Home » Blogs » Lessons from South Africa: The Blade-Runner’s Self-Defense Claim

Lessons from South Africa: The Blade-Runner’s Self-Defense Claim

Matt in FL - comments No comments

rs_560x415-130604062230-560.OscarPistorius.6613

By Matthew J. Bergstrom, Esq.

Despite its location in South Africa, another high profile shooting offers lessons for US gun owners. International Athlete, Oscar Pistorius, stands accused of murdering his girlfriend on Valentine’s Day 2013, and now we’ve had the opportunity to see his case presented in a South African courtroom this week. Pistorius, known as the “the Blade Runner—the fastest man with no legs,” claims he thought he was shooting an intruder in self-defense inside a bathroom in his home . . .

The trial has met expectations for dramatic moments after a year of anticipation and speculation driven by the media. Pictures have circulated of Pistorius vomiting in open court during a witness’ testimony detailing the mortal gun shot wounds suffered by Reeva Steenkamp. Prosecutors also introduced physical evidence by erecting the bullet-ridden bathroom door in the courtroom to challenge Pistorius’ description of the crime scene.

For many reasons, the case is noteworthy for American gun owners because it highlights the legal hurdles one may face when claiming self-defense. If you shoot in self-defense, in order to escape criminal liability, you will have to justify not only your actions, but also your thoughts. Immediately after the Pistorius incident, the court of public opinion wasted no time in attacking the likelihood of his account of events. Many challenged Pistorius’ truthfulness in claiming he believed he was shooting an unknown intruder, others said his subjective beliefs were too unreasonable to accept. Some argued the circumstantial evidence disproved Pistorius’ claims of self-defense.

If this case occurred in the United States, Pistorius could also assert a self-defense claim. Traditional self-defense typically requires the jury to assess the “reasonableness” of the shooter’s actions. If the jury agrees that given the shooter’s circumstances, he or she acted reasonably, then they can find the defendant not guilty.

However, given the questions surrounding whether Pistorius’ actions were reasonable and depending on the state jurisdiction in which he was tried, he could also assert what is called an imperfect self-defense claim.

The doctrine of imperfect self-defense has come to mean three separate things, depending on the jurisdiction in which you may find yourself. First, some courts apply imperfect self-defense where the murder would fall within the perfect self-defense doctrine except that the defendant provoked the encounter. Second, other courts apply the doctrine when the defendant used unreasonable force in defending himself and, as a result, killed someone. Third, some courts only allow the doctrine when the defendant killed someone because of an honest, but unreasonable belief that he was about to suffer death or serious bodily harm.

Pistorius would hope to be in a state adopting the version of imperfect self-defense that allows a jury to find someone guilty of a lesser crime, even when the defendant’s beliefs were unreasonable. In states that do allow this defense, such as Maryland, courts have held that “the honest but unreasonable belief standard of imperfect self defense,” although not a complete defense, “mitigates murder to voluntary manslaughter.” State v. Faulkner, A.2d 759 (1984).

The typical jury instruction for this type of imperfect self-defense looks something like the following:

The defendant acted in imperfect (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if:
1. The defendant took at least one direct but ineffective step toward killing a person.
2. The defendant intended to kill when (he/she) acted.
3. The defendant believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ ) was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury.
AND
4. The defendant believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against the danger.
BUT
5. The defendant’s beliefs were unreasonable.

Some states, like Virginia, do not allow a jury to reduce your charges if you acted unreasonably to defend yourself. Instead, even if you acted on an honest, but unreasonable belief that your life was in danger, your defense would be an uphill battle to convince the jury to accept the application of complete self-defense and therefore fully acquit you of the crime. In states adopting such an approach, you would be judged not on what you actually believed, but on whether or not your beliefs were objectively reasonable. Pistorius would have a much tougher time beating a First Degree Murder charge in these states.

What does the inherent intricacy of a self-defense claim mean for the armed citizen who believes in being prepared to stop a threat to his life? It means training must be intellectual and emotionless, as much as it is practical. Time at the range should be balanced with reflection on situational awareness, threat perception, and study of the law.

Matthew J. Bergstrom, Esq. is Managing Attorney of Arsenal Attorneys, a law firm concentrating on the needs of gun owners. The Virginia-based firm serves clients nationwide for criminal defense, estate planning, business issues, and the Arsenal Gun Trust.

0 thoughts on “Lessons from South Africa: The Blade-Runner’s Self-Defense Claim”

  1. Ideally enough for 1-2 years of what I consider normal shooting usage. I subscribe to buy low theory and I’m hedging inflation anytime I have a few extra bucks or I catch a good sale.

    200-300 RDS 12g target loads
    15 sabot slugs
    15 rifled slugs
    100 or so buckshot in reserve.

    9mm 2500rds min (wife and I 200ish RDS monthly)

    9mm SD ammo–1000rds

    Just bought a pellet rifle instead of a 22

    7.63×39 2500 RDS min.

    Since I’m below that on all calibers Ive cut WAY back on my shooting

    Reply
  2. Holy pickled eggs batman! This guy is dangerous!! CT better wake up fast or the place will become a mass grave for people he doesn’t agree with.

    Reply
  3. “Yes, well, how many people will be ordering “untraceable” 80% AR-15 lowers from Ares now, given the ATF troll through Ares’ records”

    One more, as soon as to get to my home computer.

    If nothing else it’s something I can do to show them support.

    Reply
  4. If I were Ares, from this day forward I would not keep any records that link purchasers with purchase. There is no law saying that you have to keep any record for non-firearms which is what an 80% receiver is. That would piss off ATF sure, but they couldn’t do shit about it. If you keep records somewhere, despite what people think, you can be compelled to produce them.

    Reply
  5. We don’t find a way to stop this run away train, we are not going to have a second amendment. ALL gun owners should join NRA. We should be able to quad triple are membership, but gun owners keep thinking we have a second amendment to fall back on. Our constitutional amendment is broke. We need to fight back, or start a civil war.

    Reply
  6. I didn’t see anyone else mention it, but if you are going to be out at night you should have a flashlight. You can buy a small flash light to carry in your front pocket that is powerful enough to mess up someone’s OODA loop and thier night vision. It can also be used as a blunt intrument. To reinforce what everyone else said; brush up on your situational awareness, know you gun rights, and consider taking a taxi.

    Reply
  7. He had a history of reckless behavior involving firearms that would have resulted in jail for a non-celebrity. Then he blows his girlfriends head off from behind a locked door while she is using the bathroom. Or maybe while she’s behind a locked door to protect herself from him.
    Why shoot through a door when you have a gun to protect yourself and you don’t have more than a hunch that it’s an intruder?
    The issue here is “reasonable”. Nothing he did, even if you believe his story, was reasonable. The only issue in question is if it was premeditated.

    Reply
  8. It has happened here; New Orleans after Katrina; LA Riots, Chicago riots, The Branch Davidians and Ruby Ridge; Death, Chaos and destruction; from a personal level to city and county wide lasting from a day to weeks has happened in this country in recent memory.

    Got Preps?

    Reply
  9. I accidentally sprayed some very strong pepper spray into a light breeze (and I mean light) the other day, explaining to a friend how effective it was. When it drifted back on both of us, it was way getting hit by a locomotive. I know that sometimes when a perp is high this stuff is not effective, but I cannot imagine getting a full face of it, high or not. Just my $.02…

    Reply
  10. 2 words, rocket launcher, I’m not kidding,bits hard to conceal as living hell, but ain’t nobody gonna mess with you when you whip that bad boy out, plus, if you ever actually use it, the news shall report it as a gas line explosion.

    Reply
  11. Lipstick on a pig? I don’t see any of those women wearing lipstick. And think it highly unlikely that they get any action unless they use a shotgun to get it.

    Reply

Leave a Comment