Pistorius must wait for verdict on culpable homicide charge
Oscar Pistorius will have to wait until tomorrow to learn if he is to be fully cleared over the death of girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.
The 27-year-old athlete sobbed after he was found not guilty of pre-meditated murder and the lesser charge of second-degree murder.
But judge Thokozile Masipa said the double-amputee would have to wait until tomorrow to discover if he will be found guilty of culpable homicide.
She described his conduct in the moments before his model girlfriend died as “negligent”.
She told the court in Pretoria that Pistorius acted “hastily” with “too much force” as he fired four bullets through his toilet door in the early hours of Valentine’s Day, 2013.
“I am of the view that the accused acted too hastily, and used excessive force,” she said.
“In the circumstances, it is clear that his conduct was negligent.”
The athlete told police he mistook his girlfriend for burglars.
The athlete, dubbed "Blade Runner" due to his prosthetic limbs, has always admitted he shot law graduate-turned-model Ms Steenkamp.
He wept in court earlier as he was acquitted of the more serious murder charges, the judge pausing to adjourn for a break before returning to deliver her verdict on the charge of culpable homicide – the UK equivalent of manslaughter.
But Pistorius was also described by the judge as a “very poor witness”, who “lost his composure” during cross-examination.
Continuing to deliver her verdict this afternoon, judge Masipa said: “There were other means available to you to deal with threats to his life.
“All the accused had to do was pick up his cell phone and ring security, or run to the balcony and call for help.
“Many people in this country have experienced crime or the effects thereof, directly or indirectly at some time or another.
“Many have been victims of violent crime but have not resorted to sleeping with firearms under their pillows.
“If the accused, for example, had awoken in the middle of the night and in darkness seen a silhouette by his bed and in a panic shot at that figure, only to find it was the deceased, his conduct would have been understandable and perhaps excusable.
“In such a situation he would not have been expected to call security first as he would be faced with a real emergency.”
She added: “The accused had reasonable time to think, reflect and conduct himself.
“I’m not persuaded that a reasonable person with the same disability would have fired the four shots.
“The accused knew there was a person behind the toilet door, he chose to use a firearm.
“Would a reasonable person in the same circumstances as the accused have foreseen the possibility that if he fired four shots whoever was behind the toilet might be struck and die as a result?
“Would a reasonable person in the same circumstances as the accused have guarded against that possibility? The answer to both questions is yes.
“Did the accused fail to take steps which he should have reasonably taken to guard against the consequence? Again the answer is yes.”
