All these questions have to be approached from the opposite direction. It's innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.
But he admits shooting her. If he didn't say a word beyond that, they'd not need any more proof than they have, I reckon. So if his story doesn't add up, why do they need more proof?
You've been caught shooting someone pretty point blank, some responsibility falls on you to explain it, surely? Failing which all the evidence points to murder.
Buy that's not how the law works.
If you witnessed a shooting in the street and for whatever reason decided to run the shooter over during his escape but in doing so missed him and ran over an innocent bystander would you have committed pre-meditated murder? Of course not, you didn't set out to kill the person who died. It wouldn't even be murder - it would likely be manslaughter or whatever the phrase is in SA law.
If as an external un informed observer you think he is guilty then blame the prosecution
I don't know how we can say the tears were not genuine.
He clearly had issues with guns and maybe he's 'fantasied' about killing people, maybe even intruders. I wouldn't be surprised if he's woken up, heard something and couldn't get to the door soon enough to discharge his weapon.
I can imagine the paranoia of someone with his disability, living in SA with the threats he's probably had. I think the right decision has probably been reached but we'll never know for sure...
Innocent until proven guilty is there to protect the innocent I suppose.
All these questions have to be approached from the opposite direction. It's innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.
But he admits shooting her. If he didn't say a word beyond that, they'd not need any more proof than they have, I reckon. So if his story doesn't add up, why do they need more proof?
You've been caught shooting someone pretty point blank, some responsibility falls on you to explain it, surely? Failing which all the evidence points to murder.
Buy that's not how the law works.
If you witnessed a shooting in the street and for whatever reason decided to run the shooter over during his escape but in doing so missed him and ran over an innocent bystander would you have committed pre-meditated murder? Of course not, you didn't set out to kill the person who died. It wouldn't even be murder - it would likely be manslaughter or whatever the phrase is in SA law.
If as an external un informed observer you think he is guilty then blame the prosecution
I don't think he should have been found guilty of premeditated murder.
The state argued that Mr Pistorius had had an argument with Ms Steenkamp, after which he deliberately shot her dead.
The judge ruled this had not been proved, as there was only circumstantial evidence of an argument - uncorroborated witnesses' statements.
She also dismissed witnesses who said they had heard Ms Steenkamp scream before the shots were fired, or before the final shot.
"The state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder," she said. "There are just not enough facts to support such a finding."
The judge found that he consistently said he had fired in the belief there was an intruder and she had no reason to disbelieve him.
However, he could also have been convicted of premeditated murder if he had intended to unlawfully kill an intruder but had instead killed his girlfriend.
She also ruled this out, saying: "The accused had the intention to shoot at the person behind the door, not to kill."
Common-law murder
He could also have been convicted of a lesser charge of murder, if he had unlawfully intended to kill in the heat of the moment but without "malice aforethought".
This could have covered either shooting at the door intending to kill, or knowing someone might be killed and still firing a gun.
But judge Masipa also dismissed this, saying: "The evidence failed to prove the accused had intention."
"Clearly he did not objectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door."
Culpable homicide (manslaughter)
This means there was no intention to kill but the actions were negligent and not in keeping with a reasonable person.
Judge Masipa was critical of Mr Pistorius' actions, saying that he had ample time to call for help, rather than going to confront a perceived intruder with a loaded gun.
"The accused had reasonable time to reflect, to think and conduct himself reasonably.
"The accused knew that there was a person behind the door, he chose to use a firearm which was a lethal weapon, was competent in the use of firearms as he had received training," she said.
The judge also took time to reject the defence arguments that Mr Pistorius is more likely to confront danger because of his disability - both his legs have been amputated.
"Vulnerability is not unique - There are many people in this country without any form of security at all," she said.
She summed up by saying: "The accused acted too hastily and used excessive force."
"It is clear that his conduct was negligent."
And then, she adjourned the hearing until Friday.
The sentence for culpable homicide is a maximum of 15 years in jail. Legal experts say seven to 10 years is more likely.
Other charges
Mr Pistorius also faces two charges of illegally discharging firearms in public and illegal possession of ammunition.
He could also be jailed for several years if convicted on these counts.
So he fired 4 shots through a door at a person in a tiny bathroom, yet could not foresee it killing someone?!
But it all comes down to intent, did he intend to kill whoever was behind the door? Obviously this is very hard to prove a person's mindset during something like this but the prosecution clearly could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had. As I said before, if I was intending to kill someone I wouldn't be firing through a door to do it.
The state argued that Mr Pistorius had had an argument with Ms Steenkamp, after which he deliberately shot her dead.
The judge ruled this had not been proved, as there was only circumstantial evidence of an argument - uncorroborated witnesses' statements.
She also dismissed witnesses who said they had heard Ms Steenkamp scream before the shots were fired, or before the final shot.
"The state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder," she said. "There are just not enough facts to support such a finding."
The judge found that he consistently said he had fired in the belief there was an intruder and she had no reason to disbelieve him.
However, he could also have been convicted of premeditated murder if he had intended to unlawfully kill an intruder but had instead killed his girlfriend.
She also ruled this out, saying: "The accused had the intention to shoot at the person behind the door, not to kill."
Common-law murder
He could also have been convicted of a lesser charge of murder, if he had unlawfully intended to kill in the heat of the moment but without "malice aforethought".
This could have covered either shooting at the door intending to kill, or knowing someone might be killed and still firing a gun.
But judge Masipa also dismissed this, saying: "The evidence failed to prove the accused had intention."
"Clearly he did not objectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door."
Culpable homicide (manslaughter)
This means there was no intention to kill but the actions were negligent and not in keeping with a reasonable person.
Judge Masipa was critical of Mr Pistorius' actions, saying that he had ample time to call for help, rather than going to confront a perceived intruder with a loaded gun.
"The accused had reasonable time to reflect, to think and conduct himself reasonably.
"The accused knew that there was a person behind the door, he chose to use a firearm which was a lethal weapon, was competent in the use of firearms as he had received training," she said.
The judge also took time to reject the defence arguments that Mr Pistorius is more likely to confront danger because of his disability - both his legs have been amputated.
"Vulnerability is not unique - There are many people in this country without any form of security at all," she said.
She summed up by saying: "The accused acted too hastily and used excessive force."
"It is clear that his conduct was negligent."
And then, she adjourned the hearing until Friday.
The sentence for culpable homicide is a maximum of 15 years in jail. Legal experts say seven to 10 years is more likely.
Other charges
Mr Pistorius also faces two charges of illegally discharging firearms in public and illegal possession of ammunition.
He could also be jailed for several years if convicted on these counts.
So he fired 4 shots through a door at a person in a tiny bathroom, yet could not foresee it killing someone?!
But it all comes down to intent, did he intend to kill whoever was behind the door? Obviously this is very hard to prove a person's mindset during something like this but the prosecution clearly could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had. As I said before, if I was intending to kill someone I wouldn't be firing through a door to do it.
'It cannot be said that he foresaw that the deceased or anyone else would be killed when he fired shots at the toilet door.'
What utter nonsense.
There's a difference between would and could, and the prosecution didn't prove the former, hence him being found guilty of culpable homicide.
Newbie's explained my point better than I did but the bomb analogy is one of whether the passengers were murdered or not. If you poisoned the driver early in the morning and he he took all day to die, but happened to be driving his train and passengers died as a result, well a reasonable person would know that was the risk. It's different though from bombing the train when you know passengers would be killed.
In this trial the problem is proving beyond reasonable doubt that OP intended to kill whoever 's behind the door. We can all speculate, but the only person that knows for sure is OP. Firing shots into the door is a fact the judge can rely on - intent to kill as opposed to shooting into a door is what the prosecution failed to prove.
The state argued that Mr Pistorius had had an argument with Ms Steenkamp, after which he deliberately shot her dead.
The judge ruled this had not been proved, as there was only circumstantial evidence of an argument - uncorroborated witnesses' statements.
She also dismissed witnesses who said they had heard Ms Steenkamp scream before the shots were fired, or before the final shot.
"The state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder," she said. "There are just not enough facts to support such a finding."
The judge found that he consistently said he had fired in the belief there was an intruder and she had no reason to disbelieve him.
However, he could also have been convicted of premeditated murder if he had intended to unlawfully kill an intruder but had instead killed his girlfriend.
She also ruled this out, saying: "The accused had the intention to shoot at the person behind the door, not to kill."
Common-law murder
He could also have been convicted of a lesser charge of murder, if he had unlawfully intended to kill in the heat of the moment but without "malice aforethought".
This could have covered either shooting at the door intending to kill, or knowing someone might be killed and still firing a gun.
But judge Masipa also dismissed this, saying: "The evidence failed to prove the accused had intention."
"Clearly he did not objectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door."
Culpable homicide (manslaughter)
This means there was no intention to kill but the actions were negligent and not in keeping with a reasonable person.
Judge Masipa was critical of Mr Pistorius' actions, saying that he had ample time to call for help, rather than going to confront a perceived intruder with a loaded gun.
"The accused had reasonable time to reflect, to think and conduct himself reasonably.
"The accused knew that there was a person behind the door, he chose to use a firearm which was a lethal weapon, was competent in the use of firearms as he had received training," she said.
The judge also took time to reject the defence arguments that Mr Pistorius is more likely to confront danger because of his disability - both his legs have been amputated.
"Vulnerability is not unique - There are many people in this country without any form of security at all," she said.
She summed up by saying: "The accused acted too hastily and used excessive force."
"It is clear that his conduct was negligent."
And then, she adjourned the hearing until Friday.
The sentence for culpable homicide is a maximum of 15 years in jail. Legal experts say seven to 10 years is more likely.
Other charges
Mr Pistorius also faces two charges of illegally discharging firearms in public and illegal possession of ammunition.
He could also be jailed for several years if convicted on these counts.
So he fired 4 shots through a door at a person in a tiny bathroom, yet could not foresee it killing someone?!
But it all comes down to intent, did he intend to kill whoever was behind the door? Obviously this is very hard to prove a person's mindset during something like this but the prosecution clearly could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had. As I said before, if I was intending to kill someone I wouldn't be firing through a door to do it.
Four shots through the door of a small bathroom are not an intent to scare. They are, in my opinion, an intent to, at the very least, stop that person from coming out - dead or alive.
Whether he thought that person in the bathroom was Reeva only Pistorius knows. Most people I would suggest when they wake up in the middle of the night would check whether their partner was still next to them.
The state argued that Mr Pistorius had had an argument with Ms Steenkamp, after which he deliberately shot her dead.
The judge ruled this had not been proved, as there was only circumstantial evidence of an argument - uncorroborated witnesses' statements.
She also dismissed witnesses who said they had heard Ms Steenkamp scream before the shots were fired, or before the final shot.
"The state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder," she said. "There are just not enough facts to support such a finding."
The judge found that he consistently said he had fired in the belief there was an intruder and she had no reason to disbelieve him.
However, he could also have been convicted of premeditated murder if he had intended to unlawfully kill an intruder but had instead killed his girlfriend.
She also ruled this out, saying: "The accused had the intention to shoot at the person behind the door, not to kill."
Common-law murder
He could also have been convicted of a lesser charge of murder, if he had unlawfully intended to kill in the heat of the moment but without "malice aforethought".
This could have covered either shooting at the door intending to kill, or knowing someone might be killed and still firing a gun.
But judge Masipa also dismissed this, saying: "The evidence failed to prove the accused had intention."
"Clearly he did not objectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door."
Culpable homicide (manslaughter)
This means there was no intention to kill but the actions were negligent and not in keeping with a reasonable person.
Judge Masipa was critical of Mr Pistorius' actions, saying that he had ample time to call for help, rather than going to confront a perceived intruder with a loaded gun.
"The accused had reasonable time to reflect, to think and conduct himself reasonably.
"The accused knew that there was a person behind the door, he chose to use a firearm which was a lethal weapon, was competent in the use of firearms as he had received training," she said.
The judge also took time to reject the defence arguments that Mr Pistorius is more likely to confront danger because of his disability - both his legs have been amputated.
"Vulnerability is not unique - There are many people in this country without any form of security at all," she said.
She summed up by saying: "The accused acted too hastily and used excessive force."
"It is clear that his conduct was negligent."
And then, she adjourned the hearing until Friday.
The sentence for culpable homicide is a maximum of 15 years in jail. Legal experts say seven to 10 years is more likely.
Other charges
Mr Pistorius also faces two charges of illegally discharging firearms in public and illegal possession of ammunition.
He could also be jailed for several years if convicted on these counts.
So he fired 4 shots through a door at a person in a tiny bathroom, yet could not foresee it killing someone?!
But it all comes down to intent, did he intend to kill whoever was behind the door? Obviously this is very hard to prove a person's mindset during something like this but the prosecution clearly could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had. As I said before, if I was intending to kill someone I wouldn't be firing through a door to do it.
Four shots through the door of a small bathroom are not an intent to scare. They are, in my opinion, an intent to, at the very least, stop that person from coming out - dead or alive.
Whether he thought that person in the bathroom was Reeva only Pistorius knows. Most people I would suggest when they wake up in the middle of the night would check whether their partner was still next to them.
I've bolded the bit that backs up what I was saying. Thanks.
And on the matter of waking up looking for your partner, how do you know you would react in that way? More importantly, how do you know that's how OP would have acted? We all react differently in intense situations, some people would have remained calm with something like that, others do not.
You might fire more than 3 or 4 shots if you wanted to be sure of killing someone behind a door.
You might be better off firing none if you didnt think you might end up killing someone. Guns and bullets tend to have a habit of doing that to people.
Experts reckon 7 to 10 years. He's already served 1 year, so , *could* be out in 2 and half years.
Would they count that if he's been on bail?
My mistake, he's been on bail, hasnt he. So, 3 and a half for good behaviour. SA jails are not for the faint-hearted. I used to live not far from the main one in Cape Town, and some of the stories that emanated were quite horrific - like 20 people in a cell designed for 8.Drugs,violence,sexual abuse,murders, were an everyday occurrence. I know a mate of mine was wrongfully imprisoned for a weekend in there with a made-up story by his ex, and he said it was a time that would scar him for life - and that was just a weekend.
The state argued that Mr Pistorius had had an argument with Ms Steenkamp, after which he deliberately shot her dead.
The judge ruled this had not been proved, as there was only circumstantial evidence of an argument - uncorroborated witnesses' statements.
She also dismissed witnesses who said they had heard Ms Steenkamp scream before the shots were fired, or before the final shot.
"The state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder," she said. "There are just not enough facts to support such a finding."
The judge found that he consistently said he had fired in the belief there was an intruder and she had no reason to disbelieve him.
However, he could also have been convicted of premeditated murder if he had intended to unlawfully kill an intruder but had instead killed his girlfriend.
She also ruled this out, saying: "The accused had the intention to shoot at the person behind the door, not to kill."
Common-law murder
He could also have been convicted of a lesser charge of murder, if he had unlawfully intended to kill in the heat of the moment but without "malice aforethought".
This could have covered either shooting at the door intending to kill, or knowing someone might be killed and still firing a gun.
But judge Masipa also dismissed this, saying: "The evidence failed to prove the accused had intention."
"Clearly he did not objectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door."
Culpable homicide (manslaughter)
This means there was no intention to kill but the actions were negligent and not in keeping with a reasonable person.
Judge Masipa was critical of Mr Pistorius' actions, saying that he had ample time to call for help, rather than going to confront a perceived intruder with a loaded gun.
"The accused had reasonable time to reflect, to think and conduct himself reasonably.
"The accused knew that there was a person behind the door, he chose to use a firearm which was a lethal weapon, was competent in the use of firearms as he had received training," she said.
The judge also took time to reject the defence arguments that Mr Pistorius is more likely to confront danger because of his disability - both his legs have been amputated.
"Vulnerability is not unique - There are many people in this country without any form of security at all," she said.
She summed up by saying: "The accused acted too hastily and used excessive force."
"It is clear that his conduct was negligent."
And then, she adjourned the hearing until Friday.
The sentence for culpable homicide is a maximum of 15 years in jail. Legal experts say seven to 10 years is more likely.
Other charges
Mr Pistorius also faces two charges of illegally discharging firearms in public and illegal possession of ammunition.
He could also be jailed for several years if convicted on these counts.
So he fired 4 shots through a door at a person in a tiny bathroom, yet could not foresee it killing someone?!
But it all comes down to intent, did he intend to kill whoever was behind the door? Obviously this is very hard to prove a person's mindset during something like this but the prosecution clearly could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had. As I said before, if I was intending to kill someone I wouldn't be firing through a door to do it.
Why not? Can't stop you then, can they?
But you WOULD know exactly who you were shooting, and be much more sure that you would actually hit them. Firing through a door you are basically firing blind - if whoever was on the other side had been standing to one side, or sitting or kneeling for whatever reason, you can't honestly know where you would hit them, if at all - especially if Pistorious did not have prosthetics on and would be firing at an odd angle, relatively speaking. That is why it is culpable homicide - when firing the gun it was quite clear that he COULD kill whoever was there - but not certain that he definitely WOULD.
People can say that he should have checked where Reeva was before firing, and I agree with that, BUT the prosecution case is that he DID know exactly where she was (i.e., the other side of the door) and fired with the express purpose of killing her specifically. This was not proven beyond doubt to the Judge's satisfaction, hence not guilty of murder.
The state argued that Mr Pistorius had had an argument with Ms Steenkamp, after which he deliberately shot her dead.
The judge ruled this had not been proved, as there was only circumstantial evidence of an argument - uncorroborated witnesses' statements.
She also dismissed witnesses who said they had heard Ms Steenkamp scream before the shots were fired, or before the final shot.
"The state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder," she said. "There are just not enough facts to support such a finding."
The judge found that he consistently said he had fired in the belief there was an intruder and she had no reason to disbelieve him.
However, he could also have been convicted of premeditated murder if he had intended to unlawfully kill an intruder but had instead killed his girlfriend.
She also ruled this out, saying: "The accused had the intention to shoot at the person behind the door, not to kill."
Common-law murder
He could also have been convicted of a lesser charge of murder, if he had unlawfully intended to kill in the heat of the moment but without "malice aforethought".
This could have covered either shooting at the door intending to kill, or knowing someone might be killed and still firing a gun.
But judge Masipa also dismissed this, saying: "The evidence failed to prove the accused had intention."
"Clearly he did not objectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door."
Culpable homicide (manslaughter)
This means there was no intention to kill but the actions were negligent and not in keeping with a reasonable person.
Judge Masipa was critical of Mr Pistorius' actions, saying that he had ample time to call for help, rather than going to confront a perceived intruder with a loaded gun.
"The accused had reasonable time to reflect, to think and conduct himself reasonably.
"The accused knew that there was a person behind the door, he chose to use a firearm which was a lethal weapon, was competent in the use of firearms as he had received training," she said.
The judge also took time to reject the defence arguments that Mr Pistorius is more likely to confront danger because of his disability - both his legs have been amputated.
"Vulnerability is not unique - There are many people in this country without any form of security at all," she said.
She summed up by saying: "The accused acted too hastily and used excessive force."
"It is clear that his conduct was negligent."
And then, she adjourned the hearing until Friday.
The sentence for culpable homicide is a maximum of 15 years in jail. Legal experts say seven to 10 years is more likely.
Other charges
Mr Pistorius also faces two charges of illegally discharging firearms in public and illegal possession of ammunition.
He could also be jailed for several years if convicted on these counts.
So he fired 4 shots through a door at a person in a tiny bathroom, yet could not foresee it killing someone?!
But it all comes down to intent, did he intend to kill whoever was behind the door? Obviously this is very hard to prove a person's mindset during something like this but the prosecution clearly could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had. As I said before, if I was intending to kill someone I wouldn't be firing through a door to do it.
Four shots through the door of a small bathroom are not an intent to scare. They are, in my opinion, an intent to, at the very least, stop that person from coming out - dead or alive.
Whether he thought that person in the bathroom was Reeva only Pistorius knows. Most people I would suggest when they wake up in the middle of the night would check whether their partner was still next to them.
I've bolded the bit that backs up what I was saying. Thanks.
And on the matter of waking up looking for your partner, how do you know you would react in that way? More importantly, how do you know that's how OP would have acted? We all react differently in intense situations, some people would have remained calm with something like that, others do not.
Well I know exactly what I would have done in that situation. And the first thing is that I would check that my wife was OK.
And the next would be to tell her to get up and sort the intruder out ;-)
The state argued that Mr Pistorius had had an argument with Ms Steenkamp, after which he deliberately shot her dead.
The judge ruled this had not been proved, as there was only circumstantial evidence of an argument - uncorroborated witnesses' statements.
She also dismissed witnesses who said they had heard Ms Steenkamp scream before the shots were fired, or before the final shot.
"The state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder," she said. "There are just not enough facts to support such a finding."
The judge found that he consistently said he had fired in the belief there was an intruder and she had no reason to disbelieve him.
However, he could also have been convicted of premeditated murder if he had intended to unlawfully kill an intruder but had instead killed his girlfriend.
She also ruled this out, saying: "The accused had the intention to shoot at the person behind the door, not to kill."
Common-law murder
He could also have been convicted of a lesser charge of murder, if he had unlawfully intended to kill in the heat of the moment but without "malice aforethought".
This could have covered either shooting at the door intending to kill, or knowing someone might be killed and still firing a gun.
But judge Masipa also dismissed this, saying: "The evidence failed to prove the accused had intention."
"Clearly he did not objectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door."
Culpable homicide (manslaughter)
This means there was no intention to kill but the actions were negligent and not in keeping with a reasonable person.
Judge Masipa was critical of Mr Pistorius' actions, saying that he had ample time to call for help, rather than going to confront a perceived intruder with a loaded gun.
"The accused had reasonable time to reflect, to think and conduct himself reasonably.
"The accused knew that there was a person behind the door, he chose to use a firearm which was a lethal weapon, was competent in the use of firearms as he had received training," she said.
The judge also took time to reject the defence arguments that Mr Pistorius is more likely to confront danger because of his disability - both his legs have been amputated.
"Vulnerability is not unique - There are many people in this country without any form of security at all," she said.
She summed up by saying: "The accused acted too hastily and used excessive force."
"It is clear that his conduct was negligent."
And then, she adjourned the hearing until Friday.
The sentence for culpable homicide is a maximum of 15 years in jail. Legal experts say seven to 10 years is more likely.
Other charges
Mr Pistorius also faces two charges of illegally discharging firearms in public and illegal possession of ammunition.
He could also be jailed for several years if convicted on these counts.
So he fired 4 shots through a door at a person in a tiny bathroom, yet could not foresee it killing someone?!
But it all comes down to intent, did he intend to kill whoever was behind the door? Obviously this is very hard to prove a person's mindset during something like this but the prosecution clearly could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had. As I said before, if I was intending to kill someone I wouldn't be firing through a door to do it.
Four shots through the door of a small bathroom are not an intent to scare. They are, in my opinion, an intent to, at the very least, stop that person from coming out - dead or alive.
Whether he thought that person in the bathroom was Reeva only Pistorius knows. Most people I would suggest when they wake up in the middle of the night would check whether their partner was still next to them.
I've bolded the bit that backs up what I was saying. Thanks.
And on the matter of waking up looking for your partner, how do you know you would react in that way? More importantly, how do you know that's how OP would have acted? We all react differently in intense situations, some people would have remained calm with something like that, others do not.
Well I know exactly what I would have done in that situation. And the first thing is that I would check that my wife was OK.
And the next would be to tell her to get up and sort the intruder out ;-)
Problem is that you are (presumably!) not a heavily disabled man in a violent city in a notoriously crime-ridden country. Also bear in mind that prosecution and defence both agree Pistorious seems a little trigger happy/gun obsessed anyway and thus his reaction would be different. Not necessarily correct of course, but different.
You might fire more than 3 or 4 shots if you wanted to be sure of killing someone behind a door.
You might be better off firing none if you didnt think you might end up killing someone. Guns and bullets tend to have a habit of doing that to people.
Exactly - which is why he was found guilty of culpable homicide. Any reasonable person would know you might end up killing someone. There's a big difference there between that and actually intending to.
The state argued that Mr Pistorius had had an argument with Ms Steenkamp, after which he deliberately shot her dead.
The judge ruled this had not been proved, as there was only circumstantial evidence of an argument - uncorroborated witnesses' statements.
She also dismissed witnesses who said they had heard Ms Steenkamp scream before the shots were fired, or before the final shot.
"The state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder," she said. "There are just not enough facts to support such a finding."
The judge found that he consistently said he had fired in the belief there was an intruder and she had no reason to disbelieve him.
However, he could also have been convicted of premeditated murder if he had intended to unlawfully kill an intruder but had instead killed his girlfriend.
She also ruled this out, saying: "The accused had the intention to shoot at the person behind the door, not to kill."
Common-law murder
He could also have been convicted of a lesser charge of murder, if he had unlawfully intended to kill in the heat of the moment but without "malice aforethought".
This could have covered either shooting at the door intending to kill, or knowing someone might be killed and still firing a gun.
But judge Masipa also dismissed this, saying: "The evidence failed to prove the accused had intention."
"Clearly he did not objectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door."
Culpable homicide (manslaughter)
This means there was no intention to kill but the actions were negligent and not in keeping with a reasonable person.
Judge Masipa was critical of Mr Pistorius' actions, saying that he had ample time to call for help, rather than going to confront a perceived intruder with a loaded gun.
"The accused had reasonable time to reflect, to think and conduct himself reasonably.
"The accused knew that there was a person behind the door, he chose to use a firearm which was a lethal weapon, was competent in the use of firearms as he had received training," she said.
The judge also took time to reject the defence arguments that Mr Pistorius is more likely to confront danger because of his disability - both his legs have been amputated.
"Vulnerability is not unique - There are many people in this country without any form of security at all," she said.
She summed up by saying: "The accused acted too hastily and used excessive force."
"It is clear that his conduct was negligent."
And then, she adjourned the hearing until Friday.
The sentence for culpable homicide is a maximum of 15 years in jail. Legal experts say seven to 10 years is more likely.
Other charges
Mr Pistorius also faces two charges of illegally discharging firearms in public and illegal possession of ammunition.
He could also be jailed for several years if convicted on these counts.
So he fired 4 shots through a door at a person in a tiny bathroom, yet could not foresee it killing someone?!
But it all comes down to intent, did he intend to kill whoever was behind the door? Obviously this is very hard to prove a person's mindset during something like this but the prosecution clearly could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had. As I said before, if I was intending to kill someone I wouldn't be firing through a door to do it.
Four shots through the door of a small bathroom are not an intent to scare. They are, in my opinion, an intent to, at the very least, stop that person from coming out - dead or alive.
Whether he thought that person in the bathroom was Reeva only Pistorius knows. Most people I would suggest when they wake up in the middle of the night would check whether their partner was still next to them.
I've bolded the bit that backs up what I was saying. Thanks.
And on the matter of waking up looking for your partner, how do you know you would react in that way? More importantly, how do you know that's how OP would have acted? We all react differently in intense situations, some people would have remained calm with something like that, others do not.
Well I know exactly what I would have done in that situation. And the first thing is that I would check that my wife was OK.
And the next would be to tell her to get up and sort the intruder out ;-)
Problem is that you are (presumably!) not a heavily disabled man in a violent city in a notoriously crime-ridden country. Also bear in mind that prosecution and defence both agree Pistorious seems a little trigger happy/gun obsessed anyway and thus his reaction would be different. Not necessarily correct of course, but different.
Well I do struggle to get around due to being eight stone overweight and live in Sidcup so does that count?
On a more serious note, last month we were in Taunton watching our son play at a Festival for Kent. During one of the nights the team's coach, who is from Zimbabwe, received a call from his wife - his brother in law and her wife had been very seriously attacked in their home:
So yes you are right we don't know how we would react and circumstances do dictate. But I wouldn't mind betting that the father, given the chance, would make sure that his wife and kids were hidden/safe before leaping into action.
And we are very lucky to live where we do because, sadly for this couple, they have no chance of realising the value of their home by selling up and leaving.
Comments
If you witnessed a shooting in the street and for whatever reason decided to run the shooter over during his escape but in doing so missed him and ran over an innocent bystander would you have committed pre-meditated murder? Of course not, you didn't set out to kill the person who died. It wouldn't even be murder - it would likely be manslaughter or whatever the phrase is in SA law.
If as an external un informed observer you think he is guilty then blame the prosecution
He clearly had issues with guns and maybe he's 'fantasied' about killing people, maybe even intruders. I wouldn't be surprised if he's woken up, heard something and couldn't get to the door soon enough to discharge his weapon.
I can imagine the paranoia of someone with his disability, living in SA with the threats he's probably had. I think the right decision has probably been reached but we'll never know for sure...
Innocent until proven guilty is there to protect the innocent I suppose.
He's already served 1 year, so , *could* be out in 2 and half years.
Murder, I do.
Newbie's explained my point better than I did but the bomb analogy is one of whether the passengers were murdered or not. If you poisoned the driver early in the morning and he he took all day to die, but happened to be driving his train and passengers died as a result, well a reasonable person would know that was the risk. It's different though from bombing the train when you know passengers would be killed.
In this trial the problem is proving beyond reasonable doubt that OP intended to kill whoever 's behind the door. We can all speculate, but the only person that knows for sure is OP. Firing shots into the door is a fact the judge can rely on - intent to kill as opposed to shooting into a door is what the prosecution failed to prove.
Whether he thought that person in the bathroom was Reeva only Pistorius knows. Most people I would suggest when they wake up in the middle of the night would check whether their partner was still next to them.
And on the matter of waking up looking for your partner, how do you know you would react in that way? More importantly, how do you know that's how OP would have acted? We all react differently in intense situations, some people would have remained calm with something like that, others do not.
So, 3 and a half for good behaviour.
SA jails are not for the faint-hearted. I used to live not far from the main one in Cape Town, and some of the stories that emanated were quite horrific - like 20 people in a cell designed for 8.Drugs,violence,sexual abuse,murders, were an everyday occurrence. I know a mate of mine was wrongfully imprisoned for a weekend in there with a made-up story by his ex, and he said it was a time that would scar him for life - and that was just a weekend.
People can say that he should have checked where Reeva was before firing, and I agree with that, BUT the prosecution case is that he DID know exactly where she was (i.e., the other side of the door) and fired with the express purpose of killing her specifically. This was not proven beyond doubt to the Judge's satisfaction, hence not guilty of murder.
And the next would be to tell her to get up and sort the intruder out ;-)
On a more serious note, last month we were in Taunton watching our son play at a Festival for Kent. During one of the nights the team's coach, who is from Zimbabwe, received a call from his wife - his brother in law and her wife had been very seriously attacked in their home:
news24zim.com/2014/08/28/white-couple-attacked-at-farm-skulls-crushed/
So yes you are right we don't know how we would react and circumstances do dictate. But I wouldn't mind betting that the father, given the chance, would make sure that his wife and kids were hidden/safe before leaping into action.
And we are very lucky to live where we do because, sadly for this couple, they have no chance of realising the value of their home by selling up and leaving.
Speculation of course, but the second part? Oh, it's fine, he's never shot anyone dead before....