Trial Discussion Thread #30

[Irisha]

Anyone who has ever been in a car accident or highjacked, attacked or had a gun in their face will tell you that your mind works quite clearly while this is happening to you.

It's as if you're in a bubble and time slows down and you can think and you can reason. And afterwards your memories of the actual event is crystal clear like a slo-mo video.

Then, when it is over, the feelings happen. Terror and fear and the shakes. You feel sick. And your memories of what happens during this stage are vague.

That is why I can't believe OP's description of that night. It doesn't ring true. If he was honest in describing his actions that night, he would have said that he was in "combat mode" and that he was thinking and reasoning before he shot Reeva.

I was robbed by gunpoint in the 70's in a convenience store( 7-11 type) and I remember everything to this day. It was 3 pmish and as soon as I seen the gun, my 1st thought was, OMG I have to get him out of the store before the kids come in ( school kids ). The only time I seen his face was when he walked toward the counter, after I seen the gun I never looked at his face again. I was terrified he heard my manager( was in the back) open the freezer door, I heard it. I didn't pull the $10 bill from under the $20 bills that activated the camera, was afraid he would notice it. He pulled the money out and activated it, but the sunglass case blocked the view. And when he came in he asked where the kotex's where. I remember everthing and I know I was in shock.The only thing about him I could remember was he was wearing a purple wifebeater top.

 

[kittychi]

Yes interestingly can't find any picture of the boat or him recovering. Some papers say he recovered quickly and injuries were minor. Just fixing his nose and jaw.

IMO -

A PR/Reputation firm likely cleansed the internet of any traces of this. There are firms that do this very effectively.

 

[Carmelita]

BIB. That is irresponsible thinking and a sorry excuse linked to what OP says happened, IMO. Before posting that did you stop to consider that it could have been a neighboring teenager looking to steal or a homeless drunkard that had stumbled his way in there? And if it were you seem to be fine with taking their lives. Hey, you were scared, a life is the price they have to pay for causing your fear, right? Shaking my head...

The bedroom door was closed locked and had a cricket bat against it. The intruder would have to have entered through a second story door or window. I would not be willing to bet my loved ones life on it it being a meandering drunk or neighborhood teenager with no ill intent. I don't think the odds are in favor of that. The fact that anyone would be willing to take that risk with their loved one is inconceivable to me. I would simple put my loved ones safety first. Period.

 

[james83]

Mostly I am Ok with the case being decided on the evidence. In my mind the evidence this far is not indicative of a guilty of PM. I'm from a family of gun owners where there is no such thing as an unloaded gun, I am overly cautious as I would like all gun owners to be. Yes I know that is not the reality of the world.


That said I don't know if CH is proven at this point given the extenuating circumstance of Oscars disability and the ever present pervasive fear that seems to be prevalent in SA due to the frequency of home invasions. That is for the judge to decide. DO I think objectively that Oscar is guilty of CH yes. But subjectively I am on the fence. I have a huge problem with him discharging a firearm when he did not know where Reeva was.

If there really was an intruder and Oscar had killed him, I would find him not guilty, period, deadly defense and adios to the intruder. The problem for me is that I am not convinced that Oscar did not 100% believe he was defending himself and Reeva.

The bottom line is if Oscar's story is true, all he had to say was "who's in the toilet"?, and this whole thing is averted.
It's one of the golden rules of owning a gun anywhere in the world and he knew it, identify your target.

 

[Viper]

I have answered that question and he is disabled.

The quote is not from me.

Crime happens in gated communities.

No the quote was not from you, it was from this very well informed and intelligent attorney:

Pierre de Vos
Claude Leon Foundation Chair in Constitutional Governance at University of Cape Town

 

[soozieqtips]

The bedroom door was closed locked and had a cricket bat against it. The intruder would have to have entered through a second story door or window. I would not be willing to bet my loved ones life on it it being a meandering drunk or neighborhood teenager with no ill intent. I don't think the odds are in favor of that. The fact that anyone would be willing to take that risk with their loved one is inconceivable to me.
I would simple put my loved ones safety first. Period.

BBM - But you wouldn't be putting their safety first if you shot them dead because you hadn't thought to check their whereabouts before you went charging off with a gun.

 

[Carmelita]

The bottom line is if Oscar's story is true, all he had to say was "who's in the toilet"?, and this whole thing is averted.
It's one of the golden rules of owning a gun anywhere in the world and he knew it, identify your target.

That is true.



Oscar was not in a state of mind where he was going to politely ask "Who is that in the loo then?" If that were Oscars state of mind Reeva would still be alive.

 

[jay-jay]

Yes interestingly can't find any picture of the boat or him recovering. Some papers say he recovered quickly and injuries were minor. Just fixing his nose and jaw.

Also, didn't OP say something on the stand about how, after that boating accident it had made him really fearful for his life (i.e. because .. so he says .. he nearly lost his life that day, he doesn't ever want to be in that position again and hence why he reckons he was a bit quick off the mark with his trigger finger on the night he shot Reeva)? Well if that really was the case, then why was he driving that reporter in one of the links on here the other days at 150mph (somewhere around 2011 I think that was) .. that's hardly the behaviour of someone who wants to preserve their life because of a previous close shave. It's because none of it is true, that's why.

 

[Viper]

The bedroom door was closed locked and had a cricket bat against it. The intruder would have to have entered through a second story door or window. I would not be willing to bet my loved ones life on it it being a meandering drunk or neighborhood teenager with no ill intent. I don't think the odds are in favor of that. The fact that anyone would be willing to take that risk with their loved one is inconceivable to me. I would simple put my loved ones safety first. Period.

BIB. Indeed! And he would have had to have retreated to the toilet when he heard OP yell at him, "Get the f*** out of my house!!" And since he retreated to the toilet. OP, having him cornered and aiming his gun right at the door he was hiding behind, had a responsibility to not kill him. Any reasonable person of intelligence and responsibility would not shoot. But I accept that you would.

 

[Bobbie Elliott]

Sorry if I missed any posts. I just want to ask the forum regulars (oldies) what your opinion has been of the Pistorious's in court? The so called 'Team Oscar' - family, extended family, friends etc.

I know what folk back here are saying and a lot of it isn't pleasant of flattering to say the least. I'm just curious as to what people on the other sides of the various ponds and oceans think?

In my part of the world (a small seaside community in Queensland Australia), I've detected very little interest in the case or in OP as a person, or as an athlete. That's why I hang out on WS.

I've not come across anyone else locally who is following the trial. On the few occasions when I've brought up the topic in conversation, people know of the case and they think that OP is guilty. To most, OP's claims are implausible here where there is a relatively low crime-rate and few firearms.

I can't say that this is representative of my larger community, or of any other part of the country. I'd be interested to know what people in other parts of the country are thinking about this - if anything?

 

[liesbeth]

Interesting article on putative self defense in S.A. and how a "reasonable man" will be judged.

“On the particular facts of this case (the Pistorius case) putative private self-defence has never been successful in a South African court where the accused fired through a closed door thinking his life was in danger. In this case the door was locked, so the intruder would have had to break down the door to enter the house.

“Subjectively he could have foreseen that his life was in danger, but that is not the test. The test is, if that subjective belief was objectively reasonable and if he could have taken other preventative steps.

“The law is quite clear. If you can escape the imminent danger without putting your life in danger you have to do it. If you kill a person it must be in such severe circumstances that there’s virtually no other way open to protect your life.”

There are also four case studies on the page lower down.

Apologies if this has been posted before.

http://citizen.co.za/129328/reasonable-reaction/

 

[Carmelita]

BBM - But you wouldn't be putting their safety first if you shot them dead because you hadn't thought to check their whereabouts before you went charging off with a gun.

I've already established I would only use a deadly defense if I was 100% positive as to the location of my loved one.


If Oscar's version is true, I agree with you on your larger point that Oscar was not putting Reeva's safety first because he obviously did not know where she was. Did he think with 100% certainty that it was not her behind that door due to the information he had and events leading him to standing gun in hand screaming at a toilet? I don't know. Was it irresponsible to fire without knowing objectively without a doubt that Reeva was not in the loo, yes it was irresponsible.

 

[TipDog]

<no disrespect; snipped for brevity.>

OP is not disabled.

Pistorius has been described as someone who overcame his disability - but this was with prosthesis (and specially fitted blades). Without them, I would think he is disabled, no?

 

[james83]

That is true.



Oscar was not in a state of mind where he was going to politely ask "Who is that in the loo then?" If that were Oscars state of mind Reeva would still be alive.

With respect how can you say what Oscar's state of mind was?, if you own a gun you know the rules of owning a gun and the ramification's of not following those rules.
For the record i believe he knew she was in there, but if his story is true and he did think there was an intruder, to me his history suggest's it was much more likely that he heard the noise and was a bit to eager to use his gun for real rather than this one minute i feel vulnerable the next i'm charging into the darkness on my stumps contradiction.
JMO

 

[Carmelita]

Interesting article on putative self defense in S.A. and how a "reasonable man" will be judged.

“On the particular facts of this case (the Pistorius case) putative private self-defence has never been successful in a South African court where the accused fired through a closed door thinking his life was in danger. In this case the door was locked, so the intruder would have had to break down the door to enter the house.

“Subjectively he could have foreseen that his life was in danger, but that is not the test. The test is, if that subjective belief was objectively reasonable and if he could have taken other preventative steps.

“The law is quite clear. If you can escape the imminent danger without putting your life in danger you have to do it. If you kill a person it must be in such severe circumstances that there’s virtually no other way open to protect your life.”

There are also four case studies on the page lower down.

Apologies if this has been posted before.

http://citizen.co.za/129328/reasonable-reaction/

The door was locked from the inside so an intruder would not need to break the door down to enter into the next room. Oscar would not have known whether the door was locked or unlocked.

Objectively on his stumps he would have had a more difficult time retreating than an able bodied man. No legs from below the knees down is a pretty severe circumstance IMO.

 

[Chelly]

I know how I would do it.

Record Oscar screaming like a woman.

Bring it into court.

Play it for the Judge.

Seriously?
Make a recording?
Why doesn't Oscar just scream like a woman in court?

 

[james83]

The door was locked from the inside so an intruder would not need to break the door down to enter into the next room. Oscar would not have known whether the door was locked or unlocked.

Objectively on his stumps he would have had a more difficult time retreating than an able bodied man. No legs from below the knees down is a pretty severe circumstance IMO.

Another nonsense part of his story, hears the door slam but doesn't hear it lock.

 

[Carmelita]

With respect how can you say what Oscar's state of mind was?, if you own a gun you know the rules of owning a gun and the ramification's of not following those rules.
For the record i believe he knew she was in there, but if his story is true and he did think there was an intruder, to me his history suggest's it was much more likely that he heard the noise and was a bit to eager to use his gun for real rather than this one minute i feel vulnerable the next i'm charging into the darkness on my stumps contradiction.

True point. I do not know what state of mind Oscar was in. I should have said if Oscar's version of the evens is true at it's core then he has given testimony that he was not in the state of mind to ask politely, Reeva are you in the loo, he was in a state of terror and he had already determined erroneously that it could not be here in the toilet.

 

[soozieqtips]

Seriously?
Make a recording?
Why doesn't Oscar just scream like a woman in court?

Because he wouldn't be able to add the myriad of sound effects that would be needed.

 

[jay-jay]

That is true.



Oscar was not in a state of mind where he was going to politely ask "Who is that in the loo then?" If that were Oscars state of mind Reeva would still be alive.

He didn't need to ask politely .. all he needed to do was shout it out in the same way he says he was shouting "get the out of my house" .. and he could've fired a warning shot into the shower by keeping back round the corner and shielding himself with the wall on his RH side (unless of course he didn't want to spoil his lovely glass shower door). He could even have shot out the window, which also would've been fairly irresponsible as a bullet can travel a mile or more but can't have been any more irresponsible than 'mistakenly' shooting your girlfriend dead with four bullets.

IMO, it's not even worth surmising what OP would or would not have done if it had been an intruder anyway, because from everything I have heard of this case from him, from Reeva, from witnesses, confirms to me that he knew who was in that toilet cubicle. We won't ever really know what he actually would've done if it had been an intruder because that's not what happened that night, and it's not what he knows happened that night either.