Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~

[Colin de France]

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?

........no....it was awnser to your question whether it was proven as "true" that it was not possible to avoid a person inside, so going by the elements which we have that i mentioned above and also according to the version from Pistorius himself no effort was made or could be made to avoid killing anyone inside the cubicle leaving us only with the intention to kill .......unless the gun accidently fired itself which i think only the most rudimentary intelligence could agree with......

 

[aftermath]

........no....it was awnser to your question whether it was proven as "true" that it was not possible to avoid a person inside, so going by the elements which we have that i mentioned above and also according to the version from Pistorius himself no effort was made or could be made to avoid killing anyone inside the cubicle leaving us only with the intention to kill .......unless the gun accidently fired itself which i think only the most rudimentary intelligence could agree with......

So it has been proved as impossible to avoid hitting someone? Or it hasn't been proved as impossible to avoid hitting someone?
Sorry- I can't see which one you are agreeing with in your previous response. (my turn to need a post clarified,)

 

[Colin de France]

So it has been proved as impossible to avoid hitting someone? Or it hasn't been proved as impossible to avoid hitting someone?
Sorry- I can't see which one you are agreeing with in your previous response. (my turn to need a post clarified,)

........post 679 and 681 are clear.......can't be more clear than that.....there will never be any proof one way or the other, that only leaves us with the obvious..........

 

[aftermath]

........post 679 and 681 are clear.......can't be more clear than that.....there will never be any proof one way or the other, that only leaves us with the obvious..........

Thanks- this is much clearer.
The obvious is that intention to kill cannot reliably be inferred from his knowledge of the size of the cubicle

 

[Colin de France]

Thanks- this is much clearer.
The obvious is that intention to kill cannot reliably be inferred from his knowledge of the size of the cubicle

........not only the very small size of the cubicle but also the unknown quantity of intruder/s, the bouncing bullets, the darkness, the direction in which he pointed the gun, the amount of bullets fired, lack of warning...... one could also include previous history of shooting in public, killing dogs, childish rage etc......

 

[aftermath]

........not only the very small size of the cubicle but also the unknown quantity of intruder/s, the bouncing bullets, the darkness, the direction in which he pointed the gun, the amount of bullets fired...... one could also include previous history of shooting in public, childish rage etc......

Absolutely- intention to kill cannot be reliably inferred from any of these...

ETA - lots of extras being added as I typed!

 

[Colin de France]

Absolutely- intention to kill cannot be reliably inferred from any of these...

.......i included the lack of warning and shooting dogs after your post............i'm pretty sure a good jury would of thought otherwise .....

 

[aftermath]

.......i included the lack of warning and shooting dogs after your post............i'm pretty sure a good jury would of thought otherwise .....

Dogs or dog? (I am aware of the article where he claimed to have run over a dog then shot it..this wasn't raised in court though, so there is no way of knowing how much to rely on the details/content) Based on the article though, would that really denote an intent to kill in an entirely different situation?
Lack of warning- maybe screaming 'get the **** out of my house' might count as a warning. Did you mean him not firing a warning shot?

 

[Colin de France]

Dogs or dog? (I am aware of the article where he claimed to have run over a dog then shot it..this wasn't raised in court though, so there is no way of knowing how much to rely on the details/content) Based on the article though, would that really denote an intent to kill in an entirely different situation?
Lack of warning- maybe screaming 'get the **** out of my house' might count as a warning. Did you mean him not firing a warning shot?

...... one dog............don't you think that shouting for the intruder/s to get out and then blasting them to death for them doing just that is at the very least...surprising......

 

[aftermath]

...... one dog............don't you think that shouting for the intruder/s to get out and then blasting them to death for them doing just that is at the very least...surprising......

Okay, so one dog. Based on what the article reports (and putting aside the media tendency not to always publish without embellishment or selective editing for a good story), what inferences can reliably be made from that and usefully applied to the question of intent to kill reeva?
I think that shouting at the intruder(s) to get out could count as a warning. Firing the gun moments later could easily have been panic.

 

[Colin de France]

Okay, so one dog. Based on what the article reports (and putting aside the media tendency not to always publish without embellishment or selective editing for a good story), what inferences can reliably be made from that and usefully applied to the question of intent to kill reeva?
I think that shouting at the intruder(s) to get out could count as a warning. Firing the gun moments later could easily have been panic.

........so now we are down to speculation........there is nothing to support firing four shots other than intentional murder.....

 

[lithgow1]

Okay, so one dog. Based on what the article reports (and putting aside the media tendency not to always publish without embellishment or selective editing for a good story), what inferences can reliably be made from that and usefully applied to the question of intent to kill reeva?
I think that shouting at the intruder(s) to get out could count as a warning. Firing the gun moments later could easily have been panic.

So lucid and thinking enough to shout out a warning and so panicked that seconds later he starts firing in the direction of the person he just shouted a warning to. That may make sense in Oscarworld but it doesn`t make much in the real one.

 

[Trotterly]

Okay, so one dog. Based on what the article reports (and putting aside the media tendency not to always publish without embellishment or selective editing for a good story), what inferences can reliably be made from that and usefully applied to the question of intent to kill reeva?
I think that shouting at the intruder(s) to get out could count as a warning. Firing the gun moments later could easily have been panic.

This is the important part that makes the size of the cubicle irrelevant as the SCA will clarify. The fact that Masipa had made this clear early in her judgement and it was missed by many trial watchers, confused the issue of his intent and made it impossible for many to explain the rest of the verdict to their satisfaction.

 

[Colin de France]

This is the important part that makes the size of the cubicle irrelevant as the SCA will clarify. The fact that Masipa had made this clear early in her judgement and it was missed by many trial watchers, confused the issue of his intent and made it impossible for many to explain the rest of the verdict to their satisfaction.

.....what you have to consider in relation to the panic excuse is that the gun fired one shot then three in other words he would of had to of panicked at least twice............which makes this excuse all the more unbelievable ....add to that he pulled the trigger four times...we are in the realms of ridicule......

 

[Interested Bystander]

.....what you have to consider in relation to the panic excuse is that the gun fired one shot then three in other words he would of had to of panicked at least twice............which makes this excuse all the more unbelievable ....add to that he pulled the trigger four times...we are in the realms of ridicule......

Especially as there was a pause between the first and the second shot which the ballistics guys had determined was indicated by the wounds and also heard by the Burgess/Johnson family. So it looks more as though he shot her, realised he could not let her live as it would ruin his future, and then fired three more in quick succession to ensure she had no story to tell.

 

[Colin de France]

Especially as there was a pause between the first and the second shot which the ballistics guys had determined was indicated by the wounds and also heard bythe Burgess/Johnson family. So it looks more as though he shot her, realised he could not let her live as it would ruin his future, and then fired three more in quick succession to ensure she had no story to tell.

....if this is so, can you imagine the speed he calculated this out........apparently he was a big fan of TV legal documentaries, i wonder if he was already aware of the intruder scenario........

 

[aftermath]

So lucid and thinking enough to shout out a warning and so panicked that seconds later he starts firing in the direction of the person he just shouted a warning to. That may make sense in Oscarworld but it doesn`t make much in the real one.

Not necessarily lucid and thinking strategically at all really - just panicking...from hearing a noise and jumping to the wrong conclusion, to picking up the gun, to shouting in the passageway, to firing the gun, to realising his error, to breaking into the cubicle, to trying to stem the bleeding when the dr arrived- etc. These could all be the fragmented thoughts and actions of a man in panic.

 

[Trotterly]

.....what you have to consider in relation to the panic excuse is that the gun fired one shot then three in other words he would of had to of panicked at least twice............which makes this excuse all the more unbelievable ....add to that he pulled the trigger four times...we are in the realms of ridicule......

Firstly there is disagreement amongst the witnesses, who claimed to have heard gunshots, as to the delay after the first shot.

Secondly, I agree only one shot could have been fired due to a simple startle as he would have immediately stopped when he realised what he had done but if he panicked then he could have fired any number of shots. In this circumstance are we sure that between the first and second shots he would definitely have realised what he was doing was going to kill and carried on regardless given that his complete focus was on the danger up until that point?

 

[Colin de France]

Not necessarily lucid and thinking strategically at all really - just panicking...from hearing a noise and jumping to the wrong conclusion, to picking up the gun, to shouting in the passageway, to firing the gun, to realising his error, to breaking into the cubicle, to trying to stem the bleeding when the dr arrived- etc. These could all be the fragmented thoughts and actions of a man in panic.

....."calm down Ba Ba it's only me having a pee pee" ............!

 

[Interested Bystander]

....if this is so, can you imagine the speed he calculated this out........apparently he was a big fan of TV legal documentaries, i wonder if he was already aware of the intruder scenario........

I think all South Africans are very aware of the intruder scenario. There are so many murders of this type in SA that it would be difficult not to know. It must be ingrained. Since OP's case this has been referred to in the press as the Pistorius Defence.