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)

Hard Cheese 5th February 2019 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 12589733)
This is just misinformed nonsense. If there had been an intruder, and if that intruder was armed, this would still have been murder.

Oh, I fully understand that. That he is guilty of murder under South African law doesn't make Pistorius' argument of mitigation, of acting in self-defence, necessarily untrue. It's not an unreasonable argument, and his best bet to escape with a light sentence. He would have got away with it too, if it weren't for that meddling Nel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 12589733)
Noting your country of residence, I'm wondering if you being here making the same spurious arguments as Samson, also a Kiwi, is entirely coincidental.

Come on, man. Go back and read the first half of the first sentence of post #944. Do I have to repost it for you?

Hard Cheese 5th February 2019 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 12589775)
My opinion is that he deliberately murdered his wife in a fit of rage. Doesn’t matter what I think though. He’s where he deserves to be

I agree with you. As I posted in #944, personally I don't believe Pistorious' story for a second. Not because I think that a person couldn't be in a state of panic and fear to the point where they thought that shooting into a locked door at an intruder was a good idea, but because his story about believing Reeva was in the bed was a load of bollocks.

MikeG 5th February 2019 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese (Post 12589853)
.........Come on, man. Go back and read the first half of the first sentence of post #944. Do I have to repost it for you?

Well, let me just say that I'll keep a watching brief. Some people come here and pretend to be playing devil's advocate as some sort of safety net against posting an unpopular or hard-to-defend viewpoint.

Pacal 5th February 2019 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese (Post 12589709)
Had the event occurred in the United States, given the rate of gun ownership and incidence of gun violence, would you be willing to bet an intruder was in your house unarmed? South Africa's homicide rate involving guns is 5 times higher per capita than the USA, wouldn't it simply be statistically prudent to assume an intruder is armed? Why on earth would you automatically assume they were unarmed? There must be a reason people live behind high walls and razor wire there, it can't be for aesthetics.

Sorry but you can't just fantasize that a person was armed if your claiming self defence against an attacker. And further even if the person was armed self defence involves that the person was a direct and immediate threat to your life like they fired at you first or shoved a gun in your face, or threatened to kill you etc. Simply having a gun is not a an immediate threat to your life. Your argument would turn case after case of death by reckless disregard of people's lives into "self defence" because people will fantasize the person was armed.

Quote:

As I said, if Oscar can shoot through a door, so can an intruder. Neither party would have knowledge of whether the other was armed or not.
Of course are you seriously willing to argue if the mythical intruder had in fact been armed he would have been acting in "self defence" if he shot Oscar through the door after all Oscar might have been armed?! The point is even if the person had been armed he would not have been an immediate direct threat to Oscar and therefore by firing through the door Oscar was not acting in "self defence" by any legal logic, he was acting in reckless disregard at best. As I said there is no evidence of any so-called "intruder" firing a gun and Oscar doesn't claim that happened.

Quote:

What exactly in his story prevents his intruder from being armed?
Of course the "intruder" could have been armed, but in claiming self defence a fantasy that you thought the person was armed is not good enough and you must show that your life was in immediate peril and that it was reasonable for you to think so. Say like someone fired a gun at you, threatened your life while waving a gun etc. A person, even if armed, behind a bathroom door, who has not fired his alleged weapon or threatened you is not an immediate threat by most legal criteria.

Hard Cheese 5th February 2019 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacal (Post 12590172)
Sorry but you can't just fantasize that a person was armed if your claiming self defence against an attacker.

In the eyes of the law, and after the fact, sure. But to claim people will always behave completely rationally and consider legal ramifications in what they believe to be a life-threatening situation is silly. Pistorius got what he legally deserved for his reckless action, but at the same time, I don't dismiss that genuine fear of ones life and a misguided belief of acting in self defence is a possibility. If you live in a country where gun-related violence and home invasions are common, wouldn't that just reinforce the idea that what you think is an intruder is likely to be armed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacal (Post 12590172)
Of course are you seriously willing to argue if the mythical intruder had in fact been armed he would have been acting in "self defence" if he shot Oscar through the door after all Oscar might have been armed?!

Obviously no - he's an intruder in the process of committing a crime in someone else's house.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacal (Post 12590172)
A person, even if armed, behind a bathroom door, who has not fired his alleged weapon or threatened you is not an immediate threat by most legal criteria.

Sure, by most legal criteria. But I wouldn't be relying on a law book as any guarantee of my safety in that situation.

Pacal 5th February 2019 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese (Post 12590729)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacal View Post

Sorry but you can't just fantasize that a person was armed if your claiming self defence against an attacker.
In the eyes of the law, and after the fact, sure. But to claim people will always behave completely rationally and consider legal ramifications in what they believe to be a life-threatening situation is silly. Pistorius got what he legally deserved for his reckless action, but at the same time, I don't dismiss that genuine fear of ones life and a misguided belief of acting in self defence is a possibility. If you live in a country where gun-related violence and home invasions are common, wouldn't that just reinforce the idea that what you think is an intruder is likely to be armed?

Who was talking about people behaving "rationally" in situations like this? Or considering the legal ramifications of what they do? I was talking about the law. And in law Pistorius' claim of "self defence" fails and fails hard; what he may have irrationally believed is utterly irrelevant to the fact his claim of "self defence" fails. It appears we are talking past each other you are apparently think it is possible that Pistorius may have genuinely thought his life was in danger and that he was acting in self defence. Yes he may actually have thought so but it makes no difference to the fact his claim of "self defence" fails totally under law. Especially since even if you accept Pistorius' story there is no evidence whatsoever that the "intruder" acted as an immediate threat to Pistorius. There are consequences to people behaving stupidly and irrationally in circumstances like Pistorius' version of events.

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacal View Post

Of course are you seriously willing to argue if the mythical intruder had in fact been armed he would have been acting in "self defence" if he shot Oscar through the door after all Oscar might have been armed?!
Obviously no - he's an intruder in the process of committing a crime in someone else's house.
Of course in law you are right but I thought you were talking about subjective fears and what people might irrationally think is the case under given circumstances. In which case it is perfectly obvious that an intruder could fire through a closed door at someone he thought was a threat to his life and think perfectly sincerely he is acting in self defence. Of course any decent law court would throw out such an idiotic defence even if the intruder was in fact utterly sincere about it.

Quote:

Quote:

riginally Posted by Pacal View Post

A person, even if armed, behind a bathroom door, who has not fired his alleged weapon or threatened you is not an immediate threat by most legal criteria.
Sure, by most legal criteria. But I wouldn't be relying on a law book as any guarantee of my safety in that situation.
So would you fire through a closed door at someone you thought was armed even though you knew no such thing and the person had In fact done nothing indicating that he was a threat to your life and limb? You would instead utterly cave into irrational fears and fantasy and fire away? I hope you never have a gun if that is the case.

Of course nothing is guaranteed in life and frankly firing through a closed door would not guarantee your safety. After all if the person does in fact have a gun and hasn't used it yet firing through a closed door would almost certainly cause them to fire back. And since the door is closed you have a very high chance of missing entirely and thus you have likely increased the danger to yourself, in a very stupid manner. Why because firing at someone through a closed door or wall is simply stupid.

I could of course give a very long list of cases in which people have sincerely believed their lives were at risk and killed someone in "self defence"; only the utter stupidity and irrationality of their actions is obviously apparent. And there are consequences for being an idiot.

Hard Cheese 5th February 2019 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacal (Post 12590803)
Who was talking about people behaving "rationally" in situations like this? Or considering the legal ramifications of what they do? I was talking about the law. And in law Pistorius' claim of "self defence" fails and fails hard; what he may have irrationally believed is utterly irrelevant to the fact his claim of "self defence" fails. It appears we are talking past each other you are apparently think it is possible that Pistorius may have genuinely thought his life was in danger and that he was acting in self defence. Yes he may actually have thought so but it makes no difference to the fact his claim of "self defence" fails totally under law.

Of course it fails under the law. But you can claim "self defence" not only in an attempt to escape a charge of murder, but also in the hope of reducing the sentence you receive. Pistorius is guilty of murder, but that doesn't mean his belief his life was at risk holds no merit and his sentence not adjusted accordingly.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacal (Post 12590803)
So would you fire through a closed door at someone you thought was armed even though you knew no such thing and the person had In fact done nothing indicating that he was a threat to your life and limb?

The fact that they're in my bathroom in the middle of the night indicates they are a threat to life and limb. In a country where gun violence and crime are commonplace, it's hard to imagine they're there to pay you a social visit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacal (Post 12590803)
You would instead utterly cave into irrational fears and fantasy and fire away?

I've never been in such a situation, so I have no idea how I would react. If it came to the crunch, and if I feared for my family or myself, maybe I would. Can you guarantee me that you wouldn't?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacal (Post 12590803)
I hope you never have a gun if that is the case.

I hope not either, I certainly don't want one. Plenty of people do stupid, irrational things with guns, and I'm not sanctimonious enough to claim that somehow I'm immune to doing them either.

Pacal 6th February 2019 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese (Post 12590839)
Of course it fails under the law. But you can claim "self defence" not only in an attempt to escape a charge of murder, but also in the hope of reducing the sentence you receive. Pistorius is guilty of murder, but that doesn't mean his belief his life was at risk holds no merit and his sentence not adjusted accordingly.

Of course such a claim can work to mitigate the sentence even if it is inherently very dubious and in this case failed to prevent him from being found guilty of murder and being sentenced has a murderer. But then all sorts of factors are taken into account when sentencing people. In this case the "self defence" argument was being used in an attempt to prevent him from being found guilty of murder and it failed.

Quote:

Quote:

So would you fire through a closed door at someone you thought was armed even though you knew no such thing and the person had In fact done nothing indicating that he was a threat to your life and limb?
The fact that they're in my bathroom in the middle of the night indicates they are a threat to life and limb.
This is of course fantasy logic. The sort of logic that any Court with any sense would utterly reject from someone claiming self defence. To repeat you don't know that the person was in fact armed and the "intruder" has made absolutely no threatening remarks etc., against you. That does not constitute an immediate threat to life and limb or much of a threat to life and limb period. Thieves are generally only interested in stealing your stuff; getting into a fracas is generally not what they are interested in. "Self defence" requires the person actually being a threat to your life and limb fantasizing such a threat isn't enough.

Quote:

In a country where gun violence and crime are commonplace, it's hard to imagine they're there to pay you a social visit.
So what. That does not excuse fantasy taking over and behaving like an idiot. And what's with the crap about " a social visit"? Whoever implied that it was.

Quote:

I've never been in such a situation, so I have no idea how I would react. If it came to the crunch, and if I feared for my family or myself, maybe I would. Can you guarantee me that you wouldn't?
I can't guarantee anything and what I would do in such a situation is irrelevant. However if I did something so stupid I would hope I wouldn't try to evade the consequences of my stupidity.

Quote:

I hope not either, I certainly don't want one. Plenty of people do stupid, irrational things with guns, and I'm not sanctimonious enough to claim that somehow I'm immune to doing them either.
We seem to be in agreement that Oscar did something stupid and irrational with a gun and that his "self defence" argument is legally pretty weak. I wonder who here has sanctimoniously claimed that they are immune to behaving like a raving idiot.

MikeG 6th February 2019 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacal (Post 12591712)
........ I wonder who here has sanctimoniously claimed that they are immune to behaving like a raving idiot.

With a gun? If so, that's going to eliminate most posters from the question, I suspect.

Hard Cheese 6th February 2019 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacal (Post 12591712)
Of course such a claim can work to mitigate the sentence even if it is inherently very dubious and in this case failed to prevent him from being found guilty of murder and being sentenced has a murderer. But then all sorts of factors are taken into account when sentencing people. In this case the "self defence" argument was being used in an attempt to prevent him from being found guilty of murder and it failed.

Ultimately it failed. But initially it succeeded because he was found guilty of culpable homicide and got an extremely light sentence, which was only rectified after two appeals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacal (Post 12591712)
Thieves are generally only interested in stealing your stuff; getting into a fracas is generally not what they are interested in.

I love how you use the word "generally", as if I was going to rely on someone being at the top of the bell curve when I find them trespassing in my house at midnight. Even in my part of the world there are plenty of occurrences of home invasions where the occupant, often very elderly, has been badly beaten. I'm not sure how I'd distinguish between a "thief" and a "home invader". Perhaps they could get business cards printed up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacal (Post 12591712)
"Self defence" requires the person actually being a threat to your life and limb fantasizing such a threat isn't enough.

It may well do in South Africa, and possibly most other countries, I don't know. IMO the application of castle doctrine in US law is the correct approach. The right to protect myself and my family should trump all assumptions about your intent if you are illegally trespassing on my property.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacal (Post 12591712)
I can't guarantee anything and what I would do in such a situation is irrelevant. However if I did something so stupid I would hope I wouldn't try to evade the consequences of my stupidity.

Your view of Pistorius' behaviour is modelled on how you believe you would act and how one should should behave afterwards despite (I assume) you having never been in such a situation and your opinion that Pistorius does not actually 100% believe that his life was in danger. I think he's a liar (re his testimony about Reeva being in the bed) and a complete idiot (he had a thousand ways to avoid the situation he was in), but by the same token I don't discount that I could be completely wrong and he could be telling the truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacal (Post 12591712)
I wonder who here has sanctimoniously claimed that they are immune to behaving like a raving idiot.

Your statement "I hope you never have a gun in that case" (because I might do what Pistorius did) implies that the same isn't true for you. Maybe I am reading that wrong.

MikeG 6th February 2019 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese (Post 12592273)
........ IMO the application of castle doctrine in US law is the correct approach. The right to protect myself and my family should trump all assumptions about your intent if you are illegally trespassing on my property..........

You weren't playing devil's advocate, then. Good, at least that's established.

Hard Cheese 7th February 2019 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 12592298)
You weren't playing devil's advocate, then. Good, at least that's established.

Oh, how drearily predictable. You've convinced yourself, good on you.

MikeG 7th February 2019 12:07 AM

No, more to the point, you've failed to convince others.

Hard Cheese 7th February 2019 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 12592309)
No, more to the point, you've failed to convince others.

Since you take it upon yourself to be the mouthpiece for everyone, that makes it very efficient for me when I tell you...I don't care. Please pass it on.

Pacal 7th February 2019 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese (Post 12592273)
Ultimately it failed. But initially it succeeded because he was found guilty of culpable homicide and got an extremely light sentence, which was only rectified after two appeals.

It still failed and rightly so.

Quote:

I love how you use the word "generally", as if I was going to rely on someone being at the top of the bell curve when I find them trespassing in my house at midnight. Even in my part of the world there are plenty of occurrences of home invasions where the occupant, often very elderly, has been badly beaten. I'm not sure how I'd distinguish between a "thief" and a "home invader". Perhaps they could get business cards printed up.
Perhaps you should leave aside the agit-prop nonsense. I was talking about self defence. The simple fact an intruder is in your house is not, repeat not, a threat to life and limb. And since the vast majority of such thieves are only interested in your stuff that means you can't assume they are a threat to life and limb. Self defence requires a clear and immediate threat to your or someone else's life and limb and simply being an intruder isn't enough.

Quote:

It may well do in South Africa, and possibly most other countries, I don't know. IMO the application of castle doctrine in US law is the correct approach. The right to protect myself and my family should trump all assumptions about your intent if you are illegally trespassing on my property.
Wow! what stew of idiocy. If that is indeed legal doctrine in parts of the USA then stupidity runs deep. I hope the details of this doctrine make it less stupid than what you said. You do realize that all over the world including the USA I would think people trespass other people's property because it provides a short cut or some other reason. Now do you believe a 10 year old taking a short cut across someone's property can be shot down? I am also not aware that break and enter and thievery are appropriately punished by death. Oh and I do in fact agree that the rights of anyone go out the window if they threaten by immediate action your life and limb and this includes threats to your family.

However giving a license to every idiot who fantasizes paranoid fears of someone simply being in their house to shoot people down. Well just no!

This does remind of cases I've heard about of people deliberately luring people to rob them and then shooting them down.

Quote:

Your view of Pistorius' behaviour is modelled on how you believe you would act and how one should should behave afterwards despite (I assume) you having never been in such a situation and your opinion that Pistorius does not actually 100% believe that his life was in danger. I think he's a liar (re his testimony about Reeva being in the bed) and a complete idiot (he had a thousand ways to avoid the situation he was in), but by the same token I don't discount that I could be completely wrong and he could be telling the truth.
Actually the law is indeed modeled on how people "should" behave in given situations. Oh and I have been in that situation, several times in fact, and I didn't feel my life was in danger. Instead I was incensed that I was being robbed. In all three cases the thieves were apprehended.

Quote:

Your statement "I hope you never have a gun in that case" (because I might do what Pistorius did) implies that the same isn't true for you. Maybe I am reading that wrong.
Since I didn't and don't have a gun I have no idea how I would have responded if I had had a gun in the above mentioned incidents. Further I do sometimes suffer from panic attacks, so who knows?

Frankly any sort of right to respond to mere trespass with potentially lethal force strikes me has evil.

Hard Cheese 8th February 2019 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacal (Post 12593050)
I was talking about self defence. The simple fact an intruder is in your house is not, repeat not, a threat to life and limb.

Legally, usually. In real life, your assumption your (presumed) thief is one of the "vast majority" is a foolish gamble. Most of the time you'll be correct. It only takes one time for you to be wrong to have something happen to you or your family. That doesn't mean my first action would be shooting wildly at them, even if I owned a gun - I'd be getting my family off the property and calling the police. But no way on Gods Earth am I ever going to assume they would never hurt me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacal (Post 12593050)
Wow! what stew of idiocy. If that is indeed legal doctrine in parts of the USA then stupidity runs deep.

Maybe you should read up about it then, most states have it in one form or another. It doesn't mean you can blow away the mailman, or a thief running out the door with your TV set. But if you have a reasonable fear of your life or your family is in danger, you can use deadly force without fear of prosecution. That's as I understand it, I'm not a US resident so someone may be able to chime in and confirm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacal (Post 12593050)
I hope the details of this doctrine make it less stupid than what you said. You do realize that all over the world including the USA I would think people trespass other people's property because it provides a short cut or some other reason. Now do you believe a 10 year old taking a short cut across someone's property can be shot down?

No, of course it doesn't give you that right, nor should it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacal (Post 12593050)
I am also not aware that break and enter and thievery are appropriately punished by death.

If the thief carried a gun or a knife or a baseball bat, then you'd probably have justification. If you shot them climbing out a window with your wallet, no.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacal (Post 12593050)
However giving a license to every idiot who fantasizes paranoid fears of someone simply being in their house to shoot people down. Well just no!

That's the thing. What to you in Canada and I in New Zealand seems like paranoid fear, probably isn't in South Africa or the US. If they're living behind high walls, barbed wire and own guns to protect themselves, then I think the law should at least not hamper a law-abiding citizen should someone find themselves up against a home invader, and should not unnecessarily punish them for their action afterwards.

That said, you don't want to give license to the closet Dirty Harry type, which clearly Pistorius is. But I'd hope to think these guys were in the minority, and the majority are rational people.

MikeG 8th February 2019 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese (Post 12593613)
....... If they're living behind high walls, barbed wire and own guns to protect themselves, then I think the law should at least not hamper a law-abiding citizen should someone find themselves up against a home invader, and should not unnecessarily punish them for their action afterwards..........

This is where the this thread has wasted umpteen pages. What people think the law should be is irrelevant. Pistorius' own story is an admission of murder under South African law, and wishing that law was different is unproductive.

Hard Cheese 8th February 2019 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 12593635)
This is where the this thread has wasted umpteen pages. What people think the law should be is irrelevant.Pistorius' own story is an admission of murder under South African law, and wishing that law was different is unproductive.

Sure, he's guilty of murder under SA law, and if you want to draw a line under that and learn nothing from it, go ahead. I don't think it's unproductive to discuss the definition of intent and self defence laws in general terms, and how they are implemented in other parts of the world.

MikeG 8th February 2019 03:54 AM

You might note, Hard Cheese, that some of us have been posting in this thread since day one. Dropping into it four years later and telling us what lessons we should learn is an interesting approach.

Vixen 8th February 2019 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese (Post 12593613)
Legally, usually. In real life, your assumption your (presumed) thief is one of the "vast majority" is a foolish gamble. Most of the time you'll be correct. It only takes one time for you to be wrong to have something happen to you or your family. That doesn't mean my first action would be shooting wildly at them, even if I owned a gun - I'd be getting my family off the property and calling the police. But no way on Gods Earth am I ever going to assume they would never hurt me.

Maybe you should read up about it then, most states have it in one form or another. It doesn't mean you can blow away the mailman, or a thief running out the door with your TV set. But if you have a reasonable fear of your life or your family is in danger, you can use deadly force without fear of prosecution. That's as I understand it, I'm not a US resident so someone may be able to chime in and confirm.


No, of course it doesn't give you that right, nor should it.


If the thief carried a gun or a knife or a baseball bat, then you'd probably have justification. If you shot them climbing out a window with your wallet, no.



That's the thing. What to you in Canada and I in New Zealand seems like paranoid fear, probably isn't in South Africa or the US. If they're living behind high walls, barbed wire and own guns to protect themselves, then I think the law should at least not hamper a law-abiding citizen should someone find themselves up against a home invader, and should not unnecessarily punish them for their action afterwards.

That said, you don't want to give license to the closet Dirty Harry type, which clearly Pistorius is. But I'd hope to think these guys were in the minority, and the majority are rational people.

I think where you go wrong, Hard Cheese, is that you accept Pistorius' claim that he believed there was an intruder. Truth is, all the evidence points to Pistorius cold-bloodedly shooting dead his girlfriend in one of his well-known rages.

Hard Cheese 8th February 2019 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 12593665)
You might note, Hard Cheese, that some of us have been posting in this thread since day one. Dropping into it four years later and telling us what lessons we should learn is an interesting approach.

If you don't think you're getting anything more out of the thread, why are you still hanging around after four years? Just to stroke your beard and tut tut at anyone who hasn't been here "since day one"? Maybe you should ask the mods to close it, since it's served your purpose.

Hard Cheese 8th February 2019 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12593723)
I think where you go wrong, Hard Cheese, is that you accept Pistorius' claim that he believed there was an intruder. Truth is, all the evidence points to Pistorius cold-bloodedly shooting dead his girlfriend in one of his well-known rages.

No, I don't believe his claim at all - I think he shot his partner in a wild, jealous rage and tried to cover it up. But that's just my opinion. I accept there is the (unlikely to me) possibility that his story is the truth. This doesn't make him any less guilty, but I'm interested in whether they actually accepted (or even addressed) the veracity of his story in the appeal, or whether they simply ignored it because it wasn't legally relevant.

Samson 11th February 2019 02:52 AM

This case resembles many others where debate rages around immovable datapoints. I consider the idea that there can be dual conclusions from the data absurd, as in Bain Bamber Lundy and so on.
This thread should get to the heart of the matter, and determine whether a cripple would stand at an oblique angle and fire randomly at his girl friend through a bathroom door.
I do not believe it, but set against that is her apparel and the phones in the cubicle.

erwinl 11th February 2019 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 12596256)
This case resembles many others where debate rages around immovable datapoints. I consider the idea that there can be dual conclusions from the data absurd, as in Bain Bamber Lundy and so on.
This thread should get to the heart of the matter, and determine whether a cripple would stand at an oblique angle and fire randomly at his girl friend through a bathroom door.
I do not believe it, but set against that is her apparel and the phones in the cubicle.

Did somebody else fire those shots then?

MikeG 11th February 2019 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 12596256)
This case resembles many others where debate rages around immovable datapoints. I consider the idea that there can be dual conclusions from the data absurd, as in Bain Bamber Lundy and so on.
This thread should get to the heart of the matter, and determine whether a cripple would stand at an oblique angle and fire randomly at his girl friend through a bathroom door.
I do not believe it, but set against that is her apparel and the phones in the cubicle.

Is anyone disputing that he fired through the bathroom door? Does anyone, other than you, contend that it makes any difference whether or not he thought it was his girlfriend behind the door?

Those are the "fixed data points" which you have spent 4 years not understanding. London John explained the legalities of this in immense and thoughtful detail at various stages through this thread, and there isn't a single honest reader who could be left in any doubt after that. As with one single poster in the Sollecito thread, the only remaining issue is not one of fact, of legal interpretation, or of philosophy, but one of the willful ignorance and dishonesty of that one poster. Arguing that there is doubt in a case where there is no doubt is just displaying emotion, not intellect. Answer this one question straightforwardly and honestly, Samson:

Do you understand that even if (as you and I both believe) Pistorius' story as told in court is broadly correct and honest, that his actions that night still constitute murder under the SA law pertaining at the time? That's a yes or no binary choice.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:31 AM.

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