Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #68 *Appeal Verdict*

[LemonMousse]

Ok so how many other cases of people shooting intruders in their home have ended in a murder conviction in sa?

Pistorius did not shoot an intruder. He shot his girlfriend. There was no intruder in his house.

 

[soozieqtips]

Lemon - who can ever forget "I wasn't thinking" followed by "I had many thoughts."

OP's version/versions were so full of contradictions they gave me a headache.

 

[GR_Turner]

Pistorius did not shoot an intruder. He shot his girlfriend. There was no intruder in his house.

Which is why we're talking about ppd. Shall I rephrase so there's no possible way you can misunderstand me? Though I'd have thought it was obvious what I meant. How many cases are you aware of where people have been convicted of murder for shooting an intruder or presumed intruder? I've not heard of any in sa. Cases where people have very deliberately attacked an intruder by beating them, say, but not a shooting in these sorts or circumstances.

 

[GR_Turner]

A Pistorian, as far as I am concerned, is someone on Pistorius's side who seems to think that shooting four times at an unknown human being is justifiable because of a "noise".

I think my post to you earlier was quite clear....and I addressed whether he thought he was under attack.

Since he was NOT under attack, and by his own version, given no reason to think that he was...on what are you basing your assumption that he was under that impression, precisely?

We need reasons to believe the things we believe.

The SCA found that he did not entertain a genuine belief that his life was in danger based on any rational thought....because absolutely nothing happened that would lead him to that conclusion. Nothing.

To suggest that he was not thinking rationally at all (which is where your argument is edging) is disproved by all the rational sounding explanations for everything he did and thought.

And what's with all the "he had no chance to escape" nonsense? He had Reeva in the room with him, a gun and a door to go through. Utterly ridiculous for anyone to think he would deliberately chose to place himself in grave danger with so many safer options.

In the moment of hearing a sound in the toilet of the door opening, what were his options? On his version, which wasn't rejected by the court. Is it utterly ridiculous to try to scare an intruder out of your house? I don't think it is.

 

[soozieqtips]

In the moment of hearing a sound in the toilet of the door opening, what were his options? On his version, which wasn't rejected by the court. Is it utterly ridiculous to try to scare an intruder out of your house? I don't think it is.

You don't scare an intruder out of a small toilet by firing 4 bullets at the door. One shot could be construed as trying to scare them - four shots can only be construed as murder, as found by the SCA.

 

[Tortoise]

Ok so how many other cases of people shooting intruders in their home have ended in a murder conviction in sa?

That isn't a good argument, it's irrelevant. Who cares if it's the first time in SA?

Each case is unique, and Pistorius not only failed to demonstrate that he had a reason to believe his life was in danger, he failed to prove that he was acting to save his life.

 

[Tortoise]

Both cases revolve around whether in the absence of reliable evidence from the accused the court can rule out that the accused might have believed he was under attack or about to be and thought he had the right to shoot. It's plain in the De Oliveira case that he couldn't possibly have been in any danger. He was in his house upstairs I think. The men were outside. The Judge noted that there was no sound of breaking glass that might suggest a break in. In short not even a man of low intelligence could have really believed he might be in danger. Contrast this with op. He's on his stumps. He thinks the danger is very close. It's hard to see the comparison. I'd have thought it was obvious that someone in his place might think he was possibly in danger and would have the right to shoot to defend himself. It doesn't matter whether this is the truth, it's the version the court us working on. The only argument against this is that he did know he shouldn't shoot without seeing his target, but I'd say that what you know when writing on a piece of paper when safe and what you do when you think you're in danger are two different things and the court should put themselves in the place of the accused to answer whether there's a chance he could have believed he was acting in self defence.

Bib - why should the court have to do that when the accused says he wasn't?! I don't think you've listened to his answers to Nel.

 

[LemonMousse]

Which is why we're talking about ppd. Shall I rephrase so there's no possible way you can misunderstand me? Though I'd have thought it was obvious what I meant. How many cases are you aware of where people have been convicted of murder for shooting an intruder or presumed intruder? I've not heard of any in sa. Cases where people have very deliberately attacked an intruder by beating them, say, but not a shooting in these sorts or circumstances.

Your "logic" makes no sense.

This case cannot be compared with any that had householders shooting intruders. That's because there were INTRUDERS. Real ones. Their presence and the way they behaved will have given the shooter reason to believe that he had to protect himself or his family.

Here there was neither an intruder, or any sensible reason to believe that there was OR that any "intruder" was about to attack.

Do you have an example of a man shooting his girlfriend/wife/daughter FOUR TIMES thinking it was an intruder hiding in a toilet?

Unless you can come up with something similar, then it's apples and oranges.

(And please don't use the doctor - he shot once when his wife came out of the toilet. A clearly automatic reaction, not a deliberate execution as in this case).

In the Pistorius case, there was no intruder, so no intruder like threats or intruder like behaviour. There was nothing.

And we can't even put it down to ..."Eeek, bang" like the doctor because for this murderer it was....."I don't want to shoot anyone, but, anyway....BANG (change position) BANG BANG BANG. Whoops".

Doesn't really work, does it?

That man wanted someone dead. And that someone was not threatening him. Hence murder.

 

[soozieqtips]

Your "logic" makes no sense.

This case cannot be compared with any that had householders shooting intruders. That's because there were INTRUDERS. Real ones. Their presence and the way they behaved will have given the shooter reason to believe that he had to protect himself or his family.

Here there was neither an intruder, or any sensible reason to believe that there was OR that any "intruder" was about to attack.

Do you have an example of a man shooting his girlfriend/wife/daughter FOUR TIMES thinking it was an intruder hiding in a toilet?

Unless you can come up with something similar, then it's apples and oranges.

(And please don't use the doctor - he shot once when his wife came out of the toilet. A clearly automatic reaction, not a deliberate execution as in this case).

In the Pistorius case, there was no intruder, so no intruder like threats or intruder like behaviour. There was nothing.

And we can't even put it down to ..."Eeek, bang" like the doctor because for this murderer it was....."I don't want to shoot anyone, but, anyway....BANG (change position) BANG BANG BANG. Whoops".

Doesn't really work, does it?

That man wanted someone dead. And that someone was not threatening him. Hence murder.

BIB - and didn't he get medical assistance straight away instead of sitting with her for "I don't know how long" and then phoning a friend?

 

[LemonMousse]

In the moment of hearing a sound in the toilet of the door opening, what were his options? On his version, which wasn't rejected by the court. Is it utterly ridiculous to try to scare an intruder out of your house? I don't think it is.

Why have you decided to believe that he heard the door opening when the door didn't open and the handle didn't move?

And you realise that it's actually impossible that it was the magazine rack moving given Reeva's position, yes? But you believe him anyway?

Masipa may not have rejected his version, but the SCA did. They did not accept that he was frightened for his life because he thought the door was opening.

And .....what? Scaring people out of his house by shooting them FOUR TIMES? I think you're being ridiculous now.

And I know why you are. Any explanation that makes sense of the murderers actions that night do sound ridiculous and far fetched....because none of it happened. He lied. We are debating a fantasy.

 

[LemonMousse]

BIB - and didn't he get medical assistance straight away instead of sitting with her for "I don't know how long" and then phoning a friend?

Yep. And he handed his gun straight to the police, was desperate to talk to them, answering any questions and then told everyone he'd plead guilty to whatever they charged him with and would go to prison for life if need be. That's remorse.....the direct opposite of everything we saw from "How dare the State even charge me Pistorius".

 

[GR_Turner]

Why have you decided to believe that he heard the door opening when the door didn't open and the handle didn't move?

And you realise that it's actually impossible that it was the magazine rack moving given Reeva's position, yes? But you believe him anyway?

Masipa may not have rejected his version, but the SCA did. They did not accept that he was frightened for his life because he thought the door was opening.

And .....what? Scaring people out of his house by shooting them FOUR TIMES? I think you're being ridiculous now.

And I know why you are. Any explanation that makes sense of the murderers actions that night do sound ridiculous and far fetched....because none of it happened. He lied. We are debating a fantasy.

I think you're jumping to conclusions. I didn't say he heard the door opening,just that he heard a noise which he interpreted that way. He only said it was the magazine rack when Nel wouldn't accept this first answer that he didn't know. It could have just been the door moving in its frame as Reeva leant on it. I didn't say he shot to try to scare people out of his house. That would be ridiculous indeed, so I have to wonder why you even suggested it. I was suggesting that he might have gone into the bathroom in an attempt to scare them away and only when confronted by a situation in which he thought he was being attacked shot. If you don't want to debate, then don't, but setting up straw men to knock down does nothing to add to discussions imo.

 

[Sillybilly]

Posts have been removed. Next poster using the word "trolls" or any reasonable facsimile thereof gets a vacation.

 

[LemonMousse]

I think you're jumping to conclusions. I didn't say he heard the door opening,just that he heard a noise which he interpreted that way. He only said it was the magazine rack when Nel wouldn't accept this first answer that he didn't know. It could have just been the door moving in its frame as Reeva leant on it. I didn't say he shot to try to scare people out of his house. That would be ridiculous indeed, so I have to wonder why you even suggested it. I was suggesting that he might have gone into the bathroom in an attempt to scare them away and only when confronted by a situation in which he thought he was being attacked shot. If you don't want to debate, then don't, but setting up straw men to knock down does nothing to add to discussions imo.

Erm...you said...."At the moment he heard the sound, what were his options? Is it so far fetched that he would try and scare an intruder out of his house"? Paraphrased, but along those lines.

You didn't specify which sound.....could have been the one while he was standing in the bathroom, so my reaction was perfectly understandable.

Please don't try to use the term "straw man" if you don't fully understand what it means. It's a logical fallacy, not a mistake in comprehension.

So...he goes to the bathroom to try and scare them away....with a cocked, ready gun. He doesn't tell them he has the gun...deliberately...so what was he planning to use to scare them....his girly sounding shrieks?

And he thought he was being attacked when...the door didn't open, the handle didn't move, nobody spoke and nobody came out?

This non-event was so catastrophically terrifying that he aimed his gun, fired...moved closer....and fired, fired, fired.

No. Sorry. This is fiction. And I'm thinking more of the Jeffrey Archer variety than Margaret Attwood.

 

[Hazy]

I think that's where his disability might come in. An overreaction due to being unable to do anything else and knowing he couldn't do anything else.

So. He was able to walk from one end of the bedroom to the bathroom to shoot a person dead yet he was unable to walk out the bedroom door? I don't buy this ' unable to or couldn't do anything' else.

Maybe if his bathroom was ablaze and smoke billowing into his bedroom .... He'd die because he would be unable to or couldn't exit via the bedroom door?

 

[aftermath]

So. He was able to walk from one end of the bedroom to the bathroom to shoot a person dead yet he was unable to walk out the bedroom door? I don't buy this ' unable to or couldn't do anything' else.

Maybe if his bathroom was ablaze and smoke billowing into his bedroom .... He'd die because he would be unable to or couldn't exit via the bedroom door?

The stairs down to the living room area would have been challenging on his stumps

 

[LemonMousse]

The stairs down to the living room area would have been challenging on his stumps

But confronting armed intruders was preferable?

Oh, boy.

 

[44ALLAN]

Pistorius did not shoot an intruder. He shot his girlfriend. There was no intruder in his house.

And the testimony of the poor ear witnesses to the slaying/execution will haunt me for a long long time................they know what they heard and so do I.

 

[Tortoise]

The stairs down to the living room area would have been challenging on his stumps

He would have asked Reeva to pick up his prostheses and take them for him while he got the gun, then they would have locked the bedroom door behind them, intruder safely trapped, he would have put his prostheses on and they would have run to safety. But then of course, he would have known that there was no intruder, because he would have had no response from Reeva and would have known it was her in the toilet all the time! Easy? Much easier than going to the tiled bathroom on his stumps where he might be killed as soon as he put his face round the corner, do you agree?

 

[jilly]

Lemon, I don't know where you are living... I'm simply glad that you have very short winters
Excellent essay! Thank you. It's so evident especially when resumed the way you did, with these questions.
Judge Masipa is a big ? for me.

Me too and I'd add the recent Ledwaba. You'd think that since South African justice is on the world stage, the High Crt would have appointed the most astute Judges to this case to deal with this high profile case. I kinda sense, right now, that maybe they don't have any

Masipa, in my Country wouldn't have made it past Family Crt with her lack of credentials. Ledwaba probably would have been assigned Juvenile Crt.

I guess we can thank our lucky stars for the Supreme Crt Justices.

I'm not going to let this make me lose sleep. It's beyond our control. Oscar's life, regardless of his recent win, is not going to be the same. Money does not buy happiness. It may seem so now, to him, but there's a higher power he will have to deal with and that is not Uncle Arnold.