Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2

[Desert Fox]

People's reaction to this case is a litmus test for all cases where the immediate reaction is to trust judgement and authority.
Crap.

I don't trust authority or judgement but the simple fact is that he shot and killed a human being whom did not present a threat to him. Even by his own story, there should not have been any threat to him.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

By the way, if I wished to eliminate the Pistorius right to ordinary and completely flawed human status, and determine he is a character who represents unmitigated evil,

Pistorius isn't unmitigated evil, but he is dangerous. He is the sort of person we have prisons for.

I don't care whether he shot his girlfriend in cold blood (as the evidence suggests) or was only guilty of extremely bad judgement - he still needs to be locked up to keep him from hurting anyone else. I doubt that prison will make him any less dangerous, so the longer he is put away for the better.

Seldom is murder achieved through a bathroom door.

I will remember that the next time I want to kill someone.

 

[whoanellie]

People's reaction to this case is a litmus test for all cases where the immediate reaction is to trust judgement and authority.
Crap.

Haven't you argued that OP can't have knowingly killed Reeva because he is rich?

 

[Samson]

I don't trust authority or judgement but the simple fact is that he shot and killed a human being whom did not present a threat to him. Even by his own story, there should not have been any threat to him.

DF you explain it with the indefinite article "a". Unknown to Pistorius. I can't extend this debate as I am more or less repeating a loathed mantra.

 

[lionking]

His own narrative makes sense. That is what I see. I don't care what happens to him, but far more for the deluded masses that can't see the likely truth, and will never analyse a crime scene and aftermath according to logic.

Utter nonsense. Deluded masses? The best legal minds in SA have just corrected a flawed judgement and he's guilty. And your posts ar completely emotional, not logical.

 

[Samson]

Utter nonsense. Deluded masses? The best legal minds in SA have just corrected a flawed judgement and he's guilty. And your posts ar completely emotional, not logical.

Hang on a minute, I have no interest in guns, and never owned one, so I am totally detached from this. From day one I believed his account of pathetic idiocy and still do. The evidence, phone calls and actions in the aftermath are entirely consistent.
And why are people happier that Reeva died in a conflict zone anyway? Why do people want this all the time? It is insane to suppose.

 

[Lucian]

Well, Pistorius knew exactly where to shoot. Any shots into that small cubicle would hit their target. Anyone on the inside of that cubicle shooting out would have no idea at all where to point the gun, particularly if they were an intruder entering the flat for the first time, and obviously with no knowledge of the layout. The idea that Pistorius thought his life in danger from shots from within a toilet behind a closed door is not tenable.

Any intruder who would have entered the cubicle would have seen the layout of the bathroom before entering it, having come through the window in the main bathroom area. Granted, someone inside the cubicle wouldn't know exactly where Pistorius was standing, but given that he was apparently almost constantly shouting at both the intruder and towards his bedroom, there would be some clue as to his position.
Pistorius was also on his stumps, so probably not moving too swiftly.

When this hypothetical intruder was taking aim at the person on the other side of the toilet cubicle door, would he or she have known that the person on the other side of the door was an amputee who was not wearing prosthetic legs?

 

[The Atheist]

Edit: Let us take the prosecution's basic case, no frills, where there is an issue between a boyfriend and girlfriend. The girlfriend retreats into a bathroom and locks the door. The boyfriend shoots her through the door. He claims that he though there was a burglar. If that is accepted, is there any ability to prosecute at all.

Nope.

Potential wife-murderers are watching the case with interest. It's going to be a great defence claim in future if it works.

I would like to see a sentence that reflects a tragedy of killing a loved one in error, ...

Why are you so sure he loved her so much?

Do you think finding texts from an able-bodied Springbok player made him realise how deeply he loved her?

...
and I reckon the matter can be proved one way or the other.

Yeah, there's that medium in England - are you in touch with her?

I couldn't care less what the law says.

Yeah, we'd got that.

I'm just thankful the laws aren't written by you. We'd be knee-deep in dead bodies of poor women accidentally murdered by their husbands & boyfriends.

 

[Bob001]

Nope.

Potential wife-murderers are watching the case with interest. It's going to be a great defence claim in future if it works.
....

That's pretty much the same rationale that cops have long used to justify -- and get away with -- killing people: "I was in fear for my life." It's only the advent of cell phone and security cameras that disproves the claim in many cases. Too bad Reeva wasn't wearing a bodycam.

 

[Bob001]

Hang on a minute, I have no interest in guns, and never owned one, so I am totally detached from this. From day one I believed his account of pathetic idiocy and still do. The evidence, phone calls and actions in the aftermath are entirely consistent.
....

Are they? Did P. call police and/or hit his alarm button the instant he suspected an intruder? If he believed an intruder was hiding in the bathroom, did he wake Reeva and hustle her out of the bedroom, or tell her to get out and call the cops? Did he call out "Who's there?" and wait for an answer? Or did he, as he claims, scream "Get out of my house!," which is precisely what an enraged boyfriend might scream at a frightened girlfriend? It is entirely consistent with the evidence to believe that he killed Reeva in a blind rage, and then desperately tried to fix it when he began to understand what he had done.

....And why are people happier that Reeva died in a conflict zone anyway? Why do people want this all the time? It is insane to suppose.

No one wants Reeva to be dead. But it is entirely within the realm of possibility -- certainly not insane -- to suspect that a crazy, jealous boyfriend killed his girlfriend and lied about it. Happens every day everywhere in the world. And one more time: If his story is true, he fired four bullets into a stranger in a panic without the justification of an immediate threat. That's murder, not an accident.

 

[Desert Fox]

DF you explain it with the indefinite article "a". Unknown to Pistorius. I can't extend this debate as I am more or less repeating a loathed mantra.

It is best to try to not be emotionally involved in a case. We are only human and will trip and fall, still I am trying to divorce myself from it being anything person.

Looking at it personally though, isn't he known for having brandished weapons in a dangerous manner and there are also reports of them fighting?

 

[newyorkguy]

He wasn't in imminent danger -- and a reasonable person would have known it -- because the person behind the closed door couldn't see P., P. was free to retreat (including leaving the bedroom) or take cover, and P. was armed. There was no immediate requirement that he open fire to save himself.

I also agree with this and think it is well put. There was no immediate threat to justify firing a handgun four times through a door.

I think what gets blurred here is the difference between someone saying, "I could see myself doing that or thinking that" and what the law requires. This is from Business Insider (which I find to be a pretty reliable and dispassionate news source), explaining that in SA culpable homicide is defined as "killing someone but without direct intent either through recklessness or negligence." This was the trial court ruling:

[Judge Thokozile Masipa ruled] there was a reasonable possibility that Pistorius really did think Steenkamp was an intruder when he fired four shots through a locked bathroom door the night he killed her. But she also said he "acted too hastily and used excessive force," and that he could have avoided shooting the supposed intruder in the bathroom by calling security or shouting for help. link to Business Insider story

 

[The Atheist]

Looking at it personally though, isn't he known for having brandished weapons in a dangerous manner and there are also reports of them fighting?

Not only known for reckless use of firearms, he had been charged for it.

 

[Samson]

Not only known for reckless use of firearms, he had been charged for it.

Oh come on, there is no connection to this tragedy. All this stuff is what nailed Knox in the media, rocks thrown in the street at a party and so on.
There was a shot in the air through a sunroof and an accidental discharge in a restaurant. He was a gun nut, his big moment arrived. The result obeyed the law of unintended consequences. But don't be bothered with fiercely pro women Masipa's findings.

 

[lionking]

Oh come on, there is no connection to this tragedy. All this stuff is what nailed Knox in the media, rocks thrown in the street at a party and so on.
There was a shot in the air through a sunroof and an accidental discharge in a restaurant. He was a gun nut, his big moment arrived. The result obeyed the law of unintended consequences. But don't be bothered with fiercely pro women Masipa's findings.

Mapisa was wrong, get over it.

As for Pistorius' priors with guns, it's entirely relevant. It proves he's an impulsive hothead.

 

[Scordatura]

As for Pistorius' priors with guns, it's entirely relevant. It proves he's an impulsive hothead.

^^^ this. He shot through the sunroof because he was pissed off that a police officer touched his gun. The guy has no impulse control.

 

[The Atheist]

Oh come on, there is no connection to this tragedy.

Mate, I can always rely on you to give me a laugh!

A complete gun nut with a record of dangerous use of firearms kills someone with a gun and it's not relevant.

Ok.

(has Tui hired you as their new writer?)

There was a shot in the air through a sunroof and an accidental discharge in a restaurant. He was a gun nut, his big moment arrived.

Quite right. His beautiful (as you keep insisting) girlfriend was about to throw him over for an able-bodied rugby player and his big moment was killing her and pretending he was scared by a burglar.

In a locked compound.

Who, instead of burgling, had locked himself in the bog....

Maybe Oscar thought the burglar was busting for a piss?

Nice attempt to tie it to Knox, though. Just remember that while Knox got off, it wasn't 100% certain she was responsible for the death, unlike poor old Oscar, without a leg to stand on, who unquestionably killed Reeva. Fortunately, whether or not he intended to is irrelevant in law.

So you want the law changed.

 

[trustbutverify]

Quite right. His beautiful (as you keep insisting) girlfriend was about to throw him over for an able-bodied rugby player and his big moment was killing her and pretending he was scared by a burglar.

In a locked compound.

Who, instead of burgling, had locked himself in the bog....

That's one eccentric home invader.

 

[Samson]

That's one eccentric home invader.

There are precedents for home invaders using the bog not so unusual,

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

There are precedents for home invaders using the bog not so unusual,

No, that's burglars. Home invasion is quite a different scenario, as the residents are home at the time. I bet it's rare to find a home invader stoping to use the loo, unless he's tied everyone up and it is an extended hostage situation, like the one in DC recently.