Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2

[Samson]

<cough>

OJ Simpson.

This is a bad analogy. He caught them together, no such parallel exists here.

 

[The Atheist]

This is a bad analogy. He caught them together, no such parallel exists here.

Wow, that is one of the most stunning things I've ever read.

Whether you mean it or not, it seems to condone crime passionelle.

 

[3point14]

Wow, that is one of the most stunning things I've ever read.

Whether you mean it or not, it seems to condone crime passionelle.

I think he means that a man will only kill his partner if he finds her with another man.

I still don't understand the thinking that gets one to this point.

 

[The Atheist]

I think he means that a man will only kill his partner if he finds her with another man.

I still don't understand the thinking that gets one to this point.

I can, but only because I think things like that propagate in families.

Funnily enough, if Oscar had had this trouble only 30 years ago, he could have claimed he shot her because she was bonking another bloke and he would have broken no law. White rule had some things going for it.

 

[Desert Fox]

This is a bad analogy. He caught them together, no such parallel exists here.

How about the battered women shelters basically everywhere?
Many of the women fear for their lives. Did they all cheat on their husband / partner?

Also, this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/09/men-killing-women-domesti_n_5927140.html

 

[Samson]

I think he means that a man will only kill his partner if he finds her with another man.

I still don't understand the thinking that gets one to this point.

No, I think it is less likely, and vanishingly unlikely in the position Oscar was in. I think
1. He thought he had the intruder he always expected, and
2. It means the finding of murder is wrong, just as in the ex springbok case.
Note I am separating the function of law from the administration of justice.

 

[MikeG]

......I think
1. He thought he had the intruder he always expected,

I agree.

2. It means the finding of murder is wrong,.........

Well, you are just plain flat out wrong on this, and incredibly stubborn in sticking to it. Even if it had been an armed intruder behind that bolted door, it would still have been murder.

 

[Desert Fox]

Well, you are just plain flat out wrong on this, and incredibly stubborn in sticking to it. Even if it had been an armed intruder behind that bolted door, it would still have been murder.

Unless it was this guy:

It is always self defense to kill this guy even if you use a sniper rifle from 1000 yards

 

[GlennB]

Well, you are just plain flat out wrong on this, and incredibly stubborn in sticking to it. Even if it had been an armed intruder behind that bolted door, it would still have been murder.

I think he's suggesting that the law itself is wrong, not the application of it. I think.

 

[3point14]

No, I think it is less likely, and vanishingly unlikely in the position Oscar was in.

I am genuinely baffled as to how you get to this.

 

[Samson]

I am genuinely baffled as to how you get to this.

MikeG got there too, but differs on the ethical discussion that follows.

 

[Samson]

Wow, that is one of the most stunning things I've ever read.

Whether you mean it or not, it seems to condone crime passionelle.

You mean Dominique Strauss-Kahn and the fastest chat up in history?

 

[3point14]

MikeG got there too, but differs on the ethical discussion that follows.

Got where? To an understanding of why someone would think, in a world full of domestic violence, in a country with what might be called a chequered history (although don't they all) that a very obviously angry young man couldn't hurt or kill his lover?

It just seems like one big argument from incredulity to me, which holds no logical weight whatsoever.

 

[Samson]

Got where? To an understanding of why someone would think, in a world full of domestic violence, in a country with what might be called a chequered history (although don't they all) that a very obviously angry young man couldn't hurt or kill his lover?

It just seems like one big argument from incredulity to me, which holds no logical weight whatsoever.

Here is a list of a few people who appear to have bought it.

Judge Masipa
MikeG
icerat
Leila Schnepps
Samson

Are they all incredulous? I doubt it.

 

[MikeG]

Got where? To an understanding of why someone would think, in a world full of domestic violence, in a country with what might be called a chequered history (although don't they all) that a very obviously angry young man couldn't hurt or kill his lover?

It just seems like one big argument from incredulity to me, which holds no logical weight whatsoever.

Not at all. I just read the evidence as presented to the court and think the balance of probablities lies in favour of Pistorius' own description of his motives being correct. I saw nothing that ruled it out, and as none of us can mind-read, I accept (as I think the judge did), that he thought he was confronting an intruder. That doesn't for a second change my view that he committed murder.

 

[3point14]

Here is a list of a few people who appear to have bought it.

Judge Masipa
MikeG
icerat
Leila Schnepps
Samson

Are they all incredulous? I doubt it.

Ah, then we may be talking at cross purposes.

I have no issue with a logical assessment of the case leading to a belief that Oscar was truthful.

I may have conflated your position with another poster who stated a belief that Oscar wouldn't kill Reva simply because she was his beautiful 'trophy' girlfriend and it wouldn't be logical for him to do it. Which struck me as fallacious.

 

[Samson]

Ah, then we may be talking at cross purposes.

I have no issue with a logical assessment of the case leading to a belief that Oscar was truthful.

I may have conflated your position with another poster who stated a belief that Oscar wouldn't kill Reva simply because she was his beautiful 'trophy' girlfriend and it wouldn't be logical for him to do it. Which struck me as fallacious.

Fallacious in modal logic, but not in probability theory. We should have a long list of successful men with dead girl friends to contemplate.

 

[3point14]

Fallacious in modal logic, but not in probability theory. We should have a long list of successful men with dead girl friends to contemplate.

If you're saying what I think you're saying, that's the bit I disagree with.

 

[LondonJohn]

Not at all. I just read the evidence as presented to the court and think the balance of probablities lies in favour of Pistorius' own description of his motives being correct. I saw nothing that ruled it out, and as none of us can mind-read, I accept (as I think the judge did), that he thought he was confronting an intruder. That doesn't for a second change my view that he committed murder.

I think there are several very solid reasons to suspect that Pistorius must have known it was Steenkamp behind that door. I think that his whole story simply doesn't stack up in relation to normal human experiences. He would have had to have walked right round past the bed on his way to investigate the noise, so he could (and, IMO, would) have checked that Steenkamp was in bed, and whispered or said to her to stay there and to call the security staff, before heading off to the bathroom armed with a high-power handgun.

In addition, by definition (if Pistorius' account is to be believed) there HAS to have been sufficient opportunity for Steenkamp to have slipped silently out of bed and walked to the bathroom area without Pistorius seeing or hearing anything - even though he says he was only bringing the fan in over a matter of seconds.

And also, I find it very hard to believe that Pistorius was (per his version) standing in the bathroom yelling "Get the ... out of my house!" directly towards the closed toilet door, and yet Steenkamp wouldn't have made some sort of calling out to tell Pistorius that it was her behind the bathroom door (given that if Pistorius' account is to be believed, Steenkamp would likely be aware that Pistorius hadn't seen or heard her slipping away from the bedroom to go to the toilet).

And then we add in other evidence of Pistorius' personality and his treatment of girlfriends, and I conclude that by some distance the most plausible narrative is one where Pistorius and Steenkamp had an escalating argument in the bedroom area, Steenkamp started to dress to leave (perhaps in response to Pistorius yelling "Get the ... out of my house!" at HER), Pistorius physically threatened Steenkamp in the bedroom area, Steenkamp dropped her jeans (as they were found in the bedroom) and ran to the toilet, locking herself in, Pistorius followed her on his stumps, then Steenkamp said (through the door) that she had her phone and she was going to call family/friend/security/police, tell them the threatening situation, and request assistance. I think this would have pushed Pistorius over the edge in rage - the combination of Steenkamp's unequivocal decision to leave him and (maybe more powerful) the thought of having his image and reputation damaged by a public accusation of abuse and physical violence towards Steenkamp. I think he really did fire somewhat reflexively at the point, in a blind rage - and almost immediately realised what he'd done and was overcome with remorse and grief.

But as you point out (and as I have done too), the issue of Pistorius' presumed identification of the person behind the door is wholly moot in the context of the criminal charge and the conviction. And as you also say, it's impossible to prove one way or the other whether Pistorius genuinely thought he was firing at an intruder or Steenkamp. That will be cold comfort to Steenkamp's family though, I suppose. I am guessing that all of Steenkamp's family believe that Pistorius knew it was her behind the door (not that that makes any difference intellectually or legally of course).

 

[The Atheist]

Fallacious in modal logic, but not in probability theory. We should have a long list of successful men with dead girl friends to contemplate.

Uhhh, we do:

OJ Simpson
Gig Young
Sid Vicious
Phil Spector
Colin Thatcher
Robert Durst
Chris Foster

Need more? There are plenty.