Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend
Discussion
TheSnitch said:
I don't know if anyone else has felt this but I think the evidence which has hurt Pistorius most of all is his own. The defence seemed to be doing a lot better before he opened his mouth. When he is asked a question he seems incapable of answering it without rambling on and dropping himself further and further into the s
t.
Because he's a narcicist. He cannot bring him self to say anything which paints him in a bad light or which shows him as bing anything other than a shining example of human perfection.t. dfen5][b said:
Ref' holding the gun at your side - if you've had training of using a pistol at close quarters you don't hold it with your arms outstretched movie style (that's ok for aiming, longer shots).
You hold it close to your hip, arm back, other arm above. Too easy to be disarmed by a quick fella with it sticking out gangster style. Typical example would be when someone's 3-4 feet away and you keeping them at bay.[/b]
In the situation he was in, in a blind rage, he would have held it arms out, aimed down the sights and let the trigger go.
He let the safety off so it was premeditated murder.
Sorry but this is just total rubbish. This may be the case in every movive James Cagney ever made but not in the real world. At least not today in the real world. Tactical firearms training has come along way since then.You hold it close to your hip, arm back, other arm above. Too easy to be disarmed by a quick fella with it sticking out gangster style. Typical example would be when someone's 3-4 feet away and you keeping them at bay.[/b]
In the situation he was in, in a blind rage, he would have held it arms out, aimed down the sights and let the trigger go.
He let the safety off so it was premeditated murder.
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.....
May I ask why it is that you consistently say that he lived in a flat? He didn't. It was a two storey house.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.....
Rocksteadyeddie said:
AJL308 said:
TheSnitch said:
I have emboldened the salient point for you; I was quoting the SA legal expert. . I have seen Sky use three different South African legal experts and they all seem to be very much of the same opinion, so I set more store by their opinion.
The prosecution has to establish that Pistorius acted with the intent to take a life. The fact that he has admitted going towards the ''danger'' rather did for him, as did his claim that he thought the door was opening, so he shot the hell out of it
No, this is the point which you are consistently missing. To make their case they have to show that he intended to take the life of Reeva Steenkamp, specifically. Now, if they can't show that he can still be convicted of a lesser form of murder or a lesser unlawful death offence but not of the pre-meditated (which has a specific meaning in SA law) murder of RS. The prosecution has to establish that Pistorius acted with the intent to take a life. The fact that he has admitted going towards the ''danger'' rather did for him, as did his claim that he thought the door was opening, so he shot the hell out of it
But I'd add I'm no legal expert, let alone a South African legal expert.
ajl.
TheSnitch said:
AJL308 said:
TheSnitch said:
I have emboldened the salient point for you; I was quoting the SA legal expert. . I have seen Sky use three different South African legal experts and they all seem to be very much of the same opinion, so I set more store by their opinion.
The prosecution has to establish that Pistorius acted with the intent to take a life. The fact that he has admitted going towards the ''danger'' rather did for him, as did his claim that he thought the door was opening, so he shot the hell out of it
No, this is the point which you are consistently missing. To make their case they have to show that he intended to take the life of Reeva Steenkamp, specifically. Now, if they can't show that he can still be convicted of a lesser form of murder or a lesser unlawful death offence but not of the pre-meditated (which has a specific meaning in SA law) murder of RS. The prosecution has to establish that Pistorius acted with the intent to take a life. The fact that he has admitted going towards the ''danger'' rather did for him, as did his claim that he thought the door was opening, so he shot the hell out of it
This is from the article Eddie cited earlier. I'll just leave it here
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.
Re; the article. Yes, as I have said (many times) if he wildly blasted at the door then he's still guilty of murder under SA law. For the additional and more serious offence of "pre-meditated murder" they need to show substantial advance planning which is why they can only show if he actually intended to shoot her specifically. They can't do that if he can convince the court that he genuinely thought he was trying to kill an intruder.
ajl.
.AJL308 said:
May I ask why it is that you consistently say that he lived in a flat? He didn't. It was a two storey house.
Floor plan for you. The majority of the living space is on the same floor, including many other rooms. If you couldn't find Reva in the main bedroom, would you walk back past the other door to the rest of the accommodation without checking there first?
AJL308 said:
They do in order to make out the 'pre-meditated' part of it as this requires substantial pre-planning under SA law. If he genuinely thought it was a burglar then the pre-meditated bit wouldn't stick as there would not be enough time for it it be pre-planned in his mind. Still murder though, as they make clear in the indictment.
ajl.
I think we've all read the article.ajl.
What consitutes premeditation in South Africa is not enshrined in law, but decided on a case by case basis.
The element of ''planning'' required could, the court may decide, be satisfied by the retieving of the weapon from under the bed and taking off the safety catch.
The element of ''Intent'' is quite clear. It is even implied in Pistorius defence that he shot believeing his life was in imminent danger
Nothing is reliant on the state having to prove that he knew it was Reeva behind the door.
''Planning'' does not have to imply that he sat down and thought about it, asked her around there specifically to kill her or insured her life to the hilt.
TTmonkey said:
By the way, the shower area, which would have been pitch black due to no direct or indirect light, held no fear for Oscar. He didn't check it or fire into it, in the dark. How odd. Almost like he had the light on all the time..... 
He did say he was concerned about Rick Oshea being in the shower room and decided not to fire in there.When I first heard that Reeva had been shot in the toilet, I'd assumed she was on the toilet.
However, something that crossed my mind when I saw the trial coverage and the layout of the toilet above ^^^, is that Reeva can't have been on the toilet, it's not in line of fire of the shots based on where they are shown on the door during the trial.
She must have been stood or even sat directly behind the door for the four shots to have all hit, especially the head shot.
Why would someone be doing that? To stop someone breaking down the door, maybe? With a cricket bat? Never dreaming that the nutter on the other side would return with a gun and fire through the door in a fit of rage?
However, something that crossed my mind when I saw the trial coverage and the layout of the toilet above ^^^, is that Reeva can't have been on the toilet, it's not in line of fire of the shots based on where they are shown on the door during the trial.
She must have been stood or even sat directly behind the door for the four shots to have all hit, especially the head shot.
Why would someone be doing that? To stop someone breaking down the door, maybe? With a cricket bat? Never dreaming that the nutter on the other side would return with a gun and fire through the door in a fit of rage?
Piersman2 said:
When I first heard that Reeva had been shot in the toilet, I'd assumed she was on the toilet.
However, something that crossed my mind when I saw the trial coverage and the layout of the toilet above ^^^, is that Reeva can't have been on the toilet, it's not in line of fire of the shots based on where they are shown on the door during the trial.
She must have been stood or even sat directly behind the door for the four shots to have all hit, especially the head shot.
Why would someone be doing that? To stop someone breaking down the door, maybe? With a cricket bat? Never dreaming that the nutter on the other side would return with a gun and fire through the door in a fit of rage?
very plausible and I think that is pretty much how it happened.However, something that crossed my mind when I saw the trial coverage and the layout of the toilet above ^^^, is that Reeva can't have been on the toilet, it's not in line of fire of the shots based on where they are shown on the door during the trial.
She must have been stood or even sat directly behind the door for the four shots to have all hit, especially the head shot.
Why would someone be doing that? To stop someone breaking down the door, maybe? With a cricket bat? Never dreaming that the nutter on the other side would return with a gun and fire through the door in a fit of rage?
edgyedgy said:
Piersman2 said:
When I first heard that Reeva had been shot in the toilet, I'd assumed she was on the toilet.
However, something that crossed my mind when I saw the trial coverage and the layout of the toilet above ^^^, is that Reeva can't have been on the toilet, it's not in line of fire of the shots based on where they are shown on the door during the trial.
She must have been stood or even sat directly behind the door for the four shots to have all hit, especially the head shot.
Why would someone be doing that? To stop someone breaking down the door, maybe? With a cricket bat? Never dreaming that the nutter on the other side would return with a gun and fire through the door in a fit of rage?
very plausible and I think that is pretty much how it happened.However, something that crossed my mind when I saw the trial coverage and the layout of the toilet above ^^^, is that Reeva can't have been on the toilet, it's not in line of fire of the shots based on where they are shown on the door during the trial.
She must have been stood or even sat directly behind the door for the four shots to have all hit, especially the head shot.
Why would someone be doing that? To stop someone breaking down the door, maybe? With a cricket bat? Never dreaming that the nutter on the other side would return with a gun and fire through the door in a fit of rage?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff