Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #68 *Appeal Verdict*

[Marfa Lights]

Your comment was meant for Noisy Fan but since when does anyone who disagrees with you automatically become a Pistorian? Surely Noisy Fan is trying to have his own questions answered or ensuring that every avenue is explored to ensure that OP doesn't have to face mob justice.

Even if he didn't have a medically diagnosed GAD, one doesn't have to have an anxiety disorder to feel an elevated level of anxiousness.

Forgive me for asking, but if you are pro-Pistorius, why would you object to being called a "Pistorian"?

 

[cottonweaver]

Well we know that don't we but in his deluded mind the race is not yet run. Did you note the comment after the SCA verdict? How he was delighted that even though convicted of dolus eventualis he could rest knowing he could never be found guilty of deliberately murdering Reeva. Classic sociopathic behaviour. The serial killer Ted Bundy was the same. Even in the face of murder he had to put a spin on it so he came out the moral victor.

He will hopefully soon return to his rightful place but even then he'll try and claim victory. As ridiculous as it sounds, mark my words, it's exactly what will happen.

Must say I am enjoying reading everyone's posts about NPD, sociopathy although I know nothing about these disorders. Came across hubris in relation to Zuma article - it's not been accepted as such yet, seems to be evolving psych theory in the field. (Appreciate that Oscar supporters very much dislike psych speculation on OP, ah well, am sure Blair doesn't like featuring in the journal "The Brain.")


Anyway , on OP being hard-wired to keep fighting I was wondering what you and everyone else here thought about the family's predisposition to this.
Do posters think it's a family culture, an excess of pride, a pragmatic approach considering their former high standing in SA?

came across this which is quite interesting a propos the Klan, it's about SA white fear of the intruder and SA crime stats which show that the fear is to some extent unfounded.:

By most measures, white South Africans have done well over the past 20 years: entrée into global circuits of commerce, sport and culture, economic growth, along with the returns on decades of superior education, have meant not just that quality of life has improved, but that it has improved more quickly than for the majority of black South Africans. And yet the sense that white South Africans are now an oppressed and vulnerable minority is strong.

This sense, stoked by the constant coverage of white victims’ experiences by some sections of the media, has fostered a grossly inflated sense of the level of violence experienced by white South Africans. So inflated, that some influential Afrikaans voices have described what is happening as “genocide.”

This fear is only partly due to crime rates, which are higher than they were 20 years ago. But the most important source of insecurity arises from a recognition — more unconscious than conscious — that a privileged minority whose privileges arose from a system of injustice and dispossession will always have to look over its shoulder. Mr. Pistorius’s fears were an aspect of the vertiginous sense of disenfranchisement that has accompanied white South Africans’ loss of power.
As fearful as some white South Africans are, the victims of those abnormalities are much more likely to be black than white.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/04/opinion/pistoriuss-nightmare-meyiwas-reality.html?_r=0

At this current moment though I think that the Pistorius family will be more concerned about the fall in the rand and the likelihood of SA junk rating than the fear of intruders.

 

[cottonweaver]

Forgive me for asking, but if you are pro-Pistorius, why would you object to being called a "Pistorian"?

Indeed Marfa.
Can't remember which witty poster said it a couple of nights ago but put me down as a Reevorian too, I don't mind the label

 

[LemonMousse]

Your comment was meant for Noisy Fan but since when does anyone who disagrees with you automatically become a Pistorian? Surely Noisy Fan is trying to have his own questions answered or ensuring that every avenue is explored to ensure that OP doesn't have to face mob justice.

Even if he didn't have a medically diagnosed GAD, one doesn't have to have an anxiety disorder to feel an elevated level of anxiousness.

Oh, good, good point. Brilliant in fact.

One doesn't have to have to have medically diagnosed GAD to feel a heightened sense of anxiousness. I quite, quite agree.

One needs rather more than a heightened sense of anxiousness to justify murder though, doesn't one? Wouldn't you agee? Or are your standards rather lower than mine when it comes to other peoples welfare?

And you're right - I shouldn't be placing Noisy Fan in the same bracket as you and Aftermath. That would be nasty of me.

 

[LemonMousse]

Forgive me for asking, but if you are pro-Pistorius, why would you object to being called a "Pistorian"?

The objection is common when they find themselves completely unable to counter better arguments than theirs. It's deflection, nothing more.

 

[Paul Connelly]

BIB, that's not quite correct, he was delighted when he was found guilty of CH, not murder and at a party with Roux, he said "I don't give a ***** about the sentence. I'm not a murderer".

If making the statement highlighted in bold above made him "classic sociopathic", what would not making the statement mean now?

You are referencing a different event to the one I'm talking about. I'm talking about the interview Kevin Lerena gave. I know you are desperate to keep playing mental gymnastics for whatever reason but do try to at least get your facts in order.

I would also add that the quote you so kindly referenced is also indicative of sociopathic behaviour. He's trying to convince Roux he's won, he's not a murderer. Methinks the lady doth protest too much! Also indicative of sociopathy is holding a party to celebrate a verdict of CH. A young woman died at his hands. How crass is it to celebrate that? He and his entourage of parasitic, amoral hangers on are spiritually dead if they think a party is acceptable under any circumstances. He is a monster and you are on a fools errand with your hollow apologetics.

What is nice is that this time you didn't feel the need to trample over Reeva to get your point across. That alone is welcome progress. Thank you.

 

[cottonweaver]

as far as I understand it, the trial broadcasting issue is dead in the water for any CC appeal....

Nonetheless I had forgotten that it was suggested that five witnesses had refused to testify according to DTeam source. And on the closing day of the trial Roux said :.

"We put on record, not that the court can do anything about it but just so it's on the record, that we were unable to call a number of witnesses who simply refused to testify because they said they didn't want their voices all over the world." (So not just their faces broadcast, their voices too.?)
"A source close to Pistorius said five witnesses had declined to appear because of the intense scrutiny. "It was a media trial," the source said. "Without the media, it would have been very different. You've got to be a halfwit to think it's a fair trial. The full truth hasn't come out."

Obviously it was conveniently timed comment, but a remark that Masipa received without comment once again

To suggest that those unidentified witnesses,( who could have been subpoenad anyway,) would have cracked the case wide open for OP was a truly pathetic and transparent tactic. ( It was rumoured that his ex- bezzie mate J.Divaris was one of those mates - a convenient cover to disassociate from a killer. )

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ppeal-witnesses-refuse-testify-media-coverage

 

[aftermath]

Indeed Marfa.
Can't remember which witty poster said it a couple of nights ago but put me down as a Reevorian too, I don't mind the label

I get the impression that the people on here who have invested a lot of time in discussing this case do so not from a position of being either Pro-pistorius or Pro-Reeva. That's a false division, as I see it. I think it is more about pro-justice. For both Reeva and Pistorius. I don't want to see justice for Pistorius at the expense of justice for Reeva ; that's not real justice at all. The term Pistorian is widely used (with significantly negative connotations) to describe a group of supporters who might make many valid points in pistorius's favour, but who have also been linked to negative (and nasty) social media comments about Reeva. I don't share that mindset with these people who are happy to call themselves pistorian. Therefore I am not a pistorian.

 

[Susza]

'on-off' in itself was an oft-used affliction.
see: lights. fans. balcony. interior alarm. duvet. ability/inability on stumps…

Interesting observation. HE can have it both

 

[LaLaw2000]

Page 1 of the idiotic intruder's handbook.

1. Find a high-security estate with a sealed-off electrified fence and attempt to climb over.
2. Once over (if not fried by fence), try to get past armed guards, security cameras, alarms and guard dogs without being noticed by anybody or anything.
3. Once safely past armed guards, security cameras, alarms and guard dogs, climb a ladder very stealthily in the dark all the way up to a small window and enter.
4. Once inside, after shock of realising you are now in bathroom rather than diamond vault, enter toilet and draw attention to yourself and slam door.
5. Once you hear owner screaming at you to get the *advertiser censored** out of his house, realise you have seconds to leave the toilet, exit through the bathroom window back down the conveniently placed ladder, get past the armed guards, security cameras, guard dogs and alarms - and climb back over the sealed-off electric fence (without being fried) - and then... oh wait. You're dead because you weren't given the chance to leave.

I absolutely love this, soozieqtips!!!

I so wish OP could read this!

 

[Trotterly]

I get the impression that the people on here who have invested a lot of time in discussing this case do so not from a position of being either Pro-pistorius or Pro-Reeva. That's a false division, as I see it. I think it is more about pro-justice. For both Reeva and Pistorius. I don't want to see justice for Pistorius at the expense of justice for Reeva ; that's not real justice at all. The term Pistorian is widely used (with significantly negative connotations) to describe a group of supporters who might make many valid points in pistorius's favour, but who have also been linked to negative (and nasty) social media comments about Reeva. I don't share that mindset with these people who are happy to call themselves pistorian. Therefore I am not a pistorian.

I agree. I thought the rules here were to address poster's posts not try to insult them personally.

 

[LemonMousse]

I get the impression that the people on here who have invested a lot of time in discussing this case do so not from a position of being either Pro-pistorius or Pro-Reeva. That's a false division, as I see it. I think it is more about pro-justice. For both Reeva and Pistorius. I don't want to see justice for Pistorius at the expense of justice for Reeva ; that's not real justice at all. The term Pistorian is widely used (with significantly negative connotations) to describe a group of supporters who might make many valid points in pistorius's favour, but who have also been linked to negative (and nasty) social media comments about Reeva. I don't share that mindset with these people who are happy to call themselves pistorian. Therefore I am not a pistorian.

This is a victim friendly forum. It is pro-Reeva all the way. How have you missed that?

And your defintion of "Pistorian" is not one that most of us share...or at least, we don't necessarily narrow it down to weirdos with white balloons who send him love letters.

A Pistorian, for me, is someone who strives endlessly and repetitively to find the most innocent explanation for everything Pistorius has done and argues it no matter how unlikely or irrelevant it is in the light of the facts.

I don't know you at all but purely on the basis of your posts I cannot see that you are even faintly interested in justice for Reeva. There is no objectiveness at all - just a reaching for any vaguely plausible sounding explanation for his criminal behaviour and then resolutely hanging on to it whatever.

Case in point yesterday. Pistorius testified on oath to standing screaming in the bathroom, hearing a noise and opening fire. This fits with what the witnesses heard - screaming that was ended by gun fire.

Your explanation? Maybe he stopped screaming for a moment in order to hear the noise! He didn't say that, and it wouldn't have fit with what was heard either.

So, an objective response from you would have been, "Yes...that doesn't fit, does it?" But you cannot bear to say that because, presumably, you don't want Pistorius to be guilty of what he so clearly is.

There are plenty of places online to flag wave for Pistorius. This isn't one of them. He is a convicted murderer and she was his victim. So, you should not be even faintly surprised if your apologetics on his behalf are going down like a lead balloon.

 

[LemonMousse]

I agree. I thought the rules here were to address poster's posts not try to insult them personally.

Insults like what? Calling people vigilantes, you mean?

 

[Paul Connelly]

This is a victim friendly forum. It is pro-Reeva all the way. How have you missed that?

And your defintion of "Pistorian" is not one that most of us share...or at least, we don't necessarily narrow it down to weirdos with white balloons who send him love letters.

A Pistorian, for me, is someone who strives endlessly and repetitively to find the most innocent explanation for everything Pistorius has done and argues it no matter how unlikely or irrelevant it is in the light of the facts.

I don't know you at all but purely on the basis of your posts I cannot see that you are even faintly interested in justice for Reeva. There is no objectiveness at all - just a reaching for any vaguely plausible sounding explanation for his criminal behaviour and then resolutely hanging on to it whatever.

Case in point yesterday. Pistorius testified on oath to standing screaming in the bathroom, hearing a noise and opening fire. This fits with what the witnesses heard - screaming that was ended by gun fire.

Your explanation? Maybe he stopped screaming for a moment in order to hear the noise! He didn't say that, and it wouldn't have fit with what was heard either.

So, an objective response from you would have been, "Yes...that doesn't fit, does it?" But you cannot bear to say that because, presumably, you don't want Pistorius to be guilty of what he so clearly is.

There are plenty of places online to flag wave for Pistorius. This isn't one of them. He is a convicted murderer and she was his victim. So, you should not be even faintly surprised if your apologetics on his behalf are going down like a lead balloon.

Bravo! Extremely well put. Just because a pistorian apologist appears measured and reasonable in their aims cannot detract from what their flawed reason screams out. It's a gossamer thin veil that any objective and truth seeking person can see straight through. It needed saying and you did it eloquently.

 

[aftermath]

This is a victim friendly forum. It is pro-Reeva all the way. How have you missed that?

And your defintion of "Pistorian" is not one that most of us share...or at least, we don't necessarily narrow it down to weirdos with white balloons who send him love letters.

A Pistorian, for me, is someone who strives endlessly and repetitively to find the most innocent explanation for everything Pistorius has done and argues it no matter how unlikely or irrelevant it is in the light of the facts.

I don't know you at all but purely on the basis of your posts I cannot see that you are even faintly interested in justice for Reeva. There is no objectiveness at all - just a reaching for any vaguely plausible sounding explanation for his criminal behaviour and then resolutely hanging on to it whatever.

Case in point yesterday. Pistorius testified on oath to standing screaming in the bathroom, hearing a noise and opening fire. This fits with what the witnesses heard - screaming that was ended by gun fire.

Your explanation? Maybe he stopped screaming for a moment in order to hear the noise! He didn't say that, and it wouldn't have fit with what was heard either.

So, an objective response from you would have been, "Yes...that doesn't fit, does it?" But you cannot bear to say that because, presumably, you don't want Pistorius to be guilty of what he so clearly is.

There are plenty of places online to flag wave for Pistorius. This isn't one of them. He is a convicted murderer and she was his victim. So, you should not be even faintly surprised if your apologetics on his behalf are going down like a lead balloon.

(modsnip)

Victim friendly forum - of course it is. Why on earth would it be a victim-unfriendly forum?! So yeah- thanks - i had noticed! in your mind does that equate to a lack of interest in justice being done for all involved? What exactly does 'pro-reeva' and 'victim-friendly' mean to you?

How interesting to see your definition of pistorian.

How interesting also to see you comment that you don't think I am really interested in seeing justice for Reeva. Wrong, but again, sadly no surprise. Justice for Reeva is also justice for Pistorius. Justice is justice for all. It's not exclusive to one party or the other - or it wouldn't be justice would it?

And re the scream discussion yesterday, if you really think I said he stopped screaming for a moment to hear the noise, then you clearly haven't read my posts properly. Doesn't make for an informed discussion that.

What, exactly, do you think he has been found guilty of? Because it isn't the deliberate killing of Reeva Steenkamp.

 

[cottonweaver]

I agree. I thought the rules here were to address poster's posts not try to insult them personally.

Having read a mental health comment "elsewhere on t'internet" this morning :facepalm:- I suppose that's one way of getting around around the rules .

But on the face of it, your post is absolutely correct and I agree with you-
As there are no Pistorians here on WS.... there can be no offence in using the word Pistorian surely ,( especially as it's an "official" term coined by the group themselves not a term of self-abuse), in reference to a body of supporters who are actively campaigning for OP across a wide range of platforms including MSM.
....can you think of any other self-named groups who have barred the use of their own chosen name?

 

[foxbluff]

Quite frankly, I see no good reason for putting a "label" on fellow WSers who ask questions or express opinions that might differ from our own. I think "labeling" undermines the integrity of individual posters and is thus demeaning of both them and their opinions. It certainly, imho, does nothing to foster a good, open discussion/debate of the aspects of this complex Case.

 

[Trotterly]

Quite frankly, I see no good reason for putting a "label" on fellow WSers who ask questions or express opinions that might differ from our own. I think "labeling" undermines the integrity of individual posters and is thus demeaning of both them and their opinions. It certainly, imho, does nothing to foster a good, open discussion/debate of the aspects of this complex Case.

Well said.

 

[Tortoise]

Yet another hostile post? Sadly no surprise there.

Victim friendly forum - of course it is. Why on earth would it be a victim-unfriendly forum?! So yeah- thanks - i had noticed! in your mind does that equate to a lack of interest in justice being done for all involved? What exactly does 'pro-reeva' and 'victim-friendly' mean to you?

How interesting to see your definition of pistorian.

How interesting also to see you comment that you don't think I am really interested in seeing justice for Reeva. Wrong, but again, sadly no surprise. Justice for Reeva is justice for Pistorius. Justice is justice for all. It's not exclusive to one party or the other - or it wouldn't be justice would it?

And re the scream discussion yesterday, if you really think I said he stopped screaming for a moment to hear the noise, then you clearly haven't read my posts properly. Doesn't make for an informed discussion that.

What, exactly, do you think he has been found guilty of? Because it isn't the deliberate killing of Reeva Steenkamp.

BIB Do you think that Masipa came to her verdict by a proper assessment of all the evidence, and by proper attention to Pistorius' reliability as a witness?

Assuming you don't, because the SCA decided that she did not, do you think proper justice has been served by an appeal restricted by a flawed set of factual findings?

What I see from posters who support Pistorius' version is a tendency to not reply when the flaws in their arguments are pointed out. They vanish, only to reappear days later with more of the same. Their stance does not address the fact that Pistorius got away with murder through manipulation and cunning, and would have been convicted of the DD of Reeva under any rational thinking judge.

 

[Paul Connelly]

Quite frankly, I see no good reason for putting a "label" on fellow WSers who ask questions or express opinions that might differ from our own. I think "labeling" undermines the integrity of individual posters and is thus demeaning of both them and their opinions. It certainly, imho, does nothing to foster a good, open discussion/debate of the aspects of this complex Case.

Fostering a good, open discussion works both ways. The etymology of the word foster derives from the Germanic word, to feed or to nourish. Some, not all, contributors who might be considered "pistorian" are not interested in nurturing or feeding the debate, other than in a purely destructive way. This in turn frustrates and polarises opinion and good will and any sense of trust.

Some of the personal comments, jokes at Reeva's expense have been at best outrageously offensive and at worst downright evil in nature.

I think before fostering/nurturing can truly take place certain individuals need to ask themselves what their true motivations are and how they might themselves better foster goodwill, debate and ultimately the interests of justice.