Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 8

[Roussette]

here is Number 7.

IMO she has just stated that he knew exactly what he was doing when he went shot at the door and killed Reeva. Whether he knew it was Reeva or not he knew what he was doing. Surely that means murder then? She has just found him not guilty and then said that it is what he did?

I think I know why she has adjourned at this particular point. If she found him guilty would he not need to go straight to prison? She would probably want all charges at once so he is either free or not once verdict is given?

"I'm confused, she said he s negligent but earlier stated that he didn't know/intend to kill whoever was behind the door?"

there's a difference in intent, so she dismissed the other guilty verdicts but she is now saying that a reasonable response would have been to call for help given that the 'threat' was enclosed (in the toilet). She also did say earlier that had he shot an intruder standing over him in bed then that would have been an acceptable response but given that he knew the 'threat' was in the bathroom it was unreasonable to react as he did.

I think the distinction is, it's not proven by the State that OP DEFINITELY knew he would kill the person behind the door or that he DEFINITELY intended to/plan to so they are unable to convict of murder. But another reasonable man in his position, with the same time to consider the situation, and with firearms training, OUGHT to have known what would have resulted from the action taken. So applying this test allows the judge to conclude he was negligent, and sounds therefore like she will convict for culpable homicide? (Not a legal person, someone correct me if this is wrong!)

I know bobble is very strange.
She also stated his disability/past experiences etc could explain but not excuse his behaviour, tomorrow's sentence I think will boil down to how much weight she gives all these other factors as well as things like his remorse.

Sentencing won't be straight away. Could be another month away.

I thought that it would be not guilty for pre med and guilty for culp homicode (which looks like the way she is going).

I'm following on twitter. Anyone watching live? What was the reaction in court to the not guilty?

So Confused If the judge feels another reasonable man ought to have known the result of the action, is she somehow saying that Oscar has some special reason why he ought to have known but didn't? It seems very confusing, and also a very fine definition between ought to have known the outcome, and knowing the possible outcome and shooting anyway which apparently does not mean intent to kill! She seems to be arguing minute differences in interpretation!

I guess I can see that you cannot prove without reasonable doubt but does that mean if you are on your own when a crime is committed you cannot be charged with murder in South Africa?

Surely if she calls Guilty for CH and the gun charges that would change the bail situation? Is that why she stopped at that moment?

Could be, According to twitter, if found guilty he would have to reapply for bail.

I also think they were lacking the "beyond reasonable doubt" proof of his INTENT to kill whoever was behind the door.

The Culpable homicide scenario has a different test - it relies on would a 'reasonable person' in OP's place have though/known/believed that their actions could cause GBH or death. So even if OP says he didn't believe he would or could cause death, if a "reasonable person" would have believed this, then he can be guilty of CH.

He has failed the "reasonable person" test and the judge has ruled that a reasonable person WOULD think that shooting through the door would/could kill whoever was behind the door.

They do seem quite happy with their tea breaks, long lunches and knocking off early over there.

BeCool that makes sense, but and I cannot believe I am going to say this, if op wasn't capable of thinking reasonably due to whatever reason should he really be punished for essentially a thought process that he could not control?
She said He didn't act reasonably but if he wasn't capable of doing so what is the charge/penalty then?

"Can OP at this point change his plea to guilty of culpable homicide (in light of the fact he looks likely to be found guilty) in order for a reduced sentence"

mumtosome61

Not at this late stage but I believe it was suggested ages ago that they might have tried to go for that at the beginning but that the State would not even consider anything less than a charge of Premeditated Murder.

Could it be she did this in order to try and get him to claim responsibility and plead guilty to a lesser charge

LouiseBrooks - thanks; I thought it was unlikely.

Yes, I think the "reasonable person" factor is critical here. A reasonable person as per the Judge would know shooting could cause death. OP had a psychiatric evaluation which suggested no significant signs of mental disorder - I seem to recall they said he was prone to anxiety disorder and excessive vigilance. If that means he is not considered to view threats from a 'reasonable person' POV then his culpability will be either nothing or low enough to secure acquittal/low sentence due to diminished responsibility.

Not sure whether 'diminished responsibility' is used in SA law but I guess his defense is essentially stating when presenting the evidence of anxiety, past experiences and his physical impairment that OP would see a threat different to a lay person, which gives weight to the fact they believe OP cannot be found fully responsible for what happened.

So he's going to get away with it then. It stinks.

She's dismissed practically all the evidence, all the witnesses even the experts, and has just believed everything the snivvelling little shit said. Even though he kept changing his lies.

Ah well, best just let the poor chap go home, he's suffered enough. Back to the luxury mansion.

Oh, and here's a little tip from the judge in case any South Africans out there want to get rid of their partner, here's your defence:

"If the accused, for example, had awoken in the middle of the night and in darkness seen a silhouette by his bed and in a panic shot at that figure, only to find it was the deceased, his conduct would have been understandable and perhaps excusable.

"In such a situation he would not have been expected to call security first as he would be faced with a real emergency."

Real emergency, yeah right.

I wish people would respect the judge's verdict. There are folk would have him hung drawn and quartered. Equally there are folk believe he is not guilty.

Judge Masipa hasn't finished yet. I believe culpable homicide will be the ruling, with the decisions on the gun charges also pending, but it is at her discretion to determine sentencing, and we should respect both her verdicts and her sentencing, even if we don't agree.

Caught up a bit on twitter and on here.

I have said from the very start that whatever Judge Masipa rules will be the right decision.

I agree with Jill, people should respect the decision of the court. I'm sure she knew more about it than some randoms on the internet.

I don't know why she didn't finish today, it seems likely (probable) that he'll be guilty of CH, so I'm unclear why she stopped on what some have said was a cliffhanger.

Some posters seem a bit "animated"

She'll probably order that the Steenkamps will have to pay for his new toilet door.

Yup, agree with Jill too.

As much as I appreciate that the trial has divided people, which is to be expected, I never really understand how some people can be so damning either way - calling OP a 'sniveling little shit' and inferring that he'll be 'let off' hugely undermines the integrity of Judge Masipa and her panel. We infer the 'information' we get from the media and cast judgement - however, we're not in that court room and we've not seen that evidence first hand. We also cannot account for the mental state of OP.

Norma, what do you have against Judge Masipa, seeing as you seem to deem her unworthy of making the 'right' decision?

Why can't the judge just do a full shift for once and read the 100 pages in one sitting.