Oscar Pistorius probably didn't murder his girlfriend

He's recently in the news for his early parole, but to my mind his conviction for murder was probably unjust.

The prosecution was not able to rebut his testimony that he fired on what he thought was a burglar in his home. This was a reasonable fear - Pistorius is a double amputee despite his Olympic medals, and he lived in a neighborhood that was particularly attractive to break-in robberies due to the residents' wealth.
The prosecution could not provide a motive for murder - the best they could speculate was that they had had an argument, but the prosecution could not provide details of any supposed argument, nor substantiate it from the testimony of any witnesses who actually would have been able to hear it.
It probably was negligent and contributory to have fired on an "attacker" he could not see, but conversely, had he intended to murder his girlfriend during a spontaneous argument, there's no reason for him to have taken the risk of firing through a door in order to do so.

The traditional elements of the crime of murder are means, motive, and opportunity. Two of these are stipulated since, by the defense account, Pistorius fired the gun that killed Reeva Steenkamp The prosecution's argument for motive was specious speculation at best, and Pistorius' judicial conviction on appeal represents a miscarriage of justice since there was really no reason given to reject his defense. His original conviction of culpable homicide and reckless endangerment was correct and shouldn't have been appealed.

You're viewing a single thread.

13 comments

Easy excuse to make, hard to rebut.

You don't need a motive, it just helps and could have helped cast doubt on #1.

If there's no reason to risk it if you're trying to murder your girlfriend there's no reason to risk it against an attacker.

I don't really care about this case all that much. All of the unknowns make it confounding more than interesting.
- If there's no reason to risk it if you're trying to murder your girlfriend there's no reason to risk it against an attacker.
  
  No, that's clearly untrue. That's quite easy to rebut:
  
  If you're trying to murder your girlfriend, you know you have the advantage because you're catching her by surprise. People are pretty shocked when you pull a gun and shoot them. You don't need the door to be in the picture, because you know you have the only gun in the house. You don't want the door in the picture because having attempted the crime, you have to succeed or you're toast. So you don't want a door in the way, messing up your aim.
  
  If you believe you've been caught by surprise by an invading attacker, then you do want your own advantages, especially as a double amputee who can't sleep with his legs on. They may have brought a gun. They may not know you have one. You want to catch them by surprise if you can, and it actually doesn't matter if you shoot and miss because it's just as good to drive them off as it is to hit them. You want to fire through the door because that's an advantaged position.
  
  I don't think there are actually any unknowns, here. Pistorius fired on someone he mistakenly thought was invading his home after a string of such invasions in the neighborhood. As a double amputee he figured he was in a particularly poor position to wrestle with an able-bodied attacker, so he denied the "attacker" the chance to go for the gun. Firing a gun without eyes on the target might very well constitute legal recklessness, but I'm not sure Pistorius had good reason to believe he was in a position to exercise that diligence. Despite the fact that he's a Paralympian, he's actually in a worse position than almost everyone when it comes to defending himself from violence.
  
  You're doing a lot of mental gymnastics to make this make sense from an accidental perspective. You've made up your mind that it was a mistaken intruder.
  
  Me, personally? I have no clue whether he did or didn't. And considering only he can know that for sure, I think that's the only reasonable conclusion you can draw.
  
  I certainly have no interest in debating all of these hypothetical motives he could have had.
  
  You've made up your mind that it was a mistaken intruder.
  
  Yes, on the basis of what I know about the crime it's extremely obvious that he shot what he mistook as an intruder, and extremely obvious that he did not engage in a plot to murder his girlfriend for no known reason.
  
  But note that I don't actually have to believe this to conclude that his conviction was unjust. Conviction must result from belief in his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and since his explanation is exculpatory of murder, if you can't rebut it beyond reasonable doubt, you cannot convict. Defendants in trials are the ones afforded benefit of the doubt, not prosecutors.
  
  And considering only he can know that for sure, I think that's the only reasonable conclusion you can draw.
  
  Right, but then you agree with my position; it was unjust for him to have been convicted of murder because we can't possibly know that he committed murder.
  
  I certainly have no interest in debating all of these hypothetical motives he could have had.
  
  I have no intention of requiring you to. But motive is a necessity for the crime of murder, because murder is the intentional killing of a person, and motive goes to intent.

13 comments