Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #69 *Appeal Verdict*

[Trotterly]

Why are you asking totally unrelated hypothetical questions is it some sort of diversionary tactic?

Pistorius was not blind and he was not even firing blindly he knew his target unfortunately it was Reeva.

Whooosh!

 

[aftermath]

:giggle:

You don't think blind people can legally own a gun?

 

[mrjitty]

Do you think the wood noise would have been enough to establish a basis for believing in a commenced attack if the person firing was blind?

There comes a point where I have to draw the line :silenced:

 

[Marfa Lights]

You don't think blind people can legally own a gun?

I am afraid this is another one of those "only in America" (i.e. the USA)...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/08/us/gun-permits-blind/

Yes, we are gun crazy here in the States.

 

[mrjitty]

Not totally unrelated, but a good few steps away, yes.

I am wondering if there would ever be any circumstances where a sound rather than an actual sighting would provide an acceptable basis upon which a genuine belief that an attack had commenced could be established

I think so - e.g. say you actually glimpse the intruder in the dark, then hear a noise behind you and spin round and shoot.

I think if you never actually visually or otherwise verify that there IS an intruder, you are on thin ice if you shoot the wrong person by mistake

 

[aftermath]

There comes a point where I have to draw the line :silenced:

Interesting that you choose this point to draw it.

 

[aftermath]

I think so - e.g. say you actually glimpse the intruder in the dark, then hear a noise behind you and spin round and shoot.

I think if you never actually visually or otherwise verify that there IS an intruder, you are on thin ice if you shoot the wrong person by mistake

I completely agree that you would be on thin ice

But is sighting the only way to verify the presence of an intruder?

 

[Belgarion]

I've no problem with a fair and civilised enquiry.

So you have no problem with the legal process so far I assume?

 

[Belgarion]

Interesting that you choose this point to draw it.

What is interesting is that anyone would question the drawing of a line in responding when totally unrelated and unnecessary questions have been asked.

 

[aftermath]

What is interesting is that anyone would question the drawing of a line in responding when totally unrelated and unnecessary questions have been asked.

Unrelated, how? Pistorius claims a noise made him believe he was under attack. Discussion on here suggests that the noise in itself was not enough for that belief to be genuinely held. I am asking whether a noise could ever be enough for such a belief to be genuinely held...

 

[Trotterly]

So you have no problem with the legal process so far I assume?

In court both sides nudged the line and sometimes crossed it IMO.

Masipa took a properly subjective view when needed, the SCA did not given the facts found.

 

[Marfa Lights]

In court both sides nudged the line and sometimes crossed it IMO.

Masipa took a properly subjective view when needed, the SCA did not given the facts found.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Belgarion]

Unrelated, how? Pistorius claims a noise made him believe he was under attack. Discussion on here suggests that the noise in itself was not enough for that belief to be genuinely held. I am asking whether a noise could ever be enough for such a belief to be genuinely held...

..... you are moving into realms where I suggest you consult Mystic Meg for an answer :thinking:

 

[aftermath]

..... you are moving into realms where I suggest you consult Mystic Meg for an answer :thinking:

I don't think I am. It's just working back from the assumption that a sound isn't a substantial enough thing upon which to base a genuine belief of an attack commencing

 

[Belgarion]

I don't think I am. It's just working back from the assumption that a sound isn't a substantial enough thing upon which to base a genuine belief of an attack commencing

Exactly

Well that’s all he had, well said he had but we know he made it up because of course his version would not allow him to actually see an intruder would it.

So case closed

 

[aftermath]

Exactly

Well that’s all he had, well said he had but we know he made it up because of course his version would not allow him to actually see an intruder would it.

So case closed

Huh?? So you are of the opinion that a sound is never a substantial enough basis for someone to believe an attack was commencing?
Never? It could never be accepted as enough to inspire a genuine belief of an attack?

 

[Trotterly]

Exactly

Well that’s all he had, well said he had but we know he made it up because of course his version would not allow him to actually see an intruder would it.

So case closed

Yes, just like being blind.

 

[Belgarion]

Yes, just like being blind.

Don’t think you quite finished the sentence

It should have been ‘just like being blind to the truth’ surely!

 

[Belgarion]

Huh?? So you are of the opinion that a sound is never a substantial enough basis for someone to believe an attack was commencing?
Never? It could never be accepted as enough to inspire a genuine belief of an attack?

Of course it is...

Air raid siren perhaps

 

[soozieqtips]

Yes, just like being blind.

Not even remotely. A blind person doesn't have the choice of vision. The murderer did.