As part of the sale agreement, the sprinter was required to fill in a series
of forms including a questionnaire about when it was acceptable to use a
firearm against an intruder, the court was told......
“You are at home alone in an isolated area far from police or security
services,” the document begins, before asking if it is acceptable to shoot
at two men jumping over your boundary wall; breaking into your house or
taking your hi-fi. Pistorius responded “no” to each scenario.
He responded ‘yes’ to the final question: “There is no security gate between
you and the burglars. They turn around and both are armed, one with a knife
and the other with a firearm. When they advance towards you, can you
discharge a firearm towards them because you fear for your life?”
Asked about the legal requirements for using lethal force for private or
self-defence, Pistorius
wrote: “Attack must be against you, must be unlawful, it must be against a
person or persons”.
The documents were read as part of the testimony of Sean Patrick Rens, from the Firearms Training Academy in Walkerville, Gauteng, which Pistorius first visited in May 2012.
Mr Rens was giving evidence at the start of Day 11 of Oscar Pistorius’ trial for the murder of Reeva Steenkamp at his home on a Pretoria security estate in the early hours of St Valentine’s Day last year.
Pistorius, 27, says he shot Steenkamp, 29, through a locked bathroom door because he believed she was an intruder. The State contends he did so deliberately after the couple argued.
June Steenkamp, the slain model’s mother, returned to court for the first time since the opening day of the trial. Last time, she spoke of her disappointment that the athlete refused to make eye contact with her. This morning, he nodded to her and her friend as he made his way to the dock, and his sister Aimee later went over to greet them.
Mr Rens told Gerrie Nel, the prosecutor, that he met Pistorius “10 or 12 times” at the shooting range where the athlete undertook firing practice as well as buying guns.
He told Barry Roux, Pistorius’ barrister, that gun-owners and collectors were by their nature “upstanding people”, and far from “reckless”.
He said that the athlete first ordered a Smith & Wesson 500 revolver, then followed up with an order for ammunition and several guns including an LM6 semi-automatic, self-loading rifle – the civilian version of the R5 rifle issued to South African police or military; another shotgun; another S&W revolver; a Mossberg semi-auto shotgun and a further a self-loading rifle.
The total cost was R52,500 (£3,000) and the invoice showed the athlete paid R48,500 up front.
“Were these firearms ever handed over to the accused?” Mr Nel asked.
“No at all, the transaction was cancelled post the incident,” Mr Rens replied.
Mr Nel asked the witness if he and the accused had “discussions about his interest in firearms.
“There were many,” Mr Rens responded. “He indicated a great love of and enthusiasm for them.”
Later, the court heard from the police photographer who went to Pistorius’ house just before 5am to document the aftermath of the shooting.
WO Bennie Van Staden said he had the house cleared of people before walking through it taking pictures of blood spatters, Pistorius and the bathroom crime scene itself.
Mr Nel asked in detail about the sequence in which he took the pictures and then moved the exhibits to take more.
Mr Roux has already sought to raise concerns about police tampering with the crime scene – and claimed the photographs showed exhibits that had been moved proved his claim.
Mr Nel asked Mr Van Staden why he had picked up bloodied towels on the bathroom floor, revealing an iPhone which he picked up to photograph then placed on the floor to photograph again.
“It was to make sure that there weren’t any other exhibits there which could have been of importance,” he said.
The case continues.
The documents were read as part of the testimony of Sean Patrick Rens, from the Firearms Training Academy in Walkerville, Gauteng, which Pistorius first visited in May 2012.
Mr Rens was giving evidence at the start of Day 11 of Oscar Pistorius’ trial for the murder of Reeva Steenkamp at his home on a Pretoria security estate in the early hours of St Valentine’s Day last year.
Pistorius, 27, says he shot Steenkamp, 29, through a locked bathroom door because he believed she was an intruder. The State contends he did so deliberately after the couple argued.
June Steenkamp, the slain model’s mother, returned to court for the first time since the opening day of the trial. Last time, she spoke of her disappointment that the athlete refused to make eye contact with her. This morning, he nodded to her and her friend as he made his way to the dock, and his sister Aimee later went over to greet them.
Mr Rens told Gerrie Nel, the prosecutor, that he met Pistorius “10 or 12 times” at the shooting range where the athlete undertook firing practice as well as buying guns.
He told Barry Roux, Pistorius’ barrister, that gun-owners and collectors were by their nature “upstanding people”, and far from “reckless”.
He said that the athlete first ordered a Smith & Wesson 500 revolver, then followed up with an order for ammunition and several guns including an LM6 semi-automatic, self-loading rifle – the civilian version of the R5 rifle issued to South African police or military; another shotgun; another S&W revolver; a Mossberg semi-auto shotgun and a further a self-loading rifle.
The total cost was R52,500 (£3,000) and the invoice showed the athlete paid R48,500 up front.
“Were these firearms ever handed over to the accused?” Mr Nel asked.
“No at all, the transaction was cancelled post the incident,” Mr Rens replied.
Mr Nel asked the witness if he and the accused had “discussions about his interest in firearms.
“There were many,” Mr Rens responded. “He indicated a great love of and enthusiasm for them.”
Later, the court heard from the police photographer who went to Pistorius’ house just before 5am to document the aftermath of the shooting.
WO Bennie Van Staden said he had the house cleared of people before walking through it taking pictures of blood spatters, Pistorius and the bathroom crime scene itself.
Mr Nel asked in detail about the sequence in which he took the pictures and then moved the exhibits to take more.
Mr Roux has already sought to raise concerns about police tampering with the crime scene – and claimed the photographs showed exhibits that had been moved proved his claim.
Mr Nel asked Mr Van Staden why he had picked up bloodied towels on the bathroom floor, revealing an iPhone which he picked up to photograph then placed on the floor to photograph again.
“It was to make sure that there weren’t any other exhibits there which could have been of importance,” he said.
The case continues.
No comments:
Post a Comment