View Full Version : Oscar Pistorius charged with Murder
South African star sprinter Oscar Pistorius has been charged with the murder of his girlfriend and will appear in a Pretoria court on Thursday afternoon, police have confirmed.
Pistorius, 26, is alleged to have killed his 30-year-old girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, who died of gunshot wounds at his home in a gated-community in the city this morning.
More here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/feb/14/oscar-pistorius-girlfriend-shot-dead
Rottentroll
14-02-2013, 01:13 PM
She was beautiful.
i can see him killing himself now tbh lol idk why i just have that feeling
such a shame :(
zombies
14-02-2013, 01:25 PM
what a shame :(
Apparently he mistook her for a burglar so shot her, pretty shocking!
Apparently he mistook her for a burglar so shot her, pretty shocking!
The South African Police said that was a lie and he is being charged with murder. idk
FlyingJesus
14-02-2013, 03:01 PM
Yeah the mistaken identity claim is from a completely unknown source and has been denied by police, also there's a history of domestic violence between the two of them already
She's hot.
It's funny though, how he had all the glory and fame and it comes crashing down in one moment.
Always seems to happen with the more famous athletes- Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong etc.
Cerys
14-02-2013, 03:19 PM
Ehh I don't know if they can prove that he did mistake her. Though unlawful act manslaughter would be easier to prove. Don't know which they'll go for!
mrwoooooooo
14-02-2013, 03:26 PM
They'll go for murder. He shot her 4times fgs
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
Cerys
14-02-2013, 03:42 PM
Yeah, but can they prove the mens rea?
Kardan
14-02-2013, 04:15 PM
Considering there's witness accounts of there being shouting and arguing before the gunshots were heard, I doubt he mistook her for an intruder.
Cerys
14-02-2013, 04:18 PM
Ooh, didn't realise that there were arguments etc beforehand. Yeah, convicted of murder then xP
Could use loss of control
FlyingJesus
14-02-2013, 04:30 PM
It's a pretty major loss of control to shoot your girlfriend 4 times in your own house, I mean it's obv not gonna go down at premeditated but still
Cerys
14-02-2013, 04:37 PM
Yeah ^
If I was him I'd use Loss of Control. Them arguing was the qualifying trigger. Not too sure if a person of his age and sex would have responded similar/the same in that situation though, so that could get them to refuse to accept that defence.
Anyway, pretty terrible what happened.
GommeInc
14-02-2013, 06:02 PM
Yeah, but can they prove the mens rea?
Shooting someone four times? Yeah, they can :P You can't "accidentally" shoot someone that many times. He's blatantly guilty going by that information (if it's true). He can't argue loss of control either, because he was in control to use a gun and shoot that many times if we are to assume the argument happened without a gun in hand - if he had picked it up mid argument then it's not loss of control, because he's picking up the weapon to use it in an argument. Loss of control would be arguing with a gun in hand and accidentally shooting it once. It seems so unlikely though going by the details (and if they are correct).
On a separate note, he seemed a bit of a creep at the Olympics/Paralympics. He had serious anger issues back then :/
Teabags
14-02-2013, 06:08 PM
They'll go for murder. He shot her 4times fgs
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
thought she got shot twice, in the head and the arm?
she was in his house at like 4-5am, thought it was a valentines surprise.
thought she got shot twice, in the head and the arm?
she was in his house at like 4-5am, thought it was a valentines surprise.
4 times I read. Police statement never mentioned Valentines surprise or being mistaken for an intruder?
If he is guilty, lock him up for good.
Cerys
14-02-2013, 07:14 PM
Shooting someone four times? Yeah, they can :P You can't "accidentally" shoot someone that many times. He's blatantly guilty going by that information (if it's true). He can't argue loss of control either, because he was in control to use a gun and shoot that many times if we are to assume the argument happened without a gun in hand - if he had picked it up mid argument then it's not loss of control, because he's picking up the weapon to use it in an argument. Loss of control would be arguing with a gun in hand and accidentally shooting it once. It seems so unlikely though going by the details (and if they are correct).
On a separate note, he seemed a bit of a creep at the Olympics/Paralympics. He had serious anger issues back then :/
No - Loss of control can cover this. It doesn't have to be an accident to be loss of control. The qualifying trigger was them arguing etc, then he could have snapped and shot.
Catchy
14-02-2013, 07:32 PM
Couldn't of been a 'mistake' it's actually really hard to pull a trigger so he would've known he was.
Explorator
14-02-2013, 07:34 PM
I saw it on the news today, shocking!
Catchy
14-02-2013, 07:36 PM
meh i was going to say he was hot, then realised he has no legs...
xxMATTGxx
14-02-2013, 07:37 PM
meh i was going to say he was hot, then realised he has no legs...
Wow... :/
Catchy
14-02-2013, 07:38 PM
Wow... :/
WHAT
xxMATTGxx
14-02-2013, 07:40 PM
WHAT
Just you've changed your views on him because he has no legs isn't really a nice thing to do :P
Catchy
14-02-2013, 07:43 PM
Just you've changed your views on him because he has no legs isn't really a nice thing to do :P
:( Fine... I still would...
FlyingJesus
14-02-2013, 08:03 PM
Bet he's still taller than you without legs
unfortuante advert timing
http://i.imgur.com/e6RnLDC.jpg
GommeInc
14-02-2013, 10:53 PM
No - Loss of control can cover this. It doesn't have to be an accident to be loss of control. The qualifying trigger was them arguing etc, then he could have snapped and shot.
Not necessarily. It depends entirely on the actus reus or the events leading up to it. If he was holding a gun at the time of the argument, and "loss control" in a rage and shot but immediately regretted it - then loss of control would be considered. However, from the information that seems to be circulating, loss of control would not be an option because:
- He snapped and shot more than once hinting that he intended to injure or kill. If he snapped at the heat of the argument, he wouldn't shoot more than once because surely you would immediately panic the moment you pull the trigger (and why was his finger(s) on the trigger? Seems awfully dodgy). This is assuming it's not a semi-/automatic weapon.
- He actually killed the person. Had he used it as a threat or didn't fatally hit the victim then loss of control would be a consideration.
- He was holding a firearm inside the premises (a place he would unlikely use it). Why is this? It seems strange to randomly be handling a weapon during an argument inside your own home, unless you like firing randomly inside your own house for the sake of a spur of the moment DIY :P
Loss of control only makes sense if you're handling a potentially dangerous weapon in a place you're likely to use it. For example, accidentally shooting someone while outside pheasant hunting. Either by accidentally forgetting to put the safety on or by not seeing the other person.
The other thing is - why wasn't the safety on? If he did lose control he shouldn't own a weapon under South African Law if he doesn't know to how to use the safety catch AND remove ammunition when not in use.
Cerys
14-02-2013, 11:08 PM
Not necessarily. It depends entirely on the actus reus or the events leading up to it. If he was holding a gun at the time of the argument, and "loss control" in a rage and shot but immediately regretted it - then loss of control would be considered. However, from the information that seems to be circulating, loss of control would not be an option because:
- He snapped and shot more than once hinting that he intended to injure or kill. If he snapped at the heat of the argument, he wouldn't shoot more than once because surely you would immediately panic the moment you pull the trigger (and why was his finger(s) on the trigger? Seems awfully dodgy). This is assuming it's not a semi-/automatic weapon.
- He actually killed the person. Had he used it as a threat or didn't fatally hit the victim then loss of control would be a consideration.
- He was holding a firearm inside the premises (a place he would unlikely use it). Why is this? It seems strange to randomly be handling a weapon during an argument inside your own home, unless you like firing randomly inside your own house for the sake of a spur of the moment DIY :P
Loss of control only makes sense if you're handling a potentially dangerous weapon in a place you're likely to use it. For example, accidentally shooting someone while outside pheasant hunting. Either by accidentally forgetting to put the safety on or by not seeing the other person.
The other thing is - why wasn't the safety on? If he did lose control he shouldn't own a weapon under South African Law if he doesn't know to how to use the safety catch AND remove ammunition when not in use.
Well, don't blame me for getting it wrong. Blame my teacher who got great grades in law at uni! If I'm going on what I've ben taught, loss of control could be used, but as I said earlier its unlikely that it would be allowed.
Obviously he has the actus reus as the woman is dead due to his actions, whether it be through intent or recklessness.
GommeInc
14-02-2013, 11:17 PM
Well, don't blame me for getting it wrong. Blame my teacher who got great grades in law at uni! If I'm going on what I've ben taught, loss of control could be used, but as I said earlier its unlikely that it would be allowed.
Obviously he has the actus reus as the woman is dead due to his actions, whether it be through intent or recklessness.
Oh no I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not saying I am right either! Law isn't as black and white as I'm sure you know :P It could well be mentioned, but with the details of the event it's going to be difficult to suggest it was loss of control :)
Cerys
14-02-2013, 11:17 PM
I do see your point. Also, apologies if it seems snappy, didn't mean it to be!
Yeah, I completely see where you're coming from now I've read it over a few times.
GommeInc
14-02-2013, 11:21 PM
Wont let me edit that^^
I do see your point. Also, apologies if it seems snappy, didn't mean it to be!
No worries. The whole point of law seems to be to snap at each other, and see who is the most convincing.
It would be interesting to see what comes of this case. The details of what may have happened seem rather vague at the moment.
unfortuante advert timing
http://i.imgur.com/e6RnLDC.jpg
lmao fail
Cerys
14-02-2013, 11:30 PM
No worries. The whole point of law seems to be to snap at each other, and see who is the most convincing.
It would be interesting to see what comes of this case. The details of what may have happened seem rather vague at the moment.
Haha yes I suppose so!
I think I would go for unlawful act manslaughter as it would be hard to prove that he had intended to kill her - where did he actually shoot her? As I guess what will prove intent or not.
GommeInc
14-02-2013, 11:45 PM
Haha yes I suppose so!
I think I would go for unlawful act manslaughter as it would be hard to prove that he had intended to kill her - where did he actually shoot her? As I guess what will prove intent or not.
Manslaughter does seem likely. He's charged with murder and if there is strong evidence against him he could only try and reduce the conviction to voluntary manslaughter if they can prove he intended to hurt her but not kill her. As you said, loss of control would make it voluntary manslaughter (provocation). If he was waving the gun around and accidentally shot her, he could try for involuntary manslaughter but he will have to try hard to fight for that :P
Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.