International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Trials and Errors (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=106)
-   -   Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=285175)

Samson 11th December 2015 05:59 AM

By the way, if I wished to eliminate the Pistorius right to ordinary and completely flawed human status, and determine he is a character who represents unmitigated evil, I would also agree Reeva's empty bladder is totally irrelevant.

MikeG 11th December 2015 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11024810)
By the way, if I wished to eliminate the Pistorius right to ordinary and completely flawed human status, and determine he is a character who represents unmitigated evil, I would also agree Reeva's empty bladder is totally irrelevant.

Careful with all that straw. It burns you know.

I haven't said Pistorius was evil. I haven't said that he is anything other than an ordinary flawed human being. He made a bad decision: to fire a gun through a closed door. At that point, he deserves whatever punishment is thrown his way, and the state of the bladder of his victim is irrelevant. As it happens, I suspect that he may well have thought there was an intruder behind that door, and that Reeva was still in bed. That doesn't make it any-the-less murder.

Samson 11th December 2015 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 11024850)
Careful with all that straw. It burns you know.

I haven't said Pistorius was evil. I haven't said that he is anything other than an ordinary flawed human being. He made a bad decision: to fire a gun through a closed door. At that point, he deserves whatever punishment is thrown his way, and the state of the bladder of his victim is irrelevant. As it happens, I suspect that he may well have thought there was an intruder behind that door, and that Reeva was still in bed. That doesn't make it any-the-less murder.

In that case I suggest you imagine it to be your son convicted of murder. I can't think of a more important question than who he believed was behind the door, and what import that should have for sentencing.

MikeG 11th December 2015 08:40 AM

There are boundaries in life, and in law. Killing someone without seeing them, without any idea of the risk they pose, is one of those boundaries. Of course, your hypothetical "my son" thing has no relevance, as A/ I don't have one B/ it is highly unlikely that my daughters would ever see a (another*) gun in their entire lives, let alone handle one, and C/ if they were to kill an anonymous someone without any assessment of the risk they were facing, then I would expect them to face the full weight of the law.

* There was a gun involved in the incident that led to my daughter's rape in Moscow a couple of years ago. She lives in a much saner society now.

MikeG 11th December 2015 09:15 AM

Let me just add this. If you have a gun, and you suspect someone behind a closed door is there to do you mischief, you have no excuse for pulling the trigger until you have had an answer to "I have a gun pointed at you. Identify yourself" (or words to that effect).........unless the occupant of the room does or says something to make it clear that they are preparing to attack you.

Bob001 11th December 2015 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11025010)
In that case I suggest you imagine it to be your son convicted of murder. I can't think of a more important question than who he believed was behind the door, and what import that should have for sentencing.

It doesn't matter who he believed was behind the door. Either he didn't know who was behind the door, or he knew it was Reeva. Either way, he had no right to kill a human being who posed no threat to him. His story doesn't make much sense, but even it convicts him of murder.

And consider this: Suppose there had been an intruder? Suppose it had been an unarmed teenage girl who intended to grab P.'s wallet and run? Would shooting her four times be justified?

whoanellie 11th December 2015 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by icerat (Post 11024768)
what other evidence could there be?

Well, for example n this cases there were ear witnesses.

Samson 11th December 2015 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 11025069)
Let me just add this. If you have a gun, and you suspect someone behind a closed door is there to do you mischief, you have no excuse for pulling the trigger until you have had an answer to "I have a gun pointed at you. Identify yourself" (or words to that effect).........unless the occupant of the room does or says something to make it clear that they are preparing to attack you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 11025097)
It doesn't matter who he believed was behind the door. Either he didn't know who was behind the door, or he knew it was Reeva. Either way, he had no right to kill a human being who posed no threat to him. His story doesn't make much sense, but even it convicts him of murder.

And consider this: Suppose there had been an intruder? Suppose it had been an unarmed teenage girl who intended to grab P.'s wallet and run? Would shooting her four times be justified?

There seems to be a concerted desire to say identity in bathroom is irrelevant, but I profoundly disagree. I would like to see a sentence that reflects a tragedy of killing a loved one in error, and I reckon the matter can be proved one way or the other. That is why I post the thread, not to say he is a murderer in law. I couldn't care less what the law says.

whoanellie 11th December 2015 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11025111)
There seems to be a concerted desire to say identity in bathroom is irrelevant, but I profoundly disagree. I would like to see a sentence that reflects a tragedy of killing a loved one in error, and I reckon the matter can be proved one way or the other. That is why I post the thread, not to say he is a murderer in law. I couldn't care less what the law says.

As I understand it, as far as South African law goes under the doctrine of dolus eventualis the identity of the person behind the door doesn't matter.

I agree with you that from a moral point of view the identity does matter. In my opinion he knew it was Reeva. Whether or not the prosecution proved that beyond a reasonable doubt is another matter. I think they did. But the original trial court disagreed. Thus we are left discussing the alternative theory which does not require that OP knew he was shooting at. Either way - he did or did not know he was shooting Reeva, OP is guilty under South African law and morally culpable. One could argue that OP's knowledge is relevant for determining punishment, but there is ample evidence to suggest he knew he was shooting Reeva.

whoanellie 11th December 2015 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by icerat (Post 11024775)
Seriously? Now with the fear of a potential intruder you have her doing sophisticated acoustic analyses to determine where her boyfriend is? A smart phone app on the toilet I suppose?:boggled:

OP claimed to have known that the sound he heard was a window opening in the bathroom. Did he have to do a similar analysis?

Hard Cheese 11th December 2015 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by icerat (Post 11024775)
Seriously? Now with the fear of a potential intruder you have her doing sophisticated acoustic analyses to determine where her boyfriend is? A smart phone app on the toilet I suppose?:boggled:

Good grief. :rolleyes: The brain can locate the sources of a sound in fractions of a second if there are clues. OP's voice is going to sound very different coming down the corridor and into the bathroom yelling at an intruder to "Get the F out of my house" than doing the same thing in the bedroom - especially to someone familiar with the house. If she could hear him coming towards the bathroom screaming, wouldn't she yell out "It's me! I'm on the bog!"?

MikeG 11th December 2015 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11025111)
There seems to be a concerted desire to say identity in bathroom is irrelevant, but I profoundly disagree. I would like to see a sentence that reflects a tragedy of killing a loved one in error, and I reckon the matter can be proved one way or the other. That is why I post the thread, not to say he is a murderer in law. I couldn't care less what the law says.

So, you'd like the judge to throw away the law book, make up her own law and sentence especially tailored for Pistorius, then offer him a box of tissues and an arm around his shoulders? You don't care what the law says, and everyone else does........but you're right and everyone else is wrong?

In arguing that, you'd have to accept that you would be setting legal precedents. Anyone who fired a gun with intent to kill without having a clue who they were aiming at would claim their right to so do under the Pistorius precedent, and all sorts of (other) murderers would walk free as a result.

Perhaps instead of arguing points of law throughout this thread, you should have avoided that altogether and just been up-front that your viewpoint on this was entirely emotional: you felt sorry for Pistorius who has not only lost his girlfriend, but has been sent to gaol too.

TofuFighter 11th December 2015 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 11024753)
I think we're talking about two different things here. You're looking at this in somewhat of a moralistic, social point of view. I think you're also addressing this in terms of whether nor not it was actually premeditated murder of his girlfriend as many people obviously believe. I'm not. The evidence neither supports that or rules it out. I'm looking at this in terms of what the court decided and if they acted properly. I think they did.

TofoFighter are you arguing it was a justifiable shooting, thus Pistorius should not have been charged? The court has ruled, have they not, that his actions were unlawful? That fear is not always a valid defense for the use of deadly force, especially in a case like this where his actions took the life of a completely innocent person. Because of that there are legal consequences. The court has looked at the circumstances and said no, the threat did not rise to the level that justified the use of deadly force. If it had been a home invader found dead in the water closet would that have changed the legal consequences? If they turned out to have been unarmed? I would think Pistorius might still have been charged. It would have been easier for him to tailor his defense -- maybe by saying he knew it was an invader, he'd caught sight of them -- but if the person was unarmed or possibly turned out to be mentally ill he might well have been charged I think. If it had turned out to be some obsessed fan of his? Charged.

Apparently in South Africa there are certain criteria when a homeowner is legally justified in using deadly force and certain criteria when they are not legally justified. I've already described what I think are the reasons Pistorius was not legally justified in using deadly force in this incident. Two courts have obviously seemed to have agreed. The reasoning is that based on what Pistorius knew or could have known at the moment he pulled the trigger, it was not enough to justify killing. It is what it is.


I'm not at all addressing whether it was his girlfriend. I am simply saying that on the assumption that it wasn't his girlfriend, it was necessarily an intruder and thus posed a danger in his mind.

It was posted earlier (my bolding):
Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonJohn (Post 11009989)
<snip>
The critical point is that it is, in law, immaterial who Pistorius thought he was shooting at through the door. The important thing is that 1) he knew there was a human being behind the door, 2) he knew that his gun and its ammunition were easily capable of passing through the door and hitting the person behind the door, 3) he must (not should or could) have known that he was not in imminent danger of injury or death from the person behind the door, and 4) he must (not should or could) have known that by firing his gun and its specialist ammunition with aimed shots through the door four times there was a significant probability that he would seriously injure or kill whoever was behind the door.

All those four things, taken together, mean that dolus eventualis for murder has been met in this instance.
<snip>

I am not arguing that the shooting was justified or that Pistorius should not have been charged. That it happened to be an innocent person behind the door is irrelevant. I agree that it makes no difference who was actually behind the door. I am only arguing that point 3 doesn't appear to have been met. Or if it has, then i haven't seen exactly what it was that convinced the court that it was.

Bob001 11th December 2015 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11025111)
There seems to be a concerted desire to say identity in bathroom is irrelevant, but I profoundly disagree. I would like to see a sentence that reflects a tragedy of killing a loved one in error, and I reckon the matter can be proved one way or the other. That is why I post the thread, not to say he is a murderer in law. I couldn't care less what the law says.

You're buying Pistorius' story completely. But it's not just about Pistorius. A smart, talented (not to mention beautiful) young woman was killed. Her family and friends -- and the world -- lost her forever. You sound like you think she was P.'s property to dispose of as he wished. P. killed a human being without any justification under the circumstances he himself describes. And that leaves aside the real possibility that he in fact chased her into the bathroom and shot her deliberately. P.'s celebrity is what saves him. If this had happened to a nobody, everybody would be sneering at his story and he'd be in prison for life.

Bob001 11th December 2015 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TofuFighter (Post 11025209)
....
I am not arguing that the shooting was justified or that Pistorius should not have been charged. That it happened to be an innocent person behind the door is irrelevant. I agree that it makes no difference who was actually behind the door. I am only arguing that point 3 doesn't appear to have been met. Or if it has, then i haven't seen exactly what it was that convinced the court that it was.

He wasn't in imminent danger -- and a reasonable person would have known it -- because the person behind the closed door couldn't see P., P. was free to retreat (including leaving the bedroom) or take cover, and P. was armed. There was no immediate requirement that he open fire to save himself.

Samson 11th December 2015 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 11025179)
So, you'd like the judge to throw away the law book, make up her own law and sentence especially tailored for Pistorius, then offer him a box of tissues and an arm around his shoulders? You don't care what the law says, and everyone else does........but you're right and everyone else is wrong?

In arguing that, you'd have to accept that you would be setting legal precedents. Anyone who fired a gun with intent to kill without having a clue who they were aiming at would claim their right to so do under the Pistorius precedent, and all sorts of (other) murderers would walk free as a result.

Perhaps instead of arguing points of law throughout this thread, you should have avoided that altogether and just been up-front that your viewpoint on this was entirely emotional: you felt sorry for Pistorius who has not only lost his girlfriend, but has been sent to gaol too.

That gets close to my view. Seldom is murder achieved through a bathroom door. Law occludes the issues that matter here. A fearful society armed with guns will get to this undesirable destination from time to time. Don't blame the hapless individual anymore than with serial obesity that kills far more.

TofuFighter 11th December 2015 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desert Fox (Post 11024680)
It would reduce the likelihood of being attacked and potentially reduce the fear involved.

It would certainly reduce the likelihood of attack, but not eliminate it. It might even be argued that an intruder in a secure estate might need to be more sophisticated which might increase the fear.
Pistorius was correct that someone was in his bathroom. If he thought it was an intruder, he would have been fearful of the reality he faced rather than surmising that it was too unlikely to be happening.

Samson 11th December 2015 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 11025213)
You're buying Pistorius' story completely. But it's not just about Pistorius. A smart, talented (not to mention beautiful) young woman was killed. Her family and friends -- and the world -- lost her forever. You sound like you think she was P.'s property to dispose of as he wished. P. killed a human being without any justification under the circumstances he himself describes. And that leaves aside the real possibility that he in fact chased her into the bathroom and shot her deliberately. P.'s celebrity is what saves him. If this had happened to a nobody, everybody would be sneering at his story and he'd be in prison for life.

His own narrative makes sense. That is what I see. I don't care what happens to him, but far more for the deluded masses that can't see the likely truth, and will never analyse a crime scene and aftermath according to logic.

TofuFighter 11th December 2015 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 11025224)
He wasn't in imminent danger -- and a reasonable person would have known it -- because the person behind the closed door couldn't see P., P. was free to retreat (including leaving the bedroom) or take cover, and P. was armed. There was no immediate requirement that he open fire to save himself.

I can accept that.

Samson 11th December 2015 11:09 AM

People's reaction to this case is a litmus test for all cases where the immediate reaction is to trust judgement and authority.
Crap.

Desert Fox 11th December 2015 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11025250)
People's reaction to this case is a litmus test for all cases where the immediate reaction is to trust judgement and authority.
Crap.

I don't trust authority or judgement but the simple fact is that he shot and killed a human being whom did not present a threat to him. Even by his own story, there should not have been any threat to him.

Roger Ramjets 11th December 2015 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11024810)
By the way, if I wished to eliminate the Pistorius right to ordinary and completely flawed human status, and determine he is a character who represents unmitigated evil,

Pistorius isn't unmitigated evil, but he is dangerous. He is the sort of person we have prisons for.

I don't care whether he shot his girlfriend in cold blood (as the evidence suggests) or was only guilty of extremely bad judgement - he still needs to be locked up to keep him from hurting anyone else. I doubt that prison will make him any less dangerous, so the longer he is put away for the better.

Quote:

Seldom is murder achieved through a bathroom door.
I will remember that the next time I want to kill someone.

whoanellie 11th December 2015 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11025250)
People's reaction to this case is a litmus test for all cases where the immediate reaction is to trust judgement and authority.
Crap.

Haven't you argued that OP can't have knowingly killed Reeva because he is rich?

Samson 11th December 2015 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desert Fox (Post 11025257)
I don't trust authority or judgement but the simple fact is that he shot and killed a human being whom did not present a threat to him. Even by his own story, there should not have been any threat to him.

DF you explain it with the indefinite article "a". Unknown to Pistorius. I can't extend this debate as I am more or less repeating a loathed mantra.

lionking 11th December 2015 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11025241)
His own narrative makes sense. That is what I see. I don't care what happens to him, but far more for the deluded masses that can't see the likely truth, and will never analyse a crime scene and aftermath according to logic.

Utter nonsense. Deluded masses? The best legal minds in SA have just corrected a flawed judgement and he's guilty. And your posts ar completely emotional, not logical.

Samson 11th December 2015 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 11025298)
Utter nonsense. Deluded masses? The best legal minds in SA have just corrected a flawed judgement and he's guilty. And your posts ar completely emotional, not logical.

Hang on a minute, I have no interest in guns, and never owned one, so I am totally detached from this. From day one I believed his account of pathetic idiocy and still do. The evidence, phone calls and actions in the aftermath are entirely consistent.
And why are people happier that Reeva died in a conflict zone anyway? Why do people want this all the time? It is insane to suppose.

Lucian 11th December 2015 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TofuFighter
Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 11024546)
Well, Pistorius knew exactly where to shoot. Any shots into that small cubicle would hit their target. Anyone on the inside of that cubicle shooting out would have no idea at all where to point the gun, particularly if they were an intruder entering the flat for the first time, and obviously with no knowledge of the layout. The idea that Pistorius thought his life in danger from shots from within a toilet behind a closed door is not tenable.

Any intruder who would have entered the cubicle would have seen the layout of the bathroom before entering it, having come through the window in the main bathroom area. Granted, someone inside the cubicle wouldn't know exactly where Pistorius was standing, but given that he was apparently almost constantly shouting at both the intruder and towards his bedroom, there would be some clue as to his position.
Pistorius was also on his stumps, so probably not moving too swiftly.

When this hypothetical intruder was taking aim at the person on the other side of the toilet cubicle door, would he or she have known that the person on the other side of the door was an amputee who was not wearing prosthetic legs?

The Atheist 11th December 2015 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desert Fox (Post 11024722)
Edit: Let us take the prosecution's basic case, no frills, where there is an issue between a boyfriend and girlfriend. The girlfriend retreats into a bathroom and locks the door. The boyfriend shoots her through the door. He claims that he though there was a burglar. If that is accepted, is there any ability to prosecute at all.

Nope.

Potential wife-murderers are watching the case with interest. It's going to be a great defence claim in future if it works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11025111)
I would like to see a sentence that reflects a tragedy of killing a loved one in error, ...

Why are you so sure he loved her so much?

Do you think finding texts from an able-bodied Springbok player made him realise how deeply he loved her?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11025111)
...
and I reckon the matter can be proved one way or the other.

Yeah, there's that medium in England - are you in touch with her?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11025111)
I couldn't care less what the law says.

Yeah, we'd got that.

I'm just thankful the laws aren't written by you. We'd be knee-deep in dead bodies of poor women accidentally murdered by their husbands & boyfriends.

Bob001 11th December 2015 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 11025394)
Nope.

Potential wife-murderers are watching the case with interest. It's going to be a great defence claim in future if it works.
....

That's pretty much the same rationale that cops have long used to justify -- and get away with -- killing people: "I was in fear for my life." It's only the advent of cell phone and security cameras that disproves the claim in many cases. Too bad Reeva wasn't wearing a bodycam.

Bob001 11th December 2015 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11025348)
Hang on a minute, I have no interest in guns, and never owned one, so I am totally detached from this. From day one I believed his account of pathetic idiocy and still do. The evidence, phone calls and actions in the aftermath are entirely consistent.
....

Are they? Did P. call police and/or hit his alarm button the instant he suspected an intruder? If he believed an intruder was hiding in the bathroom, did he wake Reeva and hustle her out of the bedroom, or tell her to get out and call the cops? Did he call out "Who's there?" and wait for an answer? Or did he, as he claims, scream "Get out of my house!," which is precisely what an enraged boyfriend might scream at a frightened girlfriend? It is entirely consistent with the evidence to believe that he killed Reeva in a blind rage, and then desperately tried to fix it when he began to understand what he had done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11025348)
....And why are people happier that Reeva died in a conflict zone anyway? Why do people want this all the time? It is insane to suppose.

No one wants Reeva to be dead. But it is entirely within the realm of possibility -- certainly not insane -- to suspect that a crazy, jealous boyfriend killed his girlfriend and lied about it. Happens every day everywhere in the world. And one more time: If his story is true, he fired four bullets into a stranger in a panic without the justification of an immediate threat. That's murder, not an accident.

Desert Fox 11th December 2015 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11025296)
DF you explain it with the indefinite article "a". Unknown to Pistorius. I can't extend this debate as I am more or less repeating a loathed mantra.

It is best to try to not be emotionally involved in a case. We are only human and will trip and fall, still I am trying to divorce myself from it being anything person.

Looking at it personally though, isn't he known for having brandished weapons in a dangerous manner and there are also reports of them fighting?

newyorkguy 11th December 2015 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 11025224)
He wasn't in imminent danger -- and a reasonable person would have known it -- because the person behind the closed door couldn't see P., P. was free to retreat (including leaving the bedroom) or take cover, and P. was armed. There was no immediate requirement that he open fire to save himself.

I also agree with this and think it is well put. There was no immediate threat to justify firing a handgun four times through a door.

I think what gets blurred here is the difference between someone saying, "I could see myself doing that or thinking that" and what the law requires. This is from Business Insider (which I find to be a pretty reliable and dispassionate news source), explaining that in SA culpable homicide is defined as "killing someone but without direct intent either through recklessness or negligence." This was the trial court ruling:
Quote:

[Judge Thokozile Masipa ruled] there was a reasonable possibility that Pistorius really did think Steenkamp was an intruder when he fired four shots through a locked bathroom door the night he killed her. But she also said he "acted too hastily and used excessive force," and that he could have avoided shooting the supposed intruder in the bathroom by calling security or shouting for help. link to Business Insider story

The Atheist 11th December 2015 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desert Fox (Post 11025631)
Looking at it personally though, isn't he known for having brandished weapons in a dangerous manner and there are also reports of them fighting?

Not only known for reckless use of firearms, he had been charged for it.

Samson 11th December 2015 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 11026034)
Not only known for reckless use of firearms, he had been charged for it.

Oh come on, there is no connection to this tragedy. All this stuff is what nailed Knox in the media, rocks thrown in the street at a party and so on.
There was a shot in the air through a sunroof and an accidental discharge in a restaurant. He was a gun nut, his big moment arrived. The result obeyed the law of unintended consequences. But don't be bothered with fiercely pro women Masipa's findings.

lionking 11th December 2015 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11026037)
Oh come on, there is no connection to this tragedy. All this stuff is what nailed Knox in the media, rocks thrown in the street at a party and so on.
There was a shot in the air through a sunroof and an accidental discharge in a restaurant. He was a gun nut, his big moment arrived. The result obeyed the law of unintended consequences. But don't be bothered with fiercely pro women Masipa's findings.

Mapisa was wrong, get over it.

As for Pistorius' priors with guns, it's entirely relevant. It proves he's an impulsive hothead.

Scordatura 11th December 2015 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 11026041)
As for Pistorius' priors with guns, it's entirely relevant. It proves he's an impulsive hothead.

^^^ this. He shot through the sunroof because he was pissed off that a police officer touched his gun. The guy has no impulse control.

The Atheist 11th December 2015 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11026037)
Oh come on, there is no connection to this tragedy.

:dl:

Mate, I can always rely on you to give me a laugh!

A complete gun nut with a record of dangerous use of firearms kills someone with a gun and it's not relevant.

Ok.

(has Tui hired you as their new writer?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11026037)
There was a shot in the air through a sunroof and an accidental discharge in a restaurant. He was a gun nut, his big moment arrived.

Quite right. His beautiful (as you keep insisting) girlfriend was about to throw him over for an able-bodied rugby player and his big moment was killing her and pretending he was scared by a burglar.

In a locked compound.

Who, instead of burgling, had locked himself in the bog....

Maybe Oscar thought the burglar was busting for a piss?

Nice attempt to tie it to Knox, though. Just remember that while Knox got off, it wasn't 100% certain she was responsible for the death, unlike poor old Oscar, without a leg to stand on, who unquestionably killed Reeva. Fortunately, whether or not he intended to is irrelevant in law.

So you want the law changed.

trustbutverify 11th December 2015 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 11026101)
Quite right. His beautiful (as you keep insisting) girlfriend was about to throw him over for an able-bodied rugby player and his big moment was killing her and pretending he was scared by a burglar.

In a locked compound.

Who, instead of burgling, had locked himself in the bog....

That's one eccentric home invader.

Samson 11th December 2015 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trustbutverify (Post 11026112)
That's one eccentric home invader.

There are precedents for home invaders using the bog ;) not so unusual,

Ampulla of Vater 12th December 2015 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11026131)
There are precedents for home invaders using the bog ;) not so unusual,

No, that's burglars. Home invasion is quite a different scenario, as the residents are home at the time. I bet it's rare to find a home invader stoping to use the loo, unless he's tied everyone up and it is an extended hostage situation, like the one in DC recently.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.