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 5th March 2016 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 11160117)
How many times do you have to be told that your thinking has no relevance to this case?

Are you trolling? Your erstwhile hero LondonJohn has clearly pointed out that IT DOESN"T MATTER IF SOMEONE OTHER THAN REEVA WAS IN THE TOILET. He is a murderer regardless.

I think, like many others, that he deliberately killed Reeva. BUT IT DOESN"T *********** MATTER.

Christ this is so frustrating.

I think if it turned out to be a dead intruder armed with a machete Pistorius would not have been charged. However we need a sage analyst from the republic to answer this. There was a similar case where a man shot and killed his daughter thinking a man was stealing her car.

He was not charged.

MikeG 5th March 2016 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11160205)
I think if it turned out to be a dead intruder armed with a machete Pistorius would not have been charged.........

Not so. There was a finding in law which was that he could be under no threat from behind a shut door. If Attila the Hun had been behind that door armed with a sub machine gun, it would still have been murder.

MikeG 5th March 2016 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11159713)
It makes a difference to my thinking.........

Well thank christ you aren't a judge or prosecutor then.

Samson 5th March 2016 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 11160209)
Not so. There was a finding in law which was that he could be under no threat from behind a shut door. If Attila the Hun had been behind that door armed with a sub machine gun, it would still have been murder.

This case has been cited earlier on the thread

While the pain of having killed his own child remains, former Springbok rugby player Rudi "Vleis" Visagie will find peace in the fact that he is not to be charged with her murder.

The anguished father, who accidentally killed his daughter three months ago, is believed to have suffered enough.


http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-afri...at-last-219358

Knock yourselves out describing the difference to the current case. There ain't none.

lionking 5th March 2016 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11160205)
I think if it turned out to be a dead intruder armed with a machete Pistorius would not have been charged. However we need a sage analyst from the republic to answer this. There was a similar case where a man shot and killed his daughter thinking a man was stealing her car.

He was not charged.

What you think, as has been demonstrated, is irrevalent. It is also idiotic. Give up.

Samson 5th March 2016 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 11160230)
What you think, as has been demonstrated, is irrevalent. It is also idiotic. Give up.

See post above. I am not giving up.

lionking 5th March 2016 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11160231)
See post above. I am not giving up.

Every poor judgement means that Pistorius should also be poorly judged? Are you serious?

OJ Simpson wasn't convicted, so others shouldn't be?

A stupid argument.

Sideroxylon 5th March 2016 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11160229)
This case has been cited earlier on the thread

While the pain of having killed his own child remains, former Springbok rugby player Rudi "Vleis" Visagie will find peace in the fact that he is not to be charged with her murder.

The anguished father, who accidentally killed his daughter three months ago, is believed to have suffered enough.


http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-afri...at-last-219358

Knock yourselves out describing the difference to the current case. There ain't none.

Cheers all round if you think the punishment for auto theft should be capital. He was putting someone's life on the line, just didn't realise it was his daughters.

I see your point.

3point14 10th March 2016 05:03 AM

I find it odd that anyone can believe that it's impossible for a man to want, in a fit of rage, to kill his 'trophy girlfriend' (can't we just call her his girlfriend?

Men assault beautiful women, whom they profess to love, all the time.

It is well documented that men and women have killed their spouses or partners in the past.

I don't understand why on earth anyone could think that it's a given that Oscar couldn't have deliberately shot Reeva just because she's beautiful and they were a couple. That seems, to me, to be a leap without any support at all.

And, as others have pointed out, it is totally irrelevant in terms of the legal outcome.

snoop_doxie 10th March 2016 07:13 AM

Quote:

Men assault beautiful women, whom they profess to love, all the time.
<cough>

OJ Simpson.

Samson 10th March 2016 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snoop_doxie (Post 11168987)
<cough>

OJ Simpson.

This is a bad analogy. He caught them together, no such parallel exists here.

The Atheist 10th March 2016 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11169064)
This is a bad analogy. He caught them together, no such parallel exists here.

Wow, that is one of the most stunning things I've ever read.

Whether you mean it or not, it seems to condone crime passionelle.

3point14 10th March 2016 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 11169574)
Wow, that is one of the most stunning things I've ever read.

Whether you mean it or not, it seems to condone crime passionelle.


I think he means that a man will only kill his partner if he finds her with another man.

I still don't understand the thinking that gets one to this point.

The Atheist 10th March 2016 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 11169584)
I think he means that a man will only kill his partner if he finds her with another man.

I still don't understand the thinking that gets one to this point.

I can, but only because I think things like that propagate in families.

Funnily enough, if Oscar had had this trouble only 30 years ago, he could have claimed he shot her because she was bonking another bloke and he would have broken no law. White rule had some things going for it.

Desert Fox 10th March 2016 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11169064)
This is a bad analogy. He caught them together, no such parallel exists here.

How about the battered women shelters basically everywhere?
Many of the women fear for their lives. Did they all cheat on their husband / partner?

Also, this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_5927140.html

Samson 10th March 2016 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 11169584)
I think he means that a man will only kill his partner if he finds her with another man.

I still don't understand the thinking that gets one to this point.

No, I think it is less likely, and vanishingly unlikely in the position Oscar was in. I think
1. He thought he had the intruder he always expected, and
2. It means the finding of murder is wrong, just as in the ex springbok case.
Note I am separating the function of law from the administration of justice.

MikeG 11th March 2016 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11170014)
......I think
1. He thought he had the intruder he always expected,

I agree.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11170014)
2. It means the finding of murder is wrong,.........

Well, you are just plain flat out wrong on this, and incredibly stubborn in sticking to it. Even if it had been an armed intruder behind that bolted door, it would still have been murder.

Desert Fox 11th March 2016 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 11170615)
Well, you are just plain flat out wrong on this, and incredibly stubborn in sticking to it. Even if it had been an armed intruder behind that bolted door, it would still have been murder.

Unless it was this guy:

It is always self defense to kill this guy even if you use a sniper rifle from 1000 yards :p

GlennB 11th March 2016 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 11170615)
Well, you are just plain flat out wrong on this, and incredibly stubborn in sticking to it. Even if it had been an armed intruder behind that bolted door, it would still have been murder.

I think he's suggesting that the law itself is wrong, not the application of it. I think.

3point14 11th March 2016 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11170014)
No, I think it is less likely, and vanishingly unlikely in the position Oscar was in.


I am genuinely baffled as to how you get to this.

Samson 11th March 2016 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 11170689)
I am genuinely baffled as to how you get to this.

MikeG got there too, but differs on the ethical discussion that follows.

Samson 11th March 2016 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 11169574)
Wow, that is one of the most stunning things I've ever read.

Whether you mean it or not, it seems to condone crime passionelle.

You mean Dominique Strauss-Kahn and the fastest chat up in history?

3point14 11th March 2016 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11170720)
MikeG got there too, but differs on the ethical discussion that follows.


Got where? To an understanding of why someone would think, in a world full of domestic violence, in a country with what might be called a chequered history (although don't they all) that a very obviously angry young man couldn't hurt or kill his lover?

It just seems like one big argument from incredulity to me, which holds no logical weight whatsoever.

Samson 11th March 2016 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 11170743)
Got where? To an understanding of why someone would think, in a world full of domestic violence, in a country with what might be called a chequered history (although don't they all) that a very obviously angry young man couldn't hurt or kill his lover?

It just seems like one big argument from incredulity to me, which holds no logical weight whatsoever.

Here is a list of a few people who appear to have bought it.

Judge Masipa
MikeG
icerat
Leila Schnepps
Samson

Are they all incredulous? I doubt it.

MikeG 11th March 2016 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 11170743)
Got where? To an understanding of why someone would think, in a world full of domestic violence, in a country with what might be called a chequered history (although don't they all) that a very obviously angry young man couldn't hurt or kill his lover?

It just seems like one big argument from incredulity to me, which holds no logical weight whatsoever.

Not at all. I just read the evidence as presented to the court and think the balance of probablities lies in favour of Pistorius' own description of his motives being correct. I saw nothing that ruled it out, and as none of us can mind-read, I accept (as I think the judge did), that he thought he was confronting an intruder. That doesn't for a second change my view that he committed murder.

3point14 11th March 2016 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11170752)
Here is a list of a few people who appear to have bought it.

Judge Masipa
MikeG
icerat
Leila Schnepps
Samson

Are they all incredulous? I doubt it.


Ah, then we may be talking at cross purposes.

I have no issue with a logical assessment of the case leading to a belief that Oscar was truthful.

I may have conflated your position with another poster who stated a belief that Oscar wouldn't kill Reva simply because she was his beautiful 'trophy' girlfriend and it wouldn't be logical for him to do it. Which struck me as fallacious.

Samson 11th March 2016 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 11170859)
Ah, then we may be talking at cross purposes.

I have no issue with a logical assessment of the case leading to a belief that Oscar was truthful.

I may have conflated your position with another poster who stated a belief that Oscar wouldn't kill Reva simply because she was his beautiful 'trophy' girlfriend and it wouldn't be logical for him to do it. Which struck me as fallacious.

Fallacious in modal logic, but not in probability theory. We should have a long list of successful men with dead girl friends to contemplate.

3point14 11th March 2016 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11171827)
Fallacious in modal logic, but not in probability theory. We should have a long list of successful men with dead girl friends to contemplate.

If you're saying what I think you're saying, that's the bit I disagree with.

LondonJohn 11th March 2016 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 11170761)
Not at all. I just read the evidence as presented to the court and think the balance of probablities lies in favour of Pistorius' own description of his motives being correct. I saw nothing that ruled it out, and as none of us can mind-read, I accept (as I think the judge did), that he thought he was confronting an intruder. That doesn't for a second change my view that he committed murder.


I think there are several very solid reasons to suspect that Pistorius must have known it was Steenkamp behind that door. I think that his whole story simply doesn't stack up in relation to normal human experiences. He would have had to have walked right round past the bed on his way to investigate the noise, so he could (and, IMO, would) have checked that Steenkamp was in bed, and whispered or said to her to stay there and to call the security staff, before heading off to the bathroom armed with a high-power handgun.

In addition, by definition (if Pistorius' account is to be believed) there HAS to have been sufficient opportunity for Steenkamp to have slipped silently out of bed and walked to the bathroom area without Pistorius seeing or hearing anything - even though he says he was only bringing the fan in over a matter of seconds.

And also, I find it very hard to believe that Pistorius was (per his version) standing in the bathroom yelling "Get the ... out of my house!" directly towards the closed toilet door, and yet Steenkamp wouldn't have made some sort of calling out to tell Pistorius that it was her behind the bathroom door (given that if Pistorius' account is to be believed, Steenkamp would likely be aware that Pistorius hadn't seen or heard her slipping away from the bedroom to go to the toilet).

And then we add in other evidence of Pistorius' personality and his treatment of girlfriends, and I conclude that by some distance the most plausible narrative is one where Pistorius and Steenkamp had an escalating argument in the bedroom area, Steenkamp started to dress to leave (perhaps in response to Pistorius yelling "Get the ... out of my house!" at HER), Pistorius physically threatened Steenkamp in the bedroom area, Steenkamp dropped her jeans (as they were found in the bedroom) and ran to the toilet, locking herself in, Pistorius followed her on his stumps, then Steenkamp said (through the door) that she had her phone and she was going to call family/friend/security/police, tell them the threatening situation, and request assistance. I think this would have pushed Pistorius over the edge in rage - the combination of Steenkamp's unequivocal decision to leave him and (maybe more powerful) the thought of having his image and reputation damaged by a public accusation of abuse and physical violence towards Steenkamp. I think he really did fire somewhat reflexively at the point, in a blind rage - and almost immediately realised what he'd done and was overcome with remorse and grief.

But as you point out (and as I have done too), the issue of Pistorius' presumed identification of the person behind the door is wholly moot in the context of the criminal charge and the conviction. And as you also say, it's impossible to prove one way or the other whether Pistorius genuinely thought he was firing at an intruder or Steenkamp. That will be cold comfort to Steenkamp's family though, I suppose. I am guessing that all of Steenkamp's family believe that Pistorius knew it was her behind the door (not that that makes any difference intellectually or legally of course).

The Atheist 11th March 2016 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11171827)
Fallacious in modal logic, but not in probability theory. We should have a long list of successful men with dead girl friends to contemplate.

Uhhh, we do:

OJ Simpson
Gig Young
Sid Vicious
Phil Spector
Colin Thatcher
Robert Durst
Chris Foster

Need more? There are plenty.

newyorkguy 11th March 2016 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonJohn (Post 11172020)
I think there are several very solid reasons to suspect that Pistorius must have known it was Steenkamp behind that door...there HAS to have been sufficient opportunity for Steenkamp to have slipped silently out of bed and walked to the bathroom area without Pistorius seeing or hearing anything - even though he says he was only bringing the fan in over a matter of seconds.

And also, I find it very hard to believe that Pistorius was (per his version) standing in the bathroom yelling "Get the ... out of my house!" directly towards the closed toilet door, and yet Steenkamp wouldn't have made some sort of calling out to tell Pistorius that it was her behind the bathroom door...


I'm quoting an edited version of the above because I think those are excellent points, the kinds of factors that would undoubtedly lead an experienced homicide detective to suspect deliberate murder, and that the the intruder story was exactly that: a story. However I don't think they would be particularly valuable to the prosecutor in seeking a conviction.


Two other facts I'd be interested in knowing are: Steenkamp was removed from the crime scene by Pistorius, I wonder when he found her were her shorts pulled down indicating she was actively using the toilet when shot. The other is whether the police found urine in the toilet. Again, these are things that might convince a veteran homicide cop that Pistorius was lying -- that this was essentially a domestic quarrel gone bad -- but really wouldn't amount to much I don't think, in a court of law.

Finally, I find it very discouraging that Samson continues to claim the trial judge "believed," or "ridiculed" or "bought into" Pistorius' version of the shooting. When Judge Masipa actually said (and I have already stated this and provided a link to her the text of her decision), only that "There was a reasonable possibility" that Pistorius believed he was shooting at an intruder.

How do we know what Judge Masipa's personal opinion is? She might privately think it's a slam dunk that Pistorius killed Reeva Steenkamp deliberately. But she's acting as a professional, a criminal court judge and can only rule based on the evidence she was presented. I also suspect Pistorius knew it was Steenkamp he was shooting at yet, I also agree with the judge: the evidence doesn't support it.

whoanellie 11th March 2016 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11169064)
This is a bad analogy. He caught them together, no such parallel exists here.

What do you mean by "together"?

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

Samson 11th March 2016 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 11172295)
I'm quoting an edited version of the above because I think those are excellent points, the kinds of factors that would undoubtedly lead an experienced homicide detective to suspect deliberate murder, and that the the intruder story was exactly that: a story. However I don't think they would be particularly valuable to the prosecutor in seeking a conviction.


Two other facts I'd be interested in knowing are: Steenkamp was removed from the crime scene by Pistorius, I wonder when he found her were her shorts pulled down indicating she was actively using the toilet when shot. The other is whether the police found urine in the toilet. Again, these are things that might convince a veteran homicide cop that Pistorius was lying -- that this was essentially a domestic quarrel gone bad -- but really wouldn't amount to much I don't think, in a court of law.

Finally, I find it very discouraging that Samson continues to claim the trial judge "believed," or "ridiculed" or "bought into" Pistorius' version of the shooting. When Judge Masipa actually said (and I have already stated this and provided a link to her the text of her decision), only that "There was a reasonable possibility" that Pistorius believed he was shooting at an intruder.

How do we know what Judge Masipa's personal opinion is? She might privately think it's a slam dunk that Pistorius killed Reeva Steenkamp deliberately. But she's acting as a professional, a criminal court judge and can only rule based on the evidence she was presented. I also suspect Pistorius knew it was Steenkamp he was shooting at yet, I also agree with the judge: the evidence doesn't support it.

We go in circles somewhat, the autopsy shows an empty bladder, to the simple extent it proves she urinated shortly before being shot. A cubic centimetre a minute is the standard I believe, so a few hours of urine were missing for a girl seeking refuge. So she did urinate, which is inconsistent with a terrified state.
Secondly, if Masipa thought it was a slam dunk but lacked proof, we now have some sort of proof that she was not just entitled, but indeed obligated to sentence him to 15 years.
How open minded can we all be?

For her parents, they have a dichotomised solution.
1. Oscar was trying to protect their daughter.
2. Oscar shot her in hot blood.

Society owes them best endeavours to get this right, and it is signally failing with the prosecutorial system.
I liken it to the Ewan MacDonald case in New Zealand. The police destroyed several families by prosecuting him for the murder of his brother in law with a completely impossible case. He had alibis for Africa, and this is the same force that destroyed Mark Lundy and two other families, those of his brother and sister, by prosecuting him not once, but twice with impossible theories. One family believes the police, absolute nonsense, and the other the victim, Mark Lundy. This is very much work in progress, and I believe the absolute truth of the Pistorius story can be unearthed with the proper approach.

newyorkguy 11th March 2016 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11172310)
We go in circles somewhat, the autopsy shows an empty bladder, to the simple extent it proves she urinated shortly before being shot...

The discussion goes in circles because you continue to misrepresent the facts. The trial testimony was the empty bladder only meant she had urinated within one hour of being shot. We've already gone over this and I linked and quoted the testimony at the trial. It could just as easily be damaging evidence. If she had urinated within say twenty minutes of the shooting, what was she doing back in the toilet?

When it's pointed out the empty bladder does NOT mean she unrinated within moments of being shot you say Judge Masipa ridiculed the prosecution. When it is pointed out the Judge did no such thing and in fact only said there was "a reasonable possibility" Pistorius did not know he was shooting Reeva Steenkamp you go to the "no one is going to kill their trophy girlfriend." When it is demonstrated that this has happened many times, you say no celebrity like Pistorius would risk it all by killing his girlfriend. When it is pointed out that many celebrities have killed wives, lovers, girlfriends, you go back to the empty bladder 'evidence' and the merry-go-round starts again.

When it's pointed out the empty bladder does NOT mean [see above].

Samson 11th March 2016 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 11172355)
The discussion goes in circles because you continue to misrepresent the facts. The trial testimony was the empty bladder only meant she had urinated within one hour of being shot. We've already gone over this and I linked and quoted the testimony at the trial. It could just as easily be damaging evidence. If she had urinated within say twenty minutes of the shooting, what was she doing back in the toilet?

When it's pointed out the empty bladder does NOT mean she unrinated within moments of being shot you say Judge Masipa ridiculed the prosecution. When it is pointed out the Judge did no such thing and in fact only said there was "a reasonable possibility" Pistorius did not know he was shooting Reeva Steenkamp you go to the "no one is going to kill their trophy girlfriend." When it is demonstrated that this has happened many times, you say no celebrity like Pistorius would risk it all by killing his girlfriend. When it is pointed out that many celebrities have killed wives, lovers, girlfriends, you go back to the empty bladder 'evidence' and the merry-go-round starts again.

When it's pointed out the empty bladder does NOT mean [see above].

In that case we have either one or two visits to the toilet. Unfortunately in these systems pathologists are objective in name only. Once again we see retrofitting possibilities when the simplest explanation is she awoke at Oscar's disturbance, and slipped out to the toilet unnoticed while he messes with the fan.
But importantly, why not focus on the true narrative, and settle it. They are so fundamentally opposed in the context of the value Oscar may have to society, and the closure for Reeva's family, that is where the energy should be focussed. Not on what the cursed law says.

lionking 12th March 2016 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonJohn (Post 11172020)
I think there are several very solid reasons to suspect that Pistorius must have known it was Steenkamp behind that door. I think that his whole story simply doesn't stack up in relation to normal human experiences. He would have had to have walked right round past the bed on his way to investigate the noise, so he could (and, IMO, would) have checked that Steenkamp was in bed, and whispered or said to her to stay there and to call the security staff, before heading off to the bathroom armed with a high-power handgun.

In addition, by definition (if Pistorius' account is to be believed) there HAS to have been sufficient opportunity for Steenkamp to have slipped silently out of bed and walked to the bathroom area without Pistorius seeing or hearing anything - even though he says he was only bringing the fan in over a matter of seconds.

And also, I find it very hard to believe that Pistorius was (per his version) standing in the bathroom yelling "Get the ... out of my house!" directly towards the closed toilet door, and yet Steenkamp wouldn't have made some sort of calling out to tell Pistorius that it was her behind the bathroom door (given that if Pistorius' account is to be believed, Steenkamp would likely be aware that Pistorius hadn't seen or heard her slipping away from the bedroom to go to the toilet).

And then we add in other evidence of Pistorius' personality and his treatment of girlfriends, and I conclude that by some distance the most plausible narrative is one where Pistorius and Steenkamp had an escalating argument in the bedroom area, Steenkamp started to dress to leave (perhaps in response to Pistorius yelling "Get the ... out of my house!" at HER), Pistorius physically threatened Steenkamp in the bedroom area, Steenkamp dropped her jeans (as they were found in the bedroom) and ran to the toilet, locking herself in, Pistorius followed her on his stumps, then Steenkamp said (through the door) that she had her phone and she was going to call family/friend/security/police, tell them the threatening situation, and request assistance. I think this would have pushed Pistorius over the edge in rage - the combination of Steenkamp's unequivocal decision to leave him and (maybe more powerful) the thought of having his image and reputation damaged by a public accusation of abuse and physical violence towards Steenkamp. I think he really did fire somewhat reflexively at the point, in a blind rage - and almost immediately realised what he'd done and was overcome with remorse and grief.

But as you point out (and as I have done too), the issue of Pistorius' presumed identification of the person behind the door is wholly moot in the context of the criminal charge and the conviction. And as you also say, it's impossible to prove one way or the other whether Pistorius genuinely thought he was firing at an intruder or Steenkamp. That will be cold comfort to Steenkamp's family though, I suppose. I am guessing that all of Steenkamp's family believe that Pistorius knew it was her behind the door (not that that makes any difference intellectually or legally of course).

This post perfectly sums up my, and I'm sure many others, opinions of this case.

lionking 12th March 2016 12:19 AM

Samson, are you going to respond to LondonJohn's post?

MikeG 12th March 2016 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonJohn (Post 11172020)
I think there are several very solid reasons to suspect that Pistorius must have known it was Steenkamp behind that door.......

I've snipped your excellent post.

As I said, I think this is a balance of probabilities thing. There are sound arguments either way, and you have elucidated those on one side very well. The counter argument is not one that people unfamiliar with South Africa can really relate to. And it is this:

White South Africans, other than in some parts of the Western Cape, live in constant fear. When you pull up at traffic lights (robots, in SA), you leave a gap to the car in front and have all your doors locked and windows wound up, in the hope that this gives you a split second to avoid being robbed at gun point. This happens constantly. Most white people (and I mean, almost everyone) in SA live behind high walls with glass or razor wire embedded in the top, and have electric gates, sometimes 2 sets. They almost all either have their own private security patrols, or belong to a neighbourhood scheme. They pay armed guards to patrol 24 hours a day. But those security companies aren't beyond a bit of corruption, and have been linked to many violent crimes. Behind those walls, houses all have steel security bars over the windows and doors, and many have internal safe areas in which to retreat in the very real chance that armed robbers or kidnappers enter the house. Every single white South African knows of someone who has had been injured or killed by house breakers or car jackers.

This is a deeply broken society. The police are corrupt and incompetent, and the inhabitants of the slums alongside the affluent areas have nothing much to lose in this wave of criminality directed against their former oppressors. There are clearances of white farmers going on in South Africa at the moment at much the same rate as happened under Mugabe in Zimbabwe. A Justice Minister in a recent government said something along the lines of "what's with all this moaning about crime?" Many white people see the whole environment as one of settling old scores with official connivance. One of the results of all this is a mass exodus of white South Africans to the UK, Australia, New Zealand and so on.

Osacr Pretorius wasn't an outlier in terms of his attitude. He is actually typical, and, sad as it is to say it, he was understandably typical. South Africa is in deep trouble, and the whites of SA feel like they under siege. So, live with all that your entire life, and then hear a noise in your bathroom in the middle of the night..........

whoanellie 12th March 2016 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11171827)
Fallacious in modal logic, but not in probability theory. We should have a long list of successful men with dead girl friends to contemplate.

Rather than ask for a list of anecdotes, I think the burden is on you to show some statistical evidence that "success" however you define it is negatively correlated with domestic violence/murder. It's your argument, you need to provide the evidence to support it.

icerat 12th March 2016 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonJohn (Post 11172020)
I think there are several very solid reasons to suspect that Pistorius must have known it was Steenkamp behind that door. I think that his whole story simply doesn't stack up in relation to normal human experiences. He would have had to have walked right round past the bed on his way to investigate the noise, so he could (and, IMO, would) have checked that Steenkamp was in bed, and whispered or said to her to stay there and to call the security staff, before heading off to the bathroom armed with a high-power handgun.

(1) he wasn't "walking", which immediately emphasises his experience is not a "normal human experience"

(2) AFAIK the prosecution never challenged the idea it was too dark for him to see if she was there or not. I assumed this was tested, so why didn't they challenge it if it was wrong?

Quote:

In addition, by definition (if Pistorius' account is to be believed) there HAS to have been sufficient opportunity for Steenkamp to have slipped silently out of bed and walked to the bathroom area without Pistorius seeing or hearing anything - even though he says he was only bringing the fan in over a matter of seconds.
I don't know what Pistorius' exact testimony was, but personally what I find it hard to believe is that a guy with no legs can get out of a bed, out on a balcony, retrieve fans, and return to the room in "a matter of seconds". I would think all of that, even for an able-bodied person, would offer plenty of time for someone else to get up out of bed and walk a few metres. I'd be interested in his exact testimony, anyone have it?

Quote:

And also, I find it very hard to believe that Pistorius was (per his version) standing in the bathroom yelling "Get the ... out of my house!" directly towards the closed toilet door, and yet Steenkamp wouldn't have made some sort of calling out to tell Pistorius that it was her behind the bathroom door (given that if Pistorius' account is to be believed, Steenkamp would likely be aware that Pistorius hadn't seen or heard her slipping away from the bedroom to go to the toilet).
Personally I don't believe Steenkamp had either psychic powers or Daredevil-like hearing and could miraculously detect that Pistorius was yelling at her in the toilet. If I was locked in a toilet and someone started screaming there was an intruder, I'd keep quiet. At most I might make a movement to listen at the door or carefully open the door to see if I could work out what was going on.

All of which is entirely consistent with Pistorius' account.

newyorkguy 12th March 2016 12:22 PM

It seems just as likely that Steenkamp would have realized he was shouting at whoever was in the water closet, meaning her, especially since Pistorius claimed at trial he was simultaneously calling out to her:
Quote:

He said he moved down the passage to the bathroom, he was “overcome with fear”. He shouted for the “intruder” to get out of his house and for Steenkamp to call for help. News link

The fact is there is a lot of domestic violence in South Africa. It's a tense place with a lot of crime and a difficult history. I understand why a police detective would be immediately biased towards the idea this was a domestic fight gone bad. Because in most of these kinds of cases that is by far the most common circumstance. Any experienced police detective would have been involved in cases where the shooter swore to heaven and earth it was all an accident until suddenly breaking down and confessing. Why would a cop expect this case was going to be different?

But I think most of us have moved past the point of wondering whether Pistorius knew he was shooting at Steenkamp, knew he was shooting her. Only two people really know; one is dead and the other may be giving a self-serving account. Pistorius has been convicted of recklessly placing someone's life at risk by using deadly force in a situation where it was not justifiable. That's as much justice as anyone is going to get.

Imagine for a moment if Pistorius did lose his temper, did suddenly and impulsively shoot at her, killing her. Then has to spend the next several years lying to everyone about it. Imagine what his interior life must be like. My hunch is, over the next few decades the way Pistorius lives his life will be a strong clue as to how 'accidental' the shooting was. Because if he killed her deliberately in a moment of murderous rage I doubt he will ever forgive himself.

icerat 13th March 2016 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 11173048)
Because if he killed her deliberately in a moment of murderous rage I doubt he will ever forgive himself.

How would that be any different if he killed her in the circumstances he claims?

Desert Fox 13th March 2016 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 11173048)
Imagine for a moment if Pistorius did lose his temper, did suddenly and impulsively shoot at her, killing her. Then has to spend the next several years lying to everyone about it. Imagine what his interior life must be like. My hunch is, over the next few decades the way Pistorius lives his life will be a strong clue as to how 'accidental' the shooting was. Because if he killed her deliberately in a moment of murderous rage I doubt he will ever forgive himself.

Studies have indicated that quite often such perpetrators will blame the victim.

Samson 13th March 2016 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desert Fox (Post 11175547)
Studies have indicated that quite often such perpetrators will blame the victim.

Well we had one like that. Clayton Weatherstone. He stabbed his girlfriend 216 times then spent a day testifying she drove him to it. He is the worst specimen I recall in a New Zealand court.
But this is why I think it matters very much whether Oscar thought he was firing at an intruder behind the door.

lionking 13th March 2016 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11175765)
But this is why I think it matters very much whether Oscar thought he was firing at an intruder behind the door.

No, it doesn't. i think he knew Reeve was behind the door, but this doesn't matter either. What matters is he is a murderer beyond doubt and will have 20 years at least to reflect on this.

MikeG 14th March 2016 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 11175775)
No, it doesn't. i think he knew Reeve was behind the door, but this doesn't matter either. What matters is he is a murderer beyond doubt and will have 20 years at least to reflect on this.

I'll have 5p with you that he doesn't get anywhere near that long. 12 years is my stab-in-the-dark.

The Atheist 14th March 2016 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11175765)
Well we had one like that. Clayton Weatherstone. He stabbed his girlfriend 216 times then spent a day testifying she drove him to it. He is the worst specimen I recall in a New Zealand court.

I wrote a piece on him a couple of years back, where I refer to him as the poster child for capital punishment. A more complete sociopath you would never find.

Malbec 14th March 2016 12:34 AM

Some of his best recordings are when he was simply accompanist -- in particular to Ella .

Samson 14th March 2016 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 11175896)
I wrote a piece on him a couple of years back, where I refer to him as the poster child for capital punishment. A more complete sociopath you would never find.

Damn I hate that.
We agree on something :D

Samson 14th March 2016 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 11175889)
I'll have 5p with you that he doesn't get anywhere near that long. 12 years is my stab-in-the-dark.

I think 15 years is statutory minimum. It will be intriguing to see how Masipa manages this. Maybe another arcane procedure will relieve her of the sentencing duty.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:21 AM.

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