• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2

I don't know to an absolute certainty that Pistorius deliberately shot and killed his girlfriend. His version just does not ring true to me. With his girlfriend in the house, overhearing someone in the bathroom, his immediate determination to kill them, without ever wondering even for a moment, "Could it be Reeva?" I'm sorry I have trouble believing that. In fact I can't even begin to believe that. Yet I realize there is always that small chance that was what happened. I know statistically it is a lot more likely that they quarreled and then he reacted in a very stupid but somewhat common way: he lost his temper and, in a fit of rage, he tried to hurt her. If that was what happened, what explanation could he offer to try avoid being charged with premeditated murder? In that situation 'I thought it was an intruder,' is about the only explanation he could offer.

This is in his own words:
“I believed someone had entered my house,” he said in the affidavit. “I grabbed my 9-millimeter pistol from underneath my bed. On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. It was pitch dark in the bedroom, and I thought Reeva was in bed.”

Walking on his stumps, he heard the sound of movement inside the toilet, a small room within the bathroom. “It filled me with horror and fear of an intruder,” he said. “I did not have my prosthetic legs on and felt extremely vulnerable. I knew I had to protect Reeva and myself.”

He fired four shots, then hobbled over to the bedroom, screaming for Reeva to call the police. But when he got back to the bed, she was not there. “That is when it dawned on me that it could have been Reeva who was in the toilet,” he said. News link
Click to expand...


He's now a convicted murderer. Convicted of what we in the U.S. call involuntary manslaughter, what South Africa calls culpable homicide. Whatever he did he has to live with it.
 
newyorkguy said:
I don't know to an absolute certainty that Pistorius deliberately shot and killed his girlfriend. His version just does not ring true to me. With his girlfriend in the house, overhearing someone in the bathroom, his immediate determination to kill them, without ever wondering even for a moment, "Could it be Reeva?" I'm sorry I have trouble believing that. In fact I can't even begin to believe that. Yet I realize there is always that small chance that was what happened. I know statistically it is a lot more likely that they quarreled and then he reacted in a very stupid but somewhat common way: he lost his temper and, in a fit of rage, he tried to hurt her. If that was what happened, what explanation could he offer to try avoid being charged with premeditated murder? In that situation 'I thought it was an intruder,' is about the only explanation he could offer.

This is in his own words:



He's now a convicted murderer. Convicted of what we in the U.S. call involuntary manslaughter, what South Africa calls culpable homicide. Whatever he did he has to live with it.
Click to expand...
Thank you for his words, that in fact help me believe his story. That is the nature of things, few change their minds easily. But I doubted the police theory immediately, taking the simplistic view that rich people don't ruin their own lives on a whim, which was the stone cold certainty as soon as he fired a bullet if he knew she was in there. No, I believe his story. Every way I look at it I get the same conclusion, and that the state is now engaged in a malicious face saving prosecution.
 
Samson said:
Masipa concluded correctly the shooting was a tragic accident as did the owner of this forum, which is relevant mainly because he is a sharp analyst.
Click to expand...

This is one of the silliest posts I've read in a long time, perhaps ever.

I await Icerat's decision to jump off a tall building to see if you follow suit.....
 
Samson said:
Thank you for his words, that in fact help me believe his story. That is the nature of things, few change their minds easily. But I doubted the police theory immediately, taking the simplistic view that rich people don't ruin their own lives on a whim, which was the stone cold certainty as soon as he fired a bullet if he knew she was in there. No, I believe his story. Every way I look at it I get the same conclusion, and that the state is now engaged in a malicious face saving prosecution.
Click to expand...

That does not explain how someone convicted of what he was convicted of gets special treatment like being released after a year. I doubt many people would get that consideration.
 
a_unique_person said:
That does not explain how someone convicted of what he was convicted of gets special treatment like being released after a year. I doubt many people would get that consideration.
Click to expand...
Except he successfully defended his girl friend from endangerment from an evil intruder.
 
Samson said:
Except he successfully defended his girl friend from endangerment from an evil intruder.
Click to expand...

Have you even been following this case? Oscar got out of his bed, armed himself, walked around the bed when it was illuminated without noticing the love of his life wasn't actually in bed?

I know I should ignore trolling posts, but "defended his girl friend"? No, murdering her. And he will be convicted on appeal.
 
Samson said:
Thank you for his words, that in fact help me believe his story...
Click to expand...

I'm very surprised you hadn't read his statement. To be clear, he didn't defend his girlfriend, he killed her. That's a big difference. There was no intruder. The only danger to Reeva Steenkamp was from Oscar Pistorius. She herself had said she was afraid of him at times. Afraid of his temper, of the way he reacted. Please remember, the victim in this case is Reeva Steenkamp, not Oscar Pistorius.

Rich people don't ruin their lives on a whim? They do. When people become very angry, regardless of how well off they are, they often behave irrationally.
 
newyorkguy said:
I'm very surprised you hadn't read his statement. To be clear, he didn't defend his girlfriend, he killed her. That's a big difference. There was no intruder. The only danger to Reeva Steenkamp was from Oscar Pistorius. She herself had said she was afraid of him at times. Afraid of his temper, of the way he reacted. Please remember, the victim in this case is Reeva Steenkamp, not Oscar Pistorius.

Rich people don't ruin their lives on a whim? They do. When people become very angry, regardless of how well off they are, they often behave irrationally.
Click to expand...
I do not agree.
Their actions do not involve mega and certain destruction of their lives. OJ might bolster your proposition but that was a triage.
 
lionking said:
Have you even been following this case? Oscar got out of his bed, armed himself, walked around the bed when it was illuminated without noticing the love of his life wasn't actually in bed?

I know I should ignore trolling posts, but "defended his girl friend"? No, murdering her. And he will be convicted on appeal.
Click to expand...

newyorkguy said:
I'm very surprised you hadn't read his statement. To be clear, he didn't defend his girlfriend, he killed her. That's a big difference. There was no intruder. The only danger to Reeva Steenkamp was from Oscar Pistorius. She herself had said she was afraid of him at times. Afraid of his temper, of the way he reacted. Please remember, the victim in this case is Reeva Steenkamp, not Oscar Pistorius.

Rich people don't ruin their lives on a whim? They do. When people become very angry, regardless of how well off they are, they often behave irrationally.
Click to expand...
To make the point I had to resort to the facts as Oscar imagined them. You and LK can assert that he knew Reeva was behind the door, but I totally reject that proposition. It is ridiculous, just a ticket to hell for him.
 
newyorkguy said:
...
Rich people don't ruin their lives on a whim? They do. When people become very angry, regardless of how well off they are, they often behave irrationally.
Click to expand...

Case in point: the crazy looking guy with funny hair - Phil Spector? I think that's his name. There's a rich dude who ruined his life on a whim, although it would not surprise me to learn Samson thinks he's innocent too.

Rich people are the very ones who think they can buy their way out of trouble. Famous people think they're above reproach. Rich AND famous - say no more.
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
Because Icerat and the math lady arrived at the same conclusion. Solid evidence you've got going there.
Click to expand...
Math lady is one weird chick, but robust. She proved to her minions they were wasting time on Raffaele calling polis while postals were already there. She was totally rigorous, as she was sustaining Pistorius' account of his tragic night. Icerat was the same. Why fight logic and careful analysis?
 
The depth of despair Oscar Pistorius feels at losing the love of his life. How badly this has effected him, losing the woman he loved and cherished, by his own hand. Maybe that's overdoing it a tad? Because according to June Steenkamp, Reeva's mother, they had been dating for three months.

Mrs. Steenkamp also says:
“I did not know he had guns or was shooting them out of cars, or his lifestyle in the fast lane. I knew nothing of that," she said. "Reeva was afraid, I think, to tell me, some of the problems. She did say they were fighting all of the time, but you don’t tell your mother everything.” Links to news story
Click to expand...

I think it's both admirable and understandable that friends of the couple would say everything seemed fine in their relationship. People in an abusive relationship often try to keep up appearances. Friends may be among the last to know. There's also the fact, that when your friends are a high profile couple, if you do say something newsworthy it's going to be reported in the media and your name will be attached.

How is June Steenkamp dealing with the violent death of her daughter?
Steenkamp says she plans to start a charity to help victims of domestic abuse - but she repeatedly refused to say whether such abuse was part of her daughter’s relationship with her killer, superstar athlete Oscar Pistorius.
Click to expand...

In case there's any confusion, "refusing to say" whether there was abuse is not the same as saying there wasn't.
 
newyorkguy said:
The depth of despair Oscar Pistorius feels at losing the love of his life. How badly this has effected him, losing the woman he loved and cherished, by his own hand. Maybe that's overdoing it a tad? Because according to June Steenkamp, Reeva's mother, they had been dating for three months.

Mrs. Steenkamp also says:


I think it's both admirable and understandable that friends of the couple would say everything seemed fine in their relationship. People in an abusive relationship often try to keep up appearances. Friends may be among the last to know. There's also the fact, that when your friends are a high profile couple, if you do say something newsworthy it's going to be reported in the media and your name will be attached.

How is June Steenkamp dealing with the violent death of her daughter?


In case there's any confusion, "refusing to say" whether there was abuse is not the same as saying there wasn't.
Click to expand...
You are leaving out the fact the prosecution presented a scenario that was proved wrong. That is far more important than divining the extent and nature of possible abuse.
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
The prosecution was not "proved wrong" at all. Pistorius was in possession of illegal ammunition and he murdered his girlfriend with said ammo.
Click to expand...
He murdered her if he knew she was in the bathroom. Otherwise culpable homicide is a perfect charge to lay, and for that I could imagine a vast range of penalties globally, and it seems lenient in RSA I agree. So I take it you are stating categorically he knew he was shooting at Reeva?
 
The prosecution wasn't "proven wrong" about the murder being deliberate, either. The burden on police and prosecutors is to find evidence for that. Someone's state of mind can be devilishly hard to prove and, in this case, the state couldn't do it.

I don't know if Pistorius had a choice between a jury trial or by judge. But he (or his lawyer) was smart to choose a judge. I think a judge would be much more likely to be able hold the conflicting view that a) while his story may seem unbelievable, b) the burden of proof is on the prosecution and c) no real evidence was presented that proved Pistorius deliberately shot Reeva Steenkamp.

That's the way I feel. I do not find credible Pistorius' account as to how the shooting took place. However, I accept the fact that the state was unable to produce clear evidence the shooting was a deliberate attack on Reeva Steenkamp.
 
newyorkguy said:
The prosecution wasn't "proven wrong" about the murder being deliberate, either. The burden on police and prosecutors is to find evidence for that. Someone's state of mind can be devilishly hard to prove and, in this case, the state couldn't do it.

I don't know if Pistorius had a choice between a jury trial or by judge. But he (or his lawyer) was smart to choose a judge. I think a judge would be much more likely to be able hold the conflicting view that a) while his story may seem unbelievable, b) the burden of proof is on the prosecution and c) no real evidence was presented that proved Pistorius deliberately shot Reeva Steenkamp.

That's the way I feel. I do not find credible Pistorius' account as to how the shooting took place. However, I accept the fact that the state was unable to produce clear evidence the shooting was a deliberate attack on Reeva Steenkamp.
Click to expand...
One reason I am strongly of the view he believed he was stalking an intruder is his no legs on status. This suggests profound urgency. On the other hand if anticipating a blazing row, he would prefer not to have her towering over him. It is worth remembering she was unlucky to take the head shot.
 
This can be another problem area because the only evidence we have that Pistorius did not have his prosthetic devices on is his word. As a judge told us (the jury) in a U.S. case, if we feel sworn testimony lacks credibility AND (this is a big 'and') the person testifying has a compelling reason to lie, we can set aside their testimony.

That's why I say, I don't believe anything Pistorius said to the police or in court but I agree there was not adequate evidence presented to convict him of a deliberate murder.
 
I always expected legs on legs off to be resolved in a heart beat by ballistics and was surprised it was not declared almost immediately. I was not aware it is debated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom