Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~

[Colin de France]

Yes, but you are assuming that he was thinking about killing someone and not about defending himself. Surely that's the primary point of shooting if you think you are under attack and why the law distinguishes between different kinds of shootings.

....but.......he wasn't defending himself.......there's no proof to support that......but there is sustained evidence some of which we've seen on this thread recently to support the theory that he calculated his thinking before firing......

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

Yes, but you are assuming that he was thinking about killing someone and not about defending himself. Surely that's the primary point of shooting if you think you are under attack and why the law distinguishes between different kinds of shootings.

I know nothing about the law in NYC so can't say.

Even if he was thinking about defending himself, he knew that shooting for black talons into a small space would kill that person. You can defend your self by shooting someone in the leg/foot - he didn't have to defend himself by making sure the other person is dead.

 

[Colin de France]

......there are also the multiple versions given by Pistoirius which again point to someone improvising to suit his line of defense.......

 

[Colin de France]

Even if he was thinking about defending himself, he knew that shooting for black talons into a small space would kill that person. You can defend your self by shooting someone in the leg/foot - he didn't have to defend himself by making sure the other person is dead.

....by his own version he shouted for the intruder/s to get out......how can blasting them to death be justified after that ......

 

[lithgow1]

The shooter. What would they charge a dead intruder with?

I've told you the circumstances. Would you want the shooter charged with murder - or more importantly convicted and sent to jail for 15 years?

You don`t want to discuss peripheral aspects of the case but you want me to give you a yes or no answer to your made-up scenario. No thanks. Let`s stick to what Oscar Pistorius did, which was shoot four times through a door at an unseen and unknown person and yes for that i think he should go to prison for more than 10 months.

 

[soozieqtips]

~snipped~

They released the details of the memorial not because they wanted to make him look good
but because someone told the media and so they had to make a statement.

BIB - Oh please, and just who do you think leaked it to the media? Many of us think OP made damn sure it was "leaked" to make it look like he gave a damn. What was the point in grieving in private? How would that have helped his image?? This is the same guy who couldn't even remember the date of Reeva's birthday. And before you say anyone could forget... he wasn't "anyone" - and he'd been saving the Valentines card Reeva got him especially to open on her birthday, and then he got the date wrong. But it's not surprising seeing as how the shallow lowlife was hitting on women just a few short weeks after killing his "beloved". Quite a contrast to the emotionally broken and bereft "victim" he tried to portray himself as in court.

 

[aftermath]

You don`t want to discuss peripheral aspects of the case but you want me to give you a yes or no answer to your made-up scenario. No thanks. Let`s stick to what Oscar Pistorius did, which was shoot four times through a door at an unseen and unknown person and yes for that i think he should go to prison for more than 10 months.

BIB- Regardless of context?

 

[lithgow1]

BIB- Regardless of context?

On the contrary. It is precisely because of the context in which it happened that I think he should go to prison for 15 years.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Thought for the evening. Why would a person lie if they knew they were innocent?

 

[lithgow1]

~snipped~


BIB - Oh please, and just who do you think leaked it to the media? Many of us think OP made damn sure it was "leaked" to make it look like he gave a damn. What was the point in grieving in private? How would that have helped his image?? This is the same guy who couldn't even remember the date of Reeva's birthday. And before you say anyone could forget... he wasn't "anyone" - and he'd been saving the Valentines card Reeva got him especially to open on her birthday, and then he got the date wrong. But it's not surprising seeing as how the shallow lowlife was hitting on women just a few short weeks after killing his "beloved". Quite a contrast to the emotionally broken and bereft "victim" he tried to portray himself as in court.

Yes if it was so private then whoever told the media was part of the Pistorius inner circle and yet it is the media`s fault that it became public? So there are two options - one of his family or close friends told the media, or the PR people made that part up so they could announce Oscar`s memorial service to the public. Which then backfired spectacularly. Maybe the friend who told the media was the same mysterious person who came to pick him up after he got shot at on the highway.

 

[aftermath]

Thought for the evening. Why would a person lie if they knew they were innocent?

Perhaps if they were frightened no one would believe them ... ? Stupid and risky, but possible. ..

 

[Colin de France]

....one of the big problems with this case is that it's slightly schizo....on one hand we are discussing the shooting in relation to the intruder/s and on the other to Reeva......the discussion has always been split between these two versions.......the intruder version from Pistorius can be proved to be criminal by the lack of warning, excessive force etc but for the Reeva version it's entirely different because there is no proof that he knew she was in the WC except for the screams.......the one thing that ties the two versions in is the recklessness of firing into the small cubicle, without being under any need to do so and in doing so killed a human being......i think a good judge would of over-ridden this debate and sent him to prison for murder regardless of who was in the WC on the basis that there was no need to of fired and that he was under no threat......it's murder, it's taking a life without justification whatever the version accepted..

 

[Deleted member 102539]

....one of the big problems with this case is that it's slightly schizo....on one hand we are discussing the shooting in relation to the intruder/s and on the other to Reeva......the discussion has always been split between these two versions.......the intruder version from Pistorius can be proved to be criminal by the lack of warning, excessive force etc but for the Reeva version it's entirely different because there is no proof that he knew she was in the WC except for the screams.......the one thing that ties the two versions in is the recklessness of firing into the small cubicle, without being under any need to do so and in doing so killed a human being......i think a good judge would of over-ridden this debate and sent him to prison for murder regardless of who was in the WC on the basis that there was no need to of fired and that he was under no threat......it's murder, it's taking a life without justification whatever the version accepted..

Yes, a big problem for a talk /discussion. One becomes :scared: :tantrum: :blushing: :gaah: :banghead:

 

[GR_Turner]

I care about his family`s tweets because his uncle tweeted things like `As light conquers darkness may good destroy evil` in relation to the trial. The police believed him to be guilty of murder in what looked like a typical domestic violence incident and as a result he was charged and forced to account for his actions and his uncle tweets things like that? Was everyone just supposed to believe his story? Even OP seemed outraged that he had to put his life on hold for a year. Well mate you shot and killed someone and that usually has consequences that tend to disrupt the normal pattern of life.

As for the PR team it is the first time I have mentioned them and it was in response to your comments about media treatment of him, to show that he has also tried to use the media to his own advantage.

`Yes his money went a long time ago because he spent it on some of SA`s highest priced lawyers. The point is that he was able to afford them in the first place.

Finally, where are all these biased media reports? I agreed with you that early on there was bias and misinformation, but once the trial got going they were largely reporting the evidence being given, from both sides. If you want to talk biased media though, ever watch Robyn Curnow and Kelly Phelps on CNN?

The family surely have the right to tweet what they want. They haven't tweeted nasty things about the state or about the victim or her family but just things to indicate that they don't think OP is guilty. I can't see the problem. I don't follow their tweets at all as they aren't important and I wonder why you even mention them really. I really don't think that a few tweets or even a few biased commentators could withstand the huge number of incredibly biased media reports coming from so many sources. Look at how many reports refer to him as a murderer when he wasn't convicted or give one line stating that he wasn't found guilty of murder before spending the remainder of the article talking about domestic violence. Of course it's bound to prejudice people.

On a more general level, the way that crime is reported is always sensationalised. The state's case was always going to get more attention because the media like crime stories particularly if the people involved are young, good looking and wealthy. It doesn't make front page news when the neighbours say they didn't hear female screaming and when the phone times and other evidence starts to suggest the state may be wrong and so there is less coverage. That evidence is equal in the courtroom but not in the court of public opinion.

 

[aftermath]

....one of the big problems with this case is that it's slightly schizo....on one hand we are discussing the shooting in relation to the intruder/s and on the other to Reeva......the discussion has always been split between these two versions.......the intruder version from Pistorius can be proved to be criminal by the lack of warning, excessive force etc but for the Reeva version it's entirely different because there is no proof that he knew she was in the WC except for the screams.......the one thing that ties the two versions in is the recklessness of firing into the small cubicle, without being under any need to do so and in doing so killed a human being....

..i think a good judge would of over-ridden this debate and sent him to prison for murder regardless of who was in the WC on the basis that there was no need to of fired and that he was under no threat......it's murder, it's taking a life without justification whatever the version accepted..

I agree with a lot of this, just not your final conclusion. If he acted mistakenly upon a genuine fear that his and Reeva's lives were in danger and needed defending, then i don't think he would have had the required intent for murder. But his actions were still too hasty and excessive, so unlawful - so CH is the appropriate verdict.

 

[GR_Turner]

Even if he was thinking about defending himself, he knew that shooting for black talons into a small space would kill that person. You can defend your self by shooting someone in the leg/foot - he didn't have to defend himself by making sure the other person is dead.

But do you not think then that being afraid makes a difference to your perception? At the heart of a self-defense case is the understanding that a person in fear of their life may act to defend themselves even if this results in the death of the other person. However they can't go too far or their defense is perceived as an attack. In this case I think he clearly did think he was being attacked and I'd give him the benefit of the doubt given the way things are in SA and how the law is applied there too. Now if there was evidence that he had stopped and started again (but the evidence indicates it was 4 shots in a row, not 1-3) then that would be worse. Or if he had shot multiple times higher up and then several times lower down indicating that he was intent on finishing off the intruder, that might be different. But in this case we have 4 shots below waist height probably fired in a row.

 

[lithgow1]

The family surely have the right to tweet what they want. They haven't tweeted nasty things about the state or about the victim or her family but just things to indicate that they don't think OP is guilty. I can't see the problem. I don't follow their tweets at all as they aren't important and I wonder why you even mention them really. I really don't think that a few tweets or even a few biased commentators could withstand the huge number of incredibly biased media reports coming from so many sources. Look at how many reports refer to him as a murderer when he wasn't convicted or give one line stating that he wasn't found guilty of murder before spending the remainder of the article talking about domestic violence. Of course it's bound to prejudice people.

On a more general level, the way that crime is reported is always sensationalised. The state's case was always going to get more attention because the media like crime stories particularly if the people involved are young, good looking and wealthy. It doesn't make front page news when the neighbours say they didn't hear female screaming and when the phone times and other evidence starts to suggest the state may be wrong and so there is less coverage. That evidence is equal in the courtroom but not in the court of public opinion.

They have the right to tweet what they want and people have the right to criticise those tweets, such as the `good destroying evil` one. Do you agree with Uncle Arnold that Nel and/or the state is evil, as was the insinuation of the tweet? I don`t follow their tweets either and you are the one who brought up the media, of which the family twitter accounts are a part. I notice you also never addressed the claim that it was a close member of the inner Pistorius circle who leaked the details of the private memorial service to the press. Maybe that is a bit too close to cynicism on their part for comfort.

Where are these huge numbers of biased reports you speak of? It would be slander to now call him a murderer so I really can`t see any mainstream media outlets doing that. But if they are, cough up a few links to prove your point. You say `look how many reports refer to him as a murderer when he wasn`t convicted` so back that up with some verifiable examples, not just your perception. If you won`t or can`t then I suspect you are the one doing the sensationalising.

 

[GR_Turner]

You don`t want to discuss peripheral aspects of the case but you want me to give you a yes or no answer to your made-up scenario. No thanks. Let`s stick to what Oscar Pistorius did, which was shoot four times through a door at an unseen and unknown person and yes for that i think he should go to prison for more than 10 months.

It's the same scenario as OP's but where it turns out it was an intruder after all. Given that that's his defense you ought to have an opinion about whether that person should be found guilty of murder or not.

 

[GR_Turner]

Yes if it was so private then whoever told the media was part of the Pistorius inner circle and yet it is the media`s fault that it became public? So there are two options - one of his family or close friends told the media, or the PR people made that part up so they could announce Oscar`s memorial service to the public. Which then backfired spectacularly. Maybe the friend who told the media was the same mysterious person who came to pick him up after he got shot at on the highway.

It was a one-line statement with no fanfare but the media turned it into a big deal. If the family had invited the media in to take photos I'd have agreed they were trying a PR exercise.

 

[lithgow1]

It's the same scenario as OP's but where it turns out it was an intruder after all. Given that that's his defense you ought to have an opinion about whether that person should be found guilty of murder or not.

Yes guilty if they just fired blindly through a door at an unknown person who wasn`t an immediate threat which, unless they were a circus knife thrower and able to throw over the top of the cubicle, they clearly weren't.