Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2

[Samson]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

She must have been afraid he'd mistake her for a home invader before shooting her multiple times at close range.

The article is nonsense.
Oscar Pistorius had opportunity but negative motive, and the phone conversations after her shooting were enduringly consistent with a tragic accident.
Release the poor devil and stop all this diatribe masquerading as trite humour.
And that includes you dear Atheist.

I wish everyone would grow up and understand that Pistorius is a victim of a fear mongering republic. So is Reeva.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Samson

The article is nonsense.
Oscar Pistorius had opportunity but negative motive, and the phone conversations after her shooting were enduringly consistent with a tragic accident.
Release the poor devil and stop all this diatribe masquerading as trite humour.
And that includes you dear Atheist.

I wish everyone would grow up and understand that Pistorius is a victim of a fear mongering republic. So is Reeva.

He deliberately set out to shoot a human being. Whether Reeve or an intruder, that doesn't matter; he shot and shot to kill. That's what puts him behind bars. This has been explained to you a couple of dozen times already in this thread, and you choose to ignore it every time. It really must get tiring to the regulars in this thread.

(and personally, I think he damned well knew Reeva was in the bathroom stall, and that the whole intruder thing is a poor ruse from him, but that's neither here nor there)

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Samson

The article is nonsense.

Your comment is nonsense. The article is a sensible and relevent background piece on the murderer's pathological jealousy and insecurity.

Quote:

Oscar Pistorius had opportunity but negative motive,

Pistorius was bristling with motive.

Quote:

and the phone conversations after her shooting were enduringly consistent with a tragic accident.

The phone conversations were entirely consistent with a crime of passion murderer attempting to squirm out of trouble once his anger faded enough for him to realize the consequences he'd be facing. There was no accident. There was a brutal murder.

Quote:

Release the poor devil

The poor devil here is Steenkamp, who had the life ripped from her by an entitled douche, while her murderer's fanboys cheer him on.

Quote:

and stop all this diatribe masquerading as trite humour.

Sarcasm is an appropriate response in the face of such pathetic celebrity worship.

Quote:

I wish everyone would grow up and understand that Pistorius is a victim of a fear mongering republic.

Pistorius is the beneficiary of a culture of hero worship perpetrated by an infantile society living their sad lives through famous people.

Quote:

So is Reeva.

Nonsense. Steenkamp is the victim of an indulgent rageaholic and his fawning fanclub.

[Scordatura]

Uh, looks like brother Carl and the rest of the Pistorius family is pissed about the movie and claim they're gonna sue. I'm not sure if Oscar and/or the Pistorius family actually have legal standing to sue.

Quote:

Oscar Pistorius’ brother Carl said earlier this week the Pistorius family will "take legal action" against the film in which Oscar Pistorius is portrayed by actor Andreas Damn with Toni Garrn playing Reeva Steenkamp who was tragically gunned down.

Oscar Pistorius: Blade Runner Killer will debut on 11 November on Lifetime in the United States, with no date available yet for Lifetime (DStv 131) in South Africa and Africa on MultiChoice's DStv satellite pay-TV platform.

Reeva's family did not endorse the movie.

Quote:

Steenkamp’s parents said on Monday they had been “horrified and upset” to read a report in US media that the film would be told from the perspective of Steenkamp and her mother.

“Any impression that is created that … the movie is endorsed by the Steenkamp family is untrue and incorrect,” they said.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...eeva-steenkamp

I'm not all that interested in the Lifetime movie after following the trial and appeal in real time so I doubt I'll even bother to watch. I'm more interested to see what becomes of the next appeal on November 3.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Scordatura

Uh, looks like brother Carl and the rest of the Pistorius family is pissed about the movie and claim they're gonna sue. I'm not sure if Oscar and/or the Pistorius family actually have legal standing to sue.



Reeva's family did not endorse the movie.



https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...eeva-steenkamp

I'm not all that interested in the Lifetime movie after following the trial and appeal in real time so I doubt I'll even bother to watch. I'm more interested to see what becomes of the next appeal on November 3.

All scurrilous tabloid rubbish. The trial judge understood the facts, yes Pistorious killed, but everyone should understand that endemic fear leads to accidents.

[Hubert Cumberdale]

Originally Posted by Scordatura

I'm not sure if Oscar and/or the Pistorius family actually have legal standing to sue.

I agree, they dont have a leg to stand on, but I'm not sure if the movie will win any oscars.

[MikeG]

Originally Posted by Samson

All scurrilous tabloid rubbish. The trial judge understood the facts, yes Pistorious killed, but everyone should understand that endemic fear leads to accidents.

Oh that's all right then. You can kill who you want so long as you are somewhere suffering from endemic fear. Glad we've established that.

Either that, or you could abide by the law of the land. Tough choice.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by MikeG

Oh that's all right then. You can kill who you want so long as you are somewhere suffering from endemic fear. Glad we've established that.

Either that, or you could abide by the law of the land. Tough choice.

Or you could move the USA and become a policeman, thus accomplishing both goals.

(I should probably go into hiding after this completely uncalled for comment on my part.)

[Rolfe]

You expressed what I was thinking too, in the light of a certain thread elsewhere on the forum. Or indeed multiple threads.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

You expressed what I was thinking too, in the light of a certain thread elsewhere on the forum. Or indeed multiple threads.

Yes, it seems ironic that brave law enforcement officers get a leave pass to blaze away but a cripple trying to "protect" his gal is thrown to the wolves. This assuming that it was genuine mistaken identity as trial judge Masipa declared.

[Rolfe]

Please don't co-opt my unrelated comment to support your starstruck hero-worship fantasies.

[Samson]

He's a gun nut and the world reaps accordingly. But Masipa got it right in my opinion, I thought that from day one.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Samson

Yes, it seems ironic that brave law enforcement officers get a leave pass to blaze away but a cripple trying to "protect" his gal is thrown to the wolves. This assuming that it was genuine mistaken identity as trial judge Masipa declared.

It is fascinating that calling someone like Pistorius a cripple is acceptable when trying to elicit sympathy and/or portray him as harmlessly feeble.

[Rolfe]

Masipa is another star-struck hero-worshipping idiot.

[Samson]

No Rolfe.
I see you as a best quality contributor, but you were captured in the case early by a false analyst.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Samson

No Rolfe.
I see you as a best quality contributor, but you were captured in the case early by a false analyst.

And you are blinded by Oscar's fame and media managed persona. He is a murderer. A lying, cowardly piece of scum.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Please don't co-opt my unrelated comment to support your starstruck hero-worship fantasies.

Indeed - Mine too.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Samson

He's a gun nut and the world reaps accordingly. But Masipa got it right in my opinion, I thought that from day one.

No she didn't. She allowed her objectivity to be compromised, leading to errors in law which had to be rectified by the Supreme Court. Even then she let Pistorius off with a very short sentence for murder.

What compromised her objectivity? She too was a cripple, from childhood polio.

She should have recused herself.

[Samson]

Go back to your Knox friend Thoughtful. Damn fine mathematician and criminoligist. She analysed the postal police in Knox and the phone calls in Pistorius, and got the right answer both times. Brilliant.
Just wrong on culpability on one of the cases.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Vixen

No she didn't. She allowed her objectivity to be compromised, leading to errors in law which had to be rectified by the Supreme Court. Even then she let Pistorius off with a very short sentence for murder.

What compromised her objectivity? She too was a cripple, from childhood polio.

She should have recused herself.

We don’t refer to people as cripples in the 21st century.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Samson

... but a cripple trying to "protect" his gal ...

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Samson

No Rolfe.
I see you as a best quality contributor, but you were captured in the case early by a false analyst.

A retired professor of law who lives in South Africa for half the year is a "false analyst"? Who knew.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

A retired professor of law who lives in South Africa for half the year is a "false analyst"? Who knew.

I know a retired now dead law professor who visited Arthur Allan Thomas in jail and pronounced him guilty.
Except Len Demmler killed his daughter when she discovered he forged her mother's will.

If this retired professor of law knows something we don't I would be pleased to hear it. I have no dog in the fight, but I agreed with judge Masipa Icerat Thoughtful and MikeG among others.
Far greater damage is done with wrongful convictions than wrongful acquittals in New Zealand, and while Pistorius is hardly a classic miscarriage even if he is telling the truth, Reeva's family deserves the truth whatever it may be.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Samson

Yes, it seems ironic that brave law enforcement officers get a leave pass to blaze away but a cripple trying to "protect" his gal is thrown to the wolves. This assuming that it was genuine mistaken identity as trial judge Masipa declared.

You're approaching Delete Your Account territory. Also; I wouldn't call six years for executing his significant other being "thrown to the wolves".

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Samson

If this retired professor of law knows something we don't I would be pleased to hear it. I have no dog in the fight, but I agreed with judge Masipa Icerat Thoughtful and MikeG among others.

That's a joke, right?

[MikeG]

Originally Posted by Samson

I know a retired now dead law professor who visited Arthur Allan Thomas in jail and pronounced him guilty.
Except Len Demmler killed his daughter when she discovered he forged her mother's will.

If this retired professor of law knows something we don't I would be pleased to hear it. I have no dog in the fight, but I agreed with judge Masipa Icerat Thoughtful and MikeG among others.
Far greater damage is done with wrongful convictions than wrongful acquittals in New Zealand, and while Pistorius is hardly a classic miscarriage even if he is telling the truth, Reeva's family deserves the truth whatever it may be.

No, I'm pretty sure you didn't. I accept Pistorius' story, but that story still describes a murder.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

That's a joke, right?

Jesus wept, to quote the long lost Charlie Wilkes.
I am accused on different message boards of being all sorts, but I apply only rational thought to arrive at conclusions.
Oscar Pistorius had means and opportunity but no motive. Reeva was bearer of a valentine card that evening, I LOVE YOU.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

You're approaching Delete Your Account territory. Also; I wouldn't call six years for executing his significant other being "thrown to the wolves".

I don't understand your reference to delete your account.
ISF exists for these debates.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by MikeG

No, I'm pretty sure you didn't. I accept Pistorius' story, but that story still describes a murder.

I suspect murder has a more specific definition. Pistorius killed with just one bullet to the head.
She damn nearly lived.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Samson

I am accused on different message boards of being all sorts, but I apply only rational thought to arrive at conclusions.

I assume that's a joke as well, correct?

[MikeG]

Originally Posted by Samson

I suspect murder has a more specific definition. .....

A deliberate decision to kill. That's all. It doesn't require you have knowledge of who your victim is.

Quote:

Under the Common Law, or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The term malice aforethought did not necessarily mean that the killer planned or premeditated on the killing, or that he or she felt malice toward the victim. Generally, malice aforethought referred to a level of intent or reck-lessness that separated murder from other killings.......

From Legal Dictionary

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by MikeG

I accept Pistorius' story, but that story still describes a murder.

Originally Posted by MikeG

A deliberate decision to kill. That's all. It doesn't require you have knowledge of who your victim is.

From Legal Dictionary

And that is exactly what the retired professor of law living in South Africa says about it.

Actually, he's not so sure that he accepts Pistorius's story on a personal level, but he believes that the story can't be disproved to the level of legal certainty that would be required to convict him of intentionally killing Reeva. He is absolutely clear that on the known facts of the case Pistorius is guilty of murder, since he deliberately shot through that door at somebody he intended to kill.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

And that is exactly what the retired professor of law living in South Africa says about it.

Actually, he's not so sure that he accepts Pistorius's story on a personal level, but he believes that the story can't be disproved to the level of legal certainty that would be required to convict him of intentionally killing Reeva. He is absolutely clear that on the known facts of the case Pistorius is guilty of murder, since he deliberately shot through that door at somebody he intended to kill.

Which is why the debate should be initially constrained to deciding who Pistorius believed was behind the door.
There is spurious discussion about a loud argument that morphs into a possibility of Pistorius screaming in anguish when he finds Reeva absent and thus certainly behind the door.

[MikeG]

Originally Posted by Samson

Which is why the debate should be initially constrained to deciding who Pistorius believed was behind the door........

This one sentence sums up your entire post history in this thread. The stubborn refusal to concede that it is utterly irrelevant who was behind the door is mind-boggling after so long. It doesn't matter if he thought Reeva was behind the door, or if he thought the Texas Chainsaw Massacrer was behind the door. Shooting through the door to kill was the crime, not shooting to kill Reeva. She is a red herring.

[MikeG]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

And that is exactly what the retired professor of law living in South Africa says about it.

Actually, he's not so sure that he accepts Pistorius's story on a personal level, but he believes that the story can't be disproved to the level of legal certainty that would be required to convict him of intentionally killing Reeva. He is absolutely clear that on the known facts of the case Pistorius is guilty of murder, since he deliberately shot through that door at somebody he intended to kill.

Exactly.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Samson

Which is why the debate should be initially constrained to deciding who Pistorius believed was behind the door.

The bit you seem so spectacularly to fail to understand is that it doesn't actually matter who he believed was behind the door when assessing if Oscar is guilty of murder or not.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Samson

I don't understand your reference to delete your account.
ISF exists for these debates.

It is a suggestion that should you realize the absurdity of that argument you might be inclined to abandon your account in embarrassment. So, carry on I guess.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Samson

Which is why the debate should be initially constrained to deciding who Pistorius believed was behind the door.
There is spurious discussion about a loud argument that morphs into a possibility of Pistorius screaming in anguish when he finds Reeva absent and thus certainly behind the door.

As others have said, this is irrelevant nonsense. Even if one accepts that Pistorius thought it was an intruder behind the door, or at least accepts that his assertion to that effect can't be disproved, he is still guilty of murder because he knowingly shot at a person with the intent to kill them, and did in fact kill them.

That's what he was convicted of. He wasn't convicted of knowingly murdering Reeva Steenkamp in the course of an acrimonious domestic dispute because that cannot be proved to be what happened. He was convicted of intentionally murdering whoever it was behind the door. That it happened to be Reeva Steenkamp is not the point, nor is it relevant whether or not he knew it was her or believed it was someone else.

You have been told this so often by so many posters in this thread I am beginning to wonder about your reading comprehension skills.

[SpitfireIX]

Sorry if this has been mentioned earlier in the thread; I've read the whole thing, but it's been a while. IANAL, but the reason that Pistorius is guilty of murder even if he's telling the truth about what he believed, is that he had no legal right to kill the person behind the door when he did, even if that person was an intruder. He wasn't being directly threatened; he could have retreated and kept his gun pointed down the hall toward the bathroom while telling Reeva to call for help.

[Rolfe]

That is certainly how I understand it. He wasn't being directly threatened. That he came out with a story that he believed something that clearly was not what was happening doesn't confer him the right to kill.

In the threads about the US cops the law seems to be that the cop only has to say "but I was in mortal terror for my life because I believed that person had a gun and was going to shoot me" and it's an automatic free pass. And it doesn't matter if it's proved that the person didn't have a gun and didn't make the slightest threatening move, so long as the cop says he was mortally terrified then it's OK that he killed the person.

This however was in South Africa where apparently it isn't enough just to assert that you were in mortal terror and shot because you believed the other person had a gun and was going to shoot you. There has to be some rational basis for that opinion. However, in this case it was actually Reeva behind the door and she didn't have a gun and it's essentially impossible to see where the rational basis for the opinion that he was in mortal danger came from.

Add to that the fact that he had a perfectly clear line of escape but chose to advance on the closed door rather than making his escape, and he's toast.

Personally I incline to the view that he had had a steaming row with Reeva, she ran away from him and shut herself in the toilet, and he chased after her and shot at her in a red mist of fury which he regretted about three seconds later. But I recognise there are arguments as to why this may not be an unassailable scenario.

He shot through a door, intending to kill the person who was behind the door. That person hadn't made any threatening moves towards him, and if he was apprehensive he had every opportunity to get the hell out. That makes him guilty of murder under SA law.