Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend dead

[PaulC]

 

Why would she lock the bathroon door?

I don't find that abnormal behaviour even, I would imagine there are plenty of women who do that even in their own home

Surely she would have cried out after the first shot? Unless that was the fatal shot. Guess they can prove which shot was fatal!

Of course they can prove which shot was fatal, they probably find it much harder to prove which shot was first though

Yes and why would the burgler lock himself in the bathroom?

How do you know Pistorious checked if the bathroom was locked? It is already accepted that he didn't have his legs on so the chances are that it is unlikely

If a burglar was in the act of escaping, he may well lock a bathroom door. were there any windows in the bathroom?

 

 

Its all so long ago that I've forgotten most of it. I don't think there were any windows in the bathroom. He heard a noise he got up and didn't notice whether or not his girlfriend was in the bed next to him. He went to the bathroom and fired 4 shots.  He either murdered the so called intruder or his girlfriend.

There must be some way of proving the order of shots. They can do a reconstruction of what happened. 

i know things are different in south africa but I think he knew what he was doing,then did his best to cover it up.  He's a national hero so will probably get off with manslaughter whilst the poor girl is dead and her family get little justice. 

[Stevo985]

He's guilty because he's admitted killing somebody. There's no questioning that.

That doesn't mean he's guilty

It doesn't mean he's guilty of murder (premeditated or not)

But he's not going to walk away completely scott free, is he? (genuine question)

i.e. if they rule that he's completely telling the truth, 100%, he'll still be guilty of something like negligent manslaughter because he's admitted firing the shots.

I don't think it's a question of "is he guilty?"

Just a question of "What is he guilty of?"

[bickster]

I think its legal to shoot an intruder on your property in SA.

Murder requires a degree of premeditation, hence his defence. Its down to the prosecution to prove the premeditated nature of the attack and with them already agreeing that he didn't have his legs on, that removes a complete plank of that argument.

I don't know if he's guilty or not, nor do I care that much, I just like looking at the logic of why people think what they think and maybe seeing if they can view it another way.

[LondonLax]

Even if it was an intruder he killed he still shot someone 4 times without even knowing if they were a threat. It's not like he can claim self defence.

[PaulC]

 

I bet his money buys him a manslaughter conviction and he's out in 7 years.

 

can they downgrade the charge? 

 

 

 

actually just came across this

"The charges brought against Pistorius are likely to cause controversy. The nature of South African law does not allow for a charge of manslaughter or accidental killing, as one would understand it in the United States and Europe. The State has opted to charge Pistorius with what they refer to as “the highest level” of murder charge, which means that they need to prove that his killing of Ms Steenkamp was pre-meditated and planned in advance. No information in the public domain indicates any evidence of such planning exists. There exists the possibility, then, that Pistorius could be found not guilty on the basis that the charges brought against him have not been proven to the satisfaction of the court."

 

The pre-medication and planned in advance may be difficult to prove. If they don't prove that he goes free... Rediculous! I don;t think he planned it he just did it in the heat of the moment.

[bickster]

He's guilty because he's admitted killing somebody. There's no questioning that.

That doesn't mean he's guilty

It doesn't mean he's guilty of murder (premeditated or not)

But he's not going to walk away completely scott free, is he? (genuine question)

i.e. if they rule that he's completely telling the truth, 100%, he'll still be guilty of something like negligent manslaughter because he's admitted firing the shots.

I don't think it's a question of "is he guilty?"

Just a question of "What is he guilty of?"

He's charged with murder, my statement relates to that. Whether he's guilty of some other charge, isn't relevant until that comes into play

[Stevo985]

I think its legal to shoot an intruder on your property in SA.

But she wasn't an intruder. Hence why I think it would be something like negligent manslaughter if he was telling the truth. He genuinely didn't think it was his gf. But that doesn't mean he's done nothing wrong.

 

Murder requires a degree of premeditation, hence his defence. Its down to the prosecution to prove the premeditated nature of the attack and with them already agreeing that he didn't have his legs on, that removes a complete plank of that argument.

No argument here.

I just think, even if he's 100% telling the truth, he won't get some sort of punishment.

Edit: oh, you've clarified above so this post is kind of pointless

He's charged with murder, my statement relates to that.

And mine didn't. Edited February 26, 2014 by Stevo985

[bickster]

Read Paul's post a couple up Stevo

[Jon]

 

 

I bet his money buys him a manslaughter conviction and he's out in 7 years.

 

can they downgrade the charge? 

 

 

 

actually just came across this

"The charges brought against Pistorius are likely to cause controversy. The nature of South African law does not allow for a charge of manslaughter or accidental killing, as one would understand it in the United States and Europe. The State has opted to charge Pistorius with what they refer to as “the highest level” of murder charge, which means that they need to prove that his killing of Ms Steenkamp was pre-meditated and planned in advance. No information in the public domain indicates any evidence of such planning exists. There exists the possibility, then, that Pistorius could be found not guilty on the basis that the charges brought against him have not been proven to the satisfaction of the court."

 

The pre-medication and planned in advance may be difficult to prove. If they don't prove that he goes free... Rediculous! I don;t think he planned it he just did it in the heat of the moment.

 

It's entirely possible he was 'medicated'. I guess it would be 1 reason why he'd shoot his missus.  

Edited February 26, 2014 by Jon

[Stevo985]

Read Paul's post a couple up Stevo

Fair enough, didn't realise that bit.

[Jon]

Could a flawed justice system see a man shoot his unarmed, cowering in the loo girlfriend, several times and 'walk' (excuse the pun) away scott free. I'm not sure if there is a higher form of diculous than 'red', but this could be it.

[Stevo985]

I think "rid" is higher than "red" diculous.

[Jon]

I was tempted for purple-diculous, but that just seemed silly.

 

In fact, purple-dic sounds quite painful ...

[bickster]

plumdiculous?

[villa4europe]

 

 

I bet his money buys him a manslaughter conviction and he's out in 7 years.

 

can they downgrade the charge? 

 

 

 

actually just came across this

"The charges brought against Pistorius are likely to cause controversy. The nature of South African law does not allow for a charge of manslaughter or accidental killing, as one would understand it in the United States and Europe. The State has opted to charge Pistorius with what they refer to as “the highest level” of murder charge, which means that they need to prove that his killing of Ms Steenkamp was pre-meditated and planned in advance. No information in the public domain indicates any evidence of such planning exists. There exists the possibility, then, that Pistorius could be found not guilty on the basis that the charges brought against him have not been proven to the satisfaction of the court."

 

The pre-medication and planned in advance may be difficult to prove. If they don't prove that he goes free... Rediculous! I don;t think he planned it he just did it in the heat of the moment.

 

 

i thought that was the law in the UK too... if you stand trial for murder then they cant turn round and try and pin manslaughter on you half way through the case when it doesn't seem like you'll be found guilty, i know in the states they have the degree system of murder, i think he'll get away with it because they are pushing for the higher charge, whereas if they went for manslaughter it would be a no brainer

 

might need to watch double jeopardy again to get my facts right on the legal system and murder cases...

[PaulC]

I bet his money buys him a manslaughter conviction and he's out in 7 years.

 

can they downgrade the charge? 

 

actually just came across this

"The charges brought against Pistorius are likely to cause controversy. The nature of South African law does not allow for a charge of manslaughter or accidental killing, as one would understand it in the United States and Europe. The State has opted to charge Pistorius with what they refer to as “the highest level” of murder charge, which means that they need to prove that his killing of Ms Steenkamp was pre-meditated and planned in advance. No information in the public domain indicates any evidence of such planning exists. There exists the possibility, then, that Pistorius could be found not guilty on the basis that the charges brought against him have not been proven to the satisfaction of the court."

 

The pre-medication and planned in advance may be difficult to prove. If they don't prove that he goes free... Rediculous! I don;t think he planned it he just did it in the heat of the moment.

 

i thought that was the law in the UK too... if you stand trial for murder then they cant turn round and try and pin manslaughter on you half way through the case when it doesn't seem like you'll be found guilty, i know in the states they have the degree system of murder, i think he'll get away with it because they are pushing for the higher charge, whereas if they went for manslaughter it would be a no brainer

 

might need to watch double jeopardy again to get my facts right on the legal system and murder cases...

 

Ashley Judd! You can't be tried for the same murder twice. I think they have changed the double jeopardy law since. In England anyway! In South Africa

The bill of rights forbids a retrial where there has been a conviction or an aquittal.

Edited February 26, 2014 by PaulC

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

[jonno_2004]

It's like something from a scene in an older movie whereby I'd normally scoff - but geez, that's a bit distasteful.

[Meath_Villan]

If the leg dont fit......ya gotta acquit 

[villarule123]

Doesn't the fact a neighbour has already said in court that she heard screams and called security before the gunshots mean it's game over for Oscar already?