There is absolutely no evidence of this apart from Pistorius' self serving testimony.
Why didn't he, as a first order priority, establish the location of Reeva?
No, the guy is a proven violent hothead. And a murderer without doubt.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2
- Thread starter Skwinty
- Start date
There is absolutely no evidence of this apart from Pistorius' self serving testimony.
Why didn't he, as a first order priority, establish the location of Reeva?
No, the guy is a proven violent hothead. And a murderer without doubt.
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
I'd think it would be quite easy for her to determine where OP's voice was coming from, auditory clues would be a giveaway. He'd be coming down a narrow corridor, the sound waves of his voice would have entered the bathroom and bounced around off the hard reflective surfaces, giving it a very distinctive echo-ey sound. If he'd been addressing an intruder from the main bedroom, his voice would be muffled by the wall in-between, and there would be far more sound absorption from soft furnishings (the blackout curtains, the carpet, the bed, etc)
TofuFighter
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2012
- Messages
- 3,457
I don't think that's necessarily true. His testimony was:
"Then I heard a noise from inside the toilet, what I perceived to be somebody coming out of the toilet. Before I knew it, I fired four shots at the door."
Pointing a gun is not intent to kill. His testimony suggests that he did not make a decision to kill anyone.
Is there a reason you can think of which might have led him to skew his testimony thus?
Never mind his testimony, look at his actions. Shooting through a door into a small cubicle can only be done with the intent to kill whoever is behind the door.
TofuFighter
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2012
- Messages
- 3,457
Yes, there is no telling how much of what he said was the truth.
I would say that if you are in a frantic state of mind, and suddenly startled and then pull the trigger, perhaps even involuntarily, there is no intent.
This is a person who was on his stumps, so it is conceivable that he felt vulnerable. That would need to be balanced, i guess, with the fact that he was at least somewhat familiar with guns.
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
This is actually damning testimony. Because he didn't just happen to have a handgun in his hand. When he thought he heard a noise -- he didn't see an intruder or hear their voice, this is all based on Pistorius thinking he'd heard "a noise" -- his response was to get a loaded handgun. Then he went to confront the person. That demonstrates his intent. He had other options. He had the means to avoid this situation. Instead he chose to arm himself and go confront whoever it was in his bathroom.
I'm sure from a legal standpoint this is all on him. He was the one who thought he heard "a noise." He was the one who then chose to go and arm himself with a loaded handgun. He was the one who failed to make contact with the other occupant of the apartment. He failed to take steps to ensure he didn't wind up shooting Steenkamp.
TofuFighter
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2012
- Messages
- 3,457
I don't see it exactly that way.
He heard a noise coming from the bathroom and armed himself. That does not demonstrate intent to kill.
He went towards the bathroom and noticed the window was open, thus supposedly confirming his suspicion of an intruder.
Yes, he had other options. I find it difficult to believe that hearing a noise at night when one is not expected, that someone would not go to investigate. That is what i do. Is it not what you would do? If i thought it was an intruder, i would try to take some kind of weapon with me to defend myself.
I don't disagree with much of the appeal judge's findings, but as i have previously mentioned, the ruling that Pistorius knew he was not in danger was puzzling for me.
Why do you make the highlighted comments? We only have Pistorius' word for it. The word of a hothead with a history of impulsive violence.
Scordatura
Critical Thinker
If we're going to start nitpicking Oscar's movements the night he murdered Reeva again then let me add something that I couldn't resolve. Oscar said when he brought the fan in from the balcony he closed the curtains around it. How exactly did that work in such a way that no light entered the room?
I tried it with my own similar fan and couldn't get the curtains to close completely around it; no matter how I finessed them there was always a substantial gap. If I closed the curtains behind it then the curtains got sucked into the back of the fan, closing off the airflow. If I closed them around the fan it left an inverted “V” which allowed light into the room. The only way to keep the room pitch black would be to use clips or pins to close the curtains above and below the fan, and Oscar didn't do that.
It's the sum of many little details that keep people scratching their heads over the events that night. Oscar “froze” when he heard the first noise but his personality was to “move towards the danger” yet when he faced the danger the gun just went off – four times – before he knew it. He didn't even bother to wait for any indication from Reeva that she was awake and heard him when he whispered to her to call the police. He screamed “Get the f out of my house!” but didn't give the intruder any time to actually do it. He didn't fire a warning shot because he was afraid it would ricochet and hit him but he shot because he didn't think at all. Even number one fan Masipa had trouble believing his bizarre claims and contradictory statements.
I tried it with my own similar fan and couldn't get the curtains to close completely around it; no matter how I finessed them there was always a substantial gap. If I closed the curtains behind it then the curtains got sucked into the back of the fan, closing off the airflow. If I closed them around the fan it left an inverted “V” which allowed light into the room. The only way to keep the room pitch black would be to use clips or pins to close the curtains above and below the fan, and Oscar didn't do that.
It's the sum of many little details that keep people scratching their heads over the events that night. Oscar “froze” when he heard the first noise but his personality was to “move towards the danger” yet when he faced the danger the gun just went off – four times – before he knew it. He didn't even bother to wait for any indication from Reeva that she was awake and heard him when he whispered to her to call the police. He screamed “Get the f out of my house!” but didn't give the intruder any time to actually do it. He didn't fire a warning shot because he was afraid it would ricochet and hit him but he shot because he didn't think at all. Even number one fan Masipa had trouble believing his bizarre claims and contradictory statements.
The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 38,103
Pulling a trigger involuntarily four times would be abnormal.
Oscar is a gun nut. Gun nuts usually learn to use a gun properly, and one of the things you don't do is blaze shots off.
If it had been involuntary, I'd expect to see one or two shots and no more. The four is a deliberate action.
Wasn't the door locked?
He can't be in danger is the door is locked. He would hear it being unlocked before seeing the door even begin to open. I agree with the court that if someone has locked themselves in a bathroom, someone outside the bathroom cannot be in immediate danger.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,464
Absolutely. Two salient points are these: firstly, Pistorius had received extensive training in hand gun use - partly as a requirement for getting a firearms licence, and partly from his own additional private training. There is zero doubt that a) he knew exactly how to handle and fire the weapon he had in his hand that night, and b) he explicitly knew the law on when one can use a firearm and when one cannot.
And secondly, Pistorius actually admitted in one of his many-changing versions of events (can't remember whether it was in a police statement or in court testimony) that he took deliberate aim and fired the four shots off under full control of the weapon. That was the version where he was claiming that the "intruder" behind the door was about to open the door and attack him. It's only once (I would suggest) his lawyers got hold of him and had a good shake that he switched to - and maintained - the composite story that he thought the "intruder" was about to burst out of the toilet, but that the mythical sudden noise had made him reflexively and involuntarily squeeze the trigger (yeah, FOUR times......).
This was a big problem for Pistorius. He knew that all the evidence proved that the toilet door had been locked from the inside at and after the firing of the shots, since he (Pistorius) had had to break down the door to gain entry to the room (as evidenced by the broken and splintered door panels). Obviously if the door had not been locked, he could - and would - simply have opened the door in the normal fashion once the shots had been fired.
Now, had Pistorius been mentally astute from the get-go, he could perhaps have claimed that the bathroom door really had begun to open just a tiny bit - and that it was this which caused him to fire in self-defence. He might then have just about got away with claiming that Steenkamp had reacted to being shot by pulling the door shut again and quickly locking it before collapsing. That would then be consistent with Pistorius having to break down the door to gain entry.
But probably in the heat of the situation (and since he had so many other lies to be thinking about), Pistorius set in stone the fact that the toilet door had been closed and locked throughout the whole episode. I suppose the thought might have crossed his mind that trajectory analysis of the bullet paths might in any case allow the state to be sure that the door was closed when he fired the gun - but actually I don't think the trajectory analysis would have been able to determine with certainty whether the door was closed or just ajar - given that nobody knew with certainty what the position of the gun was as the shots were fired.
And on top of that, I would strongly suggest that Pistorius knew very well that the door really had factually been closed and locked throughout. And that's because I think he pursued Steenkamp to the bathroom, and had already tried to open the locked door. Indeed, I suggest that the very locking of the door by Steenkamp - thus preventing Pistorius from any ability to exercise his control over her - was a major factor in the enragement that culminated in Pistorius firing the gun through the door (probably, IMO, exacerbated significantly further by Steenkamp announcing through the door that she was about to call for help - with all that that would entail for Pistorius and his image).
The police photos show the fan entirely within the room, but with the curtains open pretty wide. If the fan had been at that spot, he could have closed the curtains entirely, but as I mentioned upthread he would then have been plunged into *total* darkness after being exposed to the balcony light. I don't think many would choose to do that, as it leaves you fumbling around in a pitch-black room.
The defence case was that the police moved the fan and opened the curtains to some extent.
Scordatura
Critical Thinker
I agree that it would have been difficult for Oscar to maneuver around the room in total darkness after losing his night vision. I can't remember if he turned the balcony light off or not.
As for the fan, it's hard to tell from the photos – the fan looks awfully close to the curtains, which is why it made sense to me that he'd just snug the curtains around it. Maybe I'm thinking too deeply into it. Oscar's defense statement said that he brought the fan in, closed the doors, blinds and curtains which left the bedroom in pitch dark. In his EIC though he said he brought the fan in and closed the curtains around it. Going by that statement, when I tried doing the same I couldn't block out all the light.
Not much was made about the fan until it came up during testimony when Nel asked how he went out onto the balcony to call for help without tripping over it or knocking it over. That's when Oscar claimed police moved it. I can see an officer opening the curtains without thinking to let more light in but there's no reason to move the fan that I can see. And from the pictures, if it's in the original position then I think the curtains would impede any airflow behind it. Plus, IIRC the cord wouldn't reach the plug if it was where Oscar said it was.
Here's an article with a photo of the fan:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...reamed-and-ran-into-the-bathroom-9251722.html
See how close it is to the curtains?
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
I didn't mean his arming himself meant he intended to kill the person in the water closet. I meant in a legal sense, if you arm yourself and go to confront someone, then under the law, that means the shooter had the intention to use the weapon if necessary. Pistorius testified:
He thought someone was about to emerge from the toilet and he took an action that could reasonably be foreseen as causing the death of the person in the water closet. Again, in a legal sense, if he holds his fire and a struggle ensued, even against an unarmed intruder, that would, I'm sure, have changed the legal finding. But he fired before he knew who it was.
In other words, in a legal review of an incident in your home where you admit you chose to pick up a loaded handgun, in doing that you are essentially taking legal ownership for whatever events follow. You can tell the court, "I only wanted it for defense," but a handgun is not a very effective defense unless you are prepared to use it.
Being a South African myself I can speak to the climate of fear. Its very real.
HOWEVER, I've experienced 3 separate home invasions, on two of these occasions I've had a partner lying next to me.
On both of those occasions my FIRST thought was to check that my partner okay, before I did anything.
(BTW in all three cases, luckily, screaming and shouting bloody murder was enough to scare the intruders away...)
It beggars belief to imagine that Oscar simply presumed that Reeva was still asleep in bed, and didn't check. Never mind the fact that he claimed he shouted for her to call the police NEVER questioning the lack of response from her.
No amount of 'fear' can address the stunning lack of logical thinking in his story.
In fact the only theory that fits the facts perfectly is the argument,seek refuge,enraged murder theory.
As for the bladder, that's probably a question of time. She could have going to the toilet 30 minutes before or something like that.I could be wrong, but there's probably way of telling exactly when she urinated.
HOWEVER, I've experienced 3 separate home invasions, on two of these occasions I've had a partner lying next to me.
On both of those occasions my FIRST thought was to check that my partner okay, before I did anything.
(BTW in all three cases, luckily, screaming and shouting bloody murder was enough to scare the intruders away...)
It beggars belief to imagine that Oscar simply presumed that Reeva was still asleep in bed, and didn't check. Never mind the fact that he claimed he shouted for her to call the police NEVER questioning the lack of response from her.
No amount of 'fear' can address the stunning lack of logical thinking in his story.
In fact the only theory that fits the facts perfectly is the argument,seek refuge,enraged murder theory.
As for the bladder, that's probably a question of time. She could have going to the toilet 30 minutes before or something like that.I could be wrong, but there's probably way of telling exactly when she urinated.
A well-supposed and, I believe, highly likely, scenario.
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
Didn't Oscar live in a gated community with security? Doesn't that change things just a bit?
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
There's another element to this incident that is being overlooked. I'm thinking of all the cops and legal advocates I've heard over the years saying, "Everyone forgets the victim. How about their rights?"
Is it proper to kill someone who is staying over for using your bathroom in the middle of the night without telling you? Because from Reeva Steenkamp's perspective, that is -- at best -- what happened to her.
Is it proper to kill someone who is staying over for using your bathroom in the middle of the night without telling you? Because from Reeva Steenkamp's perspective, that is -- at best -- what happened to her.
The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 38,103
Pointing a gun may not be intent to kill, but pointing at someone and pulling the trigger four times sure as hell is. I might even be willing to consider the possibility that the first shot might have been the result of squeezing the trigger under stress. But not three more times. He indisputably intended to kill somebody, whether it was Reeva or an "intruder."