Oscar Pistorius may not be a murderer, but he is definitely a killer

By Joe Frost / Editor

Having shot another human being dead, Oscar Pistorius is on the precipice of leaving a South African courtroom today a free man.

Over six months since the trial began, on Thursday Judge Thokozile Masipa found Pistorius not guilty on charges of premeditated murder and common-law murder.

Yet Reeva Steenkamp is dead – she has been for over 18 months – after Pistorius shot her three times through his bathroom door.

The charge of premeditated murder was always going to be a tough ask for the prosecution to prove. The evidence of neighbours and other witnesses were largely dismissed by Judge Masipa, who said almost all evidence presented was circumstantial.

“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.”

Stories emerged during the prosecution’s case of Pistorius firing a gun in a crowded restaurant and through the sun roof of a moving car. But while both stories showed Pistorius could be reckless with a firearm, that’s hardly evidence of being a cold-blooded, calculating killer.

What was a surprise was Judge Masipa’s finding that Pistorius was also not guilty on the charge of common-law murder.

During her verdict, Judge Masipa spoke of what an unreliable witness Pistorius was on the stand. The way he had been calm and composed while the defence had questioned him but got tetchy and argumentative under cross-examination. That he was more interested in debating the phrasing of the question than answering it truthfully.

However, Judge Masipa also said that a poor performance in the witness box does not necessarily equate to guilt.

Judge Masipa went on to note the “peculiar circumstances” under which Reeva had been killed. Why if Pistorius had been concerned about an intruder entering through the bathroom window he hadn’t checked on Reeva first.

Why he didn’t wait to hear a response from her before approaching the bathroom door with a gun in hand. Why he felt the need to shoot through the door four times, rather than just once, before going to check on Reeva.

And while Pistorius slept with a firearm under his pillow, he had not awoken to a figure standing over his bed, presenting an immediate threat.

So why had he felt the need to go straight to the bathroom gun in hand, rather than call the police, or even gone to his balcony to scream for help?

Yet having presented all these issues, Judge Masipa still found that “the evidence failed to prove the accused had intention.”

Despite the fact Pistorius shot four times, “Clearly he did not objectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door.”

Today Judge Masipa will present the final aspect of her verdict, whether Pistorius is guilty of culpable homicide (manslaughter), as well as three weapons-related charges.

Guilt on the culpable homicide charge would mean Pistorius did not mean to kill but had not acted as a reasonable person would in such a situation.

I haven’t been privy to all 41 days of testimony and 352 pages of evidence, so we can take it that Judge Masipa’s findings to this point are consistent with the law.

The guy gets up in the middle of the night worried there’s someone in the house. Rather than check if the noise in the bathroom is the only other person who had been in the house when he went to bed, he takes his gun and opens fire on the door.

He doesn’t shoot once, twice, or three times but offloads four rounds through the door. Three hit the person on the other side; said person is – as surely any reasonable person would have assumed – the only other person who had been in the house.

Hundreds of mitigating factors led Judge Masipa to find none of these actions were those of a man who had premeditated murder, nor even one who intended to kill at all. Can she conclude they were the actions of a reasonable person who had heard a window opening?

Most news networks in the Western world live streamed Judge Masipa’s verdict and will do so again today.

We’ve watched this case unfold in the most public forum in the history of mankind, the internet, so we’ve all got our opinions on whether Pistorius is guilty or not.

What isn’t a matter of opinion is that Reeva Steenkamp is dead, and Oscar Pistorius killed her.

So Roarers, what do you think? Will Oscar Pistorius be found guilty of manslaughter, does he deserve to go free, or is the fact he hasn’t been found guilty of murder a terrible miscarriage of justice?

The Crowd Says:

2014-10-14T22:48:33+00:00

Megan todd

Guest


Huge miss carriage of justice....fire 4 times into small confined space , any reasonable being must and would know those bullets would most certainly hit that person behind the door. Pistorious is a killer and should have been charged with murder in my opinion

2014-09-14T06:51:10+00:00

Bondy

Guest


Simon Everything on this website is armchair expert opinion, you're right about the loss of life and eventual downfall of Pistorius but try to understand what this website is about " opinion " nobodys burst out proclaiming to be SC or QC's . Enjoy the site mate ......

2014-09-13T12:59:38+00:00

Simon

Guest


I love these comment forums... Lots of people with rude witty responses! No one in this forum is qualified to make certain assertions!! I have never posted on a forum until now it's just a joke! Lots of arm chair experts! The judge had the facts in front of her and made a ruling based upon her expertise, admittedly we shouldn't believe everything being fed to us, but not one person in this forum is qualified to make ANY comment. Let's not forget a women is dead and a role model to millions is destroyed. This forum is no more than the gladiator mentality. Lots of Idiots tearing apart a sad enough situation..... Give up!

2014-09-12T23:23:27+00:00

The Minister

Guest


Get your hand off it clown boy. You'll go blind.

2014-09-12T23:08:35+00:00

Starchild

Guest


All I'm saying is I wouldn't want to be your neighbour. I'm sure 95% of Australia would feel the same. Bogans. out west, trigger happy - they may tolerate you.

2014-09-12T22:58:27+00:00

Jokerman

Guest


Thanks Pat finally someone making sense.:)

2014-09-12T17:26:38+00:00

dasilva

Guest


Sorry should clarify it doesn't require mens rea to the same level Criminal negligence or recklessness is a level of culpability of mens rea but lesser than direct intention that is required for premeditated murder

2014-09-12T16:57:06+00:00

cynjy

Guest


He will kill again. A sad day for the justice systems.

2014-09-12T15:03:01+00:00

pat malone

Guest


one of your better comments

2014-09-12T15:01:27+00:00

pat malone

Guest


gee you are quite the authority on all things. First of all you seem to have a better idea of guilt than a highly qualified judge that has looked at the facts for months (as someone else suggested, go make some big bucks in the legal area you are obviously very talented). then you call Kyle thick and with a lack of personality as well as writing off everyone as rugby heads? i think you need to stop what you are doing and go straight to the United nations and solve all the worlds problems. Perhaps give Barack a call and discuss with him what you think he should do with ISIS? contract yourself out to the highest bidder to all law enforcement agencies as apparently you can "always tell when someone is lying" the world needs you

2014-09-12T14:26:40+00:00

Iduna

Guest


"And you are so right, just leave it to the South African lawyers" Yeah they are all corrupt and so is the judge, I know this because well I just do. "All good, Iduna. I’d loath to be your neighbour." That does not even make sense. You assume because I support that courts that I would engage in the same behavior, you are an idiot.

2014-09-12T13:11:45+00:00

dasilva

Guest


Premeditated murder requires the concept of mens rea as well as actus rea. Guilty mind as well as guilty act. He fits the guilty act test but not the guilty mind. Manslaughter or culpable homicide, doesn't require mens rea. You can be guilty if you showed gross negligence and killed someone and yes Oscar is found guilty of culpable homicide

2014-09-12T12:54:09+00:00

Simoc

Guest


So much better to have a jury, who can take a more common sense point of view. The whole trial thing is a blight on South Africa.

2014-09-12T11:36:59+00:00


Better you answer that question than me mate.

2014-09-12T11:35:24+00:00

Bondy

Guest


michael steel I disagree, I see this website as a social hub also and not just a sports specific forum ,most of the people here know one another Johnno, Atawhai ,Christo, Big Al etc .

2014-09-12T10:37:29+00:00

Jokerman

Guest


How was Pistorius in imminent danger from his girlfriend being behind a closed door, sitting down having a pee?

2014-09-12T10:07:29+00:00


In SA shooting anyone is a no no, the interpretation of the law is you may only use excessive force if your life is in imminent danger.

2014-09-12T10:00:15+00:00

Bondy

Guest


Did these blokes have anything to do with the prosecution ? . ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlSFGkyTWDo) ..

2014-09-12T09:57:51+00:00

Andrew Jardine

Roar Guru


I predict a slap on the wrist and a light jail term, even a suspended sentence.

2014-09-12T09:57:26+00:00

Jokerman

Guest


Good point, Atawhai. Three shot wounds, screams heard, arguments heard, a dead body, admits to doing it - yep not enough evidence there.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar