Oscar pistorius

[spiderbabymum]

Heard the news this am

I'm just Devastated for him and his family and partners family

Regardless of whether OP is guilty or not, the news reporting is an utter disgrace. I totally agree Maryz I was following the Guardian news feed on my phone with the tv on in the background easily bored this morning and the BBC news headlines came on during it stating all the things that had just been refuted by the prosecution (Steroids, witness etc) - so much for remaining impartial!

What you have to look at is not what the defence lawyer brings up, but what he doesn't bring up.

This is just a preliminary, the case is not complete, there will be plenty more to come.

Re: flight risk, isn't there an option of house arrest?

If he killed her, by accident, with a legal gun, what is the sentence in SA?

Wondering about this also.

I'm thinking the same as BeCool. Even if his version was true, his actions were way beyond reasonable, even for SA standards. NOT an easy mistake to make and something anybody could have done. Regardless of how scared of an intruder he claims he was, his actions were no doubt actions of a very dangerous, possibly mentally unstable person. Definitely should be considered a danger to the public on those grounds.
The fact that he is famous doesn't make him any less of a flight risk. There are many ways to leave the country, not all of them involve going to an airport, passport in hand.

This article in the New Yorker sums up my feelings about this

I agree that owning guns, while having that degree of fear and paranoia is a dangerous combination. Not sure how that is dealt with, other than withdrawing a licence for firearms. Only other way round that would be to hire personal security, rather than be responsible for a deadly weapon. But, being an anti-gun person (obviously not living in the same climate as those in SA) myself, I do still blame OP for killing Reeva no matter what the circumstances.

'Well he certainly doesn't sound as he is safe to keep firearms, does he?'

That's for sure.

And why shoot through a locked bathroom door?

Oh my. I have been following all this since last week & it is all so surreal having it unfold before our eyes.

Having been lucky enough to attend the Paralympics & to see the way that stadium lit up to OP's appearance there last summer I admit I just didn't want it to be true that this was premeditated murder. But it didn't look good.

After yesterday's hearing I began to think that his story was starting to sound plausible. Full of oddities & strange turns, but life is like that sometimes & events CAN beggar belief. And hindsight is a great thing. As is sitting here reviewing things in the cold light of day without the presence of adrenaline...

And then - this morning. The way it started I completely swung the other way, it just all looked so damning. The bullets, the steroids, the witness etc etc.

But then that cross-examination by OP's defence. That police officer & virtually everything he said just fell apart at the seams - talk about being stuffed. How could it all come apart so quickly? How inept do they now look?

If only the truth - whatever the outcome/verdict - wasn't so bloody awful. Whatever happened that night is so utterly shocking & tragic. Just goes to show what a fragile axis anyone's life spins on.

But how could this be labelled an accident? You shoot four times through a door, and you know someone is behind it. You are obviously trying to kill the person. No matter who he may have thought he was shooting, there can be nothing accidental about those actions. And it can't be self defence either, because there was no immediate threat to him from someone inside a closed room. I'm not sure where the staircase was, but presumably in this situation you leg it outside, you don't shoot the person through a door?

I don't know how reliable a source the Telegraph is here but it says that in SA:
"If somebody breaks into your house, you are entitled to kill that person under certain circumstances. If the burglar runs away and you kill that person anyway, you could be exceeding the bounds of self-defence. If, however, you are faced with a situation where you fear for your life or safety, you would be entitled to kill the intruder."

If the judge believes that OP thought there was a burglar in the toilet, could he let him off completely?

Certainly got the sense today that the magistrate is doubting he's a flight risk and, therefore, considering granting bail.

Bimbledorf I have been following on twitter, through a Barry Bateman (SA journalist in the court) and have noted some of the comments made by the BBC man in the court too.

Having just looked at the BBC online headlines it looks as if they don't speak to their own journalists or pay attention to what has been said in court. ITV news was the same.

Agreed, this is a bail hearing and all the evidence is not presented, but how utterly depressing is this trial by media. Even on here, we are getting posters trotting out "media facts".

If he is found guilty, then he is a cold blooded murderer and deserves to be locked up for life.

And as someone upthread said, if he is found not guilty, then they had bloody better be sure that he is, and not get off on a technicality.

But, as the past two days have shown, I would rather wait until those in possession of the facts and the evidence make that ruling, not the media.

Well it's a good thing that they are waiting then

Daily fail is the same with its headlines, I guess they grab the attention more. Until you read the articles and see the balanced reporting further down.

Makes you think when you have been following the BBC twitter and Guardian live feeds....

haven't read all this but:

Talking to a friend last night the law as it currently stands means that even if you shoot an actual burglar on your property there is still an arrest and a trial but if you can prove you were at actual risk a conviction is then unlikely.

Shooting someone accidentally with a gun is slightly less straightforward because although you can own a gun for protection purposes and can use it for that purpose, guns are still fairly heavily licenced and there are still regulations as to how and where they can be used. Bearing in mind that even if you shoot a criminal on your property you have to face trial, if it transpires you were firing shots into a room where you knew someone to be present but had no idea who and what risk they actually posed to you, you are on somewhat more shaky ground. After all, while many criminals in SA do come armed, it's always possible that one might not be, or might be armed with a knife whereas you have a gun, etc, but where risk is unknown the right to kill becomes less apparent iyswim.

I think it's fair to assume that most of what's written i the press is bullshit, but I also think it's telling that most South Africans I've spoken to don't concur with this fear on the level you just shoot blindly into a door without knowing the risk that's on the other side, and think that OP is guilty as hell.

Maryz "Surely if there was any truth in it the prosecution would have mentioned it today."

I don't know. It may still be under investigation.

But even if there was no message, it doesn't rule out a conversation mentioning such a person, which might have provoked jealousy. It's not something the accused is going to bring up. It's in his interests to convince everyone that everything was sweetness and light.

Well I hope he doesn't get bail.

And think he could be a suicide risk.

"If somebody breaks into your house, you are entitled to kill that person under certain circumstances. If the burglar runs away and you kill that person anyway, you could be exceeding the bounds of self-defence. If, however, you are faced with a situation where you fear for your life or safety, you would be entitled to kill the intruder."

• no one broke into his house
• no one ran away
• no intruder made him fear for his life or safety
• Reeva was not an intruder

He was under (perhaps) a mistaken belief that A) there was an intruder; and B) that intruder could harm him.

I think in the UK** there would be some kind of test to see what a 'reasonable person' would believe in the same circumstances. And I think from the MN massive, the "reasonable MN'er" would have checked the whereabouts of the partner before going to the bathroom with a gun.

Also as he never saw an intruder, and presumably the 'noises' he heard were simply those of Reeva going to the toilet (ie fairly innocuous normal sounds), is it reasonable to experience the level of fear for his life of safety that he did under these circumstances?

* could be wrong - law school was years ago*

I think there is a possibility he might be faced with using some kind of mental illness defence, if he is going to insist he was so paranoid and frightened from the above.

currentbuns - good article.

@DreamsTurnToGoldDust

Please dont call an amputee a `cripple` it is highly offensive.

Afternoon. Just to let you all know that we have edited that post to remove the word cripple. We don't usually ever edit posts but we have made an exception in this case.

I'm struggling to see how 'beyond a reasonable doubt' can be met, even with more forensic testing, after the admitted incompetence of the investigation thus far. Having a good defense advocate is one thing, being able to annihilate the investigative lead is something else!

I'd be inclined to say that strict bail would be the more suitable option right now, I'm having serious trouble reconciling the potential dangers OP would face on remand (in one of SA most violent prisons if sent to Pretoria central) with a 'rock solid' case that has been shredded like tissue paper.

have just read the court transcript and that investigating officer transformed into a bumbling idiot.

BC no there wasn't an intruder however I guess that you could argue it like this: if you heard someone you believed to be an intruder running away from your property, would you be entitled to shoot them any less than if you actually heard someone in your house, iyswim.

I think the gun element is far more difficult to comprehend because we don't live in a country where it would ever be deemed acceptable to shoot dead an intruder because owning a gun is essentially illegal, and even if you own a licenced fire arm, the secure conditions under which that fire arm are meant to be kept are such that you would never be able to get too it in time to use it even in self defense. So in this country if you defend yourself it's against someone who is there in your face, rather than someone who could be some distance away but still posing a risk....

wannaBe no former intruder was running away. I don't get your point.
His GF was taking a pee - surely that is a very normal 'noise'.