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 18th April 2016 04:06 AM

Oscar will be sentenced soon. He is the fall guy for a rabid culture of rampant and uncontrolled gun availibilty, paranoia and terror.
No one should rejoice, all should pray.
A scared young man on stumps thought he was defending his girl friend.

He is no danger, society has this completely wrong.

Desert Fox 18th April 2016 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11235474)
Oscar will be sentenced soon. He is the fall guy for a rabid culture of rampant and uncontrolled gun availibilty, paranoia and terror.
No one should rejoice, all should pray.
A scared young man on stumps thought he was defending his girl friend.

He is no danger, society has this completely wrong.

I carry a concealed weapon almost every day. . . . . .I have never shot anybody in my bathroom.

I have actually only drawn it once even. Working security at a convenience store and carrying it openly. Escorting a guy off the property when he grabs a bottle. He drops it and ran. Problem solved.

Sideroxylon 18th April 2016 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11235474)
Oscar will be sentenced soon. He is the fall guy for a rabid culture of rampant and uncontrolled gun availibilty, paranoia and terror.
No one should rejoice, all should pray.
A scared young man on stumps thought he was defending his girl friend.

He is no danger, society has this completely wrong.

Poor frightened cripple man was a bit of a danger to his girl friend one night though.

trustbutverify 18th April 2016 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11235474)
Oscar will be sentenced soon. He is the fall guy for a rabid culture of rampant and uncontrolled gun availibilty, paranoia and terror.
No one should rejoice, all should pray.
A scared young man on stumps thought he was defending his girl friend.

He is no danger, society has this completely wrong.

Nonsense. Celebrity worship at work, once again.

Samson 18th April 2016 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desert Fox (Post 11235515)
I carry a concealed weapon almost every day. . . . . .I have never shot anybody in my bathroom.

I have actually only drawn it once even. Working security at a convenience store and carrying it openly. Escorting a guy off the property when he grabs a bottle. He drops it and ran. Problem solved.

I know you don't agree DF, but if it was mistaken identity by a cripple, jail is useless as a penalty.
Gun nuts are everywhere, which means they are not wicked, just dumb as fence posts. Remove the guns so everyone has hand to hand combat with which to settle matters.

Drewbot 18th April 2016 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 11172407)
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..........

yes. paranoia in S. Africa is rampant.
All around them violent crimes, and examples of reprisals against whites.

This was my first thought, when I heard about this tragedy, I remembered my friend telling me about gates around their neighborhood, bars on their windows, guns in the house, fear that the security guards that he paid would be the ones doing the crime. Can a court be sympathetic to this? Every white knows the whites are extremely scared and jittery , shoot first, ask questions later mentality. If they don't their family will be dead.

Dr. Keith 18th April 2016 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drewbot (Post 11235805)
Every white knows the whites are extremely scared and jittery , shoot first, ask questions later mentality. If they don't their family will be dead.

And when they do their family is dead.

Dr. Keith 18th April 2016 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11235474)
Oscar will be sentenced soon. He is the fall guy for a rabid culture of rampant and uncontrolled gun availibilty, paranoia and terror.
No one should rejoice, all should pray.
A scared young man on stumps thought he was defending his girl friend.

He is no danger, society has this completely wrong.

You still can't accept that it would have been murder even if it was a break-in? Fascinating.

Samson 18th April 2016 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desert Fox (Post 11235515)
I carry a concealed weapon almost every day. . . . . .I have never shot anybody in my bathroom.

I have actually only drawn it once even. Working security at a convenience store and carrying it openly. Escorting a guy off the property when he grabs a bottle. He drops it and ran. Problem solved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 11235849)
You still can't accept that it would have been murder even if it was a break-in? Fascinating.

You are discussing law, I am not. I have no respect for criminal law, it does not relate to justice as I understand it. Too many examples support my sad belief.

Dr. Keith 18th April 2016 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11235864)
You are discussing law, I am not. I have no respect for criminal law, it does not relate to justice as I understand it. Too many examples support my sad belief.

But this very predictable result is why the law is the way it is. If you allow people to shoot others willy nilly then innocent people die.

Samson 18th April 2016 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 11235868)
But this very predictable result is why the law is the way it is. If you allow people to shoot others willy nilly then innocent people die.

I live in a house without guns, a street where I know of no guns. It is 4 am and my porch door is open to thugs. That is the neighbourhood. Good luck must follow me so far, I guess we are lucky to live in these parts till the unexpected happens.....

Dr. Keith 18th April 2016 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11235875)
I live in a house without guns, a street where I know of no guns. It is 4 am and my porch door is open to thugs. That is the neighbourhood. Good luck must follow me so far, I guess we are lucky to live in these parts till the unexpected happens.....

I'm not trying to pick an old wound, but I don't see how that addresses my post at all. There is a very logical reason for having a law where shooting an unidentified person who does not present an immediate threat to the shooter or others is murder. This case is an example of why it is a good law, not an example of why it is a bad law.

Desert Fox 18th April 2016 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11235791)
I know you don't agree DF, but if it was mistaken identity by a cripple, jail is useless as a penalty.
Gun nuts are everywhere, which means they are not wicked, just dumb as fence posts. Remove the guns so everyone has hand to hand combat with which to settle matters.

Look, one thing that is certain is that Pistorius shot his girlfriend. All we are arguing is if it might be justified as self defense or if he meant to murder her. Generally proving self defense in most places is a higher burden where simple "I did not do it", the burden is suppose to be on the prosecution.

Samson 18th April 2016 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 11236004)
I'm not trying to pick an old wound, but I don't see how that addresses my post at all. There is a very logical reason for having a law where shooting an unidentified person who does not present an immediate threat to the shooter or others is murder. This case is an example of why it is a good law, not an example of why it is a bad law.

Place your bets. The same system can give him one year or fifteen. Crap system.

Dr. Keith 19th April 2016 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11236724)
Place your bets. The same system can give him one year or fifteen. Crap system.

Again, I appreciate your reply not addressing what I have said. Thanks, it has been a productive conversation.

snoop_doxie 19th April 2016 04:32 PM

icerat

Quote:

(1) he wasn't "walking", which immediately emphasises his experience is not a "normal human experience"
I just read this again today.

Wasn't he born that way?
I thought that his normal experience is as an amputee.

icerat 19th April 2016 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snoop_doxie (Post 11238403)
icerat

I just read this again today.

Wasn't he born that way?
I thought that his normal experience is as an amputee.

yes, which is different from the "normal human experience" that London John was referencing. I think it's wrong to assume that even the physical experience of moving around a bed in pitch black is the same as for an able-bodied person, let alone the psychological experience of doing so in a tense state.

GlennB 19th April 2016 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snoop_doxie (Post 11238403)
icerat

I just read this again today.

Wasn't he born that way?
I thought that his normal experience is as an amputee.

He was born without the tibia bones in his lower legs, so has certainly never walked without prosthetics.

PartSkeptic 19th April 2016 11:51 PM

My two cents.

I choose to live in South Africa despite being able to live in New Zealand or even in the USA.

Whites do not live in fear in my opinion. We grew up in a wild Continent, and for the most part accept that bad things (like death) happen. A lot of us have given up our guns, and do not carry all the time. But some people need to.

I followed the Pistorius trial on TV. Listened to the evidence. He contradicts himself. And the physical evidence, and circumstantial evidence point to an argument with his girlfriend who took locked herself in the toilet with her cell-phone, and Pistorius shot her in anger.

Ever since I first lived in South Africa (from 1976 before leaving for the USA and NZ) it was always illegal to shoot someone unless one was in fear for their life. Everyone knew that if you shot someone in the back outside your house you would drag them inside and claim that they had broken in, and hence your life was in danger. (In the bad old days, the police did it for you if you had not thought of it).

Pistorius knew that he had to use this defense from the time he shot and killed. That is the only reason he claimed self-defense based on mistaken identity immediately afterward.

The law is a good one, and has been improved upon. One has to identify the person or fire a warning shot. An intruder with a gun would not hide in the toilet. Typically home invasions with guns are usually gangs of four, and they catch you in your bed.

Yes, there are people who wake up in fear, and grab their fire-arm. One man shot his wife, and his remorse was so evident. Another man shot a warning shot into the roof, only to kill the intruder. He had to prove that he did not purposefully shoot knowing the intruder was on the roof.

Pistorius had a year to be "schooled" on how to act, and what to say, and yet his defense still had major flaws.

Samson 21st April 2016 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic (Post 11238865)
My two cents.

I choose to live in South Africa despite being able to live in New Zealand or even in the USA.

Whites do not live in fear in my opinion. We grew up in a wild Continent, and for the most part accept that bad things (like death) happen. A lot of us have given up our guns, and do not carry all the time. But some people need to.

I followed the Pistorius trial on TV. Listened to the evidence. He contradicts himself. And the physical evidence, and circumstantial evidence point to an argument with his girlfriend who took locked herself in the toilet with her cell-phone, and Pistorius shot her in anger.

Ever since I first lived in South Africa (from 1976 before leaving for the USA and NZ) it was always illegal to shoot someone unless one was in fear for their life. Everyone knew that if you shot someone in the back outside your house you would drag them inside and claim that they had broken in, and hence your life was in danger. (In the bad old days, the police did it for you if you had not thought of it).

Pistorius knew that he had to use this defense from the time he shot and killed. That is the only reason he claimed self-defense based on mistaken identity immediately afterward.

The law is a good one, and has been improved upon. One has to identify the person or fire a warning shot. An intruder with a gun would not hide in the toilet. Typically home invasions with guns are usually gangs of four, and they catch you in your bed.

Yes, there are people who wake up in fear, and grab their fire-arm. One man shot his wife, and his remorse was so evident. Another man shot a warning shot into the roof, only to kill the intruder. He had to prove that he did not purposefully shoot knowing the intruder was on the roof.

Pistorius had a year to be "schooled" on how to act, and what to say, and yet his defense still had major flaws.

Oscar has been denied leave to appeal his conviction finally, and may face 15 years, though who knows what Masipa can do. I would have thought discretion for her is gone.

The situation remains most unsatisfactory. If he knew he was shooting Reeva the sentence looks fair to on the light side.
But if he thought he was shooting an intruder, all we have is a deterrent sentence and two lives destroyed for the price of a mistake.

The Atheist 21st April 2016 02:04 AM

This is an interesting addition to the case:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news...ectid=11626623

PartSkeptic 21st April 2016 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11240638)
Oscar has been denied leave to appeal his conviction finally, and may face 15 years, though who knows what Masipa can do. I would have thought discretion for her is gone.

The situation remains most unsatisfactory. If he knew he was shooting Reeva the sentence looks fair to on the light side.
But if he thought he was shooting an intruder, all we have is a deterrent sentence and two lives destroyed for the price of a mistake.


The appeal court did not deal with whether the probabilities were that Oscar knew it was Reeva. That was not their job. Although if one watched the appeal, they were quite skeptical, and Oscar's lawyer knew they would lose.

Ask yourself these questions.

Given that Oscar is supposed to be a high strung nervous person about break-ins, why did he not wake when Reeva got up (in the dark?), dressed, and got here cell-phone?

Why did Oscar not put his hand out to warn Reeva that she should keep quiet while he went to investigate?

Why was the evidence regarding the state of Reeva's side of the bed ignored by the High Court judge?

He said he screamed like a girl. When a man screams in a high pitched voice of fear, he still cannot match the pitch of a woman doing the same thing. The opinions of the witnesses were ignored.

Comment: When a person has "accidentally shot an intruder" they have usually been startled by a sudden appearance of a person. Oscar pleaded startle reaction to a sound but the person was behind a closed door and he was more than awake.

Does anyone think OJ was innocent? Money buys good legal council to fabricate a story.

Oscar would have done better to confess, and plead temporary insanity due to a domestic dispute. He would have saved himself money, got some sympathy, and probably a lesser sentence. 15 years is too light because he will be out after 5 years. Even less if a minister gets involved. Lying miserable SOB. No, I am not biased - that is what I think because he is clearly guilty!

PartSkeptic 21st April 2016 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 11240648)
This is an interesting addition to the case:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news...ectid=11626623


Thanks for that. I was in NZ and attended a sentencing hearing for a man who had stabbed his wife to death. The reason was the judge was to hear a case a friend was involved in, and I wanted to assess the judge.

The man called the police who met him at the door. He was bloody. He said his wife was dead in the living room and he thinks he stabbed her, but had no recollection. His finger prints were on the knife. Found guilty, the judge said that typically he should get 10-12 years.

But the wife's sister said she had been visiting him in jail, and had forgiven him completely. He expressed a lot of remorse. No priors. The years came down to 4 1/2, with 2 already served. As he walked out the sister went up to him and the relationship between them became clear. The sister was besotted with him.

As far as I am concerned, they plotted a way to get rid of the wife so they could pursue their affair. (And not have to split the marital assets). The Judge must have seen it too, but NZ jails are way too full. He could not care about justice.

The man and his wife made a living from selling porn in their adult shop, just so you can judge what kind of characters one is dealing with. And they did drugs.

The Atheist 21st April 2016 12:39 PM

Do you have a cite for that?

Dr. Keith 21st April 2016 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 11241397)
Do you have a cite for that?

Which part? The porn? That stuff is all over the internet, what do you need a cite for?


:boxedin:

Samson 21st April 2016 02:34 PM

Photos in the Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rts-claim.html

It looks like the original prosecution scenario fits better by the shape and defined edges of the wounds.

I can see him being a loose unit, but beating her on the back with a cricket bat looks far fetched.

The Atheist 21st April 2016 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11241564)
I can see him being a loose unit, but beating her on the back with a cricket bat looks far fetched.

Why?

He was known to have an extreme temper.

He was known to have violent proclivities.

Men are known to beat their wives/girlfriends/etc.

Why would it be far-fetched to have a bloke beating up a chick? Especially given the rumours of another bloke - which is more than enough for some specimens of the male persuasion.

Desert Fox 21st April 2016 07:02 PM

I don't consider it far fetched but I am a little suspicious about this being introduced so late in the trial process.

The Atheist 21st April 2016 08:33 PM

Were they looking hard at the time?

Chick blown to pieces by soft-nosed bullets, how hard do you look for bruises?

PartSkeptic 22nd April 2016 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 11242028)
Were they looking hard at the time?

Chick blown to pieces by soft-nosed bullets, how hard do you look for bruises?


I seem to remember the testimony about the bruising, so I looked it up.

These two articles are interesting. There are serious weaknesses in SA's current police-work. {{Aside - A friend's factory was burgled. The finger-print expert was so useless he could not even find a print on a item I deliberately handled. He could not find a fingerprint anywhere. I think he was using copier toner powder.}}

Of course, conjecture to sell a book could be the motive for the speculation.

They rightly point out that the judge did not visit the house to see how close it was to the voice-identification witnesses.

Quote:

http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/b7b0618...cks-and-breast
Model and law graduate Reeva Steenkamp sustained bruising to her back, buttocks and breast, the High Court in Pretoria heard on Monday.

Pathologist Gert Saayman said Steenkamp had two scratches on her back. This could have been caused by a blunt object or shrapnel.

Her right buttock was bluish in colour.

Saayman said this could have stemmed from the injury that Steenkamp had sustained on her right hip, where a bullet had penetrated.
Quote:

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/artic.../#.VxnqOzFkngA
The Molletts have just published their third book, Oscar vs The Truth (Piquet Publishers) and have drawn several shocking conclusions in relation to Reevaís murder, including that two oval abrasions that were found on her back appeared to match the corner of the Lazer bat Pistorius said he had used to bash down the door after shooting.

This would suggest, say the brothers, that Reeva sustained this injury, as well as other bruises on her body that were overlooked or unexplained in the pathologistís report and testimony, during a heated, life-and-death struggle that took place in Pistoriusís house before Reeva sought refuge from a raging Pistorius by locking herself in the bathroom.

Desert Fox 22nd April 2016 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 11242028)
Were they looking hard at the time?

Chick blown to pieces by soft-nosed bullets, how hard do you look for bruises?

Actually you should. . . .I have been listening to Real Crime Profiles and one of the hosts is Laura Richards - Formerly of New Scotland Yards and a domestic abuse specialist. She would certainly argue that one should get such evidence.

I was willing to entertain the argument that he did not know whom was in the bathroom but I was doubtful. Assuming that she had bruising, that absolutely slams that door and it is the equivalent of first degree murder.

Samson 22nd April 2016 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desert Fox (Post 11242368)
Actually you should. . . .I have been listening to Real Crime Profiles and one of the hosts is Laura Richards - Formerly of New Scotland Yards and a domestic abuse specialist. She would certainly argue that one should get such evidence.

I was willing to entertain the argument that he did not know whom was in the bathroom but I was doubtful. Assuming that she had bruising, that absolutely slams that door and it is the equivalent of first degree murder.

Except the prosecution said those bruises were consistent with falling after being shot, and of course Oscar carried her here and there in a panic, any such handling possibly resulting in bruising from adrenaline fueled urgency.

newyorkguy 22nd April 2016 06:09 PM

At trial the prosecution actually argued the back bruises came from a shot that missed her, struck a wall of the cubicle and that the fragments then struck Reeva Steenkamp in the back causing the bruising. The defense contended the bruises were caused by Steenkamp falling into a magazine rack after she was struck by the first shot (which broke her right hipbone).

Quote:

In highly aggressive exchanges, Pistorius’s defence counsel Barry Roux repeatedly suggested wounds on Ms Steenkamp’s back came from the magazine rack, not from secondary bullet fragments, and that their own expert analysis will show that. Captain Mangena, a respected ballistics expert with 20 years experience, stated more than ten times, that “I disagree.” news link

Samson 22nd April 2016 06:25 PM

Clearly the case can turn on this evidence. I would like to see the magazine rack, and other objects that would deliver those bruises in a fall. I reject the notion it was a bat to the back. I think employing the bat twice for different parts of the theory is far fetched. The rubber on the handle could easily be torn without needing a struggle. I think we need to keep searching for some data point that is unambiguous, so far it is conjecture. If his story is true a correct account can be written. This is always the way, as in David Bain, and so on. The truth is like dominos toppling, one end to the other.

MikeG 13th June 2016 12:53 AM

Just bumping this to point out that the sentencing hearing starts today, and could last about a week. There is no appeal possible.

BBC

lionking 13th June 2016 01:19 AM

Facing 15 years. Any less would be a disgrace.

MikeG 13th June 2016 01:46 AM

Mitigation could reduce it, plus of course, time-served. I'll take a stab at 12 years, less time served, which means say 10 years.......out in about 5. I don't know whether murderers get the option of serving some of the sentence at home. All in all, that looks a bit lenient to me.

Desert Fox 13th June 2016 02:08 AM

The latest episode of Real Crime Profiles talks about the case in terms of domestic abuse.
https://soundcloud.com/real-crime-pr...scar-pistorius

Samson 13th June 2016 04:05 AM

Let us hope fiction never obscures the facts. A scared man in obsessivly defending his paramour tragically kills her.
Pistorious is innocent of the charge.

lionking 13th June 2016 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11330741)
Let us hope fiction never obscures the facts. A scared man in obsessivly defending his paramour tragically kills her.
Pistorious is innocent of the charge.

Provably incorrect.

Come on, do a Fonzie. You are wrong. Admit it.

MikeG 13th June 2016 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11330741)
Let us hope fiction never obscures the facts. A scared man in obsessivly defending his paramour tragically kills her.

I agree with you 100%, but....


Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11330741)
Pistorious is innocent of the charge.

......this conclusion does not follow. Even if you think Attila the Hun or Vlad the Impaler is behind a closed door, firing through it turns you into a murderer.

Samson 13th June 2016 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 11330786)
Provably incorrect.

Come on, do a Fonzie. You are wrong. Admit it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 11330899)
I agree with you 100%, but....




......this conclusion does not follow. Even if you think Attila the Hun or Vlad the Impaler is behind a closed door, firing through it turns you into a murderer.

So time served is fine because he will never kill again.
Why is this not front and center here?

Samson 13th June 2016 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 11330786)
Provably incorrect.

Come on, do a Fonzie. You are wrong. Admit it.

Except I think there is available anamnestic proof of mistaken identity.

MikeG 13th June 2016 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11331041)
So time served is fine because he will never kill again.
Why is this not front and center here?

Because bizarrely you insist on endlessly dragging us back to the silly notion that the guy is innocent. We have to discuss it over and over, ad infinitum, because you fail to grasp the simple principle that you can't just kill people you are frightened of, and just because someone is in your house doesn't give you the right to kill them. He is a murderer. You're the only person left on the planet who can't see that. The rest of us, whatever motivations we think he may or may not have had, are reconciled to the law: he's a murdererer awaiting sentence.

Samson 13th June 2016 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 11331073)
Because bizarrely you insist on endlessly dragging us back to the silly notion that the guy is innocent. We have to discuss it over and over, ad infinitum, because you fail to grasp the simple principle that you can't just kill people you are frightened of, and just because someone is in your house doesn't give you the right to kill them. He is a murderer. You're the only person left on the planet who can't see that. The rest of us, whatever motivations we think he may or may not have had, are reconciled to the law: he's a murdererer awaiting sentence.

You realise you hold the least common ground, mistaken identity yet murderer.
A very large majority says killed girl friend in hot blood.

MikeG 13th June 2016 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11331080)
You realise you hold the least common ground, mistaken identity yet murderer.
A very large majority says killed girl friend in hot blood.

You're on the least common ground. You claim innocence. I claim he had exactly the same motivation as you claim......but the fact is, the law in SA does not allow you kill people if you aren't in imminent danger.

Desert Fox 13th June 2016 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 11331090)
You're on the least common ground. You claim innocence. I claim he had exactly the same motivation as you claim......but the fact is, the law in SA does not allow you kill people if you aren't in imminent danger.

Personally, I think he knew he was shooting at his girlfriend through the door but I don't think that is provable.

The Atheist 14th June 2016 11:53 AM

*Trigger Warning*

Poor Oscar now has PTSD from murdering his girlfriend.

Or, much more likely, having been nailed for it is causing his PTSD. The over-privileged little twat thought he could get away with murder. It must've been hell finding out that was wrong.

The boy belongs in a hospital, not a prison. This story is just so sad I'm blinking back tears. I think we should start a change.org petition to ensure he gets the help he needs.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news...ectid=11656565

lionking 14th June 2016 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desert Fox (Post 11331153)
Personally, I think he knew he was shooting at his girlfriend through the door but I don't think that is provable.

My view as well.

Dr. Keith 14th June 2016 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11331041)
So time served is fine because he will never kill again.

Even assuming your reading of the events: Why do you assume he will never kill again?

Do you think he no longer suffers from fear? If so why?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:18 AM.

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