Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend

Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend

Author
Discussion

Vaud

50,467 posts

155 months

Monday 12th May 2014
quotequote all
Foppo said:
He used illegal bullets making sure anybody he shot would have been killed.
I think when you shoot someone 4 times with a high powered gun, the bullet type becomes pretty immaterial.

Rocksteadyeddie

7,971 posts

227 months

Monday 12th May 2014
quotequote all
10 Pence Short said:
Interesting development. The court has to decide if the expert witness psychiatrist has accidentally established that OP has a mental condition requiring a State assessment. She also seemed let it slip that OP was possibly guilty of murder, in her opinion.
Apparently he scoffed at the suggestion and felt it had been a good day for him. Which in itself suggests he's mental.

Bonefish Blues

26,678 posts

223 months

Monday 12th May 2014
quotequote all
Source for that?

Bonefish Blues

26,678 posts

223 months

Monday 12th May 2014
quotequote all
He does like a quote does old Oscar...

AJL308

6,390 posts

156 months

Monday 12th May 2014
quotequote all
Foppo said:
Apparently he has a fight response in stead of flat response according to his laywer.Due to his disabilities.This trial is more bizarre by the day.

He will get off due to a mental disorder the way the trial is going.He used illegal bullets making sure anybody he shot would have been killed.

You have to feel sorry for Reeva's parents who have to listen to this lying peace of S.
No he didn't.

ajl.

AJL308

6,390 posts

156 months

Monday 12th May 2014
quotequote all
Vaud said:
I think when you shoot someone 4 times with a high powered gun, the bullet type becomes pretty immaterial.
Out of nterest; what classifies something as a 'high-powered' gun, as opposed to any other type?

ajl

xjsdriver

1,071 posts

121 months

Monday 12th May 2014
quotequote all
AJL308 said:
Out of nterest; what classifies something as a 'high-powered' gun, as opposed to any other type?

ajl
Large calibre, (9mm and above for pistols) high gunpowder grain charge in cartridge (7.62mm / 7.65mm rounds - AK47 / AR15 rifles) are considered quite high-powered. Browning even make the 9mm hi-power model of hand gun.

AJL308

6,390 posts

156 months

Tuesday 13th May 2014
quotequote all
xjsdriver said:
Large calibre, (9mm and above for pistols) high gunpowder grain charge in cartridge (7.62mm / 7.65mm rounds - AK47 / AR15 rifles) are considered quite high-powered. Browning even make the 9mm hi-power model of hand gun.
There is no definton of 'high-powered' or 'large calibre' relating to firearms; it's just fluff used by the media and people who don't really know what they're talking about, in order either to add sensation to a story or to obscure the fact that they don't know what they are talking about.

The 9mm Parabellum chambering which OP used is a very common, very mundane round which isn't particularly powerful as pistol rounds go. Nor is 9mm a particularly large calibre bullet - in fact it's generally accepted as being around the lower limit for an acceptable self-defence round.

The full name of the Browning pistol you allude to is the GP35. It stands for 'Grand Puissance' with 35 referring to it's year (1935) of introduction.

Grande Puissance is French for 'High Power', 'Major Power', 'Great Power', or similar, and referred to it's large magazine capacity of thirteen rounds which was unusually large for the time. It wasn't a reference to the ammunition it fired being particularly or unusually powerful. After all, it chambered the common 9x19mm Parrabellum round (same as OP used) which had then been in very wide use for three and a half decades.

ajl.

zygalski

7,759 posts

145 months

Tuesday 13th May 2014
quotequote all
An air gun, rifle or standard .22 wouldn't be classed as high-powered. Unless you're a rabbit.

Alfanatic

9,339 posts

219 months

Tuesday 13th May 2014
quotequote all
AJL308 said:
There is no definton of 'high-powered' or 'large calibre' relating to firearms; it's just fluff used by the media and people who don't really know what they're talking about, in order either to add sensation to a story or to obscure the fact that they don't know what they are talking about.

The 9mm Parabellum chambering which OP used is a very common, very mundane round which isn't particularly powerful as pistol rounds go. Nor is 9mm a particularly large calibre bullet - in fact it's generally accepted as being around the lower limit for an acceptable self-defence round.

The full name of the Browning pistol you allude to is the GP35. It stands for 'Grand Puissance' with 35 referring to it's year (1935) of introduction.

Grande Puissance is French for 'High Power', 'Major Power', 'Great Power', or similar, and referred to it's large magazine capacity of thirteen rounds which was unusually large for the time. It wasn't a reference to the ammunition it fired being particularly or unusually powerful. After all, it chambered the common 9x19mm Parrabellum round (same as OP used) which had then been in very wide use for three and a half decades.

ajl.
That seriously wasn't worth four and a half fking paragraphs of explanation. Jesus.

anonymous-user

54 months

Tuesday 13th May 2014
quotequote all
Alfanatic said:
That seriously wasn't worth four and a half fking paragraphs of explanation. Jesus.
To be fair, they were small paragraphs smile

Vaud

50,467 posts

155 months

Tuesday 13th May 2014
quotequote all
AJL308 said:
There is no definton of 'high-powered' or 'large calibre' relating to firearms; it's just fluff used by the media and people who don't really know what they're talking about, in order either to add sensation to a story or to obscure the fact that they don't know what they are talking about.
I was using it a general sweeping term to differentiate from, say, an air rifle. My humble apologies for using a generalisation and not specifying exactly the capability of the firearm in question, I doff my cap to your superior knowledge.

My point was, if you have been shot at close range by a handgun in the places she was, bullet type is a secondary and not a primary determinant in survivability.

Alfanatic

9,339 posts

219 months

Tuesday 13th May 2014
quotequote all
garyhun said:
Alfanatic said:
That seriously wasn't worth four and a half fking paragraphs of explanation. Jesus.
To be fair, they were small paragraphs smile
Not small enough.. Defining high powered weapons... I ask you. Actually on second thoughts I really should not.

anonymous-user

54 months

Tuesday 13th May 2014
quotequote all
Alfanatic said:
Actually on second thoughts I really should not.
hehe

longblackcoat

5,047 posts

183 months

Tuesday 13th May 2014
quotequote all
Vaud said:
AJL308 said:
There is no definton of 'high-powered' or 'large calibre' relating to firearms; it's just fluff used by the media and people who don't really know what they're talking about, in order either to add sensation to a story or to obscure the fact that they don't know what they are talking about.
I was using it a general sweeping term to differentiate from, say, an air rifle. My humble apologies for using a generalisation and not specifying exactly the capability of the firearm in question, I doff my cap to your superior knowledge.

My point was, if you have been shot at close range by a handgun in the places she was, bullet type is a secondary and not a primary determinant in survivability.
Yes and no. RS was shot in several places, but the only one that might have been fatal if using steel jacketed bullets would have been the head shot. The expanding hollow-point bullets OP used are designed to enter the body but not exit, causing massively more damage, making the head shot a certain killer, and the hip and elbow wounds likely fatal ones as well due to the damage and consequent blood loss.

XCP

16,914 posts

228 months

Tuesday 13th May 2014
quotequote all
Alfanatic said:
Not small enough.. Defining high powered weapons... I ask you. Actually on second thoughts I really should not.
I found it quite enlightening actually.

lady topaz

3,855 posts

254 months

Tuesday 13th May 2014
quotequote all
Can someone with far more knowledge than me please explain todays events.

Why is Nel so desperate for OP to be sectioned for mental evaluation? Surely if after a month he is proven to have a mental illness, he couldn't then be tried for murder.

I am trying to grasp how this benefits the state.

What am I missing, or is Nel relying on psychiatrists to find OP normal?

Wrathalanche

696 posts

140 months

Tuesday 13th May 2014
quotequote all
I understood it as pre-emptive against a potential appeal on mental health grounds if found guilty. And that whilst his current defense might not be reliant on mental defect, he could go ahead and sack his counsel and bring in a new one that presents that argument.

And also I guess he believes there's nothing wrong with him and that will be proven.

Davie_GLA

6,521 posts

199 months

Tuesday 13th May 2014
quotequote all
The way i see it is that until yesterday no-one had any thoughts in their minds about OP being mentally unstable. I wonder if OP himself knew that was coming.

Nel i think doesn't believe a word of it and sees it as a chance to buy some time; perhaps for Roux to regroup and come back with more defence.

It is dragging on a bit mind you. I think the state mentioned that they would have a verdict this week (today) and this just slows everything down that little bit.

Everyone knows he's guilty, he won't avoid prison; it's just how long he will spend in jail i guess.

OP looks very calm and collected throughout mind you, he seems to have stopped breaking down in court. Has he reserved himself to a long stint in jail?

Steffan

10,362 posts

228 months

Tuesday 13th May 2014
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Indeed that has been my view for some time. OP has been demonstrating serious issues for some time in this trial. That could explain his actions but never excuse them. I hope the court decides to do that given the experts views. But in SA who knows?