Pistorius trial

[Rouky]

Not premeditated murder but he could still be found guilty of murder

[Minkie]

Pistorius not guilty of murder
Pistorius cannot be found guilty of murder. But a verdict of culpable homicide still possible.

Court adjourns for lunch.

[Minkie]

So the prosecution failed to prove that Pistorius intended to kill Steencamp - this wasn't pre-meditated.

They also failed to prove that he knew it was Steencamp behind the door when he shot the gun.

"The fact that the person behind the door turned out to be the deceased and not an intruder is irrelevant … The question is whether the accused had the intention to kill the person behind the door."

The judge says Pistorius did not intend to kill the person behind the door. So he's therefore not guilty of murder, but could still be guilty of culpable homicide. Which must be where they go with this next.

This is a fascinating process.

[Cosmopolitan]

Wow. That's all pretty fascinating.

[smalex]

Surely he'll be found guilty of culpable homicide?

[Derek Nimmo]

So what the hell did he think was going to happen when he shot a gun three times into a small toilet - that whoever was in there was going to dance between the bullets? Honestly. HOW is that not intent to kill?

[Minkie]

Well, quite. I don't know how you can pick up a gun and fire it through a door when you know there's someone on the other side and not mean to kill them. But judge is saying that it has not been proven that he could have foreseen that his actions would result in that person's death. She believes that he didn't mean it.

"Masipa: To find otherwise would be to say the accused's reaction was "faked", he was "play acting" for onlookers at the time."

[Derek Nimmo]

OK, I get it was in the heat of the moment and that when he understood what had happened afterwards he broke down, but how does that negate the fact that if you shoot three shots into a tiny room at head height, you don't mean to kill whoever's in there?

Just because he was upset afterwards doesn't mean he didn't mean to kill when he picked up the gun.

[ParisGal]

What onlookers? I imagine that you can in the heat of the moment literally want and mean to kill someone, and then bitterly regret it a very short time later, especially if it turns out you killed a loved one rather than a criminal.

[Dáire]

The question is whether the accused had the intention to kill the person behind the door."

The judge says Pistorius did not intend to kill the person behind the door.

:eek:

Even I (in the very small 'I think he didn't know it was her' camp) concede he intended to kill the person behind the door. I mean, some things aren't really opinion are they? You shoot exploding bullets at someone, there's an intention to kill. You've got lots of other places to shoot them if want to frighten them off.

[Livilla]

It depends on how strict a line is drawn the the relevant country 'a legal system between absolutely intending to kill someone (murder) and everything less clear cut. In the English and Welsh system we consider you can also be guilty of murder if you do an act likely to lead to death and you are reckless as to whether that happens or not - this situation would almost certainly meet that test. But not all countries are as strict, and they consider anything less than a clear intention to kill someone falls into the lesser ( manslaughter/culpable homocide) offences.

[Minkie]

I am misquoting a bit I think - she's said there is no evidence that he could have foreseen that the person behind the door would die.

This from Guardian blog:

Pistorius.png

[Lily]

Are people allowed to tweet and go online in the court room?!

I guess the judge can figure he just went out of his mind and shot without thinking, but. I hope Reeva and her family get justice, whatever that is.

[Livilla]

There is no "justice" here Lily. They've lost their daughter and they know exactly who shot her, and when and how. The only issue is whether it was a terrible accident or done deliberately. The judge seems to be finding it was the latter. Either way, his life is pretty much destroyed whether he ends up with a custodial sentence or not and nothing will bring her back. : shrug:

[Minkie]

Judge is taking an age to come back from lunch, and the prosecution team aren't back yet either. Reckon they're having a row?

[nick]

It's a ridiculous conclusion to come to. If firing repeatedly through a door, knowing someone is on the other side, isn't intent to kill then what is the intent?

[Minkie]

I'm stunned by it. The toilet cubicle is tiny - it's not like the person could have dodged out of the way or been elsewhere in the room.

[Dáire]

I am misquoting a bit I think - she's said there is no evidence that he could have foreseen that the person behind the door would die.

It does seem a bit literal. I can sort of see why you could feel that if Person A punched Person B in the face lots, it still doesn't prove Person A wanted Person B to actually die. I guess I just feel the exploding bullet part kind of seals it. If firing such things into small rooms isn't intent to kill, couldn't you always, under all circumstances, use the 'I didn't think they'd die' defence?

[smalex]

Wouldn't they have needed to prove there was motivation for him to kill her? ie. a reason why he wanted to kill her?

[nick]

I am misquoting a bit I think - she's said there is no evidence that he could have foreseen that the person behind the door would die.

No evidence. Well, I've seen video of Pistorius shooting with expanding ammunition on a firing range. So he knew quite well the effects those bullets would have on a person; and he fired four of them through a door into a tiny cubicle. I know nothing will bring their daughter back but I can only imagine what the Steenkamps must be thinking, and going through.