Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~

[mrjitty]

........that's not relative...............Pistorius chose the intruder version instead of the truth about the door..........this theory was never discussed officially ...to my knowledge.....

OP claimed in testimony that he shot at the door but didn't intend to shoot anyone.

Even Masipa couldn't stomach that nonsense.

 

[mrjitty]

Why does the possibility of causing death only revolve around the ricochet? Unless I am misunderstanding you, he didn`t know exactly where she was in the cubicle so there was as much chance of a direct hit killing her as of a ricocheting bullet, which is exactly what happened.

Exactly.

If you start shooting a gun in the direction of your girlfriend its going be murder.

Also there is practical considerations.

If you claim you just wanted to shoot near her - will a court believe it or care that it makes a difference?

Unlikely.

 

[Colin de France]

OP claimed in testimony that he shot at the door but didn't intend to shoot anyone.

Even Masipa couldn't stomach that nonsense.

....as i said before that's not relative due to the fact that it's a different version in debate............

 

[Colin de France]

Exactly.

If you start shooting a gun in the direction of your girlfriend its going be murder.

Also there is practical considerations.

If you claim you just wanted to shoot near her - will a court believe it or care that it makes a difference?

Unlikely.

....that's very approximative.......as he didn't shoot in her direction that makes the rest extremely academic to say the least .....

 

[mrjitty]

....as i said before that's not relative due to the fact that it's a different version in debate............

So in your opinion, a Court is going to hold oh actually you intended to shoot 6 inches to the left of her so that's not murder?

You are in the realms of fantasy, especially seeing as decided Supreme Court cases say you are wrong about this.

 

[mrjitty]

....that's very approximative.......as he didn't shoot in her direction that makes the rest extremely academic to say the least .....

He shot her multiple times.

How did he not shoot in her direction?

 

[Colin de France]

So in your opinion, a Court is going to hold oh actually you intended to shoot 6 inches to the left of her so that's not murder?

You are in the realms of fantasy.

.....no the court is obliged to recognise that avoiding action was instigated .............

 

[Interested Bystander]

OP claimed in testimony that he shot at the door but didn't intend to shoot anyone.

Even Masipa couldn't stomach that nonsense.

We know that OP was an experienced gun user. He gained his certificate on gun safety and knew all the rules. I am not surprised Masipa found his excuse lamentable. It does show how desperate he was about the predicament he was in. Almost any excuse/lie is worth trying in the hope that someone might just believe one of them!

 

[Colin de France]

We know that OP was an experienced gun user. He gained his certificate on gun safety and knew all the rules. I am not surprised Masipa found his excuse lamentable. It does show how desperate he was about the predicament he was in. Almost any excuse/lie is worth trying in the hope that someone might just believe it!

......now you're mixing up versions..........if he's lied he's done a good job....he went from twenty years to ten months in prison......

 

[Colin de France]

He shot her multiple times.

How did he not shoot in her direction?

..............that doesn't make sense.......whether it be one bullet or four the fact that he took avoiding action speaks for itself .........

 

[mrjitty]

.....no the court is obliged to recognise that avoiding action was instigated .............

Please list your authorities for this proposition.

Because the Supreme Court of South Africa does not agree with you.

 

[Colin de France]

Please list your authorities for this proposition.

Because the Supreme Court of South Africa does not agree with you.

.....now you're mixing up versions.............and so obviously at that .....

 

[mrjitty]

.....now you're mixing up versions.............and so obviously at that .....

Courts don't work this way.

Courts follow decided authorities and employ legal reasoning.

Your hypothetical is murder based on Supreme Court authority.

I'll leave it at that.

 

[lithgow1]

..............that doesn't make sense.......whether it be one bullet or four the fact that he took avoiding action speaks for itself .........

What fact, what avoiding action? He fired four times in her general direction when he knew the space she was constrained within.

 

[Colin de France]

Courts don't work this way.

Courts follow decided authorities and employ legal reasoning.

Your hypothetical is murder based on Supreme Court authority.

I'll leave it at that.

........criss-crossing versions to explain possible judicial reaction won't make discussion easy, that's for sure..........

 

[soozieqtips]

What fact, what avoiding action? He fired four times in her general direction when he knew the space she was constrained within.

Wouldn't avoiding action have involved firing warning shots everywhere except at the toilet door? Oh wait. He didn't want to risk hurting himself. There's no way he didn't know those bullets weren't going to kill Reeva in that confined space. And just in case he hadn't quite killed her, he sat with her for "I don't know how long" (five minutes was his estimation)... to make sure she wouldn't survive - which she didn't.

 

[Colin de France]

What fact, what avoiding action? He fired four times in her general direction when he knew the space she was constrained within.

.........he took avoiding action by firing away from her.......now whether the fact that he fired into a small cubicle could be considered as murder or not dépends on whether or not he knew about the risk of the bouncing bullets at the time and regardless of the situation he fired anyway..........

 

[mrjitty]

I found these old classics which pretty much capture my opinion of the case:

Oscar Trial Channel @OscarTrial199 · 2m
#oscartrial Nel: " the prosecutor isn't obliged to play chess against himself"...


Oscar Trial Channel @OscarTrial199 · 1m
#oscartrial Nel: most devastating part of his evidence is inability to contest veracity of scene photos & evidence of V Rensburg, V Staden

Oscar Trial Channel @OscarTrial199 · 15s
#oscartrial Nel: all that was put was that the bat had moved a millimetre or so...about main bedroom - nothing was put.

Oscar Trial Channel @OscarTrial199 · 55s
#oscartrial Nel: duvet was on the floor, jeans was on the duvet...it's impossible to explain that...


Oscar Trial Channel @OscarTrial199 · 29s
#oscartrial Nel: if court accepts that scene as depicted on photo is a true reflection, his version cannot be true...

Oscar Trial Channel @OscarTrial199 · 4s
#oscartrial Nel: Van der Merwe was never told she couldn't have heard a woman arguing.

 

[Interested Bystander]

......now you're mixing up versions..........if he's lied he's done a good job....he went from twenty years to ten months in prison......

but someone did believe his lies (maybe not this one which was perhaps the silliest of them all).

Now I have broken my promise. I shall have to switch you to ignore LOL.

 

[Colin de France]

Wouldn't avoiding action have involved firing warning shots everywhere except at the toilet door? Oh wait. He didn't want to risk hurting himself. There's no way he didn't know those bullets weren't going to kill Reeva in that confined space.

....didn't he come out with that excuse afterwards.........long afterwards ......