Oscar pistorius

[spiderbabymum]

Heard the news this am

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

"Not comfortable at all with him getting bail. This whole story is extremely dodgy and at the very least he's prooved to be irresponsible with a gun - and shooting through a locked door!"

What should he have done -said 'Err excuse me, sorry to be a frightful bore, but do you think you could come out of that toilet with your weapon, compare them to check it's a fair match and then, perhaps, do a sort of 'cowboy film' resurrection where we each take 6 paces and turn?'

If he truly thought there was an intruder in his bathroom, in SA where posters who live there have explained the terrible issues out there, then he was bound to fire first, check later.

He didn't know it was locked - or at least that is his statement.

How on earth can you apply hindsight as if he was in full knowledge of it?

If South Africa is here it is most likely to be about self defence. You can shoot a burglar dead in the UK and be found not guilty. However through a door becomes less likely to be self defence. South Africa may be different and if it is it will be different in the sense in allowing more force to protect your home.

I disagree lougle, you cannot just shot to kill because you think something maybe, if you are faced with an armed intruder than thats one thing but to just wilfully shoot is manslughter, civilians are not judge jury and executioner.

Jesus otherwise what a convienient way to get rid of someone your not keen on, sorry guv thought MIL was an intruder.

I was under the impression that SA law on this was the same as ours, you can shoot in defense but not wilfully.

" Xenia Thu 21-Feb-13 10:36:34

If South Africa is here it is most likely to be about self defence. You can shoot a burglar dead in the UK and be found not guilty. However through a door becomes less likely to be self defence."

Would that be different, though, if the only way out is into the room you are trapped in?

The floor plan diagram in the Guardian live feed here shows that to get out of the bathroom, you have to walk along a corridor, turn back on yourself and walk out the door.

Oscar Pistorious claims that the bedroom door was locked and posters here state that this is common in SA. That leaves only 2 ways out of the bathroom:

-back through the toilet window, which is incredibly dangerous (much harder to get down safely than to get up safely)
-out of the bathroom, into the bedroom, past the bed and out onto the balcony.

So, would it not be reasonable to suggest that the likelihood of the 'intruder' leaving the toilet, probably armed' was heightened given the floor plan, making the shooting through a door more about self-defence than if there were other routes out which wouldn't necessarily place OP in danger?

Yes, he shot to kill didn't he through the door - whoever he was intending to kill.

Was thinking if it was me I'd have tried lie down in the bath.

Jesus otherwise what a convienient way to get rid of someone your not keen on, sorry guv thought MIL was an intruder
Whatever the fear levels in SA are, they must surely be balanced with ^ this.

In this case there was no intruder. No sight of someone who may be an intruder and no evidence at all of an intruder (OP acknowledges he left the bathroom window open - he didn't see a previously closed window that had been forced open). The prosecution may well be going down the wrong path with premeditated murder charge and hopefully the forensics will reveal more details about what happened.

OP would have a much tougher time arguing that he had reasonable reason to think there was an intruder in the house, in the absence of any evidence at all pointing to an intruder being there.

"Yes, he shot to kill didn't he through the door - whoever he was intending to kill."

Has he said that?

If he shot through a closed door (let's leave aside the locked/unlocked thing here for a second - it's irrelevant in terms of 'aim'), then he didn't know if his shots located the 'intruder'.

He shot 4 times. That doesn't mean he would hit his target 4 times, necessarily. He also couldn't know where the shots would locate. He may not have been 'intending' anything, in the sense that he was shooting in fear. He may have been 'intending' to kill. He may have been 'intending' to maim. That's a massive part of this trial, IMO.

Shooting through a door 4 times strikes me as intent to kill or at the very least to be irresponsible with firearms. Did she scream out when she got shot with the first bullet I wonder? You'd have thought so.

Its a very small room, it would be hard to argue that he did not mean to at least hurt someone.

How noisy is a gun and would you hear? Would blood be pounding n your own ears? Would your ears be ringing? I don't know - have heard farmers shooting in the distance but never heard a gun at close hand - and nor do I want to!

I do agree shooting at a small enclosed space should = an awareness of what that might mean (injury or death).

Did OP intend to kill Reeva? I don't think so (going on face value of his affidavit and the bail hearing thus far). Did he intend to injure (or kill) the 'intruder'? Quite possibly so. Can he claim self-defence? Quite possibly so. All on face value of affidavit and bail hearing thus far.

Do I think he's a flight risk? Could be, although I would say that if this is, as he indicates, a horrible sequence of events that ended in killing Reeva and not an 'intruder' - he will stay, he will stand up in court and he will tell the truth. But it doesn't detract from the fact that he did kill. Did he intend to? And was that 'ok', given the circumstances under which he fired?

I don't know, JillJ72 - I know that when I was a Cadet (many years ago) the recoil on a rifle was quite shocking and we used to wear earplugs but our ears would still 'ring' for a while. But that was a rifle, not a 9mm.

This Free Hearing Test website lists a 9mm gun to be 159.8dB, with normal conversation being 60-65dB and a 'pain threshold' is 140dB.

So, it's loud.

I don't think you can decide if there was intent without some sort of knowledge of how fast a 9mm can shoot? If those 4 shots were deployed within 3 seconds, for example, then it could almost be considered one act - not enough time to think through the consequences, possibly. If they were 4 distinct shots with several seconds in between, then that's 4 separate acts with time to think in between.

Thanks lougle, and interesting point ref when shots are fired. Lots of unknowns.

You can shoot a burglar dead in UK & not be found guilty?

Really?

I think we can't really look at this from our perspective, because of how different the culture is here around guns, around how safe we feel in our homes, and around how the law allows us to act if we believe there is an intruder in our home.

The whole trial is a shambles now, and I don't understand how the prosecution can say 'we believe it was premeditated murder' when they have no evidence to support that claim.

I think the most concerning possibility if Pistorius is granted bail, is that he will try to take his own life. He is a hugely recognisable international figure, where could he flee to?

Yes, you can shoot a burglar dead in the UK and not be found guilty. There is a defence of self defence. I would imagine South Africa has it too. However it is does not mean you always have a right to kill them. It depends on the circumstances. I am not sure it applies through toilet doors though.

Has the law recently changed, then?

I thought any defence of your property had to be done using "reasonable force"?

I found a really interesting explanation of sound expressed in decibels and distance here

Initially, prosecution said that a witness heard 'shouting' and 'shots' from 600m away. 'Shouting' is roughly equivalent to 80dB. If you are 1 metre away, you'll hear that shout at an equivalent to 80dB...you're right next to them. Every time you double your distance, the 'perceived' dB reduces by 6. Meaning, that by the time you are 4 metres away, you'd 'hear' 68dB, even though the shout is 80dB, because you'd doubled your distance twice.

If the witness was 600m away (1968ft) then the dB she 'hears' the shot at would be around 94dB - so louder than a shout - more like a lorry passing by.

If she were 300m away (984ft) then the dB she 'hears' the shot at would be around 99dB - a motorbike revving.
So, it's very likely she could hear the shots.

However, looking now at 'shouting':

From 600m away (1968ft) shouting (80dB) is 'heard' as 14dB. Now, whispering in a quiet library, 3 feet away is listed as 30dB. Normal breathing is 10dB

From 300m (984 ft) away shouting is 'heard' as 20db - the sound of a mosquito

Source of sound levels

Does it honestly sound likely that she heard an argument, even from 300m away??

The trial hasnt started yet though has it, its just the bail hearing. I should imagine both sides will get time to work on their cases.

I would think Xenia, that in order to claim self-defence you would have to have faced the intruder how could you be defending the unknown. I dont think thought stands up in a court of law does it?

it is all so sad !!
i have always worried about burgulars
if i was him i would have been very scared even more so if i didnt have my legs on
he must have been so scared to have shot

Defence lawyer just said:
"Roux says there are no witnesses and the case will be decided on forensic evidence. He says you cannot confuse an argument with pre-planned murder."

It would be nice if his client told the fucking truth. How about that?

This is just painful. It is exploitation of the 'probable'. He will walk . THe cock waving has started already.