Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by TofuFighter

I am scornful of people who "know" that he is either guilty or innocent, because in the simplest terms, there will never be certainty.

Except, the way the law is written in RSA - and NZ and UK - is that using known deadly force for an indirect threat is murder, so there is certainty.

The only questionable part is whether or not he knew it was Reeva in the bathroom. But since he's been convicted of murder, it's not much of an issue now anyway.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Except, the way the law is written in RSA - and NZ and UK - is that using known deadly force for an indirect threat is murder, so there is certainty.

The only questionable part is whether or not he knew it was Reeva in the bathroom. But since he's been convicted of murder, it's not much of an issue now anyway.

Atheist, I have absolutely no doubt he believed he was shooting a dangerous intruder in a dangerous country. He should be managed as a citizen, not a criminal.

Paris
Texas

Understand fear and the distortions.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Samson

Atheist, I have absolutely no doubt he believed he was shooting a dangerous intruder in a dangerous country. He should be managed as a citizen, not a criminal.

Paris
Texas

Understand fear and the distortions.

Evidence he had to believe he had a dangerous intruder?

[erwinl]

Originally Posted by Samson

Atheist, I have absolutely no doubt he believed he was shooting a dangerous intruder in a dangerous country. He should be managed as a citizen, not a criminal.

Paris
Texas

Understand fear and the distortions.

Samson,

Even if it all happened as Pistorius said and even if he truely thought he and Steenkamp were in danger, he still, according to SA law, committed murder and should face the consequences for that. Being mistaken in once's perception of the situation should not be a path to not having to face the consequences of actions taken.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Samson

Atheist, I have absolutely no doubt he believed he was shooting a dangerous intruder in a dangerous country. He should be managed as a citizen, not a criminal.

Absolutely no doubt, huh?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Samson

Atheist, I have absolutely no doubt he believed he was shooting a dangerous intruder in a dangerous country. He should be managed as a citizen, not a criminal.

Paris
Texas

Understand fear and the distortions.

Your doubt means nothing. He is a murderer by definition and beyond doubt. Deal with it.

[TofuFighter]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Except, the way the law is written in RSA - and NZ and UK - is that using known deadly force for an indirect threat is murder, so there is certainty.

The only questionable part is whether or not he knew it was Reeva in the bathroom. But since he's been convicted of murder, it's not much of an issue now anyway.

It's not much of an issue now. It's a certainty that he was convicted. It's not a certainty that he intentionally murdered someone.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I think that's pretty much what everyone thought.

According to Bob Black, my SA-resident friend, that's what most of the population of SA thought at the time.

I've just emailed him to ask him about the reasoning behind the latest decision. He's a QC, and familiar with both SA law and this case, so he should have some informed input.

I'm a little unclear about the points of law. I thought the original verdict was based on the crucial test being Pistorius's actual beliefs and frame of mind at the time. That while many people might believe that his protestations of acting in genuine fear of his life were self-serving porkies, this couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and so he was acquitted of murder.

Now, I'm slightly unclear whether the appeal ruling is on the basis of the appeal court holding that the crucial test isn't what Pistorius believed in his fevered imagination, but what a reasonable person might have believed and done in the same circumstances; or whether the basis is simple disbelief of Pistorius's protestations about his state of mind, which the appeal court believe to be lies BRD.

I do remember Bob being fairly certain that Pistorius would be convicted in the original trial, on the basis that he murdered "the person behind the door", and it did actually matter whether he knew it was Reeva Steenkamp or whether he thought it was an intruder. It will be interesting to see what he has to say.

[TofuFighter]

Thanks Rolfe, that would be an interesting read.

[Samson]

Until the debate clarifies that Oscar was certain there was an intruder, and indeed that is the only interesting question, we should acknowledge everyone's right to determine the correct punishment. To me it is clearly ridiculous in any jurisdiction to subtract 15 years from his life now when he has had guns taken from his control. He has learned all he possibly can. I am amazed at the idiocy of those who think there is more to it.

[Samson]

If he shot my daughter through a closed door, and I came to accept he was attempting to protect her, there would be no sighs of relief with a guilty verdict, just disgust at an absurd misallocation of revenge. This case is unique, insofar as the target was undetermined. There has been none like it in history.

[Rolfe]

Here's what Bob replied to me about the case. I have his permission to reproduce the email on the forum. (As I said, he is a retired QC and professor of law who now lives for half the year in South Africa.)

Originally Posted by Robert Black QC

Views about the case in South Africa are very mixed.

Every South African lawyer that I've spoken to thinks (as I do) that the trial judge got the law disastrously wrong. If Oscar intended to kill whoever was behind the bathroom door (or was reconciled to that result whether or not he intended it) then the only question remaining was whether he could bring himself within the ambit of self-defence. The trial judge (correctly) held that he had failed to meet the (very strict) terms of the defence (which would have resulted in a verdict of Not Guilty), but went on to hold that his evidence on this issue justified a finding that he might not have intended to kill but rather was negligent -- thereby rendering the crime not murder but culpable homicide. This is arrant nonsense and the Appeal Court judges say so (in clear but commendably restrained terms). The best analysis that I've read so far is this piece by Findlay Stark: http://matterscriminal.blogspot.co.u...rius-case.html

Apart from lawyers, most of my South African male friends and acquaintances think that the original verdict was wrong and that he ought to have been convicted of murder. I should say that many of these friends and acquaintances are (or were) police officers so perhaps that's only to be expected. Most of my female friends and acquaintances have more sympathy for Oscar. But that is not usually because they swallow the intruder story, but because they regard Reeva Steenkamp as having been "no better than she should be" and as having driven poor, vulnerable Oscar over the edge with her rondlopery (a lovely Afrikaans expression for being free with one's favours).

Rondlopery! I love it!

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Samson

If he shot my daughter through a closed door, and I came to accept he was attempting to protect her, there would be no sighs of relief with a guilty verdict, just disgust at an absurd misallocation of revenge. This case is unique, insofar as the target was undetermined. There has been none like it in history.

Utter rubbish. Oscar is a murderer. Full stop.

[Samson]

From the link

The appellate court found that Pistorius was outside the ambit of the defence of putative private defence because he did not know that the person in the toilet was a threat to him.

Here is the problem. Once anyone accepts, as I do, that Pistorius had no possible motive to kill Reeva, and of course he was defending her, his actions are completely rational, within the context of his foreshortened status on stumps, and his regrettable ownership of a killing weapon. It is incredible to me that the world judges him from any alternate perspective. Wittering on about law is irrelevant. Rolfe you well know that QC's are hired guns with worthless interpretations, the plebiscite is collectively well qualified. Yet I am alone in my views even locally, where everyone seems to want Oscar to get a bullet in revenge. C'est la vie...

[lionking]

No c'est la via for Reeva. The murderer will get his full due, finally.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by lionking

No c'est la via for Reeva. The murderer will get his full due, finally.

It seems murder should be applied to any act of self defence then, when death results.
You win because everyone agrees, but this is a forum for deeper analysis, and skepticism for always achieving what we wish for.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Samson

If he shot my daughter through a closed door, and I came to accept he was attempting to protect her, there would be no sighs of relief with a guilty verdict, just disgust at an absurd misallocation of revenge. This case is unique, insofar as the target was undetermined. There has been none like it in history.

What if he shot your daughter through a closed door, and you came to accept he was attempting to kill her, which, given the circumstances, is a perfectly reasonable conclusion?

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Samson

It seems murder should be applied to any act of self defence then, when death results.
You win because everyone agrees, but this is a forum for deeper analysis, and skepticism for always achieving what we wish for.

No, I don't see anyone claiming the bolded. Not even anywhere close, actually.

[Desert Fox]

Originally Posted by Samson

Atheist, I have absolutely no doubt he believed he was shooting a dangerous intruder in a dangerous country. He should be managed as a citizen, not a criminal.

In the bathroom with the door closed?

[Scordatura]

Oscar himself effectively closed the door to PPD through his own testimony. His first response to why he shot the gun was that he did it without thinking. That triggered Roux bringing in experts to testify about his anxiety issues and GAD and the timeout for a mental evaluation at Weskoppies.

In later testimony he said he believed his and Reeva's lives were in danger (PPD) and that's why he shot the door but at the end of his testimony he changed it again, adamantly insisting that he never intended to shoot anyone. That's not PPD.

The SCA judgment explains it all better than I can. Paragraphs 17 and 52 through 54.

http://cdn.24.co.za/files/Cms/Genera...316c9e413b.pdf

The sole reason the case went to the SCA was because Masipa misapplied the law. The SCA judgment was unanimous. Some people believe if Oscar had remained steadfast in claiming he believed he shot an intruder in a lawful manner that he might have been found not guilty. Masipa was sympathetic towards him so who knows?

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Samson

Atheist, I have absolutely no doubt he believed he was shooting a dangerous intruder in a dangerous country. He should be managed as a citizen, not a criminal.

Breathtaking. You know it beyond any doubt.

Clearly, you and Nigel Latta are cut from exactly the same cloth when it comes to what people are thinking.

Originally Posted by TofuFighter

It's not much of an issue now. It's a certainty that he was convicted. It's not a certainty that he intentionally murdered someone.

As Rolfe has shown, under RSA (and NZ/UK/etc) law, that isn't even an issue.

Originally Posted by Samson

Here is the problem. Once anyone accepts, as I do, that Pistorius had no possible motive to kill Reeva, and of course he was defending her, ...

Oh, that is even better than the previous effort.

He loved her so much he was prepared to kill to protect her.

But he didn't even notice she wasn't in bed.

Mate, you're lucky you were born a human and not a fish, because you would definitely have been the one who thought, "My, what a lovely piece of flesh sitting there waiting to be swallowed."

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Samson

Wittering on about law is irrelevant.

This is an ace statement, given the forum in which it's posted.

[MikeG]

Originally Posted by Samson

It seems murder should be applied to any act of self defence then, when death results........

If you act with disproportionate force, then yes, it should.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Samson

he believed he was shooting a dangerous intruder his girlfriend in a dangerous country the bathroom.

ftfy.

[newyorkguy]

Originally Posted by Samson

It seems murder should be applied to any act of self defence then, when death results...this is a forum for deeper analysis...

Originally Posted by MikeG

If you act with disproportionate force, then yes, it should.

I agree that we should be able to offer analysis on points where we disagree. I also think Mike G. has it right.

The legal issue is the law protecting people from being killed. That in order to kill someone and have the legal system find it to have been justifiable the defendant has to show compelling evidence that the use of deadly force was reasonable. Look at what happened in the Pistorius apartment that night. He went to the balcony to remove a fan. He noticed a repair crew had left a ladder near his balcony. When he went back into the apartment he discovered the bathroom was occupied. Then, without making any effort to find out who was in the bathroom, he went to his bedroom, got a handgun and then fired four shots through the bathroom door. How was he legally entitled to kill who ever was in the bathroom? Pistorius had not been threatened. He had not seen anyone enter his apartment. There was no sign of an intruder. He obviously did not ascertain to a certainty that his girlfriend was still in bed.

There's another issue here too that goes to Pistorius' state of mind. Upon reentering the bedroom to get the handgun, wouldn't a reasonable person have made sure his girlfriend understood there might be an intruder in the apartment? Make sure she was going to 1) stay put, 2) call police or 3) exit the apartment.

Was it reasonable in the face of all that for Pistorius to have then killed the unknown person in the bathroom? Most people would say no Pistorius did not act reasonably.

Originally Posted by Samson

If he shot my daughter through a closed door, and I came to accept he was attempting to protect her, there would be no sighs of relief with a guilty verdict, just disgust...

Reeva Steenkamp's mother June Steenkamp has not accepted that Pistorius was trying to protect her daughter. She will not discuss what she thinks but she has said:

Quote:

"Reeva was afraid, I think, to tell me, some of the problems. She did say they were fighting all of the time, but you don’t tell your mother everything.” Link to news article

What Steenkamp says she plans to do is start a charity to help victims of domestic abuse.

[The Atheist]

Some things to put Pistorius into perspective, instead of the fantasy figure some people have built up of a wonderful, caring bloke.

In 2009, he spent a night in jail after allegedly assaulting a 19-year-old woman at a party in a case that was settled out of court.

Two years later, he was accused of firing a gun through the sunroof of an ex-girlfriend's moving car, although a court found there was not enough evidence to convict him on that charge.

Weeks before he shot Steenkamp, he discharged a gun by accident at a Johannesburg restaurant.

link

[Samson]

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

. Look at what happened in the Pistorius apartment that night. He went to the balcony to remove a fan. He noticed a repair crew had left a ladder near his balcony. When he went back into the apartment he discovered the bathroom was occupied. Then, without making any effort to find out who was in the bathroom, he went to his bedroom, got a handgun and then fired four shots through the bathroom door. How was he legally entitled to kill who ever was in the bathroom? Pistorius had not been threatened. He had not seen anyone enter his apartment. There was no sign of an intruder. He obviously did not ascertain to a certainty that his girlfriend was still in bed.

There's another issue here too that goes to Pistorius' state of mind. Upon reentering the bedroom to get the handgun, wouldn't a reasonable person have made sure his girlfriend understood there might be an intruder in the apartment? Make sure she was going to 1) stay put, 2) call police or 3) exit the apartment.

Was it reasonable in the face of all that for Pistorius to have then killed the unknown person in the bathroom? Most people would say no Pistorius did not act reasonably.



Reeva Steenkamp's mother June Steenkamp has not accepted that Pistorius was trying to protect her daughter. She will not discuss what she thinks but she has said:


What Steenkamp says she plans to do is start a charity to help victims of domestic abuse.

My understanding is he heard a noise in the bathroom so immediately locked onto the presumption it was an intruder. My supposition is he subconsciously expected he would have heard Reeva go to the bathroom while he was on the deck, and presumably considered stealth in getting the firearm from under the bed and getting to the bathroom as quickly as possible paramount. Obviously this is his big problem, as no one can believe it. Yet it makes more sense to me to believe this than that he would end his own life as he knows it by committing cold blooded murder.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Scordatura

Oscar himself effectively closed the door to PPD through his own testimony. His first response to why he shot the gun was that he did it without thinking. That triggered Roux bringing in experts to testify about his anxiety issues and GAD and the timeout for a mental evaluation at Weskoppies.

In later testimony he said he believed his and Reeva's lives were in danger (PPD) and that's why he shot the door but at the end of his testimony he changed it again, adamantly insisting that he never intended to shoot anyone. That's not PPD.

The SCA judgment explains it all better than I can. Paragraphs 17 and 52 through 54.

http://cdn.24.co.za/files/Cms/Genera...316c9e413b.pdf

The sole reason the case went to the SCA was because Masipa misapplied the law. The SCA judgment was unanimous. Some people believe if Oscar had remained steadfast in claiming he believed he shot an intruder in a lawful manner that he might have been found not guilty. Masipa was sympathetic towards him so who knows?

Exactly correct. As was the other analysis upthread discussing how ludicrous it was that Masipa could/should have basically ruled in her original verdict that Pistorius did not have a valid self-defence PPD (i.e. that he was lying when he had claimed he genuinely felt in imminent mortal danger), but yet allowed for a culpable homicide verdict - which basically implied that Masipa believed that Pistorius must have negligently and impulsively discharged his weapon (which was contradicted, inter alia, by parts of Pistorius' own testimony!).

The appeal court basically did two things. Firstly, it affirmed that Masipa was correct to throw out the self-defence PPD option. The appeal court agreed that Pistorius was lying when he claimed (Variously) to have been in imminent mortal danger. The court pointed to Pistorius' self-contradictory testimony and statements to police, and was satisfied that Pistorius did not genuinely feel that he shot purely to prevent himself (and/or Steenkamp) from being killed or seriously injured in the imminent future.

Then, secondly and separately, the court demolished Masipa's "reasoning" on rejecting murder in favour of culpable homicide. This really wasn't hard to do. The court pointed to Pistorius' confirmation that he took a stance and fired the four aimed shots. that he knew there was a human being in the extremely small enclosed space behind the door, and that he knew (or must have known) that the powerful hand gun and its powerful, penetrative ammunition in his hand were easily capable of passing through the door and killing or seriously wounding whoever was behind the door. So Pistorius clearly didn't fire negligently or reflexively. He took aim and fired at a target: a target which he knew was in his firing line and which the bullets he fired were likely to hit and kill or seriously wound. And that - when taken together with the rejection of the self-defence PPD - is murder.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

I agree that we should be able to offer analysis on points where we disagree. I also think Mike G. has it right.

The legal issue is the law protecting people from being killed. That in order to kill someone and have the legal system find it to have been justifiable the defendant has to show compelling evidence that the use of deadly force was reasonable. Look at what happened in the Pistorius apartment that night. He went to the balcony to remove a fan. He noticed a repair crew had left a ladder near his balcony. When he went back into the apartment he discovered the bathroom was occupied. Then, without making any effort to find out who was in the bathroom, he went to his bedroom, got a handgun and then fired four shots through the bathroom door. How was he legally entitled to kill who ever was in the bathroom? Pistorius had not been threatened. He had not seen anyone enter his apartment. There was no sign of an intruder. He obviously did not ascertain to a certainty that his girlfriend was still in bed.

There's another issue here too that goes to Pistorius' state of mind. Upon reentering the bedroom to get the handgun, wouldn't a reasonable person have made sure his girlfriend understood there might be an intruder in the apartment? Make sure she was going to 1) stay put, 2) call police or 3) exit the apartment.

Was it reasonable in the face of all that for Pistorius to have then killed the unknown person in the bathroom? Most people would say no Pistorius did not act reasonably.



Reeva Steenkamp's mother June Steenkamp has not accepted that Pistorius was trying to protect her daughter. She will not discuss what she thinks but she has said:


What Steenkamp says she plans to do is start a charity to help victims of domestic abuse.

This is exactly the way I see it. Good summary.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Samson

My understanding is he heard a noise in the bathroom so immediately locked onto the presumption it was an intruder. My supposition is he subconsciously expected he would have heard Reeva go to the bathroom while he was on the deck, and presumably considered stealth in getting the firearm from under the bed and getting to the bathroom as quickly as possible paramount. Obviously this is his big problem, as no one can believe it. Yet it makes more sense to me to believe this than that he would end his own life as he knows it by committing cold blooded murder.

I find it far easier to believe that Pistorius lied through his back teeth. The disgraceful judgement of Masipa has been rightly swept away.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Samson

My understanding is he heard a noise in the bathroom so immediately locked onto the presumption it was an intruder. My supposition is he subconsciously expected he would have heard Reeva go to the bathroom while he was on the deck, and presumably considered stealth in getting the firearm from under the bed and getting to the bathroom as quickly as possible paramount. Obviously this is his big problem, as no one can believe it. Yet it makes more sense to me to believe this than that he would end his own life as he knows it by committing cold blooded murder.

Who in the heck has accused Pistorius of cold blooded anything? I'd really like to know.

[newyorkguy]

Quote:

...a finding that he might not have intended to kill but rather was negligent -- thereby rendering the crime not murder but culpable homicide. This is arrant nonsense and the Appeal Court judges say so (in clear but commendably restrained terms).

I was very pleased to read this quote Rolfe contributed from a South African lawyer. As a layman, I have learned -- or thought I had -- that at least under U.S. law, a person's actions (and criminal liability) hinge on what can "reasonably be foreseen." That a person firing four shots into an enclosed space, knowing a person was in that space, should have "reasonably foreseen" that the action would be likely to -- not guaranteed to -- but likely to cause the death of anyone occupying the enclosed space.

In that instance the defendant can not argue that they did not mean to kill the person in the bathroom. At least in the U.S., the judge in a jury trial would be very likely to explain when charging the jury that under our laws the "I didn't mean to kill anyone when I fired four shots through the bathroom door," is not a legally plausible defense.

[LondonJohn]

Amidst all this, I think some here have forgotten that neither Masipa nor the Court of Appeal ruled that Pistorius knew/believed he was shooting at Steenkamp behind that door, rather than the mythical intruder claimed by Pistorius. In fact, both courts are agnostic as to the identity of the victim.

I am sure that Steenkamp's family - and, it seems, some people here - would have liked the courts to have found that the "intruder" story was a lie, and that Pistorius had knowingly targeted Steenkamp. But that's not what they found. And, in a very real sense, they had no need to make such a finding (and indeed to have done so could have made this a much more appealable case by the defence). All they had to show was that Pistorius knew it was a human being behind that door - whether he genuinely believed that human to be an intruder, or whether he knew it to be Steenkamp.

Personally, I think that the evidence and testimony all point very strongly to the conclusion that Pistorius never did genuinely think there was an intruder, and that he knew it was Steenkamp at whom he was firing his gun through the door. I think the evidence strongly suggests that Steenkamp ran into the bathroom and locked herself in the toilet with her phone, in order to put a physical barrier between her and a jealous/enraged Pistorius and in order to make a distress phone call (either to police or to family/friend). But that's all conjecture.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

I was very pleased to read this quote Rolfe contributed from a South African lawyer. As a layman, I have learned -- or thought I had -- that at least under U.S. law, a person's actions (and criminal culpability) hinge on what can "reasonably be foreseen." That a person firing four shots into an enclosed space, knowing a person was in that space, should have "reasonably foreseen" that the action would be likely to -- not guaranteed to -- but likely to cause the death of anyone occupying the enclosed space.

In that instance the defendant can not argue that they did not mean to kill the person in the bathroom. At least in the U.S., the judge in a jury trial would be very likely to explain when charging the jury that under our laws the "I didn't mean to kill anyone when I fired four shots through the bathroom door," is not a legally plausible defense.

The test is wider than that. It's whether the assailant ought reasonably to have known that his/her actions might either kill or seriously injure the victim. That's to mitigate against a defendant claiming something like "Oh yeah, I was only shooting to injure the other person: my mate got shot four times in the torso a few years ago and he survived - that's what I was hoping to do to the guy I was shooting at. I really didn't want to KILL him, your honour.....".

Basically, if the assailant should have known that his/her actions might at least seriously injure the victim, then by extension the assailant ought to have known that death was a clearly possible outcome.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Amidst all this, I think some here have forgotten that neither Masipa nor the Court of Appeal ruled that Pistorius knew/believed he was shooting at Steenkamp behind that door, rather than the mythical intruder claimed by Pistorius. In fact, both courts are agnostic as to the identity of the victim.

I am sure that Steenkamp's family - and, it seems, some people here - would have liked the courts to have found that the "intruder" story was a lie, and that Pistorius had knowingly targeted Steenkamp. But that's not what they found. And, in a very real sense, they had no need to make such a finding (and indeed to have done so could have made this a much more appealable case by the defence). All they had to show was that Pistorius knew it was a human being behind that door - whether he genuinely believed that human to be an intruder, or whether he knew it to be Steenkamp.

Personally, I think that the evidence and testimony all point very strongly to the conclusion that Pistorius never did genuinely think there was an intruder, and that he knew it was Steenkamp at whom he was firing his gun through the door. I think the evidence strongly suggests that Steenkamp ran into the bathroom and locked herself in the toilet with her phone, in order to put a physical barrier between her and a jealous/enraged Pistorius and in order to make a distress phone call (either to police or to family/frienpland). But that's all conjecture.

If we restrict the debate to determining if Reeva was trying to escape from Oscar, or that the intruder hypothesis is correct, and I see this as the normal dichotomy in these types of cases, then the empty bladder assumes paramount significance. I suggested this earlier, and I don't recall it being substantially addressed, but handwaved away.
The pattern I like is to find one extreme data point that can not fit the prosecution theory, and to then test the plausibilty of the accused's narrative. The empty bladder makes no sense to me if Reeva is afraid of a pursuing Oscar.

[Desert Fox]

Originally Posted by Samson

If we restrict the debate to determining if Reeva was trying to escape from Oscar, or that the intruder hypothesis is correct, and I see this as the normal dichotomy in these types of cases, then the empty bladder assumes paramount significance. I suggested this earlier, and I don't recall it being substantially addressed, but handwaved away.
The pattern I like is to find one extreme data point that can not fit the prosecution theory, and to then test the plausibilty of the accused's narrative. The empty bladder makes no sense to me if Reeva is afraid of a pursuing Oscar.

Maybe it had just been a shouting match before then and just wanted to go in the bathroom to get away from him?

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Desert Fox

Maybe it had just been a shouting match before then and just wanted to go in the bathroom to get away from him?

Well, in the real world everyone I mention the case to agrees with that and I am deemed a nutter.
However, I watched quite a bit of the trial as it was rather convenient evening viewing hours in NZ. I watched Masipa intently absorbing the proceedings, a woman who sentenced a rapist to 60 year's jail as she rather disapproves of violence towards her gender.
Furthermore, Oscar's account and logs of phone calls were all consistent with his one and only substantial narrative (variations are commonplace where someone in obviously deep trouble tries to make more credible their disastrous errors of judgement).
Masipa watched the prosecution flat out lie about sequences of events, and judged as she saw it. I buy right into her analysis, as it accords exactly with others who drilled into the detail.
But the battle is hopeless both legally and in public opinion now, most feel better and safer, but I think it is ridiculous.

[newyorkguy]

Originally Posted by Samson

...The empty bladder makes no sense to me if Reeva is afraid of a pursuing Oscar.

How long was she in the bathroom? Why are you so convinced that a woman taking refuge in a bathroom, to get away from her boy friend, to call someone -- possibly the police -- would not urinate while in the bathroom? You seem to be placing a lot on that, but I don't see how that logically follows.

Isn't it possible she knew he was angry -- her mother says Reeva claimed they fought all the time -- but never dreamed he would shoot her? Isn't it possible that once she entered the bathroom and locked the door she felt safe? Safe enough to urinate if she had the need?

[lionking]

It's Pistorius' narrative which is ridiculous. He didn't notice Reeva get out of bed. Didn't notice she wasn't in bed when he supposedly heard an intruder. Didn't even bother to ascertain her whereabouts when he supposedly feared for his life. Didn't notice she wasn't in bed when he came back to the bedroom to get his gun.

Ridiculous. Unbelievable.

[Desert Fox]

Originally Posted by Samson

Well, in the real world everyone I mention the case to agrees with that and I am deemed a nutter.
However, I watched quite a bit of the trial as it was rather convenient evening viewing hours in NZ. I watched Masipa intently absorbing the proceedings, a woman who sentenced a rapist to 60 year's jail as she rather disapproves of violence towards her gender.
Furthermore, Oscar's account and logs of phone calls were all consistent with his one and only substantial narrative (variations are commonplace where someone in obviously deep trouble tries to make more credible their disastrous errors of judgement).
Masipa watched the prosecution flat out lie about sequences of events, and judged as she saw it. I buy right into her analysis, as it accords exactly with others who drilled into the detail.
But the battle is hopeless both legally and in public opinion now, most feel better and safer, but I think it is ridiculous.

I am a firearm owner, as you might know. As others have argued, it really does not matter if he was specifically shooting at her or not.

Lets say I wake up in the middle of the night and hear noises in my bathroom. I might grab my weapon, sure. The first thing I will do is yell into the room "I have a weapon. Identify yourself."

He failed those basic steps so he is guilty of murder.