Pistorius - is this man sane

[jeremyp]

If the guy is deemed mentally ill, as some are saying he is, he should be put in a secure unit in a psychiatric hospital until such time as he is deemed not a danger to the public.

He has a temper. If you subtract the gun from the equation in the restaurant incident and the murder, you have two incidents that are replayed countless times throughout the World every day with nobody going to prison or metal hospital.

There is no question that Pistorius can never again have access to firearms but to demonise him the way you do is pretty counterproductive IMO.

[Sassy]

Oscar Pistorius has, in a TV interview, said Reeva Steenkamp, the girlfriend he killed, would not want him to spend his life in jail.


Opinions please

What if he is telling the truth that he really  thought it was an intruder?

It was a trial by public as well as jury. Who really knows what went through his mind.

If he was innocent and did not know then prison would be like double sentence for him.

I really do not want to judge this one.

[floo]

You don't shoot intruders you can't even see!

[Brownie]

Sassy:  It was a trial by public as well as jury. Who really knows what went through his mind.


It certainly was a trial by public which imo is grossly unfair, similar to what happens in American in high profile cases and I really hope we never have that here.  However there wasn't a jury, different system altogether in SA.   Quite agree we don't know what went through the man's mind.

Floo, we don't generally have legal firearms here but if we did, I bet you anything there would be cases of terrified people shooting in the dark at possible intruders, with some resultant casualties and even deaths.

[floo]

Sassy:  It was a trial by public as well as jury. Who really knows what went through his mind.


It certainly was a trial by public which imo is grossly unfair, similar to what happens in American in high profile cases and I really hope we never have that here.  However there wasn't a jury, different system altogether in SA.   Quite agree we don't know what went through the man's mind.

Floo, we don't generally have legal firearms here but if we did, I bet you anything there would be cases of terrified people shooting in the dark at possible intruders, with some resultant casualties and even deaths.

No doubt, thank goodness they are not legal for protection over here. However, where Pistorius is concerned I don't believe his cock and bull story for one second.

[Brownie]

Thank goodness the law exists to protect us all from gut reactions and vigilantes.

[floo]

Pistorius was convicted of murder and should serve a long sentence, not the pat on the head he has received.

[Brownie]

Floo, you are not a judge and you seem to be taking all this quite personally.
Six years is hardly a pat on the head and, who knows, he may not be alive by the end of his sentence, however long he serves.  I'm not making a prediction just saying anything is possible.
The law and those who implement it have to be above personal feelings and I for one am glad that's how it is.

[floo]

Floo, you are not a judge and you seem to be taking all this quite personally.
Six years is hardly a pat on the head and, who knows, he may not be alive by the end of his sentence, however long he serves.  I'm not making a prediction just saying anything is possible.
The law and those who implement it have to be above personal feelings and I for one am glad that's how it is.

Six years is PATHETIC, especially as he won't serve the full six years. If he isn't alive at the end of his sentence I certainly won't be crying any tears for him that is for sure!

[jeremyp]

What if he is telling the truth that he really  thought it was an intruder?

Still murder.

If he was innocent and did not know then prison would be like double sentence for him.

He shot at a person through a door with no justification. That's murder.

[floo]

As has been said before, if Pistorius hadn't been a famous athlete we would never have heard of his crime, and he probably would have been convicted of murder first time around, and give the appropriate sentence of at least 15 years.

[Sassy]

Still murder.

Have to prove intent to murder her in South Africa. The way he tells it, he had no intention of murdering her because he did not know it was her.

He shot at a person through a door with no justification. That's murder.

But the person he thought to be an intruder he did intend to shoot. But who knows what the reality is?
We are not judge and jury and we are not able to know if he did it intentionally. Reasonable doubt.

[floo]

Of course there is no reasonable doubt, he did the crime, end of!

[Sassy]

Of course there is no reasonable doubt, he did the crime, end of!

Again get someone to explain it to you...

INTENT to kill HER cannot proved. ONLY INTENT TO KILL INTRUDER.

They do not amount to the same thing.

Do you ever really take in what is actually written. Of course not the forest of pride and prejudice too well established and has choked out reason and sense.

[Brownie]

Flogging-dead-horse, banging-head-against-wall smilies needed.

Floo you are loving every minute of this, that is obvious.

[jeremyp]

Have to prove intent to murder her in South Africa. The way he tells it, he had no intention of murdering her because he did not know it was her.

No Sassy, he shot at a person through a door. It doesn't matter that he didn't know who the person was, there was intent to kill that person.

But the person he thought to be an intruder he did intend to shoot. But who knows what the reality is?
We are not judge and jury and we are not able to know if he did it intentionally. Reasonable doubt.

He intended to shoot a person, then he shot that person with no justification. It's murder. The South African courts seem to agree with me, not you.

[jeremyp]

Again get someone to explain it to you...

INTENT to kill HER cannot proved. ONLY INTENT TO KILL INTRUDER.

They do not amount to the same thing.

Why not?

The person is just as dead whether Pistorius thought it was his partner or not.

[Sebastian Toe]

Do you ever really take in what is actually written.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
 

[floo]

Flogging-dead-horse, banging-head-against-wall smilies needed.

Floo you are loving every minute of this, that is obvious.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhh? What a daft thing to say, the whole situation is beyond tragic where Reeva's family is concerned.

[wigginhall]

It was an interesting case, as the judge originally argued that the prosecution had to show intent to kill on P's part, very difficult of course.   But she was over-ruled, and her views seem very technical, since she ignored the fact that he 'must have foreseen the death of anyone in the toilet'.   Their identity is irrelevant of course.

[jeremyp]

It was an interesting case, as the judge originally argued that the prosecution had to show intent to kill on P's part, very difficult of course. 

Very easy actually, he fired a gun into a door knowing there was a human being on the other side of it. Case closed.

[wigginhall]

Very easy actually, he fired a gun into a door knowing there was a human being on the other side of it. Case closed.

I think that's an inference of intent to kill, not a demonstration of it.   In fact, that's the ruling of the higher court, as they put it, 'he should have known,  therefore he must have known, that somebody could die'.    But the judge had disagreed with this, on the grounds that it's purely inferential, and does not show his actual intent.   But then that is often impractical or impossible, since we're not mind-readers.   So 'should have, therefore must have' is accepted in many jurisdictions.  But S. Africa has the dolus eventualis rule, which complicates it.

[jeremyp]

I think that's an inference of intent to kill, not a demonstration of it.

In any situation involving a gun, firing it at a person should be taken as intent to kill.

In fact, that's the ruling of the higher court, as they put it, 'he should have known,  therefore he must have known, that somebody could die'.

No reasonable person would fire a gun into a door with somebody else on the other side in the expectation of not killing them.

[wigginhall]

In any situation involving a gun, firing it at a person should be taken as intent to kill.
No reasonable person would fire a gun into a door with somebody else on the other side in the expectation of not killing them.

Well, 'should be taken as' is an inference.   Normally it holds, but as you say, this is true of reasonable people.  My neighbour killed a burglar and was done for manslaughter, on the grounds of diminished responsibility. 

The higher court used the formulation, 'he should have  known it could kill, therefore he must have known, therefore he did know', and this is what the judge had objected to.   

In parts of the US, I wonder if P would have got off completely, on the grounds of castle doctrine - you can shoot an intruder.  I don't know.

[L.A.]

Well, 'should be taken as' is an inference.   Normally it holds, but as you say, this is true of reasonable people.  My neighbour killed a burglar and was done for manslaughter, on the grounds of diminished responsibility. 

. . .

I think what he should have done is to have claimed that 'he wasn't wearing his glasses'  but was pretty sure that the man was armed and therefore an immediate threat to his life and (possibly) the life of his family.