Some Legal Analysis of the Blade Runner Murder Case

[George Costanza]

Here's an interesting twist to the Pistorius "Blade Runner" murder case. Pistorius claims he shot his girlfriend through the closed bathroom door, thinking she was an intruder.

Does a homeowner have a right to do that? Let's assume that there is a genuine intruder in someone's home. The homeowner determines the intruder is in the bathroom with the door closed. Can he just shoot through the door at the intruder? Is he legally justified in doing that? I'm not so sure. When an intruder is coming at you down the hallway or standing there at the foot of your bed, that's one thing. When he is holed up in the bathroom with the door shut, how much of a threat is he to you at that point? Shouldn't the homeowner be required to do something before shooting through the closed bathroom door? Ask who is there? Get the hell out of the house and then call police? Warn the intruder that he has a gun and demand that the intruder at least say something back?

I'm not so sure that shooting an intruder through a closed bathroom door is legally justifiable. I can see murder second being charged for that, if it happened as described, above.

This case involves the doctrine of transferred intent. The doctrine of transferred intent works this way: If the defendant intends to murder A but mistakenly kills B, his intent to murder A is transferred to the killing of B, and the defendant can, therefore, be convicted of the murder of B.

The defense in the Pistorius case will probably be arguing the reverse argument for transferred intent, i.e., if Pistorious would have been legally justified in killing a genuine intruder under these circumstances, the legal justification for killing a genuine intruder, transfers to the act of his shooting his girl friend and, therefore, he is not guilty of murder of the girlfriend.

The prosecution will probably argue that Pistorius would not have been justified in shooting a genuine intruder under these circumstances, and, therefore, his shooting of his girlfriend by mistake is not justified either.

Interesting, hmmmm?

 

[wavingrl]

Here's an interesting twist to the Pistorius "Blade Runner" murder case. Pistorius claims he shot his girlfriend through the closed bathroom door, thinking she was an intruder.

Does a homeowner have a right to do that? Let's assume that there is a genuine intruder in someone's home. The homeowner determines the intruder is in the bathroom with the door closed. Can he just shoot through the door at the intruder? Is he legally justified in doing that? I'm not so sure. When an intruder is coming at you down the hallway or standing there at the foot of your bed, that's one thing. When he is holed up in the bathroom with the door shut, how much of a threat is he to you at that point? Shouldn't the homeowner be required to do something before shooting through the closed bathroom door? Ask who is there? Get the hell out of the house and then call police? Warn the intruder that he has a gun and demand that the intruder at least say something back?

I'm not so sure that shooting an intruder through a closed bathroom door is legally justifiable. I can see murder second being charged for that, if it happened as described, above.
This case involves the doctrine of transferred intent. The doctrine of transferred intent works this way: If the defendant intends to murder A but mistakenly kills B, his intent to murder A is transferred to the killing of B, and the defendant can, therefore, be convicted of the murder of B.

The defense in the Pistorius case will probably be arguing the reverse argument for transferred intent, i.e., if Pistorious would have been legally justified in killing a genuine intruder under these circumstances, the legal justification for killing a genuine intruder, transfers to the act of his shooting his girl friend and, therefore, he is not guilty of murder of the girlfriend.

The prosecution will probably argue that Pistorius would not have been justified in shooting a genuine intruder under these circumstances, and, therefore, his shooting of his girlfriend by mistake is not justified either.

Interesting, hmmmm?

A while back I heard an explanation of a homeowner's rights/responsibilities on the use of deadly force--in the US I think they said call 911 first and have them on the line to document the sequence of events. That might not be entirely correct--all that I can recall.

I have to really struggle to understand what the defense might present.

 

[George Costanza]

A while back I heard an explanation of a homeowner's rights/responsibilities on the use of deadly force--in the US I think they said call 911 first and have them on the line to document the sequence of events. That might not be entirely correct--all that I can recall.

I have to really struggle to understand what the defense might present.

The defense will argue: Since I had a right to shoot an intruder, the fact that it wasn't an intruder but rather my girl friend, means that I cannot be convicted of murdering her. In other words, the right to shoot the intruder carries over, or transfers, to the shooting of the girl friend.

I question whether he had the right to shoot an intruder to begin with, under the circumstances of this case.

There is also the defense of mistake of fact. To use an absurd example: The defendant is shooting at a watermelon on top of a haystack. He doesn't know it, but his girl friend is in the haystack with her head just behind the watermelon. When the bullet hits, there are TWO splats (I think you get my drift here). D cannot be convicted of anything because he thought he was shooting at a watermelon. Mistake of fact.

In the Blade Runner case, it isn't quite that clear, because the defendant knew he was shooting at a human in the bathroom. His mistake of fact was he thought it was an intruder whom he was legally entitled to shoot.

I think it's a viable defense, ASSUMING it is found he had a right to shoot into the bathroom door to begin with. Fascinating case from a legal standpoint.

 

[slackjawed]

Home defense laws are based on the state, county, city where one resides. Where I live, simply being inside my bathroom without consent is enough. How many people would make a decision to shoot through a door at an unknown target? I would think that because you don't know who or what is on the other side of a closed door basic gun safety, ie; don't point that thing at anything you don't want dead, would have been ignored, but I supposed in the heat of the moment anything can happen.

 

[wavingrl]

A while back I heard an explanation of a homeowner's rights/responsibilities on the use of deadly force--in the US I think they said call 911 first and have them on the line to document the sequence of events. That might not be entirely correct--all that I can recall.

I have to really struggle to understand what the defense might present.

The defense will argue: Since I had a right to shoot an intruder, the fact that it wasn't an intruder but rather my girl friend, means that I cannot be convicted of murdering her. In other words, the right to shoot the intruder carries over, or transfers, to the shooting of the girl friend.

I question whether he had the right to shoot an intruder to begin with, under the circumstances of this case.

There is also the defense of mistake of fact. To use an absurd example: The defendant is shooting at a watermelon on top of a haystack. He doesn't know it, but his girl friend is in the haystack with her head just behind the watermelon. When the bullet hits, there are TWO splats (I think you get my drift here). D cannot be convicted of anything because he thought he was shooting at a watermelon. Mistake of fact.

In the Blade Runner case, it isn't quite that clear, because the defendant knew he was shooting at a human in the bathroom. His mistake of fact was he thought it was an intruder whom he was legally entitled to shoot.

I think it's a viable defense, ASSUMING it is found he had a right to shoot into the bathroom door to begin with. Fascinating case from a legal standpoint.

interesting.

Who knows how the South African judicial system works.

I really haven't followed the case. It certainly sounds like they were sharing a home ---I get lost in legal issues.

 

[LAfrique]

Here's an interesting twist to the Pistorius "Blade Runner" murder case. Pistorius claims he shot his girlfriend through the closed bathroom door, thinking she was an intruder.

Does a homeowner have a right to do that? Let's assume that there is a genuine intruder in someone's home. The homeowner determines the intruder is in the bathroom with the door closed. Can he just shoot through the door at the intruder? Is he legally justified in doing that? I'm not so sure. When an intruder is coming at you down the hallway or standing there at the foot of your bed, that's one thing. When he is holed up in the bathroom with the door shut, how much of a threat is he to you at that point? Shouldn't the homeowner be required to do something before shooting through the closed bathroom door? Ask who is there? Get the hell out of the house and then call police? Warn the intruder that he has a gun and demand that the intruder at least say something back?

I'm not so sure that shooting an intruder through a closed bathroom door is legally justifiable. I can see murder second being charged for that, if it happened as described, above.

This case involves the doctrine of transferred intent. The doctrine of transferred intent works this way: If the defendant intends to murder A but mistakenly kills B, his intent to murder A is transferred to the killing of B, and the defendant can, therefore, be convicted of the murder of B.

The defense in the Pistorius case will probably be arguing the reverse argument for transferred intent, i.e., if Pistorious would have been legally justified in killing a genuine intruder under these circumstances, the legal justification for killing a genuine intruder, transfers to the act of his shooting his girl friend and, therefore, he is not guilty of murder of the girlfriend.

The prosecution will probably argue that Pistorius would not have been justified in shooting a genuine intruder under these circumstances, and, therefore, his shooting of his girlfriend by mistake is not justified either.

Interesting, hmmmm?

Too many oddities in the Reeva Steenkamp case. I am at point where I am wondering if all the electronic augmentation in Oscar Pistorius rendered him non-human.

While I strongly believe a home owner has the right to defend himself/herself, family and property in anyway possible, I find it very odd that anyone would simply assume there is an intruder in the house without first checking on partner in bed. I also find it strange that a man on fours would assume he can tackle a possibly armed intruder holed in the toilet.

All possible scenarios by the defense thus far do not wash, in my humble opinion. Oscar Pistorius account of what happened on night Reeva Steenkamp was killed - http://www.usmessageboard.com/africa/281051-did-fame-turn-oscar-pistorius-into-demon.html

 

[wavingrl]

Here's an interesting twist to the Pistorius "Blade Runner" murder case. Pistorius claims he shot his girlfriend through the closed bathroom door, thinking she was an intruder.

Does a homeowner have a right to do that? Let's assume that there is a genuine intruder in someone's home. The homeowner determines the intruder is in the bathroom with the door closed. Can he just shoot through the door at the intruder? Is he legally justified in doing that? I'm not so sure. When an intruder is coming at you down the hallway or standing there at the foot of your bed, that's one thing. When he is holed up in the bathroom with the door shut, how much of a threat is he to you at that point? Shouldn't the homeowner be required to do something before shooting through the closed bathroom door? Ask who is there? Get the hell out of the house and then call police? Warn the intruder that he has a gun and demand that the intruder at least say something back?

I'm not so sure that shooting an intruder through a closed bathroom door is legally justifiable. I can see murder second being charged for that, if it happened as described, above.

This case involves the doctrine of transferred intent. The doctrine of transferred intent works this way: If the defendant intends to murder A but mistakenly kills B, his intent to murder A is transferred to the killing of B, and the defendant can, therefore, be convicted of the murder of B.

The defense in the Pistorius case will probably be arguing the reverse argument for transferred intent, i.e., if Pistorious would have been legally justified in killing a genuine intruder under these circumstances, the legal justification for killing a genuine intruder, transfers to the act of his shooting his girl friend and, therefore, he is not guilty of murder of the girlfriend.

The prosecution will probably argue that Pistorius would not have been justified in shooting a genuine intruder under these circumstances, and, therefore, his shooting of his girlfriend by mistake is not justified either.

Interesting, hmmmm?

Too many oddities in the Reeva Steenkamp case. I am at point where I am wondering if all the electronic augmentation in Oscar Pistorius rendered him non-human.

While I strongly believe a home owner has the right to defend himself/herself, family and property in anyway possible, I find it very odd that anyone would simply assume there is an intruder in the house without first checking on partner in bed. I also find it strange that a man on fours would assume he can tackle a possibly armed intruder holed in the toilet.

All possible scenarios by the defense thus far do not wash, in my humble opinion. Oscar Pistorius account of what happened on night Reeva Steenkamp was killed - http://www.usmessageboard.com/africa/281051-did-fame-turn-oscar-pistorius-into-demon.html

This puzzles me, too--why anyone would assume there is an intruder in the house w/o checking on a partner in bed.

I don't know if he turned into a 'demon' but conceivably he had 'issues'---maybe control or some intense feelings of some kind.

 

[AmyNation]

In my state being on my property is enough cause to shoot you. However I have no idea what the law is there.

 

[AmyNation]

Is shooting an intruder justified? - South Africa | IOL News | IOL.co.za

"Our law says that you are permitted to defend yourself, or another person, against an unlawful attack that has already begun or is imminent.
The attack may be against your life or body, or even against property, either your own or that of somebody else such as a family member or even a complete stranger."


Looks like he most likely didnt have the right to shoot, although of course his lawyer will argue he did.

 

[wavingrl]

In my state being on my property is enough cause to shoot you. However I have no idea what the law is there.

I'm not completely certain what the law in GA is but a few months ago a man shot and killed the driver of a car in his driveway. He is charged with murder.

I think the law specifies that the intruder must be inside the house, clearly threatening your life, etc.

I once heard that if you planned to shoot to dial 911 first and have the incident on tape.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/04/us/table.selfdefense.laws/

 

[George Costanza]

In my state being on my property is enough cause to shoot you. However I have no idea what the law is there.

Really? "On my property"? Sure you don't mean: "Inside my house?" You look out your window on Sunday morning and see a six-year-old child standing two feet off of the sidewalk, on your lawn. You gonna shoot him? I don't think so.

 

[AmyNation]

In my state being on my property is enough cause to shoot you. However I have no idea what the law is there.

Really? "On my property"? Sure you don't mean: "Inside my house?" You look out your window on Sunday morning and see a six-year-old child standing two feet off of the sidewalk, on your lawn. You gonna shoot him? I don't think so.

If I look out my back window and there is a strange man hiding in my bushes I can legally shoot him. Hell, I can legally shoot the man breaking into my neighbors house.

 

[Katzndogz]

A good question. Someone could argue that the. intruder was himself armed and could have shot through the closed door. Behind the closed door an unarmed intruder does not present an imminent threat. Not long ago a woman was hiding with her children in an attic and shot through a closed door wounding the intruder. The issue then is who is hiding and who is pursuing. A homeowner who drives an intruder into hiding is somewhat different than an intruder whose victim is cowering in a closet.

Didja think about that one?

In this case shooting through the closed door is not going to be very important. More important is the cricket bat with the victims hair and blood. Either her head was bashed in before she hid in the bathroom in which case the assailant knew exactly who she was or the unlikely event that he bashed her head in after she was shot through the door.

 

[George Costanza]

A good question. Someone could argue that the. intruder was himself armed and could have shot through the closed door. Behind the closed door an unarmed intruder does not present an imminent threat. Not long ago a woman was hiding with her children in an attic and shot through a closed door wounding the intruder. The issue then is who is hiding and who is pursuing. A homeowner who drives an intruder into hiding is somewhat different than an intruder whose victim is cowering in a closet.

Didja think about that one?

In this case shooting through the closed door is not going to be very important. More important is the cricket bat with the victims hair and blood. Either her head was bashed in before she hid in the bathroom in which case the assailant knew exactly who she was or the unlikely event that he bashed her head in after she was shot through the door.

Whoa! I wasn't aware of that. The dead woman's head was bashed in and there is a cricket bat with her blood and hair on it? How does the defense intend to explain THAT away? If that's really true about the bat, then you are right - shooting through the door becomes secondary. What did he do - bash her head in, drag her into the bathroom and then shoot her through the door? That sounds strange. If he was smart enough to figure out shooting through the door and claiming he thought it was an intruder, then he should also have been smart enough to know that bashing her head in with a bat and leaving the bat lying around for the police to find might not be too good of an idea.

This really is a fascinating case.

 

[LAfrique]

Here's an interesting twist to the Pistorius "Blade Runner" murder case. Pistorius claims he shot his girlfriend through the closed bathroom door, thinking she was an intruder.

Does a homeowner have a right to do that? Let's assume that there is a genuine intruder in someone's home. The homeowner determines the intruder is in the bathroom with the door closed. Can he just shoot through the door at the intruder? Is he legally justified in doing that? I'm not so sure. When an intruder is coming at you down the hallway or standing there at the foot of your bed, that's one thing. When he is holed up in the bathroom with the door shut, how much of a threat is he to you at that point? Shouldn't the homeowner be required to do something before shooting through the closed bathroom door? Ask who is there? Get the hell out of the house and then call police? Warn the intruder that he has a gun and demand that the intruder at least say something back?

I'm not so sure that shooting an intruder through a closed bathroom door is legally justifiable. I can see murder second being charged for that, if it happened as described, above.

This case involves the doctrine of transferred intent. The doctrine of transferred intent works this way: If the defendant intends to murder A but mistakenly kills B, his intent to murder A is transferred to the killing of B, and the defendant can, therefore, be convicted of the murder of B.

The defense in the Pistorius case will probably be arguing the reverse argument for transferred intent, i.e., if Pistorious would have been legally justified in killing a genuine intruder under these circumstances, the legal justification for killing a genuine intruder, transfers to the act of his shooting his girl friend and, therefore, he is not guilty of murder of the girlfriend.

The prosecution will probably argue that Pistorius would not have been justified in shooting a genuine intruder under these circumstances, and, therefore, his shooting of his girlfriend by mistake is not justified either.

Interesting, hmmmm?

Too many oddities in the Reeva Steenkamp case. I am at point where I am wondering if all the electronic augmentation in Oscar Pistorius rendered him non-human.

While I strongly believe a home owner has the right to defend himself/herself, family and property in anyway possible, I find it very odd that anyone would simply assume there is an intruder in the house without first checking on partner in bed. I also find it strange that a man on fours would assume he can tackle a possibly armed intruder holed in the toilet.

All possible scenarios by the defense thus far do not wash, in my humble opinion. Oscar Pistorius account of what happened on night Reeva Steenkamp was killed - http://www.usmessageboard.com/africa/281051-did-fame-turn-oscar-pistorius-into-demon.html

This puzzles me, too--why anyone would assume there is an intruder in the house w/o checking on a partner in bed.

I don't know if he turned into a 'demon' but conceivably he had 'issues'---maybe control or some intense feelings of some kind.

Me think Reeva Steenkamp visited Oscar Pistorius on night of her murder to end their relationship in an amicable manner, thinking the double-amputee was not a physical threat. But now, we know the rest of the story - Oscar cannot take NO for an answer.

Really sad: I was a fan of Oscar Pistorius during the 2012 Olympics.