ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags murder cases , Oscar Pistorius , South Africa cases

Reply
Old 4th December 2015, 07:51 PM   #161
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,011
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
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.
It's a bad joke.
__________________
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Wollen owns the stage
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2015, 08:34 PM   #162
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
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?
Yes it is possible I guess. Yet the act of sitting is in itself, one that adds vulnerability to a supposed state of fear, irrespective of the door being locked. I have been reading the debate.org, and learn that the bedroom had blackout curtains, which greatly assist his claims. All the pro intruder thinkers pretty well restate the theme that he had an extraordinary certainty of losing everything if he knows it is Reeva. The world blithely sees a crime like this as commonplace, but I am unaware of anything similar, and I have seen in too many other cases a willingness to accept normal individuals seemingly tossing their lives away for alleged crimes they had no chance of getting away with. This case fits the pattern perfectly.
There is an 84%/16% split saying guilty of knowingly shooting at Reeva.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/did-o...his-girlfriend
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2015, 09:10 PM   #163
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,891
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Yes it is possible I guess. Yet the act of sitting is in itself, one that adds vulnerability to a supposed state of fear, irrespective of the door being locked. I have been reading the debate.org, and learn that the bedroom had blackout curtains, which greatly assist his claims. All the pro intruder thinkers pretty well restate the theme that he had an extraordinary certainty of losing everything if he knows it is Reeva. The world blithely sees a crime like this as commonplace, but I am unaware of anything similar, and I have seen in too many other cases a willingness to accept normal individuals seemingly tossing their lives away for alleged crimes they had no chance of getting away with. This case fits the pattern perfectly.
There is an 84%/16% split saying guilty of knowingly shooting at Reeva.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/did-o...his-girlfriend
Hotheads like Pistorius don't think of the consequences of their actions. Have you not seen posts about his other impulsive, violent and stupid acts?
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2015, 09:47 PM   #164
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,028
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Well, in the real world everyone I mention the case to agrees with that and I am deemed a nutter.
Could that be because your premise that poor Oscar was in fear of his life is nuts?
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 01:38 AM   #165
erwinl
Graduate Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,617
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
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.
Why restrict the debate to something that has nothing to do about whether Pistorius committed murder under the SA law?
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 01:58 AM   #166
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,323
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Yes it is possible I guess. Yet the act of sitting is in itself, one that adds vulnerability to a supposed state of fear, irrespective of the door being locked. I have been reading the debate.org, and learn that the bedroom had blackout curtains, which greatly assist his claims. All the pro intruder thinkers pretty well restate the theme that he had an extraordinary certainty of losing everything if he knows it is Reeva. The world blithely sees a crime like this as commonplace, but I am unaware of anything similar, and I have seen in too many other cases a willingness to accept normal individuals seemingly tossing their lives away for alleged crimes they had no chance of getting away with. This case fits the pattern perfectly.
There is an 84%/16% split saying guilty of knowingly shooting at Reeva.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/did-o...his-girlfriend


Is your argument: "People don't act irrationally"
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 02:49 AM   #167
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
Why restrict the debate to something that has nothing to do about whether Pistorius committed murder under the SA law?
It is one of several possibilites that can be listed, which might be enumerated as follows.

1. He knew Reeva was in the cubicle and decided to kill her so no one else could have her.
2. He knew Reeva was in the cubicle and shot recklessly in anger, act in haste and repent at leisure.
3. He knew Reeva was in the cubicle and shot at an oblique angle in anger, thinking come out of there you bitch.
4. He knew Reeva was in bed asleep, and a black man had broken and entered. (this is from the LRB dissertation, literally it is always a black man before I am vested with racist accusations http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...acqueline-rose) Therefore he knows his life is in danger and shoots to kill in his and Reeva's defence.
5. He knew Reeva was in bed asleep, and a black man had broken and entered. He shoots at an oblique angle, imagining the intruder will not receive an injury, but be totally aware that he is nailed down by a serious and prepared defender.

I believe 5, but as I concede, it ain't getting traction.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 03:13 AM   #168
erwinl
Graduate Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,617
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
It is one of several possibilites that can be listed, which might be enumerated as follows.

1. He knew Reeva was in the cubicle and decided to kill her so no one else could have her.
2. He knew Reeva was in the cubicle and shot recklessly in anger, act in haste and repent at leisure.
3. He knew Reeva was in the cubicle and shot at an oblique angle in anger, thinking come out of there you bitch.
4. He knew Reeva was in bed asleep, and a black man had broken and entered. (this is from the LRB dissertation, literally it is always a black man before I am vested with racist accusations http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...acqueline-rose) Therefore he knows his life is in danger and shoots to kill in his and Reeva's defence.
5. He knew Reeva was in bed asleep, and a black man had broken and entered. He shoots at an oblique angle, imagining the intruder will not receive an injury, but be totally aware that he is nailed down by a serious and prepared defender.

I believe 5, but as I concede, it ain't getting traction.
And in all five cases as presented by you, Pistorius would have, according to SA law, committed murder.
I must admit, I'm a bit at a loss to what exactly you are trying to argue about.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 03:24 AM   #169
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
And in all five cases as presented by you, Pistorius would have, according to SA law, committed murder.
I must admit, I'm a bit at a loss to what exactly you are trying to argue about.
I am not interested in law, but fascinated by what happened from a gods eye point of view.
And I should add, always interested in the risk society faces from the accused if it can be shown reoffending is statistically a very remote possibility. Does anyone here think society should continue to fear Oscar Pistorius?

Last edited by Samson; 5th December 2015 at 03:29 AM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 03:35 AM   #170
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,323
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I am not interested in law, but fascinated by what happened from a gods eye point of view.
And I should add, always interested in the risk society faces from the accused if it can be shown reoffending is statistically a very remote possibility. Does anyone here think society should continue to fear Oscar Pistorius?
Yes. A man with impulse control that poor and access to firearms illegal ammunition is a dangerous offender and requires incarceration and rehabilitation.

Would you want him dating your daughter?
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 03:49 AM   #171
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Yes. A man with impulse control that poor and access to firearms illegal ammunition is a dangerous offender and requires incarceration and rehabilitation.

Would you want him dating your daughter?
I think dogs and guns can often be inappropriately employed as extensions to flawed personalities. Under no circumstances am I impressed by gun nuts, but that is unrelated to this discussion. Pistorius clearly embraced guns as a counterpoint to disability. Any lay psychologist could figure this. I understand his obsession far better than the American sub culture that declares guns don't kill.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 04:26 AM   #172
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,323
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I think dogs and guns can often be inappropriately employed as extensions to flawed personalities. Under no circumstances am I impressed by gun nuts, but that is unrelated to this discussion. Pistorius clearly embraced guns as a counterpoint to disability. Any lay psychologist could figure this. I understand his obsession far better than the American sub culture that declares guns don't kill.

I really don't know what any of this means in response to my point. Could you re-phrase or elaborate?
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 04:42 AM   #173
erwinl
Graduate Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,617
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I am not interested in law, but fascinated by what happened from a gods eye point of view.
And I should add, always interested in the risk society faces from the accused if it can be shown reoffending is statistically a very remote possibility. Does anyone here think society should continue to fear Oscar Pistorius?
As for point 1. I don't think the debate about what was really in his mind will ever be solved.
As for point 2. Do you agree he should at least bear the consequences for his deeds?
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 05:12 AM   #174
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
As for point 1. I don't think the debate about what was really in his mind will ever be solved.
As for point 2. Do you agree he should at least bear the consequences for his deeds?
I have a very strong theory that these cases are all satisfactorily resolved, and that they will never escape the searchlight of internet debate in future.
The case of Pistorius can never be understood until cognitive dissonance is embraced as a powerful counter to what seems obvious. Blackout curtains can disorientate for example. They can allow one to sleep soundly till 10am! I am unsure of this factor in this case, but if there was an effective blackout, I fully believe Oscar was momentarily obsessed with locating that gun by feel, rather than compounding risk by alerting Reeva.
A sensible counter to this will be factual from court reports, that the room was well lit. I am admittedly lazy about my own direct research.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 05:29 AM   #175
erwinl
Graduate Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,617
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I have a very strong theory that these cases are all satisfactorily resolved, and that they will never escape the searchlight of internet debate in future.
The case of Pistorius can never be understood until cognitive dissonance is embraced as a powerful counter to what seems obvious. Blackout curtains can disorientate for example. They can allow one to sleep soundly till 10am! I am unsure of this factor in this case, but if there was an effective blackout, I fully believe Oscar was momentarily obsessed with locating that gun by feel, rather than compounding risk by alerting Reeva.
A sensible counter to this will be factual from court reports, that the room was well lit. I am admittedly lazy about my own direct research.
Right.
That's just willful nonsense.

Bye.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 06:21 AM   #176
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
Right.
That's just willful nonsense.

Bye.
I accept I am in a global minority, no question, but your post is effectively totally dismissive of activist feminist judge Masipa. It is customary to address judge only cases with serious contrary analysis. They must describe their reasoning, and she did. Jury decisions are scary as hell.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 06:34 AM   #177
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,723
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I am not interested in law....
As of now, you mean? Because your posts to date have been almost exclusively about law (the perceived miscarriage of justice for Pretotius).
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 06:46 AM   #178
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
As of now, you mean? Because your posts to date have been almost exclusively about law (the perceived miscarriage of justice for Pretotius).
No seriously I am only concerned with what happened, and how people should react. If Oscar thought he was defending, it is case closed to me. I am convinced this was the case. There is a parallel universe where he was slaughtered alongside Reeva for a paltry haul of minor bounty. Surely everyone can imagine this?
We live in different communities where ill fortune is vanishingly unlikely, let us rejoice. I will never believe that Reeva would come with a valentine card saying this is the night I declare my love, and be party to circumstances that head so far south that she ends murdered.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 06:56 AM   #179
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
It is fascinating that Masipa is now the sentencing judge. I think the best word for this is "quirk".
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 07:07 AM   #180
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Kalevala
Posts: 11,390
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
It is one of several possibilites that can be listed, which might be enumerated as follows.

1. He knew Reeva was in the cubicle and decided to kill her so no one else could have her.
2. He knew Reeva was in the cubicle and shot recklessly in anger, act in haste and repent at leisure.
3. He knew Reeva was in the cubicle and shot at an oblique angle in anger, thinking come out of there you bitch.
4. He knew Reeva was in bed asleep, and a black man had broken and entered. (this is from the LRB dissertation, literally it is always a black man before I am vested with racist accusations http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...acqueline-rose) Therefore he knows his life is in danger and shoots to kill in his and Reeva's defence.
5. He knew Reeva was in bed asleep, and a black man had broken and entered. He shoots at an oblique angle, imagining the intruder will not receive an injury, but be totally aware that he is nailed down by a serious and prepared defender.

I believe 5, but as I concede, it ain't getting traction.

I have a couple of South African friends at church and I got chatting to the woman - who's perfectly nice - about Oscar, shortly after the murder, and most ppl in England outraged by the act. So I was quite taken aback when she said she thought he was innocent because of #4.

She explained many European South Africans live in fear of violent burglars, because of the great social distance in that society. An Us and Them outlook, and Oscar was, "Us".

Her view was based on prejudice, but you can see that cultural influences are part of the wider issues surrounding this case.

For the record, I am glad justice has now been done.
__________________
Hyvää itsenäisyyspäivä
100 years Suomi
Happy Independence Day, Finland
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 07:11 AM   #181
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I have a couple of South African friends at church and I got chatting to the woman - who's perfectly nice - about Oscar, shortly after the murder, and most ppl in England outraged by the act. So I was quite taken aback when she said she thought he was innocent because of #4.

She explained many European South Africans live in fear of violent burglars, because of the great social distance in that society. An Us and Them outlook, and Oscar was, "Us".

Her view was based on prejudice, but you can see that cultural influences are part of the wider issues surrounding this case.

For the record, I am glad justice has now been done.
How has justice been done? Reeva is corporeally dead, and Oscar spiritually so. What justice pleases you?
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 07:51 AM   #182
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
It is fascinating that Masipa is now the sentencing judge. I think the best word for this is "quirk".
Many cases in the US bounce back to the original judge as well. For example, Burnett basically bounced every appeal with the West Memphis Three no matter how reasonable.
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- - - -Bertrand Russell
Desert Fox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 10:39 AM   #183
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,195
Having learned a lot more about Oscar Pistorius over the past year or so, I agree it is conceivable he fired the shots into the bathroom honestly believing there was an intruder inside. I concede that based on his history of having an attraction to handguns, his eagerness to use them, his feelings of vulnerability, his anxiety level (as evidenced in court by the sobbing and vomiting episodes), his anger management issues and his displays of compulsive behavior.

There's two other things that sort of bother me:
  • People who believe Pistorius to have deliberately murdered his girlfriend seem callous towards Pistorius' profound disability. Having both legs amputated below the knee is a horrendous thing to have happen. I'm sure there are many psychological issues present; it is understandable he would feel anxious and insecure at times, even a good part of the time. Yet he went on to accomplish so much, showing fierce determination and an absolute will to triumph over adversity. So it is very tragic that someone like this finds himself utterly ruined at age 29.

  • People who believe Pistorius did not intend to kill Reeva Steenkamp, that when he fired the fatal shots he believed he was protecting her, seem to disregard the tragedy Steenkamp suffered. She was a beautiful young woman, highly successful and with a great life ahead of her. That she became romantically involved with Pistorius, given his physical disabilities, says much about her character. I'm sure many women would not have even considered dating a man who was a double-amputee, no matter how successful he had otherwise become.

Pistorius took everything away from Steenkamp. He left her family and friends devastated. Their lives will never be the same. Oscar Pistorius is not the victim here. Spare a tear or two for Steenkamp.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 10:46 AM   #184
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,723
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
......If Oscar thought he was defending, it is case closed to me.........
There's where it all goes wrong for you. There are laws about how you can defend yourself. Shooting through a closed door knowing you are going to kill whoever is on the other side, without having been threatened, would always, in any circumstance I can think of, be breaking the law in any first world country I am familiar with. And so it should too.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 11:00 AM   #185
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,195
I absolutely agree that firing through a door when you have no way of knowing who is on the other side -- and there is no visible sign there is an intruder in your residence -- should be considered manslaughter. I'm not so sure that is the case in some of the American states that have Stand Your Ground laws. In those states a home owner or apartment tenant is presumed to have been legitimately defending themselves with deadly force if they say that's what they believed they were doing. They have the absolute right to kill anyone they believe has invaded their home. They don't have to prove they were in fear of their life or serious injury, they just have to state it. The burden is entirely on the prosecution to prove they are lying. Since fear is such a subjective emotion that can be very difficult to do.

Not to say that if this incident had happened in the U.S. Pistorius wouldn't have been prosecuted, but convicting him may have been difficult in SYG states. Where courts and juries recognize that, in protecting people's right to kill intruders, there will be mistakes made. That so long as the killer contends he killed in 'good faith' -- and the state can't prove otherwise -- the defendants go free.

There have been many many cases in the U.S. that have left police, prosecutors and much of the public shaking their heads.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 11:05 AM   #186
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,011
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
How has justice been done? Reeva is corporeally dead, and Oscar spiritually so. What justice pleases you?
That a murderer has been found guilty of murder?
__________________
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Wollen owns the stage
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 11:26 AM   #187
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
I absolutely agree that firing through a door when you have no way of knowing who is on the other side -- and there is no visible sign there is an intruder in your residence -- should be considered manslaughter. I'm not so sure that is the case in some of the American states that have Stand Your Ground laws. In those states a home owner or apartment tenant is presumed to have been legitimately defending themselves with deadly force if they say that's what they believed they were doing. They have the absolute right to kill anyone they believe has invaded their home. They don't have to prove they were in fear of their life or serious injury, they just have to state it. The burden is entirely on the prosecution to prove they are lying. Since fear is such a subjective emotion that can be very difficult to do.

Not to say that if this incident had happened in the U.S. Pistorius wouldn't have been prosecuted, but convicting him may have been difficult in SYG states. Where courts and juries recognize that, in protecting people's right to kill intruders, there will be mistakes made. That so long as the killer contends he killed in 'good faith' -- and the state can't prove otherwise -- the defendants go free.

There have been many many cases in the U.S. that have left police, prosecutors and much of the public shaking their heads.
Unless you are black. . . .Sorry, I had to say that
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- - - -Bertrand Russell
Desert Fox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 11:52 AM   #188
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,891
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
How has justice been done? Reeva is corporeally dead, and Oscar spiritually so. What justice pleases you?
What? The guilty has been found guilty. The best definition of justice I know.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 03:09 PM   #189
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,028
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I believe 5, but as I concede, it ain't getting traction.
I finally have it.

No matter how insane a defence can be made, you're advocating it henceforth should fall under the "reasonable doubt" provision.

Oscar should have said he'd been possessed by demons. In RSA, he'd have a fair shot at that defence.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I am not interested in law,...
*splutter!*

You can't be serious, having made almost all of your five thousand posts in Trials & Errors.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Does anyone here think society should continue to fear Oscar Pistorius?
Yes.

He clearly has anger management and other serious mental issues. Until he receives help and manages to improve those parts of his life, he is a danger to himself and others.

Did you not see that this is a man who has fired a gun in public?

Not that the fact of society's safety has anything to do with it until he's eligible for parole, which looks like it will be a few years away now.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 03:54 PM   #190
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I finally have it.

No matter how insane a defence can be made, you're advocating it henceforth should fall under the "reasonable doubt" provision.

Oscar should have said he'd been possessed by demons. In RSA, he'd have a fair shot at that defence.



*splutter!*

You can't be serious, having made almost all of your five thousand posts in Trials & Errors.



Yes.

He clearly has anger management and other serious mental issues. Until he receives help and manages to improve those parts of his life, he is a danger to himself and others.

Did you not see that this is a man who has fired a gun in public?

Not that the fact of society's safety has anything to do with it until he's eligible for parole, which looks like it will be a few years away now.
I have spent enough time on this so this old post of Charlie Wilkes best sums up the situation for me.

Some people simply have an obsession with guns that leads to terrible judgment. They may be careless in other aspects of their lives, but armed confrontation is the one thing for which they are prepared... too prepared, in fact. They hear a sound downstairs, or in the next room, and the thinking seems to be, "Aha! I always knew this would happen! Some low-life criminal has broken in!" They blast away, and they are genuinely surprised when it turns out to be a loved one.

I have a feeling that is what Pistorius did, but I am not yet ready to draw a firm conclusion.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=797
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 05:36 PM   #191
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,028
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
5. He knew Reeva was in bed asleep, and a black man had broken and entered. He shoots at an oblique angle, imagining the intruder will not receive an injury, but be totally aware that he is nailed down by a serious and prepared defender.

I believe 5, but as I concede, it ain't getting traction.
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I have a feeling that is what Pistorius did, but I am not yet ready to draw a firm conclusion.
So, you're back-tracking from your previous position.

Goodo.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 05:49 PM   #192
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
So, you're back-tracking from your previous position.

Goodo.
No that was Charlie 3 days after the tragedy. Everything in italics. My position is his then preferred theory, what he thinks now is unknown. I don't regard it as impossible to prove this theory correct, but Pistorius is a goner.
The next episode is Masipa resentencing him. Can her sentencing be appealed? She must be pretty angry to have spent weeks hearing the evidence only to be overruled by a bunch of once over lightly crowd pleasers.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 05:58 PM   #193
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,891
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
No that was Charlie 3 days after the tragedy. Everything in italics. My position is his then preferred theory, what he thinks now is unknown. I don't regard it as impossible to prove this theory correct, but Pistorius is a goner.
The next episode is Masipa resentencing him. Can her sentencing be appealed? She must be pretty angry to have spent weeks hearing the evidence only to be overruled by a bunch of once over lightly crowd pleasers superior, more experienced judges.
FTFY.

Masipa was wrong, grossly wrong. Deal with it.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 06:12 PM   #194
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,326
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
No that was Charlie 3 days after the tragedy. Everything in italics. My position is his then preferred theory, what he thinks now is unknown. I don't regard it as impossible to prove this theory correct, but Pistorius is a goner.
The next episode is Masipa resentencing him. Can her sentencing be appealed? She must be pretty angry to have spent weeks hearing the evidence only to be overruled by a bunch of once over lightly crowd pleasers.
An ad hom against members of the SA Supreme Court and zero argument against their easily understood explanation, related in this thread. Nice one.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 05:12 AM   #195
TofuFighter
Graduate Poster
 
TofuFighter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,598
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Having learned a lot more about Oscar Pistorius over the past year or so, I agree it is conceivable he fired the shots into the bathroom honestly believing there was an intruder inside. I concede that based on his history of having an attraction to handguns, his eagerness to use them, his feelings of vulnerability, his anxiety level (as evidenced in court by the sobbing and vomiting episodes), his anger management issues and his displays of compulsive behavior.

There's two other things that sort of bother me:
  • People who believe Pistorius to have deliberately murdered his girlfriend seem callous towards Pistorius' profound disability. Having both legs amputated below the knee is a horrendous thing to have happen. I'm sure there are many psychological issues present; it is understandable he would feel anxious and insecure at times, even a good part of the time. Yet he went on to accomplish so much, showing fierce determination and an absolute will to triumph over adversity. So it is very tragic that someone like this finds himself utterly ruined at age 29.

  • People who believe Pistorius did not intend to kill Reeva Steenkamp, that when he fired the fatal shots he believed he was protecting her, seem to disregard the tragedy Steenkamp suffered. She was a beautiful young woman, highly successful and with a great life ahead of her. That she became romantically involved with Pistorius, given his physical disabilities, says much about her character. I'm sure many women would not have even considered dating a man who was a double-amputee, no matter how successful he had otherwise become.

Pistorius took everything away from Steenkamp. He left her family and friends devastated. Their lives will never be the same. Oscar Pistorius is not the victim here. Spare a tear or two for Steenkamp.
great post


Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
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.)

Rondlopery! I love it!
Sorry I'm late coming back to this. Thanks for posting Bob's assessment.
(in case he didn't explain it or that it it isn't easy to see, 'rondlopery' roughly translates to 'running around')
__________________
"come on. Judas is meeting us at midnight with the getaway donkeys"
TofuFighter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2015, 04:17 AM   #196
katy_did
Master Poster
 
katy_did's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,186
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
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.
Have you read Masipa's ruling, LJ? You're incorrect to say that she rejected PPD, or at least that she did so in its entirety. Of course, if she'd accepted it completely, she would need to have acquitted him of culpable homicide as well; instead, she accepted his defence that he believed he was shooting an intruder and that he was in fear for his life, but that he acted with unreasonable force, hence culpable homicide.

So the appeal court didn't "agree" with Masipa when they said he wasn't in fear for his life, they overturned her (arguably factual, rather than legal) finding. And in fact it's this - the overturning of Masipa's finding on PPD - which was the really critical issue in the appeal court's ruling.
__________________
"All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick".

Last edited by katy_did; 8th December 2015 at 04:50 AM.
katy_did is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2015, 04:24 AM   #197
katy_did
Master Poster
 
katy_did's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,186
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
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.
Well, it depends what you mean by "the courts are agnostic as to the identity of the victim". Both courts rejected the prosecution theory that he shot Reeva after an argument (or more accurately, the fact-finding court rejected that theory and the appeal court only deals with legal issues so has no power to reconsider that: as it said, "This court cannot interfere, for example, with the factual decision made by the trial court rejecting the State’s version that there had been a disagreement between the appellant and the deceased that led the deceased to hide herself in the toilet to escape from him, before being shot").

As I said above, the finding that OP believed he was shooting at an intruder (or that this was a reasonable possibility) was crucial to Masipa acquitting him of murder, so I don't think it's an irrelevance.
__________________
"All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick".
katy_did is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2015, 09:43 AM   #198
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by katy_did View Post
Well, it depends what you mean by "the courts are agnostic as to the identity of the victim". Both courts rejected the prosecution theory that he shot Reeva after an argument (or more accurately, the fact-finding court rejected that theory and the appeal court only deals with legal issues so has no power to reconsider that: as it said, "This court cannot interfere, for example, with the factual decision made by the trial court rejecting the State’s version that there had been a disagreement between the appellant and the deceased that led the deceased to hide herself in the toilet to escape from him, before being shot").

As I said above, the finding that OP believed he was shooting at an intruder (or that this was a reasonable possibility) was crucial to Masipa acquitting him of murder, so I don't think it's an irrelevance.
I see no doubt he is innocent of murder in the widely held sense of the word. The lynch mob is wrongfully sated.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2015, 10:03 AM   #199
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,011
So, anyone who disagrees with your day one conclusion is part of a lynch mob? That seems convenient.
__________________
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Wollen owns the stage
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2015, 10:19 AM   #200
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,751
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I see no doubt he is innocent of murder in the widely held sense of the word. The lynch mob is wrongfully sated.
He deliberately killed a person without justification. Whether he intended to kill Reeva or an unknown stranger is irrelevant. Firing four shots at anyone is intent to kill, and that's what makes it murder.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:10 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.