I’m always frustrated by crime cases because we always get a filtered or speculative view from the press. The cops hold back any real facts until the trial and even then critical information isn’t always admitted because of technicalities.
There’s been a lot of speculative reporting about Blade Runner’s killing of Reeva Steenkamp. People that weren’t even there theorizing that some giant argument resulted in the shooting. Or roid rage. All kinds of bullshit. :rolleyes:
This is a first for me. Actually reading the defendant’s version of what happened. Word for Word. No reporters getting in the way or editing. Yes, it is a court statement and I’m sure every word was analyzed by his lawyers before committing it to ink. But at least we’re getting his side of the story for a change.
I have no idea if he’s lying or telling the truth. His story seems plausible. Burglar uses a ladder to enter through the bathroom window. Blade Runner hobbles in there on his stumps and shoots through the door. Tells the gf to call the cops and realizes that she’s not in the bed like he expected.
A few things will need to be established.
Was there really ladders left against the building by the contractors?
How much lighting is in the bedroom? I know street lights always keep a little light in my bedroom. I can see my wife’s shape in bed even with the lights off. Does Blade Runner have similar night lights on his estate?
Any signs of a struggle in the bedroom? Bruises on the lady that might indicate a fight before the shooting?
Pistorius is much more vulnerable because of his handicap. I’d guess he stands maybe 3 1/2 feet tall without his prosthetic limbs? He could easily be overcome by a burglar. Any handicapped person is vulnerable to violent people. That may help his self defense claim.
Without any witnesses it may be really tough proving what happened.
We have no idea what will be admitted and what won’t.
It’s a press release, so you can rest assured every word was analyzed or crafted with great care. Right now he’s applying for bail but it sounds like his defense team has decided they should use that process to get his side of the story out there. That makes me think the facts are not favorable to them.
He’s a rich and famous athlete on trial. You were always going to hear his side. The question is what the facts say, and we don’t really know yet. I think the investigation will probably make it obvious if this story is plausible.
Nobody does. I think if he’s telling the unvarnished truth, he’s guilty of some kind of negligent homicide. Despite all of South Africa’s problems, he lives in an incredibly secure location with 24-hour guards and electrified fences, and his contention is that even though he has all that security and even though he knew someone else was in the house with him, when he heard a noise in the bathroom at night he started shooting before he even checked to see if his girlfriend might be the one in the bathroom. That’s just reckless. That being said, I have a hard time believing him.
Worse, he says he spoke to her once or twice, but didn’t notice that she wasn’t in bed and didn’t put two and two together when she didn’t respond to his instructions or movements or anything like that. Like I said in the other thread- who hasn’t been woken up by their partner getting out of bed to go to the bathroom during the night? Imagine how many people would be shot to death if people regularly fired a gun through the door without even confirming who was in the bathroom. It’s so reckless it’s hard to buy.
The only thing thing this guy has going for him is the fact that his story almost sounds too far-fetched to be contrived. But it’s still too much to swallow.
Once he decided a burglar was in the bathroom and he was going to shoot them, why would he not first make sure his gf was as far away as possible? Not only are we supposed to believe he would decide to go all Rambo on an unseen home invader without clearing the premises first, we have to believe he didn’t even check to see whether his gf was in bed or not. Not even a courtesy “hey, babe, there is a guy in the john. Cover your ears cuz I’m about to shoot.” Nope, there was none of that. Who does that?
It would’ve been better if he’d just said he was sleeping walking and acting out a dream. I’ve done weird things before while asleep, so I could actually buy that.
The New Yorker’s coverage. There’s a little speculation - they ask why he didn’t check to make sure she was in bed/didn’t notice that she wasn’t when he went for his gun - but I think the relevant points are these: it sounds like until the press release (if that counts?), Pistorius had not told police his version of what happened that night, which seems suspicious; and the prosecution seems confident that the girlfriend was not just in the bathroom, but that she was hiding from Pistorius in the bathroom. They have not yet explained why.
The weakest part of the guy’s story is going to the bed to retrieve the gun. I have trouble believing that it was so dark that he couldn’t see the shape of his gf in bed. Or notice that she wasn’t there. The room would have to be pitch black and in urban areas there’s always street lights shining into houses.
On Anderson Cooper tonight I saw Marcia Clark and Mark Geragos who both indicated that his “story” is entirely plausible. IF indeed Pistorius was paranoid about his safety, then you could defend a position that fearing an intruder he would shoot first without a level-headed assessment of the situation. If he woke up disoriented and heard noises in the bathroom I suppose it’s possible that he was so hyperfocused and anxious that he didn’t check the bed (although I do find this a little far-fetched).
Prosecution will have to prove there was a dispute or motive for the killing. Some media reports saying there were a series of arguments/fights throughout the day and security was called a few hours before. THis one could go either way. Let’s see if there are cell phone records and what if there is blood/DNA on the cricket bat. I do think if witnesses testify about fighting/yelling that day his defense crumbles pretty quickly.
So his defense is justified homocide by reason of paranoid delusion? He heard a noise in the bathroom and didn’t bother to consider it was his girlfriend at any time, or even notice that she wasn’t in bed? Then he fired through the bathroom door because he heard sounds in there without saying anything first? Smells bad to me. Even if true it’s reckless disregard for human life. I wonder what the penalty for that is in South Africa.
Do people lock the bathroom door if they’re alone in the house at night with their SO?
Anyhoo, I’d rather think shooting through a closed door with no idea who is on the other side is murder even if his story is true. I can see giving him a somewhat lesser sentence if he didn’t think it was his gf, but either way he’s guilty.
Sure, that’s plausible. I’ll lock the door if I’m going to stink the toilet out and don’t want my partner walking in on me by mistake. I think his whole story will turn out to be rubbish though.
Also, what is she supposed to have been doing in there if not hiding from him? It would be obvious if she’d been shot cowering in a corner as opposed to quietly going about her business on the toilet.
…interestingly enough: a couple of weeks ago my brother found evidence that someone had tried to get in through the kitchen window. (Rubbish bins were moved to the window, etc). So we started to at least close the kitchen and bathroom doors (they are hard to open, and would make a noise if someone did) and if they did have locks we would have locked them.
So the answer is yes. (Although I don’t believe the accidental shooting story based on current evidence.)
South African law has two classes of homicide: murder, which is “unlawful intentional killing”, and culpable homicide, which is “unlawful negligent killing”. Culpable homicide is approximately equivalent to manslaughter in Anglo-American jurisdictions, though I believe certain types of manslaugher would be considered murder here.
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that common sense says that shooting through a door when you don’t know who’s behind is negligent enough to make it culpable homicide.
The max is life (which effectively means 25 years, I believe) and if the court finds that the murder was premeditated then the life sentence is obligatory unless there are compelling mitigating factors. Unpremeditated murder has a 15 year minimum sentence.
Depending on the facts of the case, the sentence for culpable homicide can be anything from a fine or suspended sentence, to several years in prison.
No juries; the case will be heard by a judge with two lay assessors (or a judge sitting alone; I hear many criminal defence advocates prefer not to have assessors.)
If things happened as he testified then he is guilty of murder.
Lethal force can only be used to defend against violence to yourself or another. Hearing a noise in the bathroom does not constitute an immediate threat of violence.
Even if there had been an intruder on the other side of the door, he would still be guilty of murder because he had no right to self defence in that situation.