Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend

[MontagK505]

4. is not at all preposterous. OP has well reported anger issues, and his girlfriend was sacred of him. What's preposterous is his changing story, and his claim not to notice her not in the bed he walked around.

This is also while he was fumbling for his hand-cannon under the same bed.

 

[Samson]

4. is not at all preposterous. OP has well reported anger issues, and his girlfriend was sacred of him. What's preposterous is his changing story, and his claim not to notice her not in the bed he walked around.

It's strange what becomes well known when people are wrongfully accused. Oscar fired a gun through a sun roof, and had an accident in a restaurant, Where is the anger there? He was a somewhat jealous lover. Never heard that before, not since Othello.
It all reminds me of the amazing discovery that the inner sociopath in Amanda Knox had been obvious all along. All primed to kill after blowing txt kisses to each other the day before.

 

[MontagK505]

It's strange what becomes well known when people are wrongfully accused. Oscar fired a gun through a sun roof, and had an accident in a restaurant, Where is the anger there? He was a somewhat jealous lover. Never heard that before, not since Othello.
It all reminds me of the amazing discovery that the inner sociopath in Amanda Knox had been obvious all along. All primed to kill after blowing txt kisses to each other the day before.

A jealous lover who keeps a high-powered hand gun close by, that combination has resulted in many deaths.

 

[Samson]

A jealous lover who keeps a high-powered hand gun close by, that combination has resulted in many deaths.

Is there a list?
My analysis is admittedly coloured by a wager I have running.

 

[lionking]

Is there a list?
My analysis is admittedly coloured by a wager I have running.

I hope, for your sake, it wasn't too much.

 

[Samson]

I hope, for your sake, it wasn't too much.

Oscar is innocent, he will be found not guilty of murder. He will serve no jail time. me

against

He will be found innocent of murder, but guilty of culpable homicide. Sentence 9 years. J

No cash involved

I will admit it is not an open and shut case like that of Amanda Knox innocence.

 

[MontagK505]

Oscar is innocent, he will be found not guilty of murder. He will serve no jail time. me

against

He will be found innocent of murder, but guilty of culpable homicide. Sentence 9 years. J

No cash involved

I will admit it is not an open and shut case like that of Amanda Knox innocence.

It seems unlikely under SA law that you will win. The only way I could see him getting off without jail time is for the defense to prove the discharge was accidental. Since he pulled the trigger 4 times it makes it rather hard to prove that. The prosecutions argument is that Oscar intended to kill whoever was behind the door, which makes ir murder.

 

[Samson]

It seems unlikely under SA law that you will win. The only way I could see him getting off without jail time is for the defense to prove the discharge was accidental. Since he pulled the trigger 4 times it makes it rather hard to prove that. The prosecutions argument is that Oscar intended to kill whoever was behind the door, which makes ir murder.

I do expect to lose, but the question becomes complex if it was a genuine error. Is he at danger of reoffending, or is the imprisonment designed as deterrent for other paranoid SA's to be excessively paranoid?

 

[MontagK505]

I do expect to lose, but the question becomes complex if it was a genuine error. Is he at danger of reoffending, or is the imprisonment designed as deterrent for other paranoid SA's to be excessively paranoid?

I don't know what you mean by "genuine error"? The prosecutions argument is that Oscar intended to kill whoever was behind the door. Even if it had been a real intruder he would still be guilty of murder. I presume under SA law you can't shoot someone unless you have reason to believe you are in danger. A noise behind a closed door is not sufficient reason.

 

[Samson]

I don't know what you mean by "genuine error"? The prosecutions argument is that Oscar intended to kill whoever was behind the door. Even if it had been a real intruder he would still be guilty of murder. I presume under SA law you can't shoot someone unless you have reason to believe you are in danger. A noise behind a closed door is not sufficient reason.

A genuine error of identification. Hunters are always shooting each other, and making the lonely walk back to apologise to the rellys and the police.

 

[MontagK505]

A genuine error of identification. Hunters are always shooting each other, and making the lonely walk back to apologise to the rellys and the police.

Oscar intended to kill without a justifiable reason. In the eyes of SA law it makes no difference whether he properly identified who he killed.

 

[Samson]

Oscar intended to kill without a justifiable reason. In the eyes of SA law it makes no difference whether he properly identified who he killed.

I guess I am moving forward to a discussion about criminology rather than criminal law.
I wish there was more interest on JREF. I am not doctor lawyer or Indian chief, yet find the ethical questions interesting.

 

[GlennB]

I guess I am moving forward to a discussion about criminology rather than criminal law.
I wish there was more interest on JREF. I am not doctor lawyer or Indian chief, yet find the ethical questions interesting.

Strikes me there's a world of difference between 'intending to kill the unknown human behind that toilet door' and 'mistakenly shooting the hunter who wasn't wearing his orange hi-vis vest'.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

It's strange what becomes well known when people are wrongfully accused. Oscar fired a gun through a sun roof, and had an accident in a restaurant, Where is the anger there? He was a somewhat jealous lover. Never heard that before, not since Othello.
It all reminds me of the amazing discovery that the inner sociopath in Amanda Knox had been obvious all along. All primed to kill after blowing txt kisses to each other the day before.

Do you seriously believe Pistorius is wrongfully accused?

 

[Samson]

Do you seriously believe Pistorius is wrongfully accused?

No, the trial is trying to discover whether he knew Reeva was behind the door. If he did not know, he is being wrongfully accused by the state, who say he did. There is a world of difference between thinking you are shooting an intruder, or your girlfriend, and if it is the former, even Oscar deserves this to be known.

 

[Puppycow]

No, the trial is trying to discover whether he knew Reeva was behind the door. If he did not know, he is being wrongfully accused by the state, who say he did. There is a world of difference between thinking you are shooting an intruder, or your girlfriend, and if it is the former, even Oscar deserves this to be known.

A reasonable person would have known that there is a high likelihood that the person behind the door was Reeva. I see no reasonable basis for any certainty that it was not.

He is not being wrongfully accused.

 

[Samson]

A reasonable person would have known that there is a high likelihood that the person behind the door was Reeva. I see no reasonable basis for any certainty that it was not.

He is not being wrongfully accused.

But the point is obvious, do you have the same view of Oscar if
1. It is proved he knew it was Reeva.
2, It is proved he thought it was an intruder.

I see a world of difference. If 2. is true the Republic owns some blame.

 

[Puppycow]

But the point is obvious, do you have the same view of Oscar if
1. It is proved he knew it was Reeva.
2, It is proved he thought it was an intruder.

I see a world of difference. If 2. is true the Republic owns some blame.

It is impossible to prove what a person knew or thought. At best you can make inferences based on their actions.

To me the relevant question is what would a reasonable person have done in the situation. If his actions deviated from the actions that a reasonable person would have taken, he is guilty imo. I fail to see how "the Republic" has any blame here.

 

[MontagK505]

But the point is obvious, do you have the same view of Oscar if
1. It is proved he knew it was Reeva.
2, It is proved he thought it was an intruder.

I see a world of difference. If 2. is true the Republic owns some blame.

The evidence and his own testimony shows he shot her through a closed door. The prosecution makes the claim that it makes no difference to the law whether or not Oscar knew who was behind the door. Morally some people might see a difference. One is stupidity and the other is malice.
Why you think the Republic owns blame for Oscar mistaking his girlfriend for an intruder makes no sense to me.

 

[Samson]

The evidence and his own testimony shows he shot her through a closed door. The prosecution makes the claim that it makes no difference to the law whether or not Oscar knew who was behind the door. Morally some people might see a difference. One is stupidity and the other is malice.
Why you think the Republic owns blame for Oscar mistaking his girlfriend for an intruder makes no sense to me.

In reply to you and Puppycow, a god's eye view ascertains malice or mistake. For malice there is no redemption for Oscar, other than act in haste and repent at leisure.
But I feel sorry for him if the tortured history of the republic had a part to play in this tragedy, and he thought he was protecting, not killing his flame.