Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~

[aftermath]

........so you do agree that he knew where she was situated......

Not sure how you got that impression from my post, but sure- if he had x-ray vision!
Otherwise it is entirely possible that as far as he knew, she was still in the bedroom.

 

[Trotterly]

Not sure how you got that impression from my post, but sure- if he had x-ray vision!
Otherwise it is entirely possible that as far as he knew, she was still in the bedroom.

Maybe not x-ray vision but he did have sonar to be able to accurately locate his victim through a door but that didn't matter anyway because the cubicle is so small that whoever fired a gun was sure to kill someone anyway :laughing:

 

[Colin de France]

Could it? Don't you mean x-ray vision?
I would have thought that the size of the cubicle, Reeva's initial position near the door, and her subsequent position on falling might have had more to do with why the bullets hit her through the door.

......so you do agree that because of the size of the cubicle the shots coudn't of missed the person inside.......isn't that implying that the shots were meant to kill ........?

 

[aftermath]

......so you do agree that because of the size of the cubicle the shots coudn't of missed the person inside.......isn't that implying that the shots were meant to kill ........?

No - I didn't say that either. I said wtte that as he was firing unsighted, it would be the size of the cubicle, and Reeva's initial position close to the door and her subsequent position on falling, that would lead to three bullets hitting her. If she had been standing in a different place and/or had fallen differently, she may not have been hit as many times (or even at all...?)
So, no. No implication that the shots meant to kill based solely on the size of the cubicle.

 

[Colin de France]

No - I didn't say that either. I said wtte that as he was firing unsighted, it would be the size of the cubicle, and Reeva's initial position close to the door and her subsequent position on falling, that would lead to three bullets hitting her. If she had been standing in a different place and/or had fallen differently, she may not have been hit as many times (or even at all...?)
So, no. No implication that the shots meant to kill based solely on the size of the cubicle.

......i can see that you know you've slipped up........

 

[aftermath]

......i can see that you know you've slipped up........

No you can't. I have been really clear in my posts.
Happy to clarify when asked to- as my responses indicate.
My original point remains that if he thought it was an intruder, the physiological effects of fear could explain some of the details on his account of what he did.

 

[Colin de France]

No you can't. I have been really clear in my posts.
Happy to clarify when asked to- as my responses indicate.
My original point remains that if he thought it was an intruder, the physiological effects of fear could explain some of the details on his account of what he did.

I'm not going to put LOL because that would be an exageration but nonetheless going in that direction....[modsnip].....according to you one of the reasons the bullets hit their target was because of the size of the toilet, knowing that he knew the size of the toilet one can ony assume that he knew he would kill by firing....simple deduction and this is what you have implied ......this is the end result of a line of thinking ....this also implies that if the WC was large there would have been less chance of the bullets hitting ....but we know that wasn't the case .

 

[aftermath]

I'm not going to put LOL because that would be an exageration but nonetheless going in that direction....[modsnip].....according to you one of the reasons the bullets hit their target was because of the size of the toilet, knowing that he knew the size of the toilet one can ony assume that he knew he would kill by firing....simple deduction and this is what you have implied ......this is the end result of a line of thinking ....

Of course the size of the cubicle is an important factor as to why the bullets hit her. The simple deduction you mention is too simple: Knowing the size of the toilet does not inevitably mean knowing he would kill by firing

 

[Colin de France]

Of course the size of the cubicle is an important factor as to why the bullets hit her. The simple deduction you mention is too simple: Knowing the size of the toilet does not inevitably mean knowing he would kill by firing

.....now you're falling into a hole....just because the deduction is simple doesn't make it less viable and yes knowing the cubicle was small and knowing he knew the potential of the weapon and the fact that these bullets at that distance would simply bounce around off the wall's he knew by firing he would kill, no other scenario is possible........sorry

 

[aftermath]

.....now you're falling into a hole....just because the deduction is simple doesn't make it less viable and yes knowing the cubicle was small and knowing he knew the potential of the weapon and the fact that these bullets at that distance would simply bounce around off the wall's he knew by firing he would kill, no other scenario is possible........sorry

No. I am not falling into a hole or slipping up.

Knowing the toilet is small doesn't automatically equate to knowing that firing would kill. And certainly haven't implied that it does. It is one possible scenario but not the only one.

 

[Colin de France]

No. I am not falling into a hole or slipping up.

Knowing the toilet is small doesn't automatically equate to knowing that firing would kill. It is one possible scenario but not the only one.

.......of course...... there's always bullet proof door and walls.........

 

[aftermath]

.......of course...... there's always bullet proof door and walls.........

I don't understand the relevance of the 'bullet proof door and walls' reference.

If Reeva had been in a different position in relation to the door, she may not have been hit at all, or she may not have been hit so catastrophically by the first shot, or she may have been hit just as catastrophically by the first shot. If she was hit and fell, depending on where she was standing when she was hit and depending on where she was actually hit and the extent of the initial wound, she would -in all likelihood- have fallen differently and fallen in a different place. This again would affect where/how/whether she was hit by the next shots.

The cubicle would still be small

 

[Colin de France]

I don't understand the relevance of the 'bullet proof door and walls' reference.

If Reeva had been in a different position in relation to the door, she may not have been hit at all, or she may not have been hit so catastrophically by the first shot, or she may have been hit just as catastrophically by the first shot. If she was hit and fell, depending on where she was standing when she was hit and depending on where she was actually hit and the extent of the initial wound, she would -in all likelihood- have fallen differently and fallen in a different place. This again would affect where/how/whether she was hit by the next shots.

The cubicle would still be small

....i think you need a ladder .........

 

[aftermath]

....i think you need a ladder .........

Do I? How strange.

Don't you think the location where reeva was initially standing could have made any difference at all?

 

[Colin de France]

Do I? How strange.

Don't you think the location where reeva was initially standing could have made any difference at all?

........as far as the intention to kill is concerned.........no....................so now you think he knew where Reeva was stood......you've changed sides.

 

[aftermath]

........as far as the intention to kill is concerned.........no....................so now you think he knew where Reeva was stood......

Blimey- no- again. Surely my posts cannot be that cryptic and confusing.

At no point have I said or suggested he knew where she stood. If you have misunderstood the content of my posts I am glad to have the chance to clarify them for you.

 

[Colin de France]

Blimey- no- again. Surely my posts cannot be that cryptic and confusing.

At no point have I said or suggested he knew where she stood. If you have misunderstood the content of my posts I am glad to have the chance to clarify them for you.

....fine......so on the basis that he didn't know where Reeva or anyone else were positioned in a tiny cubicle he went and fired anyway.....i think we can safely say that he fired to kill on the basis that it was not possible to avoid the person inside not knowing where they were plus the fact that there was no control over the bouncing bullets........

 

[aftermath]

....fine......so on the basis that he didn't know where Reeva or anyone else were positioned in a tiny cubicle he went and fired anyway.....i think we can safely say that he fired to kill on the basis that it was not possible to avoid the person inside not knowing where they were plus the fact that there was no control over the bouncing bullets........

Is it proven as true that it was not possible to avoid a person inside?

 

[Colin de France]

Is it proven as true that it was not possible to avoid a person inside?

........good question.......firstly we have the size of the cubicle, then we have bouncing bullets, after that we have the unknown quantity of intruder/s plus the darkness.......the final decision of whether it be "true" or not seems academic.........to say the very least ...!

 

[aftermath]

........good question.......firstly we have the size of the cubicle, then we have bouncing bullets, after that we have the unknown quantity of intruder/s plus the darkness.......the final decision of whether it be "true" or not seems academic.........to say the very least ...!

Is that a roundabout way of agreeing that it hasn't been proven that it was impossible to avoid hitting a person inside, let alone whether it was impossible to avoid killing them?