I don't think that it is, no. The law, of course, does work differently in South Africa but in the jurisdictions I'm familiar with, "well it could have happened" isn't a basis on which you can secure conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
crashfrog
joined 11 months ago
Right, except that both the "abuse" and the "fight" were just speculation by the prosecutor. There was no evidence of either.
In any case the crime as proposed by the prosecutors never made any sense: someone actually intent on murder doesn't put a door in the way.
In what respect would the crime not matter if you're a "child"? Minors frequently participate as attackers in Hamas attacks. If Israel didn't apply punitive detention to anyone under 18, then every Hamas attacker would be under the age of 18.
None of the Palestinian prisoners released today had been imprisoned for "stone-throwing." One woman stabbed several Israelis with a knife.
Sure, but the prosecution had no evidence that Pistorius had abused Steenkamp, or anyone. Only that she'd been shot by him though an opaque door.
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.