Is anybody following the Oscar Pistorius case?

In particular has anyone read the new verdict, that he is now convicted of murder because he fired in such a manner that it would lead to the death of whoever was behind the locked toilet door?

What I find particularly striking is that the judge ruled that the identity of whoever was behind the door is irrelevant.

I can't believe this, for this means that if you believe that an intruder is in your house you cannot defend yourself by using your self defence weapon without first confirming that there is indeed a threat to your life (As the judge pointed out).

So what should people do there? First check that it is indeed an intruder, then check if he or she has a gun for example to deem that the intuder indeed poses a threat to your life , and then hope that you fire your weapon first.

I wish some legal expert can explain to me how such legislation is passed, and what is the legislator thinking!!

I believe that in the case where someone believes that an intuder has entered his or her property, he or she is justified to use deadly force because the intruder can proove to be a threat to one's life. Although I see that many cases can arise where the killer would say that he or she thought it was an intuder when infact it was a cold blooded murder.

I would like to stress that I am only arguing on this latest verdict which even the judge said that the identity of the victim did not matter.

Nevertheless, this was such an ugly tragedy, and I'm sure that like many others, I feel sorry that it happened.


Most Helpful Girl

  • There are many weird inconsistencies in his story. First he hears noises coming from the bathroom and a normal person who lives with other people would first check with them before concluding it's a burgler. He doesn't check if his girlfriend is next to him or not he gets up grabs his gun and puts on his prosthetic legs without *ever* checking on his girlfriend. I mean the least he could do is waking up a person witht two functioning legs and alert her on the immediate danger he believes they are in. Then he walks up to the bathroom and doesn't even ask who it is or opens the door or whatever. He starts shooting with the intention to kill whoever is on the other side. All the while it doesn't even occur to him to check whether his girlfriend is actually in bed. It's simply unbelievable... He wanted to kill the other person, so intentional murder is the right verdict.

    • As I have written below, I am also inclined to think that he shot his poor girlfriend knowing that it was she behind the locked door, but in that case the court should simply say we don't believe you dear defendant, and they sentence him accordingly.
      I am arguing against the implication in the verdict that you cannot fire at an intruder.

    • Show All
    • Well here in germany no one hesitates to call the police. My comparison is very logical and reasonable. The only reason an innocent person is dead is because a dumbass decided to kill her.

    • And I am sorry for the poor victim. I think you are not understanding what I am talking about.

Most Helpful Guy

  • Rich guy shoots girl, rich guy gets away with it. What else is special?

    • Oscar Pistorius will not return to prison while awaiting sentencing for murdering his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, a South African court has ruled.

      The athlete will remain under house arrest at his uncle’s home after the prosecution declined to oppose bail at a hearing in the North Gauteng high court in Pretoria on Tuesday morning.

Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 3

  • Don't they teach you in school how laws are passed? I don't know much about the case so I'll google and reply again. πŸ˜‰

    • Show All
    • To address your last point, yes if there is reason to believe that there life is in imminent danger they should draw their weapons and if the person does not put his hands up they are allowed to fire. Of course they should have some guidance to what they should understand as posing a threat, yet there is no strict formula which you can apply and at the end of the day it is the individuals judgment. In some circumstances they will find that it was unreasonable and in others they will find that it was reasonable.
      But again my original argument did not involve any of this defendant complexities of his case. I am saying that in general the owner of a house has the right to use his self defense weapon if he or she sees an intruder in his or her house or if he or she does not see an intruder but in the particular circumstances had reason to believe that it was an intruder. Do you understand what i am saying and that I am not involving the complexities of this particular case?

    • I do understand what you're saying. His from case aside, you believe a home owner should be able to protect him or her self if in mortal danger. The problem though is everyone will define what danger is and there are those who would use that defense as a loophole in the justice system. in my opinion danger doesn't include shooting at the unknown just in case you might be faced with an enemy. Not sure what country you're from but in my country we have very strict gun laws and compared to the USA we have a significantly less deaths that resulted with or by gun use. Anyway, I do understand your point of view and while I don't really agree with it ( grey area you know πŸ˜‰ ) I think we could banter back and forth forever on this issue.

      On another note did you ever follow the case of Gilberto Valle? Now that's a case I could chat about for awhile! Thought crimes... juicy stuff! πŸ˜‰

  • Shooting somebody locked in a room, a room you're not in, is almost as bad as shooting somebody in the back as they're running away. It's not a danger. Leave them locked in the room and call the police, if they come out and come towards you, shoot and protect yourself.
    Protecting yourself isn't just black and white. That's why even in self defence cases where the person was attacked first they can still be convicted if they go overboard when protecting themselves.

  • lol. so when my cousin decides to crash at my place without telling me... and he's using the bathroom... i'm just going to shoot at him through the door? LOL. get serious.

    he's a murderer. this conviction makes me really happy.

    • O. K, so now its not your cousin, its me and I really came to do something bad to you, but you can't do anything until you confirm its not your cousin but a real intruder with a gun - which by that time you would be down.

    • Show All
    • you assume i wouldn't have already called the police or that i wouldn't have exited the premises or that i can't defend myself effectively.

    • In a panicked situation you might not choose the ideal course of action, and in some situations you might have no choice but to shoot before its to late.
      The verdict does not give any room for these possibilities it implies that someone cannot shoot an intruder.
      And what do you mean exit the premise? Well if you want to exit the premise you may, but if that is your property any you wish to stand and fight I think you are totally entitled to do that, if anything the intruder should exit the premise. o. k?

What Guys Said 1

  • I'm sure some expert will come along shortly. Until then I offer this. He knew she was behind that door. Why would a fucking burglar break in and use your toilet?

    • I am inclined to think the same, but in that case I think the judge should have said that he does not believe that the defendant thought that there was an intruder, and that he intentionally fired at his girlfriend in a fit of rage.

    • Well, this is South Africa we're talking about. I'm sure even the judges are morons.