Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2

[trustbutverify]

It's Pistorius' narrative which is ridiculous. He didn't notice Reeva get out of bed. Didn't notice she wasn't in bed when he supposedly heard an intruder. Didn't even bother to ascertain her whereabouts when he supposedly feared for his life. Didn't notice she wasn't in bed when he came back to the bedroom to get his gun.

Ridiculous. Unbelievable.

It's a bad joke.

 

[Samson]

How long was she in the bathroom? Why are you so convinced that a woman taking refuge in a bathroom, to get away from her boy friend, to call someone -- possibly the police -- would not urinate while in the bathroom? You seem to be placing a lot on that, but I don't see how that logically follows.

Isn't it possible she knew he was angry -- her mother says Reeva claimed they fought all the time -- but never dreamed he would shoot her? Isn't it possible that once she entered the bathroom and locked the door she felt safe? Safe enough to urinate if she had the need?

Yes it is possible I guess. Yet the act of sitting is in itself, one that adds vulnerability to a supposed state of fear, irrespective of the door being locked. I have been reading the debate.org, and learn that the bedroom had blackout curtains, which greatly assist his claims. All the pro intruder thinkers pretty well restate the theme that he had an extraordinary certainty of losing everything if he knows it is Reeva. The world blithely sees a crime like this as commonplace, but I am unaware of anything similar, and I have seen in too many other cases a willingness to accept normal individuals seemingly tossing their lives away for alleged crimes they had no chance of getting away with. This case fits the pattern perfectly.
There is an 84%/16% split saying guilty of knowingly shooting at Reeva.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/did-oscar-pistorius-kill-his-girlfriend

 

[lionking]

Yes it is possible I guess. Yet the act of sitting is in itself, one that adds vulnerability to a supposed state of fear, irrespective of the door being locked. I have been reading the debate.org, and learn that the bedroom had blackout curtains, which greatly assist his claims. All the pro intruder thinkers pretty well restate the theme that he had an extraordinary certainty of losing everything if he knows it is Reeva. The world blithely sees a crime like this as commonplace, but I am unaware of anything similar, and I have seen in too many other cases a willingness to accept normal individuals seemingly tossing their lives away for alleged crimes they had no chance of getting away with. This case fits the pattern perfectly.
There is an 84%/16% split saying guilty of knowingly shooting at Reeva.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/did-oscar-pistorius-kill-his-girlfriend

Hotheads like Pistorius don't think of the consequences of their actions. Have you not seen posts about his other impulsive, violent and stupid acts?

 

[The Atheist]

Well, in the real world everyone I mention the case to agrees with that and I am deemed a nutter.

Could that be because your premise that poor Oscar was in fear of his life is nuts?

 

[erwinl]

If we restrict the debate to determining if Reeva was trying to escape from Oscar, or that the intruder hypothesis is correct, and I see this as the normal dichotomy in these types of cases, then the empty bladder assumes paramount significance. I suggested this earlier, and I don't recall it being substantially addressed, but handwaved away.
The pattern I like is to find one extreme data point that can not fit the prosecution theory, and to then test the plausibilty of the accused's narrative. The empty bladder makes no sense to me if Reeva is afraid of a pursuing Oscar.

Why restrict the debate to something that has nothing to do about whether Pistorius committed murder under the SA law?

 

[3point14]

Yes it is possible I guess. Yet the act of sitting is in itself, one that adds vulnerability to a supposed state of fear, irrespective of the door being locked. I have been reading the debate.org, and learn that the bedroom had blackout curtains, which greatly assist his claims. All the pro intruder thinkers pretty well restate the theme that he had an extraordinary certainty of losing everything if he knows it is Reeva. The world blithely sees a crime like this as commonplace, but I am unaware of anything similar, and I have seen in too many other cases a willingness to accept normal individuals seemingly tossing their lives away for alleged crimes they had no chance of getting away with. This case fits the pattern perfectly.
There is an 84%/16% split saying guilty of knowingly shooting at Reeva.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/did-oscar-pistorius-kill-his-girlfriend

Is your argument: "People don't act irrationally"

 

[Samson]

Why restrict the debate to something that has nothing to do about whether Pistorius committed murder under the SA law?

It is one of several possibilites that can be listed, which might be enumerated as follows.

1. He knew Reeva was in the cubicle and decided to kill her so no one else could have her.
2. He knew Reeva was in the cubicle and shot recklessly in anger, act in haste and repent at leisure.
3. He knew Reeva was in the cubicle and shot at an oblique angle in anger, thinking come out of there you bitch.
4. He knew Reeva was in bed asleep, and a black man had broken and entered. (this is from the LRB dissertation, literally it is always a black man before I am vested with racist accusations http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/03/oscar-pistorius-appeal-murder-jacqueline-rose) Therefore he knows his life is in danger and shoots to kill in his and Reeva's defence.
5. He knew Reeva was in bed asleep, and a black man had broken and entered. He shoots at an oblique angle, imagining the intruder will not receive an injury, but be totally aware that he is nailed down by a serious and prepared defender.

I believe 5, but as I concede, it ain't getting traction.

 

[erwinl]

It is one of several possibilites that can be listed, which might be enumerated as follows.

1. He knew Reeva was in the cubicle and decided to kill her so no one else could have her.
2. He knew Reeva was in the cubicle and shot recklessly in anger, act in haste and repent at leisure.
3. He knew Reeva was in the cubicle and shot at an oblique angle in anger, thinking come out of there you bitch.
4. He knew Reeva was in bed asleep, and a black man had broken and entered. (this is from the LRB dissertation, literally it is always a black man before I am vested with racist accusations http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/03/oscar-pistorius-appeal-murder-jacqueline-rose) Therefore he knows his life is in danger and shoots to kill in his and Reeva's defence.
5. He knew Reeva was in bed asleep, and a black man had broken and entered. He shoots at an oblique angle, imagining the intruder will not receive an injury, but be totally aware that he is nailed down by a serious and prepared defender.

I believe 5, but as I concede, it ain't getting traction.

And in all five cases as presented by you, Pistorius would have, according to SA law, committed murder.
I must admit, I'm a bit at a loss to what exactly you are trying to argue about.

 

[Samson]

And in all five cases as presented by you, Pistorius would have, according to SA law, committed murder.
I must admit, I'm a bit at a loss to what exactly you are trying to argue about.

I am not interested in law, but fascinated by what happened from a gods eye point of view.
And I should add, always interested in the risk society faces from the accused if it can be shown reoffending is statistically a very remote possibility. Does anyone here think society should continue to fear Oscar Pistorius?

 

[3point14]

I am not interested in law, but fascinated by what happened from a gods eye point of view.
And I should add, always interested in the risk society faces from the accused if it can be shown reoffending is statistically a very remote possibility. Does anyone here think society should continue to fear Oscar Pistorius?

Yes. A man with impulse control that poor and access to firearms illegal ammunition is a dangerous offender and requires incarceration and rehabilitation.

Would you want him dating your daughter?

 

[Samson]

Yes. A man with impulse control that poor and access to firearms illegal ammunition is a dangerous offender and requires incarceration and rehabilitation.

Would you want him dating your daughter?

I think dogs and guns can often be inappropriately employed as extensions to flawed personalities. Under no circumstances am I impressed by gun nuts, but that is unrelated to this discussion. Pistorius clearly embraced guns as a counterpoint to disability. Any lay psychologist could figure this. I understand his obsession far better than the American sub culture that declares guns don't kill.

 

[3point14]

I think dogs and guns can often be inappropriately employed as extensions to flawed personalities. Under no circumstances am I impressed by gun nuts, but that is unrelated to this discussion. Pistorius clearly embraced guns as a counterpoint to disability. Any lay psychologist could figure this. I understand his obsession far better than the American sub culture that declares guns don't kill.

I really don't know what any of this means in response to my point. Could you re-phrase or elaborate?

 

[erwinl]

I am not interested in law, but fascinated by what happened from a gods eye point of view.
And I should add, always interested in the risk society faces from the accused if it can be shown reoffending is statistically a very remote possibility. Does anyone here think society should continue to fear Oscar Pistorius?

As for point 1. I don't think the debate about what was really in his mind will ever be solved.
As for point 2. Do you agree he should at least bear the consequences for his deeds?

 

[Samson]

As for point 1. I don't think the debate about what was really in his mind will ever be solved.
As for point 2. Do you agree he should at least bear the consequences for his deeds?

I have a very strong theory that these cases are all satisfactorily resolved, and that they will never escape the searchlight of internet debate in future.
The case of Pistorius can never be understood until cognitive dissonance is embraced as a powerful counter to what seems obvious. Blackout curtains can disorientate for example. They can allow one to sleep soundly till 10am! I am unsure of this factor in this case, but if there was an effective blackout, I fully believe Oscar was momentarily obsessed with locating that gun by feel, rather than compounding risk by alerting Reeva.
A sensible counter to this will be factual from court reports, that the room was well lit. I am admittedly lazy about my own direct research.

 

[erwinl]

I have a very strong theory that these cases are all satisfactorily resolved, and that they will never escape the searchlight of internet debate in future.
The case of Pistorius can never be understood until cognitive dissonance is embraced as a powerful counter to what seems obvious. Blackout curtains can disorientate for example. They can allow one to sleep soundly till 10am! I am unsure of this factor in this case, but if there was an effective blackout, I fully believe Oscar was momentarily obsessed with locating that gun by feel, rather than compounding risk by alerting Reeva.
A sensible counter to this will be factual from court reports, that the room was well lit. I am admittedly lazy about my own direct research.

Right.
That's just willful nonsense.

Bye.

 

[Samson]

Right.
That's just willful nonsense.

Bye.

I accept I am in a global minority, no question, but your post is effectively totally dismissive of activist feminist judge Masipa. It is customary to address judge only cases with serious contrary analysis. They must describe their reasoning, and she did. Jury decisions are scary as hell.

 

[MikeG]

I am not interested in law....

As of now, you mean? Because your posts to date have been almost exclusively about law (the perceived miscarriage of justice for Pretotius).

 

[Samson]

As of now, you mean? Because your posts to date have been almost exclusively about law (the perceived miscarriage of justice for Pretotius).

No seriously I am only concerned with what happened, and how people should react. If Oscar thought he was defending, it is case closed to me. I am convinced this was the case. There is a parallel universe where he was slaughtered alongside Reeva for a paltry haul of minor bounty. Surely everyone can imagine this?
We live in different communities where ill fortune is vanishingly unlikely, let us rejoice. I will never believe that Reeva would come with a valentine card saying this is the night I declare my love, and be party to circumstances that head so far south that she ends murdered.

 

[Samson]

It is fascinating that Masipa is now the sentencing judge. I think the best word for this is "quirk".

 

[Vixen]

It is one of several possibilites that can be listed, which might be enumerated as follows.

1. He knew Reeva was in the cubicle and decided to kill her so no one else could have her.
2. He knew Reeva was in the cubicle and shot recklessly in anger, act in haste and repent at leisure.
3. He knew Reeva was in the cubicle and shot at an oblique angle in anger, thinking come out of there you bitch.
4. He knew Reeva was in bed asleep, and a black man had broken and entered. (this is from the LRB dissertation, literally it is always a black man before I am vested with racist accusations http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/03/oscar-pistorius-appeal-murder-jacqueline-rose) Therefore he knows his life is in danger and shoots to kill in his and Reeva's defence.
5. He knew Reeva was in bed asleep, and a black man had broken and entered. He shoots at an oblique angle, imagining the intruder will not receive an injury, but be totally aware that he is nailed down by a serious and prepared defender.

I believe 5, but as I concede, it ain't getting traction.

I have a couple of South African friends at church and I got chatting to the woman - who's perfectly nice - about Oscar, shortly after the murder, and most ppl in England outraged by the act. So I was quite taken aback when she said she thought he was innocent because of #4.

She explained many European South Africans live in fear of violent burglars, because of the great social distance in that society. An Us and Them outlook, and Oscar was, "Us".

Her view was based on prejudice, but you can see that cultural influences are part of the wider issues surrounding this case.

For the record, I am glad justice has now been done.