Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~

[lithgow1]

I have said several times that I don't know what to think about the DE charge but that if a man in SA can apparently shoot through a roof to kill an intruder who hadn't even entered the house then it would seem that a double-amputee less than 2 metres from a 'threat' and hearing a noise he thinks is the door opening has much more reason to fire than that man. And the first man wasn't pursued for murder - and there was no outcry about this anywhere.

Needed to look up the case you referred to as I wasn`t familiar with it and there was this on the links that came up. I had forgotten about him telling security when they called back that `Everything is fine`. Now that is odd wouldn`t you agree?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/07/us-safrica-pistorius-idUSBREA220H620140307

 

[GR_Turner]

Maybe that was a miscarriage of justice too. At least that guy pleaded guilty to culpable homicide instead of trying to get off every charge, including the ridiculous Tasha`s one. I asked you once before but IIRC you never answered: which version of OP`s did you believe, the 1st or the 2nd?

Why does it matter what that man pleaded guilty to (if he did plead guilty)? It went to court and it wasn't regarded as murder by the magistrate. When was OP given the chance to plead guilty to CH? There are double standards being applied it seems. No one cared at all about the Tasha's shooting until OP shot Reeva - it didn't matter. No one even bothered to call the police despite the restaurant being full. So it only mattered when the state saw an opportunity to shovel some dirt in OP's direction to try to influence the court in the murder charge. And the state having failed to convince the court about DD of Reeva now want DE despite there being many examples of similar cases that weren't treated that way.

If you think that's fair, then are you suggesting that the police, prosecutors and courts should only apply the law to some people and not others?

I didn't see your question about 2 versions.

 

[aftermath]

Well in hindsight, he pretty much did shoot no matter what since he was not about to be attacked and had no good reason to think he was. There were a number of options he could have chosen on hearing the `wood moving` noise. You are good at coming up with alternative scenarios like armed gangs about to raid the bedroom, so why not consider his options and then think about whether what he chose to do was justified under the circumstances, bearing in mind that all his testimony about his actions prior to shooting are considered and calculated despite his fear - shouting, not shouting, hugging the wall, screaming for Reeva to call the police etc etc.

Idon't think anyone claims he was justified in firing four times without waiting for confirmation that he was under attack. IMO, in acting pre-emptively he was acting unlawfully and unjustifiably. In firing four times he acted excessively and therefore unlawfully and unjustifiably. Hence the culpable homicide verdict and consequent sentence.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Sorry - I don't have the timeline here. I was given a link to Mr Fossil's spreadsheet a few pages back. I'll have a quick look back and see if it's on there... hang on......

https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx...=file,xlsx&app=Excel&authkey=!AAwAEdcqEAjjPU4

https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx...=file,xlsx&app=Excel&authkey=!AP15bEJh--E96sg

You see: I have nothing better to do .....

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

I have said several times that I don't know what to think about the DE charge but that if a man in SA can apparently shoot through a roof to kill an intruder who hadn't even entered the house then it would seem that a double-amputee less than 2 metres from a 'threat' and hearing a noise he thinks is the door opening has much more reason to fire than that man. And the first man wasn't pursued for murder - and there was no outcry about this anywhere.

The biggest difference in the two cases is that the man who shot through the roof only pulled the tripper once, aiming at a very large area (the roof) - the intruder could have been anywhere on the roof. OP fired four shots with black talon bullets into a tiny cubicle - there was no way for "the intruder" or Reeva to survive this.

 

[lithgow1]

Why does it matter what that man pleaded guilty to (if he did plead guilty)? It went to court and it wasn't regarded as murder by the magistrate. When was OP given the chance to plead guilty to CH? There are double standards being applied it seems. No one cared at all about the Tasha's shooting until OP shot Reeva - it didn't matter. No one even bothered to call the police despite the restaurant being full. So it only mattered when the state saw an opportunity to shovel some dirt in OP's direction to try to influence the court in the murder charge. And the state having failed to convince the court about DD of Reeva now want DE despite there being many examples of similar cases that weren't treated that way.

If you think that's fair, then are you suggesting that the police, prosecutors and courts should only apply the law to some people and not others?

I didn't see your question about 2 versions.

First BIB - was it because no one cared or because it was Oscar Pistorius who was involved?

Second BIB - so you obviously think that being charged for discharging a firearm in a crowded restaurant is shoveling dirt. I think it is the right thing to do.

 

[GR_Turner]

Needed to look up the case you referred to as I wasn`t familiar with it and there was this on the links that came up. I had forgotten about him telling security when they called back that `Everything is fine`. Now that is odd wouldn`t you agree?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/07/us-safrica-pistorius-idUSBREA220H620140307

It's odd but I have no idea how someone who's just shot his girlfriend by mistake might react or why. It's a pretty traumatic situation and he may have just wanted the security guy off the phone quick as he was preoccupied with Reeva.

Imo this sort of thing could be something or nothing but nothing hangs on it. The other evidence decides the case, not this.

 

[lithgow1]

Why does it matter what that man pleaded guilty to (if he did plead guilty)? It went to court and it wasn't regarded as murder by the magistrate. When was OP given the chance to plead guilty to CH? There are double standards being applied it seems. No one cared at all about the Tasha's shooting until OP shot Reeva - it didn't matter. No one even bothered to call the police despite the restaurant being full. So it only mattered when the state saw an opportunity to shovel some dirt in OP's direction to try to influence the court in the murder charge. And the state having failed to convince the court about DD of Reeva now want DE despite there being many examples of similar cases that weren't treated that way.

If you think that's fair, then are you suggesting that the police, prosecutors and courts should only apply the law to some people and not others?

I didn't see your question about 2 versions.

That is certainly true.

He did plead guilty. If you know enough about the case to use it for one of your comparisons then you would know that.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

No, it's because later on OP explains that he didn't think about firing a warning shot at the time because he wasn't planning to shoot which suggests that his answer before was an explanation given in hindsight.

IMO: No, it's because he babbled out!

 

[lithgow1]

It's odd but I have no idea how someone who's just shot his girlfriend by mistake might react or why. It's a pretty traumatic situation and he may have just wanted the security guy off the phone quick as he was preoccupied with Reeva.

Imo this sort of thing could be something or nothing but nothing hangs on it. The other evidence decides the case, not this.

I have a pretty good idea that someone who has just shot their girlfriend by mistake does not say `Everything is fine`. On the other hand, someone who has just shot their girlfriend on purpose and wants time to sort out a story ... well they might be likely to say that eh.

 

[GR_Turner]

The biggest difference in the two cases is that the man who shot through the roof only pulled the tripper once, aiming at a very large area (the roof) - the intruder could have been anywhere on the roof. OP fired four shots with black talon bullets into a tiny cubicle - there was no way for "the intruder" or Reeva to survive this.

Yes, the number of shots is a difference indeed. Though there's a case of a woman who shot her husband twice in their garden as he broke in having lost his keys. To hit him twice she must have fired at least twice (obviously) and was very likely aiming right at him. He didn't die wasn't this attempted murder for sure? No - the court said it was a family matter and there was no charge. Why no public outcry?

As for the man on the roof - the shooter actually hit him with one shot. Sounds like he was aiming for him, doesn't it. So it doesn't matter how big the roof was really.

I don't see why the size of the cubicle matters in fact. He thought someone was coming out to attack and so he shot. It doesn't matter how big the room behind the door was. I think this is imposing an alternative logic onto the situation ie imagining that the person was trying to avoid being hit. Surely he was trying to defend himself and that's the essence of the PPD defense.

 

[GR_Turner]

That is certainly true.

He did plead guilty. If you know enough about the case to use it for one of your comparisons then you would know that.

Why is it relevant? I read about the case and he was charged with CH not murder and that's the point. Why wasn't he charged with murder and why is there no public outcry?

 

[GR_Turner]

I have a pretty good idea that someone who has just shot their girlfriend by mistake does not say `Everything is fine`. On the other hand, someone who has just shot their girlfriend on purpose and wants time to sort out a story ... well they might be likely to say that eh.

All the witnesses who saw him said he was distraught and no one has suggested that was acting. So it is possible that he just didn't know what he was saying. Either way it's not going to decide the case.

 

[GR_Turner]

First BIB - was it because no one cared or because it was Oscar Pistorius who was involved?

Second BIB - so you obviously think that being charged for discharging a firearm in a crowded restaurant is shoveling dirt. I think it is the right thing to do.

Yes that's the point. Everyone who fires a gun in a restaurant should be charged. That didn't happen and no one was interested until it was OP and it was useful to support a murder charge in a trial. How is this not double standards?

 

[lithgow1]

Yes that's the point. Everyone who fires a gun in a restaurant should be charged. That didn't happen and no one was interested until it was OP and it was useful to support a murder charge in a trial. How is this not double standards?

The double standard applied from the time of the incident and was based on the fact that he was a wealthy celebrity. And no matter where you stand on this case I don`t think you can deny that a) it shows him to be exceedingly reckless with firearms and b) that he was willing to lie his ... off to the point where he looked like a fool to avoid taking responsibility for his exceedingly reckless behaviour.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Yes that's the point. Everyone who fires a gun in a restaurant should be charged. That didn't happen and no one was interested until it was OP and it was useful to support a murder charge in a trial. How is this not double standards?

Who says, that the owners of Tasha's didn't know OP's best friend was lying and they did nothing BECAUSE OP was the real shooter? Double standard, yes, by the owners in favor of their famous guest Mr. Alltimegun/-sportsman.

 

[GR_Turner]

The double standard applied from the time of the incident and was based on the fact that he was a wealthy celebrity. And no matter where you stand on this case I don`t think you can deny that a) it shows him to be exceedingly reckless with firearms and b) that he was willing to lie his ... off to the point where he looked like a fool to avoid taking responsibility for his exceedingly reckless behaviour.

It's a double standard full stop. Now you can argue about the number of shots - but then the woman who shot her husband wasn't charged with attempted murder. You can argue that he had no reason to fire but then the man who shot through a roof had much less and wasn't charged with murder. Someone can fire off a gun in a restaurant and not hit anyone and no one is charged with an offence and indeed the police aren't called. But when it's OP and the world and media are watching, suddenly the number of shots and not being in any danger are presumed to mean that it's DE murder and the shooting in Tasha's is a serious offence. My point is that when other people do these things they are treated with sympathy or the situation isn't regarded as very serious but not when it's OP.

You are changing the subject when you talk about OP's attitude to the Tasha's incident. My impression was that he didn't mean to shoot the gun and didn't think he had touched the trigger. Clearly he must have done but that was it. Nothing more. He shouldn't have asked for it clearly but then again I don't think people should be allowed to carry guns around anyway or foolish things like this will happen.

 

[GR_Turner]

Who says, that the owners of Tasha's didn't know OP's best friend was lying and they did nothing BECAUSE OP was the real shooter? Double standard, yes, by the owners in favor of their famous guest Mr. Alltimegun/-sportsman.

No they thought it was his friend.

 

[lithgow1]

All the witnesses who saw him said he was distraught and no one has suggested that was acting. So it is possible that he just didn't know what he was saying. Either way it's not going to decide the case.

OK. You can choose to believe they were the words of a distraught man who didn`t know what he was saying. I choose to believe they were the words of a distraught man who knew exactly what he was saying.

 

[lithgow1]

It's a double standard full stop. Now you can argue about the number of shots - but then the woman who shot her husband wasn't charged with attempted murder. You can argue that he had no reason to fire but then the man who shot through a roof had much less and wasn't charged with murder. Someone can fire off a gun in a restaurant and not hit anyone and no one is charged with an offence and indeed the police aren't called. But when it's OP and the world and media are watching, suddenly the number of shots and not being in any danger are presumed to mean that it's DE murder and the shooting in Tasha's is a serious offence. My point is that when other people do these things they are treated with sympathy or the situation isn't regarded as very serious but not when it's OP.

You are changing the subject when you talk about OP's attitude to the Tasha's incident. My impression was that he didn't mean to shoot the gun and didn't think he had touched the trigger. Clearly he must have done but that was it. Nothing more. He shouldn't have asked for it clearly but then again I don't think people should be allowed to carry guns around anyway or foolish things like this will happen.

He got a friend to take the blame and then later lied about it and kept insisting he didn`t pull the trigger when he obviously did and even after all that you attempt to defend him to the point where you almost make it sound like he is the victim. You are staunch, I will say that.