidence by the State, what other conclusion could the Magistrate have come to?

 

[Garry Edwards]

Absolutely unbelievable:thumbsdown:
I wonder if bail would have been granted if he had been an "unknown" black person, or indeed an "unknown" person of any race?

Surely the only issues here are
1. Will he do a runner?
2. Will he interfere with witnesses?
3. Is he likely to commit other offences if released on bail?

These are the questions that always have to be asked, regardless of how much money someone has or their social status.

In the case of someone who is world famous and rich, there is little chance that they will disappear, they are too easy to find and have too much to leave behind.

 

[Johnd2000]

Surely the only issues here are
1. Will he do a runner?
2. Will he interfere with witnesses?
3. Is he likely to commit other offences if released on bail?

These are the questions that always have to be asked, regardless of how much money someone has or their social status.

In the case of someone who is world famous and rich, there is little chance that they will disappear, they are too easy to find and have too much to leave behind.

I would say his wealth makes it more likely he'll do a runner (pun intended). He doesn't need to disappear, just get to a country without an extradition agreement with SA.

 

[pepi1967]

I would say his wealth makes it more likely he'll do a runner (pun intended). He doesn't need to disappear, just get to a country without an extradition agreement with SA.

I don't think he will i think he will stay and fight his corner. But we will see.

 

[Bernie174]

Dave
No, I am rationalising it in terms of common ,law, which, whatever you say the differences are in terms of types of burglary between the 2 states, remains a constant.
The fact is that force when used has to be proportionate, and in simplistic terms this wasn't. There's nothing supporting his story at all, and a lot of holes in his tale. It matters not one jot who he thought was in the loo, burglar or his girlfriend (and it really is stretching credibility that he didn't notice her not being in bed), there was no real reason for him to fire through the door, nothing apart from his word that he heard what sounded like someone coming through the bathroom window, and nothing to support the idea that whoever was in the loo was armed.
In short, it doesn't matter who he thought was in there, the force used was disproportionate.
If he bothers turning up for his trial, I am sure all of those points will be made. If of course he doesn't, well, it simply means that the next person to come along in similar circumstances is less likely to get bail.

 

[Johnd2000]

I don't think he will i think he will stay and fight his corner. But we will see.

I think you're right. The bail hearing will have encouraged him to stay and fight, but I still think he'll lose in the end. Once the prosecution have had time to build their case, the holes in his story are going to get bigger and bigger.

 

[pepi1967]

I think you're right. The bail hearing will have encouraged him to stay and fight, but I still think he'll lose in the end. Once the prosecution have had time to build their case, the holes in his story are going to get bigger and bigger.

I agree but I don't think the holes could get any bigger. Can't see how his story can hold water. Everything about it sounds fabricated.

 

[antihero]

From press reports Oscar was really pushing for a new toilet door but his girlfriend was dead against it....


...on a more serious note, those that have actually travelled to SA may know that their intruders aren't like ours...they don't ask questions, they don't give you a chance. Bang. Kill or be killed (my wife spent most of her life in SA and went to school in Pretoria) and some of the horror stories i've heard about curing AIDS etc is beyond belief).

Thing I don't get though is....upon hearing something, the VERY first thing I would do is look to my side and see if my wife is led next to me....or is that too obvious?

 

[Deleted member 60651]

God I hate to flesh out his weak story but in response to antihero - I can imagine that he wakes, sees reeva asleep, gets up to go to the balcony. Him getting up wakes her up who decides to nip to the loo. He hears the door closing and 'knowing' reeva to be asleep, assumes the worst. The hardest bit for me to get my head around is why they were on different sides of the bed than usual, how he could have retrieved the gun without noticing her absence, and why she took her phone with her.

 

[MartynK]

Problem is the State has cocked up their case monumentally, they have produced circumstantial evidence at best, guesswork and supposition by the investigating officer at worst.

Without a lucid, precise laying down of evidence by the State, what other conclusion could the Magistrate have come to?

This was a bail hearing, not a trial. it's only purpose was to determine whether the accused should be released on bail - to act as a surety for his appearance at trial - not to prejudge the case. SA law prescribes the criteria for granting bail, and what has to be taken into consideration. As a rule, there is a presumption in favour of bail, and the onus is on the state to show why it should not be granted.

OP was charged with premeditated murder (strictly speaking, murder with aggravating circumstances) which falls under the Criminal Procedure Act, Section 6. This has a presumption against bail, and places the onus on the accused to show why it should be granted.

The strength of the state's case is relevant in the sense that there is a greater incentive to flee and avoid trial if it is overwhelming/compelling, leading to a strong probability of conviction on a very serious charge, with the prospect of a long prison sentence; but it's only one of the criteria.

The magistrate identified a number of weaknesses in both the prosecution and defence cases, and a lot of these have been aired on this thread. He also criticised WO Botha, but stated that his evidence was "not the State's case" - it was only considered in the context of determining whether bail should be granted - and highlighted several points in OP's statement, saying that "These are improbabilities that need to be explained".

I think Mr Nair made the right decision, on the facts presented to him. There's a long way to go.

 

[antonroland]

They had a reporter from SA on Today at just after 7 this morning, she said it's not without precedent and there have been a few cases of people shooting loved ones thinking they were burglars due to the high crime rate and widespread handgun ownership.

The handgun ownership is nowhere near enough...sadly the number of stupid / unsuitable handgun owners is way too high...

Crime is not that bad, never believe what you see in the media!

 

[antonroland]

Anywhere else in the world beautiful n wealthy except South Africa Id have thought it was a story ...but im inclined to think its a true nightmare, folk in SA do feel that nervous most of the time, gotta be way worse without legs I guess ....I feel for them all.

Not NEARLY as bad as you guys might think...and I DO see most of the bad part due to my day job...

 

[antonroland]

So from seeing his statement a few gaping holes jump out at me: 1. He hears the intruder when out on the balcony - goes to get his gun from under the bed where he fails to notice that his girlfriend is no longer sleeping. 2. He screams at the intruder and Reeva apparently fails to call back something to the tune of "It's just me in here you plonker". 3. He batters the door down with a cricket bat - is that likely? I'd imagine the bat would break before the door?!.

Spot on on all but the door...the average cricket bat will outlast several interior doors down here...

 

[antonroland]

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.

Very close to the truth but not absolutely...

The test would be the action of the "reasonable person" under those circumstances.

All the other holes in O.P.'s story aside, doors have only very rarely been known to jump at humans and life threatening injuries account for less than 5% of these...

Would the reasonable person not have switched lights on? Firing indiscriminately into a door was probably not the right thing to do IMHO...

 

[antonroland]

Dave
No, I am rationalising it in terms of common ,law, which, whatever you say the differences are in terms of types of burglary between the 2 states, remains a constant.
The fact is that force when used has to be proportionate, and in simplistic terms this wasn't. There's nothing supporting his story at all, and a lot of holes in his tale. It matters not one jot who he thought was in the loo, burglar or his girlfriend (and it really is stretching credibility that he didn't notice her not being in bed), there was no real reason for him to fire through the door, nothing apart from his word that he heard what sounded like someone coming through the bathroom window, and nothing to support the idea that whoever was in the loo was armed.
In short, it doesn't matter who he thought was in there, the force used was disproportionate.
If he bothers turning up for his trial, I am sure all of those points will be made. If of course he doesn't, well, it simply means that the next person to come along in similar circumstances is less likely to get bail.

Many mixed metaphors here...

Force does NOT have to be proportionate...fact is, no-one came through the (locked!) door.

Agreed on the holes...

IMHO I think there is a 70/30 chance of him being found guilty of culpable homicide rather than murder.

From what I get in the media (dangerous!!) and personal experience I say he is guilty.

Had I been the Presiding Officer the ink would already have dried on the verdict...but then I am not...

 

[tiler65]

Would the reasonable person not have switched lights on? Firing indiscriminately into a door was probably not the right thing to do IMHO...

Maybe he couldn't reach the switches while he was stumping around?

 

[antonroland]

Maybe he couldn't reach the switches while he was stumping around?

Maybe...but then he did go back and forth fetching his firearm, didn't he?