Bamber will be out soon, but there is a thread for that.
-
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
The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 37,886
Yes, and like all good skeptics when wrong, you're not even entertaining the idea that you're wrong.
The thread has been going in circles for thousands of posts.
Why stop now?
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,454
Well (to continue the magic circle once again....) Pistorius was not specifically convicted of the murder of Reeva Steenkamp. And that's the critical point underpinning why Samson is wrong on this issue.
Rather, Pistorius was convicted of the murder of someone he knew to be a human being - that is to say, he intentionally fired a lethal weapon through a thin wooden internal door in the direction of someone he believed to be a human being, in an act which he must have known could have resulted in the death or very serious injury of that person, at a point where he provably was not in real or imminent threat of personal harm from the person behind that door. Whether he believed it was Steenkamp or the mythical intruder behind that door, we will never know (unless Pistorius ever confesses to knowing it was Steenkamp, of course), though logic and all the available evidence/testimony very strongly suggests (IMO) that Pistorius knew full well it was Steenkamp. But in fact the identity of the victim is immaterial to the murder conviction.
Here in the UK, there was a famous case several years ago in Liverpool where a gang member cycled to a pub car park, and opened fire in the direction of a rival gang member on the other side of the car park. He was a bad shot and he missed his intended target, but instead he struck and killed an 11-year-old boy bystander. The gunman was subsequently found and convicted of murder: in this instance, he hadn't even intended to harm the boy, but the court correctly found for murder on the basis that the very act of intentionally firing a lethal weapon in the (by definition) general direction of a human being constitutes murder if you happen to hit and kill someone. And while SA and E&W laws will obviously differ, SA statute and case law is heavily based on that of E&W, so this is a relevant comparator.
Last edited:
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
Wait, what? Is your point here that 4 bullets could not be “sure to kill” and because of that and because of a tragic happenstance that one of the bullets “shattered her head,” is some kind of proof of a lack of intent to kill?
Metullus
Forum ¾-Wit Pro Tem
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 5,260
Her killing was just an unfortunate accident. He should ave been charged with "discharging a firearm in a careless manner". Or something...
trustbutverify
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 5, 2007
- Messages
- 10,544
Now you've got it. A fish dying while someone is shooting fish in a barrel is simply a tragic accident.
Samson forgets that an intent to kill isn't a necessary part of an act of murder, as LondonJohn has just explained (again). We're right, you're wrong, Samson, and that's even when we accept the points you raise in favour of your belief.
Is this new information?
................. " The documentary reveals for the first time that a mysterious picture message was sent to Pistorius' phone shortly before the murder which may have sparked a fierce row between him and Reeva.
Previously, it was thought that Pistorius had reacted in a jealous rage to a message on Reeva's phone but the series suggests it may have been the other way around.
Phone records obtained by the production crew show that he received a message at 1.48am on the morning of February 14, 2013 – just 10 minutes neighbours said they heard shouting come from Pistorius' home.
His mobile was later sent off for analysis by police and found to have been connected to a computer owned by Pistorius' brother, Carl.
Recalling how police suspected Carl had wiped the phone clean, journalist Toby Shapshak tells the documentary: "When the phone comes back eventually and the information on the phone is accessed it shows that the phone has been plugged into a computer called 'titaniumhulk', which is the Twitter handle of his brother Carl.
"Now if we look at the data usage of his phone at that time, in the middle of all this there is a very suspicious amount of data and it is at 1.48am in the morning that the duration of the data connection is 309 seconds, which is 5minutes an 15 seconds and it amounts to 58kb.
"If that was one individual message it would probably be a photograph or a WhatsApp message.
"The interesting thing about this is that it's about 10 minutes before one of his neighbour's says she hears a lot of arguing."
Author Melinda Ferguson, who has written a biography on Pistorius, tells the documentary: "Most people think 'Oh Reeva was so beautiful, I'm sure Oscar was so jealous of Reeva and she must have been cheating". But what happens if it was the other way round?
"What happens if it was Oscar who was cheating? And it was Reeva who was insecure and jealous, feeling like her relationship was falling apart?
"So for me it's really interesting to think of it the other way, that it was Reeva who was trying to see what messages were being sent to Oscar's phone.".......
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12124272
This looks like hard data that may have woken Oscar, thus he gets up and moves the fan. This wakes Reeva who slips silently to the bathroom.
On the other hand the screaming can still be timed to come after the gunshots, which is the only plausible way Oscar's story is true.
................. " The documentary reveals for the first time that a mysterious picture message was sent to Pistorius' phone shortly before the murder which may have sparked a fierce row between him and Reeva.
Previously, it was thought that Pistorius had reacted in a jealous rage to a message on Reeva's phone but the series suggests it may have been the other way around.
Phone records obtained by the production crew show that he received a message at 1.48am on the morning of February 14, 2013 – just 10 minutes neighbours said they heard shouting come from Pistorius' home.
His mobile was later sent off for analysis by police and found to have been connected to a computer owned by Pistorius' brother, Carl.
Recalling how police suspected Carl had wiped the phone clean, journalist Toby Shapshak tells the documentary: "When the phone comes back eventually and the information on the phone is accessed it shows that the phone has been plugged into a computer called 'titaniumhulk', which is the Twitter handle of his brother Carl.
"Now if we look at the data usage of his phone at that time, in the middle of all this there is a very suspicious amount of data and it is at 1.48am in the morning that the duration of the data connection is 309 seconds, which is 5minutes an 15 seconds and it amounts to 58kb.
"If that was one individual message it would probably be a photograph or a WhatsApp message.
"The interesting thing about this is that it's about 10 minutes before one of his neighbour's says she hears a lot of arguing."
Author Melinda Ferguson, who has written a biography on Pistorius, tells the documentary: "Most people think 'Oh Reeva was so beautiful, I'm sure Oscar was so jealous of Reeva and she must have been cheating". But what happens if it was the other way round?
"What happens if it was Oscar who was cheating? And it was Reeva who was insecure and jealous, feeling like her relationship was falling apart?
"So for me it's really interesting to think of it the other way, that it was Reeva who was trying to see what messages were being sent to Oscar's phone.".......
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12124272
This looks like hard data that may have woken Oscar, thus he gets up and moves the fan. This wakes Reeva who slips silently to the bathroom.
On the other hand the screaming can still be timed to come after the gunshots, which is the only plausible way Oscar's story is true.
Yes I know this is more than two years too late, but I just noticed this piece of idiocy.
The comment "God help Pistorius if a jury were let loose on this case, where it is beyond any doubt he thought he was shooting an intruder". Well if that is what Pistorius really thought then given the circumstances, (The "intruder" being in the Bathroom behind a closed door.), then Pistorius is guilty as sin.
Except it was a bad angle for intent to kill, and nearly failed.
Just a matter of thinking like a handicapped guy stupid enough to be a gun nut.
rockinkt
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,342
So if there was "no intent to kill" why would he shoot a gun into a bathroom when he thought there was someone in it? In other words - what did he state was the desired outcome he wanted when he shot into the bathroom?
He was prepared for the worst in a country of badly treated and dangerous predators.
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
And murdered someone.
Thanks for the red herring. Who was talking about "intent to kill"? That is irrelevant to my point. The point is he was shooting into a bathroom with a door closed at a person he knew was inside. A person who at the time was no threat to him. (This is assuming you accept his version of what happened.) After all the person was in a bathroom behind a closed door. That shows reckless disregard. After all it is reasonably foreseeable that if you fire a gun into a closed room that you know is occupied by someone that you may kill or seriously injure them. "Intent to kill" is not required to convict someone in these circumstances. So even if this idiot's version of events is correct; his own version of events makes him guilty has sin. And again "intent to kill" is irrelevant to his guilt under the circumstances.
We have been over this, its a bit like Shrodinger's cat.
If the door was open then I accept intent to kill, with the door closed and a panic situation intent is arguable. I am naturally disposed to a mitigating view of crime, and I am not confident I would not make such an error, except for the simple fact I don't have a gun or any interest in them. We are fortunate in New Zealand that way.
except the law also applies to Schrodinger's cat. why do you keep ignoring the law the way it is written?
The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 37,886
It shows.
I wouldn't count those chooks too soon.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12199960
Again "intent to kill" is irrelevant in this situation.
wasapi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 17,652
Samson, respectfully, you are being obtuse. What you would, or would not do in a situation is not evidence in this case, and seems to be obfuscated by your cries of non-guilt.