Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2

[Desert Fox]

The reason why I say that is that I wonder if an earlier intervention of some type might have saved her life and prevented him from going the track he did.

 

[The Atheist]

The reason why I say that is that I wonder if an earlier intervention of some type might have saved her life and prevented him from going the track he did.

Well, it's not as though there weren't a few clues that the guy was:

A Nuts
and
B A gun nut

Never a good combination.

 

[Samson]

The reason why I say that is that I wonder if an earlier intervention of some type might have saved her life and prevented him from going the track he did.

Well, it's not as though there weren't a few clues that the guy was:

A Nuts
and
B A gun nut

Never a good combination.

I will attend dutifully to these questions, and also address all LondonJohn's points soon.
I regard it as implausible that Oscar deliberately shot his trophy girl friend. I have not the slightest doubt this can be unequivocally proved with correct analysis of the crime scene, phone records and transcripts.
I am not for bending on this. You may collectively find and describe that one data point, that grain of sand under the rhino skin to remove such certainty.

 

[Desert Fox]

I will attend dutifully to these questions, and also address all LondonJohn's points soon.
I regard it as implausible that Oscar deliberately shot his trophy girl friend. I have not the slightest doubt this can be unequivocally proved with correct analysis of the crime scene, phone records and transcripts.
I am not for bending on this. You must collectively find and describe that one data point, that grain of sand under the rhino skin to remove my certainty.

What is his trophy girl friend was going to call it quits. Maybe he simply could not handle rejection.

The trouble is that the court basically ruled that it does not matter if you had the Son of Sam in your bathroom, it is still not lawful to shoot through the door.

 

[MikeG]

.......I regard it as implausible that Oscar deliberately shot his trophy girl friend. .......

As it happens, and as you know, so do I. But that's irrelevant, as you've been told for months.

.......I have not the slightest doubt this can be unequivocally proved with correct analysis of the crime scene, phone records and transcripts.......

So what? It's irrelevant. He intentionally killed someone, and it matters not a jot that he didn't know who he might be killing.

 

[The Atheist]

I regard it as implausible that Oscar deliberately shot his trophy girl friend.

Sure. And the Tooth Fairy will be around to collect your teeth shortly after the Easter Bunny leaves your Easter Eggs on the floor of your flying De Lorean.

I have not the slightest doubt this can be unequivocally proved with correct analysis of the crime scene, phone records and transcripts.

That says it all, really.

There's a name for immovable belief in something that can't be proved, but I forget what it's called.

I am not for bending on this. You may collectively find and describe that one data point, that grain of sand under the rhino skin to remove such certainty.

Who cares?

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, it doesn't matter whether he thought it was Reeva - he's been correctly banged up, and banged up he shall stay.

Jeez, I hope they don't have the same rule as us and UK - that he has to acknowledge his guilt before he can get parole...

 

[Desert Fox]

Jeez, I hope they don't have the same rule as us and UK - that he has to acknowledge his guilt before he can get parole...

Especially when it has been shown that admitting guilt does not show a pattern of fewer cases of reoffending.

 

[The Atheist]

I think it's an insane rule.

It encourages the guilty to lie about their remorse while punishing the innocent who rightly refuse to acknowledge guilt because they're not guilty.

We've had two famous cases like that here in the past few years: Peter Ellis & Teina Pora.

 

[Samson]

As it happens, and as you know, so do I. But that's irrelevant, as you've been told for months.




So what? It's irrelevant. He intentionally killed someone, and it matters not a jot that he didn't know who he might be killing.

It makes a difference to my thinking. If he set out to frighten or kill Reeva there are no mitigating circumstances. She was in the house as a guest not an intruder. It makes all the difference.

 

[lionking]

It makes a difference to my thinking. If he set out to frighten or kill Reeva there are no mitigating circumstances. She was in the house as a guest not an intruder. It makes all the difference.

How many times do you have to be told that your thinking has no relevance to this case?

Are you trolling? Your erstwhile hero LondonJohn has clearly pointed out that IT DOESN"T MATTER IF SOMEONE OTHER THAN REEVA WAS IN THE TOILET. He is a murderer regardless.

I think, like many others, that he deliberately killed Reeva. BUT IT DOESN"T *********** MATTER.

Christ this is so frustrating.

 

[Samson]

How many times do you have to be told that your thinking has no relevance to this case?

Are you trolling? Your erstwhile hero LondonJohn has clearly pointed out that IT DOESN"T MATTER IF SOMEONE OTHER THAN REEVA WAS IN THE TOILET. He is a murderer regardless.

I think, like many others, that he deliberately killed Reeva. BUT IT DOESN"T *********** MATTER.

Christ this is so frustrating.

I think if it turned out to be a dead intruder armed with a machete Pistorius would not have been charged. However we need a sage analyst from the republic to answer this. There was a similar case where a man shot and killed his daughter thinking a man was stealing her car.

He was not charged.

 

[MikeG]

I think if it turned out to be a dead intruder armed with a machete Pistorius would not have been charged.........

Not so. There was a finding in law which was that he could be under no threat from behind a shut door. If Attila the Hun had been behind that door armed with a sub machine gun, it would still have been murder.

 

[MikeG]

It makes a difference to my thinking.........

Well thank christ you aren't a judge or prosecutor then.

 

[Samson]

Not so. There was a finding in law which was that he could be under no threat from behind a shut door. If Attila the Hun had been behind that door armed with a sub machine gun, it would still have been murder.

This case has been cited earlier on the thread

While the pain of having killed his own child remains, former Springbok rugby player Rudi "Vleis" Visagie will find peace in the fact that he is not to be charged with her murder.

The anguished father, who accidentally killed his daughter three months ago, is believed to have suffered enough.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/visagie-can-find-some-peace-at-last-219358

Knock yourselves out describing the difference to the current case. There ain't none.

 

[lionking]

I think if it turned out to be a dead intruder armed with a machete Pistorius would not have been charged. However we need a sage analyst from the republic to answer this. There was a similar case where a man shot and killed his daughter thinking a man was stealing her car.

He was not charged.

What you think, as has been demonstrated, is irrevalent. It is also idiotic. Give up.

 

[Samson]

What you think, as has been demonstrated, is irrevalent. It is also idiotic. Give up.

See post above. I am not giving up.

 

[lionking]

See post above. I am not giving up.

Every poor judgement means that Pistorius should also be poorly judged? Are you serious?

OJ Simpson wasn't convicted, so others shouldn't be?

A stupid argument.

 

[Sideroxylon]

This case has been cited earlier on the thread

While the pain of having killed his own child remains, former Springbok rugby player Rudi "Vleis" Visagie will find peace in the fact that he is not to be charged with her murder.

The anguished father, who accidentally killed his daughter three months ago, is believed to have suffered enough.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/visagie-can-find-some-peace-at-last-219358

Knock yourselves out describing the difference to the current case. There ain't none.

Cheers all round if you think the punishment for auto theft should be capital. He was putting someone's life on the line, just didn't realise it was his daughters.

I see your point.

 

[3point14]

I find it odd that anyone can believe that it's impossible for a man to want, in a fit of rage, to kill his 'trophy girlfriend' (can't we just call her his girlfriend?

Men assault beautiful women, whom they profess to love, all the time.

It is well documented that men and women have killed their spouses or partners in the past.

I don't understand why on earth anyone could think that it's a given that Oscar couldn't have deliberately shot Reeva just because she's beautiful and they were a couple. That seems, to me, to be a leap without any support at all.

And, as others have pointed out, it is totally irrelevant in terms of the legal outcome.

 

[snoop_doxie]

Men assault beautiful women, whom they profess to love, all the time.

<cough>

OJ Simpson.