Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend

[MontagK505]

The story contained a link to a news report. Whatever. The burden is on you and your buddies here to show by reference to some objective standard based on expert combat training and experience that shooting through the door (without first checking on Reeva and without calling security) was not within the range of reasonable responses open to Oscar. All I have had by way of response so far are demands to know whether I have ever held a gun, which completely misses the point, or alternative scenario's scenarios (including the judge's) that are not demonstrably safer than what he actually did.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/18/us-safrica-pistorius-idUSBREA2G0OQ20140318

Pistorius also made clear that a gun-owner should never shoot unless he was knew what he was shooting at, and what lay behind the target: "Know your target and what lies beyond," Rens said, quoting Pistorius' answer.

Oscars own training shows he was in the wrong.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

The story contained a link to a news report. Whatever. The burden is on you and your buddies here to show by reference to some objective standard based on expert combat training and experience that shooting through the door (without first checking on Reeva and without calling security) was not within the range of reasonable responses open to Oscar. All I have had by way of response so far are demands to know whether I have ever held a gun, which completely misses the point, or alternative scenario's scenarios (including the judge's) that are not demonstrably safer than what he actually did.

A response open to Oscar does not necessarily make it reasonable. I think that is the key disagreement here. Most of is feel it was completely unreasonable, given the circumstances according to his story. Almost any other response he could have had would have been demonstrably safer than what he actually did.

The fact is his bathroom is at the end of a corridor, a corridor he did not have to traverse if he was intending self defense. Once he advanced down the corridor and into the bathroom with a loaded firearm, he was an aggressor, let alone the firing of four shots through the closed door.

 

[anglolawyer]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/18/us-safrica-pistorius-idUSBREA2G0OQ20140318


Oscars own training shows he was in the wrong.

I demur, while appreciating the effort. Gun safety training is not the same as self defence. Question for you and Ampulla of Vater below.

A response open to Oscar does not necessarily make it reasonable. I think that is the key disagreement here. Most of is feel it was completely unreasonable, given the circumstances according to his story. Almost any other response he could have had would have been demonstrably safer than what he actually did.

The fact is his bathroom is at the end of a corridor, a corridor he did not have to traverse if he was intending self defense. Once he advanced down the corridor and into the bathroom with a loaded firearm, he was an aggressor, let alone the firing of four shots through the closed door.

No, again respectfully, he was in his own home and had a legal right to defend himself, Reeva and his property. Moreover, when he went towards the bathroom he was in precautionary mode, not being sure what he had heard. He was checking it out. His evidence, which the judge seems to have accepted (if only the basis that there was nothing that directly contradicted it) was that he heard a sound behind the closed toilet door and fired instinctively, believing there was an intruder there and that the intruder was about to come out. Remember that, although mobile, he was on his stumps and would have been at a disadvantage in the event of a confrontation.

Let's replay the action on the hypothesis that he was alone that night. What difference would it make if everything went the same way right up to the moment he was standing outside the toilet door having heard the sound of someone inside?

 

[Colin from France]

My first posting, hi to everyone here. Ok, Why would anyone decide to lock the toilet door in the middle of the night without switching the lights on and with their mobile phone in their hand ? With all the shouting going on, the intruder would have heard and responded, why tell the intruder to get out then blast them away because they were doing just that ? Whilst all that was going where was Reeva, she is so blatantly missing from OP's version of events. Then of course he walked right past the panic alarm !

 

[Samson]

I demur, while appreciating the effort. Gun safety training is not the same as self defence. Question for you and Ampulla of Vater below.


No, again respectfully, he was in his own home and had a legal right to defend himself, Reeva and his property. Moreover, when he went towards the bathroom he was in precautionary mode, not being sure what he had heard. He was checking it out. His evidence, which the judge seems to have accepted (if only the basis that there was nothing that directly contradicted it) was that he heard a sound behind the closed toilet door and fired instinctively, believing there was an intruder there and that the intruder was about to come out. Remember that, although mobile, he was on his stumps and would have been at a disadvantage in the event of a confrontation.

Let's replay the action on the hypothesis that he was alone that night. What difference would it make if everything went the same way right up to the moment he was standing outside the toilet door having heard the sound of someone inside?

Welcome Colin, the biggest hurdle is motive, he had none to kill, and the judge got it right with the evidence. It was figured early on this forum.
ETA looks like I replied to wrong post, still welcome Colin.

 

[Colin from France]

No one knows anything about motive, but just going by what we do 'know' there is a considerable amount of evidence which goes against OP's version, an example would be that he stated there was no intent to shoot, yet there were breaks between shots and there were four shots. The intention to kill is obvious, accident can be ruled out, from a purely subjective point of view i get the impression he wanted to shoot from the moment he picked up the gun. I would like to relate what we do know to the judges verdict last week.

 

[Samson]

No one knows anything about motive, but just going by what we do 'know' there is a considerable amount of evidence which goes against OP's version, an example would be that he stated there was no intent to shoot, yet there were breaks between shots and there were four shots. The intention to kill is obvious, accident can be ruled out, from a purely subjective point of view i get the impression he wanted to shoot from the moment he picked up the gun. I would like to relate what we do know to the judges verdict last week.

Colin, you are in a majority, but the people who have thoroughly dissected the evidence, including timing of phone calls, making allowances for the fact his testimony is going to finesse his behaviour in an exculpatory way, and the incomprehensible disaster to his life and her family, conclude it was a tragic mistake.
The judge was one of these people.

 

[Colin from France]

This case just makes you appreciate a jury !

 

[anglolawyer]

I must say I don't take much to arguments about what the majority think or even what the judge held if it is against reason, due respect to her and all that. That said, there is a 'what really happened' discussion and a 'what was proved beyond reasonable doubt' one and they are different. People should remember which one they are engaging in.

 

[Samson]

I must say I don't take much to arguments about what the majority think or even what the judge held if it is against reason, due respect to her and all that. That said, there is a 'what really happened' discussion and a 'what was proved beyond reasonable doubt' one and they are different. People should remember which one they are engaging in.

The discussion 'what really happened" is my interest I guess, and I rely on the judge and others.
Motive counts, as there was a two person scenario or a three.
In the two person scenario, he knows his life is over when he shoots.
In the three person, he is saving his girlfriend and himself.

 

[Octavo]

This case just makes you appreciate a jury !

So, you were happy with the OJ Simpson verdict then?

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

The discussion 'what really happened" is my interest I guess, and I rely on the judge and others.
Motive counts, as there was a two person scenario or a three.
In the two person scenario, he knows his life is over when he shoots.
In the three person, he is saving his girlfriend and himself.

I think you may be massively overestimating the degree of cool, rational calculation made by someone in a steaming rage.

 

[Samson]

I think you may be massively overestimating the degree of cool, rational calculation made by someone in a steaming rage.

What man can honestly say he has never unloaded four elephant stopping bullets into a door his other half is cowering behind?
This seems to be your point.

 

[anglolawyer]

What man can honestly say he has never unloaded four elephant stopping bullets into a door his other half is cowering behind?
This seems to be your point.

I tend to go along with this. Both scenarios are highly improbable. Being inherently impossible to reconstruct what happened reliably, one way or the other, the incident will cast a long shadow over the rest of his life whatever happens.

 

[Samson]

I tend to go along with this. Both scenarios are highly improbable. Being inherently impossible to reconstruct what happened reliably, one way or the other, the incident will cast a long shadow over the rest of his life whatever happens.

I have idly relied on the analysis of Icerat here, thoughtful on PMF, and judge Masipa who seem to have trawled the evidence. But from day one I have believed the self destruction component of a two person scenario is totally unbelievable, and was pleased to see that those who diligently followed the case have offered a complete case in defence of Pistorius the truth teller. Clouding the issue is Pistorius further occluding the truth in a human attempt to say the shooting was a nervous twitch, and thus do no jail time. Who would not avoid rape and death in an African jail as promised by the sadists that abound.

 

[anglolawyer]

I have idly relied on the analysis of Icerat here, thoughtful on PMF, and judge Masipa who seem to have trawled the evidence. But from day one I have believed the self destruction component of a two person scenario is totally unbelievable, and was pleased to see that those who diligently followed the case have offered a complete case in defence of Pistorius the truth teller. Clouding the issue is Pistorius further occluding the truth in a human attempt to say the shooting was a nervous twitch, and thus do no jail time. Who would not avoid rape and death in an African jail as promised by the sadists that abound.

I tend to agree with this also. I would not expect Oscar to be able to give a microscopically accurate account of the event, no more than I could tell you in excruciating detail about the events of my morning if called upon to do so. The judge made due allowance for the deficiencies in his evidence, even calling him a bad and evasive witness. The one thing I admire most about her judgment is that she gives full and proper due to the meaning of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Yes, the whole thing is fishy, yes he might well have done what the state alleges - but it has to be proved to the required standard and the state has failed to reach that standard (an outcome I think Nel may have expected). I am less sure about the legal analysis but that may be due to unfamiliarity with the applicable law.

 

[Samson]

I tend to agree with this also. I would not expect Oscar to be able to give a microscopically accurate account of the event, no more than I could tell you in excruciating detail about the events of my morning if called upon to do so. The judge made due allowance for the deficiencies in his evidence, even calling him a bad and evasive witness. The one thing I admire most about her judgment is that she gives full and proper due to the meaning of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Yes, the whole thing is fishy, yes he might well have done what the state alleges - but it has to be proved to the required standard and the state has failed to reach that standard (an outcome I think Nel may have expected). I am less sure about the legal analysis but that may be due to unfamiliarity with the applicable law.

As I have mentioned previously Leila Schnepps/thoughtful is a serious analyser, and has no doubt at all that Oscar's version is correct. She rubbished Mcall on entries in his wiki, and due to her idiotic conclusions on the Knox case stands as an intriguing character IMHO.

 

[katy_did]

I tend to agree with this also. I would not expect Oscar to be able to give a microscopically accurate account of the event, no more than I could tell you in excruciating detail about the events of my morning if called upon to do so. The judge made due allowance for the deficiencies in his evidence, even calling him a bad and evasive witness. The one thing I admire most about her judgment is that she gives full and proper due to the meaning of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Yes, the whole thing is fishy, yes he might well have done what the state alleges - but it has to be proved to the required standard and the state has failed to reach that standard (an outcome I think Nel may have expected). I am less sure about the legal analysis but that may be due to unfamiliarity with the applicable law.

I agree with that (well, the whole, but especially the bolded). It seemed to me that by the end of the trial Nel had pretty much given up on the main prosecution theory, i.e. that Pistorius shot Reeva deliberately.

He really should never have gone to trial with it. Once it had become clear that (a) witnesses heard two sets of "shots", one of which must have been the cricket bat, and (b) one witness mistakenly believed Pistorius' voice to be female until her husband told her otherwise, there was never enough to convict on premeditated murder. As the judge said, the latter point on its own was enough to raise reasonable doubt about some witnesses' belief they heard a woman screaming.

Roux was right that the charge should have been culpable homicide - or at least, if the prosecution were going to argue murder, it should've been on the grounds that he thought it was an intruder but that that constituted murder anyway. As it was, the latter point was almost an afterthought (i.e. "even if we stuffed up the whole case, Judge, it's still murder").

 

[anglolawyer]

I agree with that (well, the whole, but especially the bolded). It seemed to me that by the end of the trial Nel had pretty much given up on the main prosecution theory, i.e. that Pistorius shot Reeva deliberately.

He really should never have gone to trial with it. Once it had become clear that (a) witnesses heard two sets of "shots", one of which must have been the cricket bat, and (b) one witness mistakenly believed Pistorius' voice to be female until her husband told her otherwise, there was never enough to convict on premeditated murder. As the judge said, the latter point on its own was enough to raise reasonable doubt about some witnesses' belief they heard a woman screaming.

Roux was right that the charge should have been culpable homicide - or at least, if the prosecution were going to argue murder, it should've been on the grounds that he thought it was an intruder but that that constituted murder anyway. As it was, the latter point was almost an afterthought (i.e. "even if we stuffed up the whole case, Judge, it's still murder").

Which leaves the puzzle: if he murdered her in a fit of rage, what trace of that did he leave? I always get booed from the stage whenever I mention Columbo but I am sure the peerless detective would have fastened on some detail missed by the cops that sows up the whole thing. For want of a better idea, I go back to the missing pee. If everything was OK and she just went for a leak, since her bladder was found to be empty, she must have peed. If she did, the pee was in the pan and if it was not there she must have flushed and if she flushed he would have heard it.

She took her phone, as a torch the judge thought, and went into the cubicle, where the light didn't work and locked the door. What evidence was there about her usual habits in that regard? I almost never lock the bathroom door and see no reason to when with my partner, nor she either and if we split and she got in a relationship with someone else and I heard she locked the bathroom door I would think it strange. Reeva did not remove her shorts, so either she had just got there and not had time to use the WC (in which case there should have been pee in her bladder) or she had already finished and had dressed again (in which case she would have flushed).

This may not be the best point, but there must be something (if he's guilty). It sure is interesting from the pro-innocence side that nobody clearly and unambiguously heard what must have been a flaming row between them before the shots were fired. Surely, if you are so far gone as to blaze away at your girlfriend, there should be a lot of preliminary screaming and shouting on both sides.

 

[Colin from France]

Anglolawyer; i think the same too that there must be something left. If we go on the idea because the pee wasn't found that her motivation for going to the WC was to have a pee and that she or OP flushed the toilet, then she didn't run to the WC to get away from him. If the WC light didn't work but the bathroom light did she may well of left the door open. What we do know is the pee is missing.