Pistorius ruling is illogical

THE SUPREME Court of Appeal was evidently compelled to stick to the assumption – untenable to many – that Oscar Pistorius thought he was firing at an intruder. Consequently, the possibility existed that Pistorius, rather than wanting or intending to kill the intruder, wanted only to incapacitate the intruder (and might perhaps have used a weapon that was less likely to kill if such a weapon had been available).

Simply put, the fact that one jumps in front of a car in order to get out of way of another car (foreseeing the possibility of being hit by it) does not mean that one intends or wants to jump in front of a car.

Similarly, the fact that one jumps out of a burning skyscraper – and realises that one is certain to die – does not mean that one intends or wants to commit suicide.

Accordingly, it is ludicrous – an affront to common sense – to argue Pistorius foresaw the possibility of the intruder dying and therefore must have intended to kill him or her.

(How on earth can one be guilty of murder if one does not have an ulterior motive? If one’s only motive is to protect oneself and one’s loved ones? How on earth can a law-abiding citizen who acts in the heat of the moment be said to have murdered someone who breaks into his home in the middle of the night and could be armed and dangerous?)

I fear our courts have given criminals a level of protection our crime-infested nation can ill-afford to provide.

One can only hope Judge Thokozile Masipa, who soon will have to impose a new sentence, will keep the damage to a bare minimum.