Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend

[anglolawyer]

You are playing a semantic game with the word identify. You know precisely what it means when I said identifying that one is under threat and identifying the source of the threat.

For example, for private self defence you cannot think you are under attack and blast away at the first person you see or think you see.

You need to certain that the person that you kill is indeed the one attacking you.

'Certain'? Are you sure about that? Got a cite?

Instead you counter with nonsense about passports and proof of residential address and other delusional fantasies about wild west wet dreams.

I am tired of playing silly buggers with you now.

The scenario's posed in the training for competency are backed and mandated by the Firearms Control Act, Domestic Violence Act, Act for Dangerous Weapons and Criminal Procedures Act.

The law in South Africa is not the same as the law in England.

I know that. I have been discussing the differences here on the thread. None of the statutes you mention can have any real bearing on what we are discussing. The judge made no reference to the legislation in her analysis of the main charge. Gun safety and self defence are two different things. And there is no apostrophe in 'scenarios' either.

 

[Skwinty]

Yawn

 

[I Ratant]

I am trying but not succeeding. You said:



Poppycock. Back it up. This is the sort of vapid remark that contributes nothing. What on earth are you talking about? In the scenario where he dallies in the bedroom checking on Reeva and/or calling security he is not resisting anything with gunfire so what is there to stop the intruder creeping down the hallway and shooting him while he is checking etc? At what point is he going to communicate to the intruder that he is armed? Your statement is unsourced and absurd. If you have a clue what you are talking about, please say why you should be heeded. Otherwise your opinion is not better than the judge's uninformed idea that he should have got on the phone to security.

.
The common criminal cares ONLY about #1. That's why the infirm are frequent targets of crime. Not able to resist. With any resistance, a different target is selected.
Shoot, that's how barbarians operate. Attack somewhere. Meet resistance.. withdraw and attack somewhere else. Read your Keegan on Warfare.
Shooting back at your perp charging down the hallway would create an instant reassessment by the perp of his need to continue charging, or get the **** out of there with his hide in one piece, no holes. "Fight and run away, live to fight another day".
.
You shouldn't reference this thread in your resume.

 

[anglolawyer]

.
The common criminal cares ONLY about #1. That's why the infirm are frequent targets of crime. Not able to resist. With any resistance, a different target is selected.
Shoot, that's how barbarians operate. Attack somewhere. Meet resistance.. withdraw and attack somewhere else. Read your Keegan on Warfare.
Shooting back at your perp charging down the hallway would create an instant reassessment by the perp of his need to continue charging, or get the **** out of there with his hide in one piece, no holes. "Fight and run away, live to fight another day".
.
You shouldn't reference this thread in your resume.

Nice one. Thanks for the advice.

Still, aside from the fact your post reads like a cartoon version of reality, even if what you said were true (I am sure it isn't) how is everybody supposed to know this stuff? Is Oscar fixed by law with having a tactical manual in his head for use in emergencies? I know what I would do - assuming I could unfreeze long enough to do it - and that is blaze away before the other ********** got a chance to get the upper hand.

You wouldn't want to end up like these guys.

 

[I Ratant]

Is Oscar fixed by law with having a tactical manual in his head for use in emergencies?

post #1411... way back when..

Firearm Competency means that you have been found to be competent to own a firearm by the SAPS in accordance with the stipulations of Chapter 5 of Act 60 of 2000 as amended (valid for 5 years).

When you have acquired proficiency by successfully completing the relevant unit standard(s) for your specific firearm(s), you must apply for competency status with the Designated Firearms Officer in your area.with The SAPS will investigate your particular situation and determine whether you are Competent to own firearms when you apply to re-licence your legally owned firearms, or if you would apply for a licence for a new firearm. Once the SAPS have completed their investigation and have found no problem with your application, they will award you a Competency Certificate which is valid for 5 years (see the stipulations of the Act that you have to comply with in order to receive competency re The Domestic Violence Act, 1998 (Act 116 of 1998)

ETA..http://www.fatsa.co.za/list/courses_view.php?editid1=3

The Basic handgun course is aligned with Unit Standard 119649 - Handle and use a handgun.

This course covers legal aspects relating to when you may and may not shoot in self defense situations, firearm safety, loading and unloading and the fundamentals of shooting. On this course you will shoot approximately 50 rounds of ammunition. The entry level to this course is Unit Standard 117705 - Knowledge of the Firearms Control Act 60/2000. This course is a legal requirement for first time firearm owners. Please be advised that course prices will differ slightly from one Training Centre to the next, depending on facilities available.


eta http://regqs.saqa.org.za/showUnitStandard.php?id=119649

 

[MontagK505]

What if he stopped to check on her and in that time the intruder, supposing there was one, gained an advantage and killed them both?

During the time he was fumbling under the bed for his cannon, he could have easily verified she was in that very bed, no extra time required. Unless the "intruder" has night vision goggles, he has to navigate the same dark passage that Oscar did. Oscar had plenty of time to verify Reeva's location.

 

[newyorkguy]

During the time he was fumbling under the bed for his cannon, he could have easily verified she was in that very bed, no extra time required.

If I was on the jury -- if there was a jury -- that would be what I would be citing as proving beyond reasonable doubt that he did in fact know she was not in bed and knew, or certainly should've known, it was Reeva who was in the bathroom. I find it beyond belief that he was unaware she was no longer in bed. As I wrote months ago, I can't even begin to believe that. Sorry old top.

 

[MontagK505]

If I was on the jury -- if there was a jury -- that would be what I would be citing as proving beyond reasonable doubt that he did in fact know she was not in bed and knew, or certainly should've known, it was Reeva who was in the bathroom. I find it beyond belief that he was unaware she was no longer in bed. As I wrote months ago, I can't even begin to believe that. Sorry old top.

This is my view as well. With the addition that even accepting his fearful state of mind he still had the obligation to verify that an innocent person, who he knew was in the vicinity, was not in his line of fire.

 

[newyorkguy]

I don't recall exactly how the charges work in South Africa. If this happened in New York and I was on the jury, I suppose I could be argued out of first degree murder (premeditation) and agree to second degree (heat of passion).

Four shots? He meant to kill her.

 

[Azrael 5]

Reeva clealry knew there was no intruder, having travelled OP's route minutes earlier. So logically she would have called out? No staying silent for fear of intruder,locking door for the same reason etc.
What was timeline between bringing fans in and Reeva going to bathroom? 2 minutes? Was it not mentioned at the trial how ludicrous Reeva staying silent was?

 

[MontagK505]

Reeva clealry knew there was no intruder, having travelled OP's route minutes earlier. So logically she would have called out? No staying silent for fear of intruder,locking door for the same reason etc.
What was timeline between bringing fans in and Reeva going to bathroom? 2 minutes? Was it not mentioned at the trial how ludicrous Reeva staying silent was?

Playing the devils advocate, you could make the argument that Reeva didn't know who Oscar was shouting at, and may have chosen to remain silent. However, Oscar, by not verifying where she actually was, would be guilty of culpable homicide or manslaughter under California laws.

 

[Bob001]

This is my view as well. With the addition that even accepting his fearful state of mind he still had the obligation to verify that an innocent person, who he knew was in the vicinity, was not in his line of fire.

What I find hard to understand and believe is that he imagined -- or claims so -- that a sound in the bathroom must be an intruder posing a mortal threat. Most normal people would assume that a sound in the bathroom was being made by their bed partner, unless they could see that the partner was still in bed. But his story is that he didn't turn to Reeva and say "Did you hear that?" He didn't call out "Hey baby, that you?" He didn't even turn around to see where she was. His story is inherently implausible.

And as I noted above, a previous girlfriend who slept in the same bed has said she doesn't believe his story because she knows he didn't keep the room "pitch dark" and he routinely asked her what she thought about strange noises (which invariably turned out to be nothing). Knowing what we know about human behavior generally and about this particular guy, it's much more likely that she fled from him into the bathroom (taking her cell phone) and he chased her in a rage.

 

[SezMe]

Well, whaddaya know? No attempt to ID them or warn them - he just 'popped' and, doubtless because they really were bad guys, nobody has a problem. He even shot at them when they were running away (attempted murder?). It doesn't seem as though the police thought there was anything amiss here. I bet there are thousands of similar stories.

No doubt. And for every one of those stories, there are several (3-7?) where things go belly up and the wrong guy buys the farm. In the USA that is a statistical fact.

 

[Azrael 5]

Playing the devils advocate, you could make the argument that Reeva didn't know who Oscar was shouting at, and may have chosen to remain silent. However, Oscar, by not verifying where she actually was, would be guilty of culpable homicide or manslaughter under California laws.

Well in his statement he was shouting" get out of my house" so therefore she wknew no one could be in the house as she had moments earlier got up. Unless an intruder could get in from front door downstairs?

Does anyone know whether OP announced he was armed?

 

[lionking]

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defen...-fire-on-two-robbery-suspects-saves-roommate/ is a link to a site with a bunch of cases where guns are used in legit self defence. Take this one:



There is a link to the story according to which the shooter says:



Well, whaddaya know? No attempt to ID them or warn them - he just 'popped' and, doubtless because they really were bad guys, nobody has a problem. He even shot at them when they were running away (attempted murder?). It doesn't seem as though the police thought there was anything amiss here. I bet there are thousands of similar stories.

An unverified report from a gun-nut website??? Forgive me if I ignore everything from such a hopelessly biased source.

 

[MontagK505]

An unverified report from a gun-nut website??? Forgive me if I ignore everything from such a hopelessly biased source.

Not only that, but the story doesn't say anything about shooting at a noise behind a closed door. The stories aren't even remotely comparable.

 

[MontagK505]

I don't recall exactly how the charges work in South Africa. If this happened in New York and I was on the jury, I suppose I could be argued out of first degree murder (premeditation) and agree to second degree (heat of passion).

Four shots? He meant to kill her.

Well, he certainly meant to kill somebody.

 

[anglolawyer]

An unverified report from a gun-nut website??? Forgive me if I ignore everything from such a hopelessly biased source.

The story contained a link to a news report. Whatever. The burden is on you and your buddies here to show by reference to some objective standard based on expert combat training and experience that shooting through the door (without first checking on Reeva and without calling security) was not within the range of reasonable responses open to Oscar. All I have had by way of response so far are demands to know whether I have ever held a gun, which completely misses the point, or alternative scenario's scenarios (including the judge's) that are not demonstrably safer than what he actually did.

 

[Bob001]

The story contained a link to a news report. Whatever. The burden is on you and your buddies here to show by reference to some objective standard based on expert combat training and experience that shooting through the door (without first checking on Reeva and without calling security) was not within the range of reasonable responses open to Oscar. All I have had by way of response so far are demands to know whether I have ever held a gun, which completely misses the point, or alternative scenario's scenarios (including the judge's) that are not demonstrably safer than what he actually did.

You can't possibly be as dense as you pretend. It is self-evident that you don't shoot at someone (let alone an unidentified sound!) without knowing who it is because there is a good chance that you will hit someone you didn't intend to hit. And your lack of experience with firearms means that you just don't understand what it means to hold an engine of death in your hands and know -- know! -- that you possess the power to kill anyone you can see. For most people that inspires a certain level of caution and restraint.

You want sources? Jeff Cooper was a legendary US firearms trainer (the UK couldn't produce such a person). Here are his four rules for firearms safety:

RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED

RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY

RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET

RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET

Take particular note of II and IV.
http://thefiringline.com/Misc/safetyrules.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_safety

 

[MontagK505]

You can't possibly be as dense as you pretend. It is self-evident that you don't shoot at someone (let alone an unidentified sound!) without knowing who it is because there is a good chance that you will hit someone you didn't intend to hit. And your lack of experience with firearms means that you just don't understand what it means to hold an engine of death in your hands and know -- know! -- that you possess the power to kill anyone you can see. For most people that inspires a certain level of caution and restraint.

You want sources? Jeff Cooper was a legendary US firearms trainer (the UK couldn't produce such a person). Here are his four rules for firearms safety:

[Quote:]
RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED

RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY

RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET

RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET

Rule IV Oscar clearly did not do. Oscars behavior is that of an irresponsible, reckless poop-brain.