Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend
Discussion
Lost soul said:
In this situation the first thing you would do is turn on the light , its just not credible to say you did not
If you believe that there is someone in your immediate area with a gun and if you want to try to take them by surprise and have a chance of shooting them then turning on the light to reveal yourself probably isnt such a good idea.People do all sorts of 'strange' things when under pressure.
KTF said:
Lost soul said:
In this situation the first thing you would do is turn on the light , its just not credible to say you did not
If you believe that there is someone in your immediate area with a gun and if you want to try to take them by surprise and have a chance of shooting them then turning on the light to reveal yourself probably isnt such a good idea.People do all sorts of 'strange' things when under pressure.
KTF said:
Lost soul said:
In this situation the first thing you would do is turn on the light , its just not credible to say you did not
If you believe that there is someone in your immediate area with a gun and if you want to try to take them by surprise and have a chance of shooting them then turning on the light to reveal yourself probably isnt such a good idea.People do all sorts of 'strange' things when under pressure.
Lost soul said:
You have a gun and a bat , I am sure I would want to see who was where , personally I would have stood my ground in the bedroom
But you can still see in the dark without turning on the light which might well 'blind' both of you as there is a sudden change in the light levels.Rocksteadyeddie said:
Defence balistic expert Roger Dixon said:
Bullet spread is accounted for by the person firing correcting his fire as he pulled the trigger
Oh... and indeed dear. TheSnitch said:
Rocksteadyeddie said:
Defence balistic expert Roger Dixon said:
Bullet spread is accounted for by the person firing correcting his fire as he pulled the trigger
Oh... and indeed dear. KTF said:
TTmonkey said:
Ok, do you accept the current experts opinion that IF the ligths were off the bathroom was completely dark?
Pistoriuos says he could see enough to be able to see the door handle. In a completely dark room. He can also see enough to see that no one is standing in the unlit walk-in showever cubicle AND NEVER FIRES TOWARDS IT.
So he's managed to shoot the door 4 times in a fairly small controlled grouping in the pitch dark with a hand gun held low down in one hand whilst not aiming the gun - Pistoriuos's evidence. Do you accept that as the truth?
If you do, then you may have doubt enough not to convict of murder.
However, if you also accept that this isn't possibly true, that in order for him to have shot through the door, in this apparant controlled manner, then you have to accept that the lights were probably on....? And that he aimed the gun? Then its murder. Because if the lights are on he's lying about Reva's location and all other details not conducive to him being found not guilty and he knows she's in there.
His denial of murder is because in retrospect he didnt want to kill her...... and ruin his entire life. And every time he thinks of this he breaks down and cries.
imho of course....
The simple truth of this case is that the weapon must have been held in the aim position for him to have made those shots. And he must have been able to clearly see the target.
When I wake up during the night, I can make it to the bathroom and back without turning on the light as its never 'pitch black' as your eyes adjust - even more so when you have been sleeping. I could probably find my way around the rest of the house as well knowing the layout well.Pistoriuos says he could see enough to be able to see the door handle. In a completely dark room. He can also see enough to see that no one is standing in the unlit walk-in showever cubicle AND NEVER FIRES TOWARDS IT.
So he's managed to shoot the door 4 times in a fairly small controlled grouping in the pitch dark with a hand gun held low down in one hand whilst not aiming the gun - Pistoriuos's evidence. Do you accept that as the truth?
If you do, then you may have doubt enough not to convict of murder.
However, if you also accept that this isn't possibly true, that in order for him to have shot through the door, in this apparant controlled manner, then you have to accept that the lights were probably on....? And that he aimed the gun? Then its murder. Because if the lights are on he's lying about Reva's location and all other details not conducive to him being found not guilty and he knows she's in there.
His denial of murder is because in retrospect he didnt want to kill her...... and ruin his entire life. And every time he thinks of this he breaks down and cries.
imho of course....
The simple truth of this case is that the weapon must have been held in the aim position for him to have made those shots. And he must have been able to clearly see the target.
Sure, if the light is on then turned off it looks black but after some time you do see things.
I believe the toilet was in a smaller room to the rest of the bathroom so with the door being closed thats a good place for someone to hide so shooting through the door (aiming low to hit the torso and/or if the person inside was crouched down) doesnt seem unreasonable?
How could he see the target/her if she was behind a closed door?
He wanst 'going for a tinkle in the night' he was going to confront an intruder with a gun. He would put the light on. When searching desperatly for his girlfriend (it was allegedly so dark in the room that he had to feel around for her on the floor - his words) you would PUT THE LIGHTS on - he says he didnt.
He also failed to search the rest of the flat for his girlfriend (this was an appartment, not a hotel bedroom, it has other rooms, to which Reva could have gone once he went with his gun to the bathroom - such a lounge, kitchen etc.
He returned to the bathroom and broke down the door with a cricket bat as now he thinks its not an armed burgular its his girlfriend.
All through this he has stated that the gun basically went off 'by accident' and that he didnt actually mean to shoot anyone, including his girlfriend or any burgular. But he did a pretty good job of it.
AND yes, if you know someone is standing behind a closed door in a confined space and you aim the gun at waist height at the door you are targetting the person, not the door. He wasnt trying to kill the door, he was trying to kill the "burglar" behaind the door. You know, the unarmed woman.
His only possible defence for this would have been to say that he did it all while sleep walking.....
KTF said:
Lost soul said:
In this situation the first thing you would do is turn on the light , its just not credible to say you did not
If you believe that there is someone in your immediate area with a gun and if you want to try to take them by surprise and have a chance of shooting them then turning on the light to reveal yourself probably isnt such a good idea.People do all sorts of 'strange' things when under pressure.
There's a name for that. It's called Murder. Just sayin'
TheSnitch said:
KTF said:
Lost soul said:
In this situation the first thing you would do is turn on the light , its just not credible to say you did not
If you believe that there is someone in your immediate area with a gun and if you want to try to take them by surprise and have a chance of shooting them then turning on the light to reveal yourself probably isnt such a good idea.People do all sorts of 'strange' things when under pressure.
There's a name for that. It's called Murder. Just sayin'
EskimoArapaho said:
TheSnitch said:
Rocksteadyeddie said:
Defence balistic expert Roger Dixon said:
Bullet spread is accounted for by the person firing correcting his fire as he pulled the trigger
Oh... and indeed dear. I think the most useful thing Roux could have done with some of his witnesses - Pistorius included - was to have deployed that cricket bat himself
TTmonkey said:
he DIDNT go to the toilet in the dark to have a wee, he went to confront an intruder. Are you so short sighted that you cant understand that????? He got up to 'get a fan from the balcony because he couldnt sleep'. Whilst he did this he says Reeva must have got out of bed and gone to the toilet without him noticing. What happened next is, according to him he identified that an intruder had entered the bathroom through an open window and he returned to his bed to get his gun (in the pitch black with the lights out) he then proceeded to the bathroom area (in the dark without turning on the lights) to hunt down this intruder. He got to the bathroom and unleashed a volley of shots into a door of a very small room (with the lights out) and then he returned to the bedroom, where he searched for his now missing girlfriend (in the dark with the lights out). He then stopped to put on his legs (in the dark with the ligths out) and then returned to the bathroom (in the dark with the lights out).
He wanst 'going for a tinkle in the night' he was going to confront an intruder with a gun. He would put the light on. When searching desperatly for his girlfriend (it was allegedly so dark in the room that he had to feel around for her on the floor - his words) you would PUT THE LIGHTS on - he says he didnt.
He also failed to search the rest of the flat for his girlfriend (this was an appartment, not a hotel bedroom, it has other rooms, to which Reva could have gone once he went with his gun to the bathroom - such a lounge, kitchen etc.
He returned to the bathroom and broke down the door with a cricket bat as now he thinks its not an armed burgular its his girlfriend.
All through this he has stated that the gun basically went off 'by accident' and that he didnt actually mean to shoot anyone, including his girlfriend or any burgular. But he did a pretty good job of it.
AND yes, if you know someone is standing behind a closed door in a confined space and you aim the gun at waist height at the door you are targetting the person, not the door. He wasnt trying to kill the door, he was trying to kill the "burglar" behaind the door. You know, the unarmed woman.
His only possible defence for this would have been to say that he did it all while sleep walking.....
This is an interesting blog regarding the legal status of the various charges in SA. The precis is that OP is now in a World of trouble as he has fallen between two stools of possible defence, and in doing so undermined both. He wanst 'going for a tinkle in the night' he was going to confront an intruder with a gun. He would put the light on. When searching desperatly for his girlfriend (it was allegedly so dark in the room that he had to feel around for her on the floor - his words) you would PUT THE LIGHTS on - he says he didnt.
He also failed to search the rest of the flat for his girlfriend (this was an appartment, not a hotel bedroom, it has other rooms, to which Reva could have gone once he went with his gun to the bathroom - such a lounge, kitchen etc.
He returned to the bathroom and broke down the door with a cricket bat as now he thinks its not an armed burgular its his girlfriend.
All through this he has stated that the gun basically went off 'by accident' and that he didnt actually mean to shoot anyone, including his girlfriend or any burgular. But he did a pretty good job of it.
AND yes, if you know someone is standing behind a closed door in a confined space and you aim the gun at waist height at the door you are targetting the person, not the door. He wasnt trying to kill the door, he was trying to kill the "burglar" behaind the door. You know, the unarmed woman.
His only possible defence for this would have been to say that he did it all while sleep walking.....
The defence he started with is known as "Putative private defence" - i.e. he genuinely believed he was in a situation where there was an imminent attack and he therfore shot to kill the attacker. He will not be found guilty on this defence unless his belief is shown to be unreasonable. Hence why Nel worked long and hard to undermine various aspects of his testimony, and why he scoffed, ridiculed and constantly harried OP. He is aiming to make OP appear unreasonable.
There are several issues with OPs defence:
1. He says he didn't intend to kill anyone. Putative private defence requires that he intended to kill the intruder.
2. OP testified that he didn't intend to shoot the gun. i.e. he acted involuntarily. This plays to why Nel was asking why he didn't empty the magasine. If it was truly involuntary he would have, more likely, shot once, or the whole magasine worth.
3. OP testifies he heard the door slam. A door slamming suggests someone running into the bathroom not out of it.
The author concludes by saying "The decision for him [OP] to testify is, without a doubt, one fo the worst decisions in legal history"
Full post here
Rocksteadyeddie said:
This is an interesting blog regarding the legal status of the various charges in SA. The precis is that OP is now in a World of trouble as he has fallen between two stools of possible defence, and in doing so undermined both.
The defence he started with is known as "Putative private defence" - i.e. he genuinely believed he was in a situation where there was an imminent attack and he therfore shot to kill the attacker. He will not be found guilty on this defence unless his belief is shown to be unreasonable. Hence why Nel worked long and hard to undermine various aspects of his testimony, and why he scoffed, ridiculed and constantly harried OP. He is aiming to make OP appear unreasonable.
There are several issues with OPs defence:
1. He says he didn't intend to kill anyone. Putative private defence requires that he intended to kill the intruder.
2. OP testified that he didn't intend to shoot the gun. i.e. he acted involuntarily. This plays to why Nel was asking why he didn't empty the magasine. If it was truly involuntary he would have, more likely, shot once, or the whole magasine worth.
3. OP testifies he heard the door slam. A door slamming suggests someone running into the bathroom not out of it.
The author concludes by saying "The decision for him [OP] to testify is, without a doubt, one fo the worst decisions in legal history"
Full post here
Thank you for that. Very interestingThe defence he started with is known as "Putative private defence" - i.e. he genuinely believed he was in a situation where there was an imminent attack and he therfore shot to kill the attacker. He will not be found guilty on this defence unless his belief is shown to be unreasonable. Hence why Nel worked long and hard to undermine various aspects of his testimony, and why he scoffed, ridiculed and constantly harried OP. He is aiming to make OP appear unreasonable.
There are several issues with OPs defence:
1. He says he didn't intend to kill anyone. Putative private defence requires that he intended to kill the intruder.
2. OP testified that he didn't intend to shoot the gun. i.e. he acted involuntarily. This plays to why Nel was asking why he didn't empty the magasine. If it was truly involuntary he would have, more likely, shot once, or the whole magasine worth.
3. OP testifies he heard the door slam. A door slamming suggests someone running into the bathroom not out of it.
The author concludes by saying "The decision for him [OP] to testify is, without a doubt, one fo the worst decisions in legal history"
Full post here
Especially this paragraph
cited article said:
Murder: murder is the unlawful and intentional killing of another human being. This means the accused must have intended to kill another human being without any legal justification/excuse for doing so. As we can see from this definition, an error in the identity of one’s victim is not enough to free them from a charge of murder. For example, if I intend to shoot and kill person A but the bullet instead hits and kills person B, I may still be found guilty of murder despite my intending to kill person A and not person B. Therefore, it is no excuse for Oscar to say that he intended to kill an intruder, not Reeva.
Precisely the point I made earlier in the threadTTmonkey said:
he DIDNT go to the toilet in the dark to have a wee, he went to confront an intruder. Are you so short sighted that you cant understand that????? He got up to 'get a fan from the balcony because he couldnt sleep'. Whilst he did this he says Reeva must have got out of bed and gone to the toilet without him noticing. What happened next is, according to him he identified that an intruder had entered the bathroom through an open window and he returned to his bed to get his gun (in the pitch black with the lights out) he then proceeded to the bathroom area (in the dark without turning on the lights) to hunt down this intruder. He got to the bathroom and unleashed a volley of shots into a door of a very small room (with the lights out) and then he returned to the bedroom, where he searched for his now missing girlfriend (in the dark with the lights out). He then stopped to put on his legs (in the dark with the ligths out) and then returned to the bathroom (in the dark with the lights out).
He wanst 'going for a tinkle in the night' he was going to confront an intruder with a gun. He would put the light on. When searching desperatly for his girlfriend (it was allegedly so dark in the room that he had to feel around for her on the floor - his words) you would PUT THE LIGHTS on - he says he didnt.
He also failed to search the rest of the flat for his girlfriend (this was an appartment, not a hotel bedroom, it has other rooms, to which Reva could have gone once he went with his gun to the bathroom - such a lounge, kitchen etc.
He returned to the bathroom and broke down the door with a cricket bat as now he thinks its not an armed burgular its his girlfriend.
All through this he has stated that the gun basically went off 'by accident' and that he didnt actually mean to shoot anyone, including his girlfriend or any burgular. But he did a pretty good job of it.
AND yes, if you know someone is standing behind a closed door in a confined space and you aim the gun at waist height at the door you are targetting the person, not the door. He wasnt trying to kill the door, he was trying to kill the "burglar" behaind the door. You know, the unarmed woman.
His only possible defence for this would have been to say that he did it all while sleep walking.....
I dont recall saying that he got up to go to the toilet, I was only pointing out that when you wake up during the night - for example to go to the toilet - it isnt pitch black as your eyes have adjusted to the low light levels.He wanst 'going for a tinkle in the night' he was going to confront an intruder with a gun. He would put the light on. When searching desperatly for his girlfriend (it was allegedly so dark in the room that he had to feel around for her on the floor - his words) you would PUT THE LIGHTS on - he says he didnt.
He also failed to search the rest of the flat for his girlfriend (this was an appartment, not a hotel bedroom, it has other rooms, to which Reva could have gone once he went with his gun to the bathroom - such a lounge, kitchen etc.
He returned to the bathroom and broke down the door with a cricket bat as now he thinks its not an armed burgular its his girlfriend.
All through this he has stated that the gun basically went off 'by accident' and that he didnt actually mean to shoot anyone, including his girlfriend or any burgular. But he did a pretty good job of it.
AND yes, if you know someone is standing behind a closed door in a confined space and you aim the gun at waist height at the door you are targetting the person, not the door. He wasnt trying to kill the door, he was trying to kill the "burglar" behaind the door. You know, the unarmed woman.
His only possible defence for this would have been to say that he did it all while sleep walking.....
That he shot her isn't in dispute, its whether it was intentional or not.
If he did do it on purpose then I dont see what he had to gain.
Say she said she wanted to break up with him (regardless of what the words in the Valentines card said), I cant believe he would have taken it so badly that he felt the need to kill her.
I mean, he has allegedly already got another girlfriend whilst he is on trial for allegedly killing the previous one so it doesn't look like he has to try very hard to find replacements.
Bonefish Blues said:
On a boat in the middle of a lake with a group of close friends who were wakeboarding and swimming?
We'll have to agree to differ on the need to carry a handgun for personal protection in that particular circumstance.
If he were able to teleport himself to the boat direct from his house then I'd tend to agree. Given that he can't, I don't.We'll have to agree to differ on the need to carry a handgun for personal protection in that particular circumstance.
TheSnitch said:
Hmmm - you know that ''taking them by surprize and shooting them'' thing you mention?
There's a name for that. It's called Murder. Just sayin'
If you believe that person shouldn't be in your house and may be armed and out to shoot you then it might be called something else.There's a name for that. It's called Murder. Just sayin'
Bonefish Blues said:
Same guy was content to leave his handgun behind in open view in a car in an urban area and then get the arse when a Police Officer challenged him about that. I'm pondering the inconsistencies in the trial.
Not true. The officer saw it when he stopped the car. It wasn't left on view in an unattended car.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff