Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend

[kiseca]

alfaman said:

EVEN IF OP thought it was a burglar in the toilet ( which beggars belief)

You are missing Pints' point. In South Africa the thought that an armed burglar is in your house and, having heard you moving around has hidden behind a toilet door, is not unreasonable. Nor is the fear that a a verbal challenge to the burglar will be met with gunfire, because the burglar is also scared that you have a gun. And with guns, quite simply it is better to shoot first than second, and to continue shooting until you are sure whoever you are shooting at can no longer shoot back.

It's not the UK. You get shot for your wristwatch out there. It's quite easy to get away with murder in SA. Even if you are black. The police force just isn't as well equipped, as well staffed, or as good at solving crimes as the uK force. So a crook has a better chance of success by killing their victim than by risking an armed confrontation with them. This makes the burglars trigger happy, and it makes homeowners paranoid. I'm not saying that it's right to unload into a door without identifying who is behind it, just that I can understand the state of mind that would make someone do that. His story was plausible.

I used to think it was bad out there when it seemed everyone knew someone who had been held up at gunpoint, raped at gunpoint or shot. When I left, it was partly because I was struggling to name the people I knew personally who hadn't been victims of gun crime.

Meanwhile over here a kid in a hoody is seen as a bit threatening. Bliss, frankly.

And yes, I do believe that Oscar knew it was Reeva. And he is gun happy even by SA standards. The witnesses who heard a woman screaming before the shots were fired were what sowed the seeds of doubt in my mind. But without a confession they have nothing to prove it.

[Pints]

krunchkin said:

alfaman said:

Pints said:

But that, according to the verdict, is not what happened either.

Many, many pages ago I was criticised for claiming that the imagined scenario (as presented by the defence) was a possible or likely one in South Africa.

Now that Masipa has effectively stated that, given South Africa's propensity to violence and crime, the scenario imagined by the defence is plausible. In passing the verdict, she has dismissed the state's version of events (and yours) as untrue.

You can't only accept the court's decision as correct when it's aligned with your views, experience and opinions.

You may be missing a crucial point.

EVEN IF OP thought it was a burglar in the toilet ( which beggars belief) - from his version of events:

- he knew or thought there was someone in the toilet
- he fired 4 shots at the toilet. Deliberately. With precision . 4 times. Using dum dum bullets.
- without warning and without being under threat
The OBVIOUS foreseeable consequences of that deliberate action is that whoever was behind the door would almost certainly die - if intention was a warning shot he would not have pumped 4 into a confined space.
- the above actually does fit the definition of murder in South Africa .

Even the judge IIRC made some comment that consequences were foreseeable....

I actually think based even on defense 'scenario' she got the verdict wrong

Edited by alfaman on Saturday 18th October 07:42

precisely this - regardless of who was behind the door, or who he thought was behind the door, (and - come on - we all know he knew it was his girlfriend ) - he pumped a fking hand cannon into it, with a clear intention to kill. And he's going to walk away with community service because jail isn't a nice place. It's a total farce

It seems we're largely in agreement, with the exception of "we all know he knew it was his girlfriend [behind the door]".
I accept the court's view that he didn't. And if that had been the actual scenario on the 14th February, I don't believe we'd have been subjected to this court case. It is highly probable that it'd have been a case of "thanks for doing this country a service by removing one of the many violent burglars who prowl the streets of South Africa every day and night."

My point remains, you're still claiming he knew it was her behind the door but the court has found differently. Continuing to make your statement as though it were fact is tantamount to defamation.

[JensenA]

Pints said:

It seems we're largely in agreement, with the exception of "we all know he knew it was his girlfriend [behind the door]".
I accept the court's view that he didn't. And if that had been the actual scenario on the 14th February, I don't believe we'd have been subjected to this court case. It is highly probable that it'd have been a case of "thanks for doing this country a service by removing one of the many violent burglars who prowl the streets of South Africa every day and night."

My point remains, you're still claiming he knew it was her behind the door but the court has found differently. Continuing to make your statement as though it were fact is tantamount to defamation.

The court couldn't prove that he knew it was Reeva behind the closed door. I think it is fair to say that everybody, apart from you you of course, and perhaps a few others, seem happy to think that because it couldn't be proved, then it now becomes a fact that he did not know it was Reeva behind the door.

If, has someone else has stated, Burglars in SA are trigger happy, and know that most house owners are armed and also trigger happy, then why on earth would a burglar break in to the bedroom, then realising they had been discovered, enter the bathroom and lock themselves into the toilet cubicle, and remain silent?

Also, any sane, intelligent, man who is lying in bed with his partner, and thinks he has heard a burglar enter the bathroom, would wake his partner first - especially a disabled man with no legs. Even if he didn't wake her, you just 'know' that your partner is in bed with you,

However if you choose to accept the courts view that he didn't know, then you are ignoring common sense, and explaining why this case has caused such controversy.

[photosnob]

JensenA said:

The court couldn't prove that he knew it was Reeva behind the closed door. I think it is fair to say that everybody, apart from you you of course, and perhaps a few others, seem happy to think that because it couldn't be proved, then it now becomes a fact that he did not know it was Reeva behind the door.

If, has someone else has stated, Burglars in SA are trigger happy, and know that most house owners are armed and also trigger happy, then why on earth would a burglar break in to the bedroom, then realising they had been discovered, enter the bathroom and lock themselves into the toilet cubicle, and remain silent?

Also, any sane, intelligent, man who is lying in bed with his partner, and thinks he has heard a burglar enter the bathroom, would wake his partner first - especially a disabled man with no legs. Even if he didn't wake her, you just 'know' that your partner is in bed with you,

However if you choose to accept the courts view that he didn't know, then you are ignoring common sense, and explaining why this case has caused such controversy.

We will never know either way if he meant to kill her. Saying he did is equally stupid as saying he didn't. You can waver to one side, but only he will truly ever know what he was intending that night.

A burglar who was scared and trying to hide could easily have locked himself away. Your hypothesis that this is outside the realms of possibility is wrong. I've personally known people who have done similar things after being naughty. When fear takes over sometimes people do not behave rationally.

The idea that you would wake up your partner if you believed there was a dangerous person in a small apartment is absurd. You would want to make as little noise as possible and if you were armed you certainly wouldn't want to alert them to the fact. I once thought I had been broken into, rather than waking up my partner I slowly got out of bed trying to not even make the floor boards make a noise. After getting a golf club I realised it was in my head and a window had just been left open. However I was not waking my partner up, and the adrenaline rush that went through my body was almost unreal. I had to search the ground floor flat and close all the windows before I could even contemplate going back to bed.

The idea that you "know" I can't really argue with. Most ladies who have been foolish enough to share my bead had a habit of letting me know. However again that isn't definitive proof.

Finally - the case caused controversy because he is the most famous living South African, and she was a beautiful women. It's not a particularly special case in any respect apart from that. He probably was guilty. My gut feeling is he lost his temper that night and went mental. I don't think he probably meant to kill her, but he did end up doing so. However my opinion doesn't mean anything. So lets stop trying to judge the bloke on what we think he could have done, and instead judge him on what the court have said they believe he has done.

[Mermaid]

photosnob said:

.. My gut feeling is he lost his temper that night and went mental. I don't think he probably meant to kill her, but he did end up doing so. However my opinion doesn't mean anything. So lets stop trying to judge the bloke on what we think he could have done, and instead judge him on what the court have said they believe he has done.

That's about it, we all rely on our gut feeling for most things in life and why this grates. A bit OJ Simpson.

If freed, will he become a model citizen? I would not bet on it for his temper will prevail again, as it did this time.

[JensenA]

Well it's a good job you didn't find anyone in your apartment! Presumably you would have battered them to death with your golf club - "oh sorry love, thought you were a burglar!"

I also think the case caused 'interest' because of who it was, but controversy because of the defences version of events.

We'll have to agree to disagree :-)

[Piersman2]

Mermaid said:

That's about it, we all rely on our gut feeling for most things in life and why this grates. A bit OJ Simpson.

If freed, will he become a model citizen? I would not bet on it for his temper will prevail again, as it did this time.

This. I think I've said before on this thread that OP's personality will eventually make him cross the line again just as OJ's did. Especially when the loss of status and money as a result of this trial start to bite.

OP will not go quietly into a hermit like retirement, his ego will not allow him to become a 'normal' person. He'll be back before a judge within 5 years.

[Mojocvh]

alfaman said:

Pints said:

But that, according to the verdict, is not what happened either.

Many, many pages ago I was criticised for claiming that the imagined scenario (as presented by the defence) was a possible or likely one in South Africa.

Now that Masipa has effectively stated that, given South Africa's propensity to violence and crime, the scenario imagined by the defence is plausible. In passing the verdict, she has dismissed the state's version of events (and yours) as untrue.

You can't only accept the court's decision as correct when it's aligned with your views, experience and opinions.

You may be missing a crucial point.

EVEN IF OP thought it was a burglar in the toilet ( which beggars belief) - from his version of events:

- he knew or thought there was someone in the toilet
- he fired 4 shots at the toilet. Deliberately. With precision . 4 times. Using dum dum bullets.
- without warning and without being under threat
The OBVIOUS foreseeable consequences of that deliberate action is that whoever was behind the door would almost certainly die - if intention was a warning shot he would not have pumped 4 into a confined space.
- the above actually does fit the definition of murder in South Africa .

Even the judge IIRC made some comment that consequences were foreseeable....

I actually think based even on defense 'scenario' she got the verdict wrong

Edited by alfaman on Saturday 18th October 07:42

The only reason he made his way to the toilet area, after "forgetting" to check that his beloved was actually OK and not in any danger beforehand, was to kill.

[photosnob]

ash73 said:

Then this is the version of events you subscribe to...?

Don't be an idiot.

Before coming out with moronic comments and calling people names read what I wrote, and all off it. Selectively quoting one part out of context doesn't cover it. Unless you are privy to facts which we and the judge are not, no one can know definitely, as I said before we can shift one way or the other, but to state with certainty is an impossibility.

[photosnob]

ash73 said:

photosnob said:

no one can know definitely, as I said before we can shift one way or the other, but to state with certainty is an impossibility.

Classic example of the CSI effect. If I ever end up in court, *please* be on my jury.

Again - you are trying to take one thing in isolation and build an argument (of sorts). I'm unsure if it's your way of being clever, or if you can't comprehend more than one sound bite at a time.

For a court in this country to convict you have to be convinced within all reasonable doubt, not absolute certainty. Grab a statistics textbook and learn what certainty means.

So again - go back and read what I wrote. If it's too complicated as someone else to explain it to you.

[Mermaid]

Mojocvh said:

The only reason he made his way to the toilet area, after "forgetting" to check that his beloved was actually OK and not in any danger beforehand, was to kill.

To scare/control, rather than kill.

[krunchkin]

Mermaid said:

Mojocvh said:

The only reason he made his way to the toilet area, after "forgetting" to check that his beloved was actually OK and not in any danger beforehand, was to kill.

To scare/control, rather than kill.

oh please.

I really do hope I get some useful idiot like you on my jury when I decide to whack my girlfriend

[Mermaid]

krunchkin said:

Mermaid said:

Mojocvh said:

The only reason he made his way to the toilet area, after "forgetting" to check that his beloved was actually OK and not in any danger beforehand, was to kill.

To scare/control, rather than kill.

oh please.

I really do hope I get some useful idiot like you on my jury when I decide to whack my girlfriend

How it started, and how it ended are two different things. He lost his rag.

[krunchkin]

posted earlier but worth relinking. The Judge has been a total idiot, or been bought. There is no "reasonable doubt" about this entirely fictitious timeline...

http://www.biznews.com/oscar-pistorius-trial/2014/...

[Mojocvh]

Mermaid said:

krunchkin said:

Mermaid said:

Mojocvh said:

The only reason he made his way to the toilet area, after "forgetting" to check that his beloved was actually OK and not in any danger beforehand, was to kill.

To scare/control, rather than kill.

oh please.

I really do hope I get some useful idiot like you on my jury when I decide to whack my girlfriend

How it started, and how it ended are two different things. He lost his rag.

[kiseca]

ash73 said:

photosnob said:

no one can know definitely, as I said before we can shift one way or the other, but to state with certainty is an impossibility.

Classic example of the CSI effect. If I ever end up in court, *please* be on my jury.

You made a logic failure. Just because he said we can't know for sure that option A is true, doesn't mean he therefore must believe option B is true. You then told him not to be an idiot, which is ironic.

[alfaman]

kiseca said:

alfaman said:

EVEN IF OP thought it was a burglar in the toilet ( which beggars belief)

You are missing Pints' point. In South Africa the thought that an armed burglar is in your house and, having heard you moving around has hidden behind a toilet door, is not unreasonable. Nor is the fear that a a verbal challenge to the burglar will be met with gunfire, because the burglar is also scared that you have a gun. And with guns, quite simply it is better to shoot first than second, and to continue shooting until you are sure whoever you are shooting at can no longer shoot

I don't really concur with that ( and I've spent some time in SA ).

First of all what oscar did does fit the definition of murder *in south africa*

Their definitions will be tailored to relevant local crime circumstances one would think.

Secondly - examining the *specific* detail of this case with regard to the logic of 'if I hadn't emptied my gun into the toilet I could have been shot dead so it was reasonable to shoot first before a warning'


... That doesn't stand up to scrutiny: a burglar in a confined toilet has a very specific , identifiable and hittable location (target). Both the burglar and oscar know that.

In addition the burglar would not know or be able to locate the home owners location from inside the toilet - or be able to aim at the home owner. Both oscar and burglar would know this too.

So this means:

Oscar can identify , aim at and kill whoever is in the loo - pretty much without ANY risk of being shot and bit. Both he and person in toilet would know that.

So OP has ALL the tactical advantage - supremacy even - and due to 'burglar' location is under no risk (burglar cannot see him and is effectively 'blindfolded'.

There is no need to shoot a blindfolded man.

The above also means any burglar with more than a single brain cell would not lock himself in the loo - as he would instantly lose all tactical advantage and put himself at immense risk of signing his own death warrant.

To me this suggests that OPs story is complete bullst - but even if 'true' he had no reason to shoot as explained above.

To me the verdict beggars belief - I do wonder if the judge has had an early retirement 'lump sum' from somewhere.

[burwoodman]

alfaman said:

kiseca said:

alfaman said:

EVEN IF OP thought it was a burglar in the toilet ( which beggars belief)

You are missing Pints' point. In South Africa the thought that an armed burglar is in your house and, having heard you moving around has hidden behind a toilet door, is not unreasonable. Nor is the fear that a a verbal challenge to the burglar will be met with gunfire, because the burglar is also scared that you have a gun. And with guns, quite simply it is better to shoot first than second, and to continue shooting until you are sure whoever you are shooting at can no longer shoot

I don't really concur with that ( and I've spent some time in SA ).

First of all what oscar did does fit the definition of murder *in south africa*

Their definitions will be tailored to relevant local crime circumstances one would think.

Secondly - examining the *specific* detail of this case with regard to the logic of 'if I hadn't emptied my gun into the toilet I could have been shot dead so it was reasonable to shoot first before a warning'


... That doesn't stand up to scrutiny: a burglar in a confined toilet has a very specific , identifiable and hittable location (target). Both the burglar and oscar know that.

In addition the burglar would not know or be able to locate the home owners location from inside the toilet - or be able to aim at the home owner. Both oscar and burglar would know this too.

So this means:

Oscar can identify , aim at and kill whoever is in the loo - pretty much without ANY risk of being shot and bit. Both he and person in toilet would know that.

So OP has ALL the tactical advantage - supremacy even - and due to 'burglar' location is under no risk (burglar cannot see him and is effectively 'blindfolded'.

There is no need to shoot a blindfolded man.

The above also means any burglar with more than a single brain cell would not lock himself in the loo - as he would instantly lose all tactical advantage and put himself at immense risk of signing his own death warrant.

To me this suggests that OPs story is complete bullst - but even if 'true' he had no reason to shoot as explained above.

To me the verdict beggars belief - I do wonder if the judge has had an early retirement 'lump sum' from somewhere.

'
As Alfa says, OPs actions were murderous. However life in SA makes OPs story believable (the Judge and a couple on here). It is SAs violence that saved OPs skin so to speak. The judge saying 'if there is ANY possibility OPs story is true he deserves acquittal'. Another error imo but there you go.

If you recall the Judge actually said if OP had woken to find a 'figure' standing over him he could have blasted away without prosecution, even if it turned out to be his girl friend.

[kiseca]

alfaman said:

I don't really concur with that ( and I've spent some time in SA ).

First of all what oscar did does fit the definition of murder *in south africa*

Their definitions will be tailored to relevant local crime circumstances one would think.

Secondly - examining the *specific* detail of this case with regard to the logic of 'if I hadn't emptied my gun into the toilet I could have been shot dead so it was reasonable to shoot first before a warning'


... That doesn't stand up to scrutiny: a burglar in a confined toilet has a very specific , identifiable and hittable location (target). Both the burglar and oscar know that.

In addition the burglar would not know or be able to locate the home owners location from inside the toilet - or be able to aim at the home owner. Both oscar and burglar would know this too.

So this means:

Oscar can identify , aim at and kill whoever is in the loo - pretty much without ANY risk of being shot and bit. Both he and person in toilet would know that.

So OP has ALL the tactical advantage - supremacy even - and due to 'burglar' location is under no risk (burglar cannot see him and is effectively 'blindfolded'.

There is no need to shoot a blindfolded man.

The above also means any burglar with more than a single brain cell would not lock himself in the loo - as he would instantly lose all tactical advantage and put himself at immense risk of signing his own death warrant.

To me this suggests that OPs story is complete bullst - but even if 'true' he had no reason to shoot as explained above.

To me the verdict beggars belief - I do wonder if the judge has had an early retirement 'lump sum' from somewhere.

I didn't say his actions were justified, just that his story wasn't implausible. It's not uncommon to come across an armed burglar in your house out there and if you did think there was one hiding in the toilet I personally would certainly feel threatened. I'd be bricking it and frankly I think it would take an extraordinarily calm person to think the situation through in rational terms like you just did.

I spent a few years of my life out there too, living in houses with two big dogs, room specific alarms with armed response, burglar bars on the windows and 8 foot tall garden walls with broken glass cemented into the top. That's the standard for the pragmatic ones, not the paranoid ones. I was on a train out there that for whatever reason came under fire - the driver just pulled out of the station and did the rest of the trip to JHB like nothing had happened - and on my last trip to Soweto, outside a clinic, the crowd around got into a fight with a police armed vehicle - it was probably a Casspir. There were hand grenades and all sorts going off. No idea what kicked that one off. I can tell you that in both of those situations the people around me did all sorts of things, but not one sat down and calmly rationalised their situation like you just did above. Every last one of them, and me, were just thinking how the fk do I get out of this alive? I know about half a dozen people out there, just ordinary people getting on with their life, who have been shot. Some survived and others didn't. All were having an ordinary day up to that moment, not asking for it, not looking for trouble, not being on the wrong side of town. My dad was hijacked at gunpoint on our driveway while I was in the house playing Football Manager. It makes you react to odd noises in the night a bit differently.

Oscar wasn't under fire, his reaction was overblown and even if what he said was true it's manslaughter at the very least. But no, I didn't find his story far fetched at all. I just thought what have you done you fool.

[krunchkin]

yes yes - but even if we accept that white middle class people in SA have an unusually heightened fear of violent crime - and having spent a while in Cape Town that aspect is clearly true, although how much it relates to reality is another story - OP's story of what happened that night is clearly bullst. It makes no sense. Read that link I posted earlier.