Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
“But he’s a...”
-
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
Scordatura
Critical Thinker
It's not too late to order your Oscar Pistorius "Blade Runner" costume for Halloween. Bullets not included.
https://www.joke.co.uk/goto/oscar-pistorius
Regardless of the outcome of the November appeal I don't think Oscar will ever regain the fan base he once had. He's washed up and the butt of jokes - what company would hire him to rep their products? Well, maybe Black Talon Bullets.
https://www.joke.co.uk/goto/oscar-pistorius
Regardless of the outcome of the November appeal I don't think Oscar will ever regain the fan base he once had. He's washed up and the butt of jokes - what company would hire him to rep their products? Well, maybe Black Talon Bullets.
Rolfe:
I can't and will never agree.
It is fundamental for the Steemcamp family to understand whether Pistorius was defending or attacking.
I never thought you would be an aggressor where ethics and logic are the ingredients in the debate.
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
*Chuckle*
Rolfe
Adult human female
He wasn't even convicted of deliberately shooting Reeva. He was convicted of shooting the person behind the door with intent to kill.
It may well be very important for Reeva's family to understand whether or not he knew the person he was shooting was Reeva, but that's not something you or I or anyone on this thread can do anything about. The court accepted that it couldn't be proved he deliberately killed Reeva, only that he deliberately killed another human being. That's what he's serving time for.
I don't for an instant accept he intended to kill. A fluke shot got her brain. 4 shots through a closed door certainly create a high contingent risk of death. Reeva nearly escaped death nevertheless.
Interesting question I have not considered
Did he empty the gun chamber??
So what do you think the 4 shots through the middle of a closed door of a small toilet cubical were intended to do?
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
Even granting, arguendo, that he didn't intend to kill whoever was behind the door, he clearly acted with depraved indifference, which still makes it murder.
Emptying the chamber would mean he ejected the magazine and worked the slide to clear the round remaining in the weapon. I have no idea why he would have done that, nor what the significance would be if he did.
Possibly you meant "did he fire all the ammunition in his pistol?" The answer to that is no. Not even close. The Taurus PT 917 can hold 20 rounds in its magazine.
Without disagreeing with the main commentary of MikeG and Rolfe here, I believe that Oscar did intend to kill Reeva. His testimony that he didn't notice that the love of his life wasn't in bed as he pulled his gun from under the bed and manouvered around it beggars disbelief.
He was guilty of murder regardless of this, but nothing will sway my belief that it was a cold blooded execution.
He was guilty of murder regardless of this, but nothing will sway my belief that it was a cold blooded execution.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I disagree with your last three words here. I don't think it was cold-blooded at all. Nobody who was premeditating murder would choose that method. I think he went after her in a temper and blazed away without thinking, then the "what have I done?" hit him a moment later.
No, that can't be proved so he was rightly convicted on the basis that he didn't know it was her, but on balance I think he did. I stress "on balance", because of course I could be swayed by more evidence in the opposite direction. I also think "what have I done?" was probably more about the consequences for himself than anything else, though.
Last edited:
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
Why do you keep stating this? She was shot through her hip and her elbow too. There was nothing "fluke" about the shot to her head.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
I think you mean it beggars belief.
Yes, you are right. My apologies.
It was a bad angle for killing. He shot from the remotest point that guaranteed hitting the interior of the cubicle. In America they would be credited as warning shots.
And yes I am making that up, but I think I am right.
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,211
About the content of SA law or its interpretation?
The law doesn't care.
That's an underhand tactic. Don't do that.
Rolfe seems excellent in message board combat, that's all I can add.
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,211
Are you disagreeing with the content of SA law or the interpretation of it in this instance.
Like math(s), ethics and logic have no borders. I am interested in the singular question, was Oscar aiming to protect or kill Reeva?
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,211
You're interested in attempting to prove the unprovable - you can't read his mind, no-one can. And you're disregarding his actual admission that he committed murder by the laws he was subject to at the time.
Seems like a fools errand - what's the point, he's a murderer.
Rolfe
Adult human female
What she said. All any of us can have on that point is opinion. Our opinions may reasonably differ, given that none of us is a mind-reader.
What everybody else in the thread is interested in, and indeed what the law is interested in, is whether Pistorius committed murder even if he genuinely believed that the person behind the door was an intruder. The answer to that is yes.
What everybody else in the thread is interested in, and indeed what the law is interested in, is whether Pistorius committed murder even if he genuinely believed that the person behind the door was an intruder. The answer to that is yes.