Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[Trotterly]

Interesting. He certainly accepted that if he fired a warning shot in the bathroom that he could have killed himself. My problem is with the judge and how she interpreted his many discrepancies about whether he accidentally fired, whether he fired low so as not to kill somebody, whether his gun fired without him thinking about it, ie not consciously thinking of the outcome. As far as I am concerned he knew exactly what he was doing. The problem for me are his many explanations of why he fired and how the judge determined that it was CH rather than DE. Was all the confusion about what really happened enough to sway the judge?

I think you will need to carefully watch the relevant testimony again. Nel asked him if he every thought of firing into the shower and he said that he might have been injured. He did not say that was the reason he did not fire into the shower at the time nor did he think that at the time. He went on to make this clear in response to Nel's further questions.

If Nel had really wanted to know if he thought it at the time he should have asked him if he "thought it at the time". But that of course was not his first intention.

I am intrigued by your statement that OP had "many explanations" for why he fired. OP was consistent in that he fired because he heard something he thought was an intruder attacking and before he knew it had fired 4 shots. What were the other of his "many explanations"?

 

[soozieqtips]

I think you will need to carefully watch the relevant testimony again. Nel asked him if he every thought of firing into the shower and he said that he might have been injured. He did not say that was the reason he did not fire into the shower at the time nor did he think that at the time. He went on to make this clear in response to Nel's further questions.

If Nel had really wanted to know if he thought it at the time he should have asked him if he "thought it at the time". But that of course was not his first intention.

I am intrigued by your statement that OP had "many explanations" for why he fired. OP was consistent in that he fired because he heard something he thought was an intruder attacking and before he knew it had fired 4 shots. What were the other of his "many explanations"?

BIB - isn't that splitting hairs? Nel asked why OP didn't fire a warning shot, and OP said it was because it might have hurt him. If he didn't think that at the time (as you stated) then why didn't he fire a warning shot? What other time frame is being referred to if not when he was in the bathroom? And if OP was in such a state of panic, then why didn't he just say he was so terrified that it didn't even occur to him? He actually said he didn't fire a warning shot in case it ricocheted and hurt him. When was he thinking that if not right in the moment when the event was unfolding?

 

[lithgow1]

BIB - isn't that splitting hairs? Nel asked why OP didn't fire a warning shot, and OP said it was because it might have hurt him. If he didn't think that at the time (as you stated) then why didn't he fire a warning shot? What other time frame is being referred to if not when he was in the bathroom? And if OP was in such a state of panic, then why didn't he just say he was so terrified that it didn't even occur to him? He actually said he didn't fire a warning shot in case it ricocheted and hurt him. When was he thinking that if not right in the moment when the event was unfolding?

Totally splitting hairs and all because Pistorius`s own words don`t fit the narrative of he and his supporters. IIRC he actually sounded quite offended at the warning shot suggestion.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Interesting. He certainly accepted that if he fired a warning shot in the bathroom that he could have killed himself. My problem is with the judge and how she interpreted his many discrepancies about whether he accidentally fired, whether he fired low so as not to kill somebody, whether his gun fired without him thinking about it, ie not consciously thinking of the outcome. As far as I am concerned he knew exactly what he was doing. The problem for me are his many explanations of why he fired and how the judge determined that it was CH rather than DE. Was all the confusion about what really happened enough to sway the judge?

Since 14.03.2013 OP builds on that nobody is able to refute what he allegedly felt and thought when he shot 4 x.
(Hope, it's properly formulated?)
And indeed, OP can testify whatever he wants - he is seemingly always right.

 

[Colin de France]

....as far as a warning shot is concerned even if he was terrified it would be far more easy to shout out that he was armed (instead of shouting for the intruder to "get out") !

 

[LemonMousse]

I think you will need to carefully watch the relevant testimony again. Nel asked him if he every thought of firing into the shower and he said that he might have been injured. He did not say that was the reason he did not fire into the shower at the time nor did he think that at the time. He went on to make this clear in response to Nel's further questions.

If Nel had really wanted to know if he thought it at the time he should have asked him if he "thought it at the time". But that of course was not his first intention.

I am intrigued by your statement that OP had "many explanations" for why he fired. OP was consistent in that he fired because he heard something he thought was an intruder attacking and before he knew it had fired 4 shots. What were the other of his "many explanations"?

I agree with the others that you're splitting hairs...but your take on this makes no logical sense either.

He is asked why he did not fire a warning shot and he made the comment about ricochets. This is either the reason he didn't fire into the shower or it isn't. If it is the reason then it must have been the reason at the time...which meant he thought about and considered it at the time. If it's not actually the reason then that proves he's just making up explanations on the hoof.

Regarding his other explanations...how have you managed to miss these? They are the reason he ended up with multiple defences.

1) He fired because he was vulnerable and thought he had to protect himself and Reeva (PPD)
2) Before he knew it he had pulled the trigger four times without thinking (automatism)
3) He accidentally fired four times (accident)

They can't all be true. But they can all be untrue.

It's also very interesting (and telling) that your last sentence shows you've not really properly thought through what Pistorius actually said.

Either he fired because he thought an intruder was about to attack him OR he fired without thinking ("before he knew it"). Both of these things cannot possibly be true at the same time. Although, if I'm perfectly honest, I suspect the distinction will be lost on you.

 

[lithgow1]

I agree with the others that you're splitting hairs...but your take on this makes no logical sense either.

He is asked why he did not fire a warning shot and he made the comment about ricochets. This is either the reason he didn't fire into the shower or it isn't. If it is the reason then it must have been the reason at the time...which meant he thought about and considered it at the time. If it's not actually the reason then that proves he's just making up explanations on the hoof.

Regarding his other explanations...how have you managed to miss these? They are the reason he ended up with multiple defences.

1) He fired because he was vulnerable and thought he had to protect himself and Reeva (PPD)
2) Before he knew it he had pulled the trigger four times without thinking (automatism)
3) He accidentally fired four times (accident)

They can't all be true. But they can all be untrue.

It's also very interesting (and telling) that your last sentence shows you've not really properly thought through what Pistorius actually said.

Either he fired because he thought an intruder was about to attack him OR he fired without thinking ("before he knew it"). Both of these things cannot possibly be true at the same time. Although, if I'm perfectly honest, I suspect the distinction will be lost on you.

As with soozieqtips post, nicely explained and it will probably go willfully whoosh... I also don`t see how someone, either Pistorius or one of his defenders, can make the leap from the sound of `wood moving`, which is what he said he heard, to the imminent threat of `an intruder attacking`. I would of thought the sound of an `intruder attacking' would be something a little more concrete and threatening. Anyway, as you say, his reason for firing four shots is an either OR situation and in either case his explanation as to why he did so is as lame as the excuses people are coming up with to let him off the hook for his very telling admission as to why he didn`t fire a warning shot. I also recall another telling moment when he was asked why he kept hold of the gun after realising he had shot her and was attempting to get her out of the cubicle and it was along the lines of if he had put it down it might have gone off and injured him, to which he quickly added `or hurt Reeva more`. Can`t recall exactly how the exchange went but it was another moment where it was clear who was first and foremost in OP`s thoughts.

 

[LemonMousse]

As with soozieqtips post, nicely explained and it will probably go willfully whoosh... I also don`t see how someone, either Pistorius or one of his defenders, can make the leap from the sound of `wood moving`, which is what he said he heard, to the imminent threat of `an intruder attacking`. I would of thought the sound of an `intruder attacking' would be something a little more concrete and threatening. Anyway, as you say, his reason for firing four shots is an either OR situation and in either case his explanation as to why he did so is as lame as the excuses people are coming up with to let him off the hook for his very telling admission as to why he didn`t fire a warning shot. I also recall another telling moment when he was asked why he kept hold of the gun after realising he had shot her and was attempting to get her out of the cubicle and it was along the lines of if he had put it down it might have gone off and injured him, to which he quickly added `or hurt Reeva more`. Can`t recall exactly how the exchange went but it was another moment where it was clear who was first and foremost in OP`s thoughts.

Agreed.

And, always worth highlighting as well - the whole "before I knew what I was doing" stuff is completely annihilated by the fact that he shot four times, pausing and changing trajectory after the first shot.

One shot could be a knee-jerk reaction of the type Pistorians are trying to argue...but four? Absolutely no way. At least three of those shots were intentional, and that's murder.

IMO.

 

[Trotterly]

BIB - isn't that splitting hairs? Nel asked why OP didn't fire a warning shot, and OP said it was because it might have hurt him. If he didn't think that at the time (as you stated) then why didn't he fire a warning shot? What other time frame is being referred to if not when he was in the bathroom? And if OP was in such a state of panic, then why didn't he just say he was so terrified that it didn't even occur to him? He actually said he didn't fire a warning shot in case it ricocheted and hurt him. When was he thinking that if not right in the moment when the event was unfolding?

I don't think the difference between having the thought (about a warning shot) retrospectively or at the time is splitting hairs at all. It is a very important difference, which is at the heart of how important it is to know when OP is talking about what he remembers happening and when he is asked to comment on what may have happened.

It was up to Nel to frame the question without ambiguity if he was genuinely seeking a truthful reply rather than one advantageous to the prosecution.

Your logic about why he didn't fire a warning shot is faulty as it depends on us knowing that he thought about or was at least aware (either consciously or subconsciously) of the possibility of a warning shot at the time or even at any point up until he was asked the question in court. If he was not (as he later testified) then what he omitted to say is irrelevant.

IMO Nel introduced a warning shot into the shower rather than in a "safer" manner in order to introduce the fact that OP knew of the risk of ricochet at the time without telegraphing that he was asking OP to admit he was aware of the danger. It back fired somewhat when he failed to ask OP whether that was his thought at the time. In other parts of the trial Nel was careful to check with OP whether they were talking about what he remembered rather than reconstruction. Here he was not so careful.

It could be argued that if OP's immediate reply was wtte "of course I would never give a warning shot in such a dangerous way" then it could be inferred that as this is his obvious understanding now that it would have been the case on the night in question. It may well have been but if firing a warning shot never entered his mind in the first place then this would never have had a chance to even become relevant.

 

[Trotterly]

Totally splitting hairs and all because Pistorius`s own words don`t fit the narrative of he and his supporters. IIRC he actually sounded quite offended at the warning shot suggestion.

Yes because as a gun owner he was well aware of the danger to himself. It would have been a stupid thing to do. But as he said that he never thought of firing a warning shot then it is not relevant.

 

[LemonMousse]

I don't think the difference between having the thought (about a warning shot) retrospectively or at the time is splitting hairs at all. It is a very important difference, which is at the heart of how important it is to know when OP is talking about what he remembers happening and when he is asked to comment on what may have happened.

It was up to Nel to frame the question without ambiguity if he was genuinely seeking a truthful reply rather than one advantageous to the prosecution.

Your logic about why he didn't fire a warning shot is faulty as it depends on us knowing that he thought about or was at least aware (either consciously or subconsciously) of the possibility of a warning shot at the time or even at any point up until he was asked the question in court. If he was not (as he later testified) then what he omitted to say is irrelevant.

IMO Nel introduced a warning shot into the shower rather than in a "safer" manner in order to introduce the fact that OP knew of the risk of ricochet at the time without telegraphing that he was asking OP to admit he was aware of the danger. It back fired somewhat when he failed to ask OP whether that was his thought at the time. In other parts of the trial Nel was careful to check with OP whether they were talking about what he remembered rather than reconstruction. Here he was not so careful.

It could be argued that if OP's immediate reply was wtte "of course I would never give a warning shot in such a dangerous way" then it could be inferred that as this is his obvious understanding now that it would have been the case on the night in question. It may well have been but if firing a warning shot never entered his mind in the first place then this would never have had a chance to even become relevant.

Nel framed the question very clearly and without ambiguity..."Why didn't you fire a warning shot"?

And he was asking this of the man who had just testified to a) knowing, or being pretty certain, there was a human being in the toilet and b) screaming at them to "get the **** out" of his house.

So, totally fair question. If Pistorius is being truthful, and genuinely fired (four times!) without thought he should/would have answered..."I have no idea. The thought simply didn't occur to me". But no, on the stand he has to scrabble about for an explanation that might make sense, and he went with..."The ricochet would have hit me". This, unfortunately demonstrates (if true) that he knew the damage the bullets could cause and was not doing anything without thinking.

Could you at least manage to think for a moment why Pistorius needs to come up with explanations after the event for what he did that night? It's obviously not the truth. Why is that? Is the truth not good enough?

 

[Trotterly]

....as far as a warning shot is concerned even if he was terrified it would be far more easy to shout out that he was armed (instead of shouting for the intruder to "get out") !

OP said that he did not want to say he was armed so as not to cause an "intruder", who in SA may well be armed, to respond more violently. Of course this is not the only way he could have dealt with the situation but it is a logical strategy.
Another strategy would be to say that you are armed as that could make an unarmed intruder flee or make an armed one think twice but it does not make his version any less reasonably possible.

 

[LemonMousse]

Yes because as a gun owner he was well aware of the danger to himself. It would have been a stupid thing to do. But as he said that he never thought of firing a warning shot then it is not relevant.

But he wasn't aware of the danger to the person in the toilet????

Because that's the issue...Masipa found he ought to have known, but didn't necessarily.

So, (according to you) he knew the danger to himself but not the person in the toilet?

Sincerely, that's the silliest argument I have yet come across.

 

[LemonMousse]

OP said that he did not want to say he was armed so as not to cause an "intruder", who in SA may well be armed, to respond more violently. Of course this is not the only way he could have dealt with the situation but it is a logical strategy.
Another strategy would be to say that you are armed as that could make an unarmed intruder flee or make an armed one think twice but it does not make his version any less reasonably possible.

Sorry...but you do know that "reasonably possible" is not synonymous with "vaguely, just about possible", right?

 

[lithgow1]

Yes because as a gun owner he was well aware of the danger to himself. It would have been a stupid thing to do. But as he said that he never thought of firing a warning shot then it is not relevant.

I think you are twisting things, again. IIRC he didn`t say he never thought of firing a warning shot. On the contrary he gave a specific reason as to why he didn`t do so.

BTW, if you are still in the responding to my posts mood, I asked you quite a while back if you agree with Masipa`s ruling that he was not guilty of the illegal possession of ammunition charge and also if you believed OP`s story about being shot at on the freeway, which he remembered clearly except for who came to pick him up and who brought him back the next day to pick up his car.

 

[Trotterly]

I agree with the others that you're splitting hairs...but your take on this makes no logical sense either.

He is asked why he did not fire a warning shot and he made the comment about ricochets. This is either the reason he didn't fire into the shower or it isn't. If it is the reason then it must have been the reason at the time...which meant he thought about and considered it at the time. If it's not actually the reason then that proves he's just making up explanations on the hoof.

Regarding his other explanations...how have you managed to miss these? They are the reason he ended up with multiple defences.

1) He fired because he was vulnerable and thought he had to protect himself and Reeva (PPD)
2) Before he knew it he had pulled the trigger four times without thinking (automatism)
3) He accidentally fired four times (accident)

They can't all be true. But they can all be untrue.

It's also very interesting (and telling) that your last sentence shows you've not really properly thought through what Pistorius actually said.

Either he fired because he thought an intruder was about to attack him OR he fired without thinking ("before he knew it"). Both of these things cannot possibly be true at the same time. Although, if I'm perfectly honest, I suspect the distinction will be lost on you.

BIB
You say that it is either the reason or it isn't but if firing a warning shot never even crossed his mind in the first place (maybe because he has said that he did not want to reveal that he was armed) then your question is invalid.

Nel said several times that OP could not have more than one defence and at one point IIRC, OP agreed with this. Of course in reality this is not true. A person defending themselves for example may end up with a number of defences maybe because they are unable to frame their defence in an efficient way. Although in this case the overlap is due to the unusual factors that came into play on the night. But they still have the right to their defence and the judge will still have the responsibility to consider those defences as Masipa has done in this case.

 

[Trotterly]

Nel framed the question very clearly and without ambiguity..."Why didn't you fire a warning shot"?

And he was asking this of the man who had just testified to a) knowing, or being pretty certain, there was a human being in the toilet and b) screaming at them to "get the **** out" of his house.

So, totally fair question. If Pistorius is being truthful, and genuinely fired (four times!) without thought he should/would have answered..."I have no idea. The thought simply didn't occur to me". But no, on the stand he has to scrabble about for an explanation that might make sense, and he went with..."The ricochet would have hit me". This, unfortunately demonstrates (if true) that he knew the damage the bullets could cause and was not doing anything without thinking.

Could you at least manage to think for a moment why Pistorius needs to come up with explanations after the event for what he did that night? It's obviously not the truth. Why is that? Is the truth not good enough?

You are mistaken, you need to watch that part of the testimony again.

Nel: Did you ever think of firing into the shower, a warning shot?
OP: If I had fired a shot into the shower it would have ricocheted and possibly hit me
Nel: That is the next question. Firing into that door in that small toilet a ricochet of that ammunition would be possible and it would hit somebody. Am I right
OP: That's correct
Nel: So you foresaw the possibility if I fire in there and there's somebody in there I will hit them
OP: That's not what I said
Nel: But I ask you, did you?......
Nel: Why did you not fire a warning shot?
OP: I didn't intend to fire my gun....

The BIB is closer to the real question.

 

[Trotterly]

But he wasn't aware of the danger to the person in the toilet????

Because that's the issue...Masipa found he ought to have known, but didn't necessarily.

So, (according to you) he knew the danger to himself but not the person in the toilet?

Sincerely, that's the silliest argument I have yet come across.

You are confusing what is known now and what was part of his thought processes (subconsciously or consciously) at the time

If you are not intending (in any of its legal definitions) to fire at the time then you cannot be expected to harbour thoughts of the consequences of such action as they relate to intent. Any such lapse relates to culpability.

 

[Trotterly]

Sorry...but you do know that "reasonably possible" is not synonymous with "vaguely, just about possible", right?

Yes I do.

Do you think it would be impossible to think that shouting that you were armed might escalate the situation?

 

[lithgow1]

You are confusing what is known now and what was part of his thought processes (subconsciously or consciously) at the time

If you are not intending (in any of its legal definitions) to fire at the time then you cannot be expected to harbour thoughts of the consequences of such action as they relate to intent. Any such lapse relates to culpability.

So are you saying he had no intention of firing at the time he did so? If so, then I assume you are saying his reason for doing so was involuntary and therefore his defence is automatism.