I thought the case against Pistorius was strong until:

This is so far into this obvious it is laughable that intelligent people would debate it.

HAVE ANY OF YOU EVER LIVED WITH ANOTHER PERSON?

Think:

- You go to bed with your girlfriend.

- You wake up at 3:00 AM to noises in your home.

- Your girlfriend is not in the bed.

- You get out of bed and leave your bedroom.

- You hear noises in the bathroom.

- You go back to your room and get a gun.

- You do not wonder where your girlfriend is, or call to see if she is in the bathroom.

- You fire several shots through the bathroom door, with the intent of killing whomever is in the room.

IS THIS REMOTELY PLAUSIBLE?

DOES ANYONE ACTUALLY BUY THIS STORY FOR EVEN ONE SECOND?

Unless there is massive legal mishap (utter mishandling of multiple aspects of the case - very unlikely), Oscar is going to jail. The only question is for how long, and if it's first degree (premeditated) murder, a life sentence is mandatory in SA.

There is a very small chance this won't be found as premeditated, but this would require a guilty plea to the lesser offence. Seems doubtful, though. First, there is little chance no way the prosecutor handed these facts doesn't go all in - it's their job to allign the charges with the crime of course. And from all accounts, Pistorius isn't one to admit to his own errors. For his own sake he'd better get over that RIGHT NOW, which is probably what his lawyers are telling him.

A useful brief overview of the SA legal system. Note the statement that SA law is based on Roman and Dutch law, i.e., not English law.

http://www.southafrica.info/news/legal-200213.htm#.USUy9R3qmuI

While I don't agree with Saladbar on much, I do agree Pistorius' explanation is unbelievable. In addition, even if his entire tale were true and believed, it still does not absolve him. No reasonable person would immediately conclude there was an intruder in the bathroom just b/c he heard a noise, when he absolutely knew he had a guest in the house. Under his own scenario, by shooting blindly into the bathroom he intended to kill whoever was there without knowing who was in there, and without even knowing whether or not there was an intruder. Very difficult to argue such a shooting was a justified response to a baseless fear there was an intruder.

South African criminal law is based on the Common Law. The Roman-Dutch system (not "Roman and Dutch") applies to contract law if specified in the contract.

Pisto wrote:

OK so-called lawyers and doubters of my statements, show me a case, anywhere in the world practicing English Law, where a prosecution has SUCCESSFULLY secured a PREMEDITATED MURDER charge against a homeowner for shooting a burglar in his/her house.

Maybe. BUT

She wasn't a burglar. She was his girlfriend and they had been arguing.

If he heard a noise, then the first place he'd look is next to him in bed. She was on the can.

He then pulled his legs on and fired throguh the door, down at an angle that would have hit a person sitting on the can.

I am sure the legal system anywhere would expose his 'accidental shooting"

Eventually he'll go with a different defense - "like drugs put me in a stupor, I was angry and we tried to do the william tell thingy. I tried to shoot the pedestal out from under her and accidentally put 5 bullets in her face and implants."

Like I said, the final ruling in the Martin case was manslaughter, not murder.

Since none of you so-called lawyers have offered up a single case of someone, in any country practicing English Law, being convicted of murder for shooting a burglar in their home, can we now assume that this has never happened?

Therefore, it is idiotic of the SA prosecutors to state, "This in itself also constitutes premeditated murder of a 'defenseless burglar'."

You "ACTUAL LAWYERS" better go back to law school.

frdfssddf wrote:

in very few places in the US would killing a burglar not be considered murder. Some states, like Florida have what is known as a castle law which allows you to kill a burglar, ie shoot first and ask questions later. However, in Florida if you fail to kill them, you will be in a heap of legal trouble according to said law.

You sure about that?

Pisto wrote:

Like I said, the final ruling in the Martin case was manslaughter, not murder.

Since none of you so-called lawyers have offered up a single case of someone, in any country practicing English Law, being convicted of murder for shooting a burglar in their home, can we now assume that this has never happened?

Therefore, it is idiotic of the SA prosecutors to state, "This in itself also constitutes premeditated murder of a 'defenseless burglar'."

Most lawyers can't just reel off cases off the top of their heads like you seem to think, unless maybe the cases concern their practice area and/or are in their jurisdiction.

That said, if it can be shown that the burglar was already subdued or could no longer reasonably be considered a threat, and the defendant still killed the burglar, then I don't see why a jury couldn't find that defendant guilty of premeditated murder rather than voluntary manslaughter. It would be very hard to prove, of course.

I didn't ask for excuses and "if" or "I don't see why" scenarios.

If you don't have an actual case to back up your claim, why mention it?

Pisto: try some of these, there are so many more, but then you can look for them, and you only want to see what you can see

Santa Clara County, CAP. F. LazorJan 1983 (Los Gatos)

P. F. Lazor shot a man named John Allred who broke down his door and was swinging a meat cleaver at him. Allred also wielded a handgun which turned out to be a BB-gun, but looked like the real thing. After Allred stopped, though was still standing, Lazor called police and got the man medical attention, but he died several hours later. Because of police suppression of evidence and manufacturing of new evidence, Lazor was convicted of murder. (Copy of Old Website) (New Website) [11/05]

Jefferson Davis County, MSCory MayeDec 26, 2001 (Prentiss)

Cory Maye, a black man, was sentenced to death for the murder of a white police officer. One night while the 21-year-old Maye was drifting off to sleep in front of a television, a violent pounding on his front door awakened him. It sounded as though someone was trying to break it down. He retrieved his handgun and went to the bedroom where his 14-month-old daughter was sleeping and got down on the floor next to the bed. He hoped the noises would go away, but they shifted around to the back of the house, where after a loud crash, Maye's rear door was violently flung open, nearly separating it from its hinges. After someone kicked open the bedroom door, Maye fired three shots. The next thing Maye heard is someone scream, “Police! Police! You just shot an officer!” Maye then dropped his gun and surrendered. The shot officer, Ron Jones, was wearing a bulletproof vest, but one of Maye's bullets hit him just below the vest and proved fatal. Jones was the son of the town's police chief.

Maye was severely beaten after his arrest. Police denied this charge, but a press photo shows him with a swollen black eye. Maye's family was prohibited from seeing him for more than a week – long enough for his bruises to heal. Police had raided Maye's duplex because a reputed drug dealer – a person Maye had never met – lived in an adjoining half of the duplex. A confidential informant said there were large stashes of marijuana in both halves of the duplex. Only the remains of a smoked joint were found in Maye's duplex. Maye had no criminal record and police did not know his name prior to the drug raid. Maye's conviction has provoked outrage not only by liberals concerned about racially charged Southern Justice, but also by conservative supporters of the right to bear arms. Maye's death sentence was overturned in Sept. 2006. (Reason) [4/07]

Columbus County, NCJohnnie BeckNov 24, 1995

Johnnie Beck, 18, used a hunting rifle to shoot twice into the chest of Jeffery Watts, 19, in the parking lot of a Whiteville Burger King. Watts had just stabbed Johnnie's twin, Ronnie Beck, three times in the chest and once in the arm, just before turning on Johnnie and slicing off his left thumb. Johnnie was charged with second-degree murder as the state argued that the second shot was premeditated murder, even though it was fired only one to two seconds after the first. Watts happened to be a relative of state senator R.C. Soles. There was a last minute change of judges before trial and the trial was marked by jury tampering. The defense argued self-defense, but Beck was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to a minimum of 10 years imprisonment.

Beck was released in June 2006 after the charge was reduced to manslaughter and he was released with time served. Beck's father spent half-a-million dollars on lawyers and investigators before successfully having his son's murder conviction set-aside. (Blue Line Radio) [3/07]

I hope you are not a lawyer. None of those cases involved a homeowner killing of a burglar inside his/her residence.

And one resulted in a manslaughter conviction, not murder.

I would question Pistorius more on his own story. I would question what SPECIFIC NOISES/SOUNDS he heard in the bathroom. Rationale: (1)Other than normal bathroom noises, what other things would the girlfriend be doing at 3am enough to think there is a burglar in the house? (2)What burglar takes time to sneak quietly into a home then goes into the bathroom either because they really have to use the toilet, or to make burglar noises there? I would also be interested to know whether bathroom light was on or off. It would make sense that it is a burglar ifhe says he hears noises in the bathroom and noticed the lights are off. I doubt that a burglar would get in and make 2 mistakes: (1) turn lights on and(2)two make noises. Now he says lights were on when he first heard the noise, then he sounds like an idiot to not have considered that the other person in the house was not using the bathroom. I would also want to know whether since he started the relationship with this woman if she had ever found her to use toilet an night before this incident.

I think what is frustrating people in this case is not that, while possible, Oscar's story is unbelievable but that even if it were true he ought to pay dearly because a life has been lost. Additionally, there is no knowing whether she could have been saved, but the fact that he himself PRIORITIZED calling other people than paramedics (panicked or not) is unforgivable.

white genocide wrote:

60,000 whites murdered by blacks since 1994 in SA. Zero media coverage.

Let them kill 60,000 more and then we can call it even. For now.

Pisto wrote:

I didn't ask for excuses and "if" or "I don't see why" scenarios.

If you don't have an actual case to back up your claim, why mention it?

You remain unsatisfied by the answers people have given you, but you may want to consider the possibility that the question you're asking is not so useful. You're asking for a specific, strictly analogous fact pattern that:

(1) isn't necessary to show why someone like Pistorius could be found guilty of premeditated murder.

(2) I don't want to expend the time and energy to go and find given (1).

These voluntary manslaughter defense cases are highly contextual; the test is essentially whether a reasonable person would have acted similarly given the circumstances of the situation. As such, precedent often won't get you all that far.

Misdirecting the question is not providing an answer, no matter how smart you think you are.

If you disagree with my claim that their has never been a murder conviction for a homeowner killing a burglar in their house, the only why to refute it is to provide information to the contrary.

It's that simple.

Okay, everybody bend their knees, duct their ankles to their upper legs, tape knee pads on, the stand in their living room with the windows open and the lights off. I'm coming thru window, and I'm only 130 lbs. I dmn't have a gun, beause I don't need one. All I need is a club. I'm an easy foot taller than you, and I have a club. I'm taking you out. What are YOU going to do!?

I think even a few seconds of thought about killing the person in the bathroom makes it premeditated. It was planned. That doesn't mean it was planned over a long time.

Pisto wrote:

Misdirecting the question is not providing an answer, no matter how smart you think you are.

If you disagree with my claim that their has never been a murder conviction for a homeowner killing a burglar in their house, the only why to refute it is to provide information to the contrary.

It's that simple.

I'm well-aware I didn't answer your question. It was a bad question, where answering wouldn't have really done anything.

You originally asked why the prosecution would be trying to convict Pistorius for premeditated murder even after accepting his telling of the events of that night, that he believed it to be a burglar in the bathroom instead of his girlfriend. Even if it might be unlikely (which I don't think we can necessarily concede, as other posters have discussed), do you not understand why the prosecution, at least from the outset, would want to try and convict Pistorius with most punishable offense? Why would they pursue a voluntary manslaughter conviction, and do the defense's job for them?