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 10th December 2015, 01:18 AM   #241
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,891
Originally Posted by icerat View Post
1) he wasn't in the bed when he heard the "intruder"
2) he reportedly did whisper something like that to her



3) Assuming she heard, how would Reeva, in reality in the toilet, know that Oscar was referring to someone in the toilet? Wouldn't the intelligent thing be to stay quite and not attract the attention of the intruder? That's what I'd do. Maybe even try to carefully open the door so I can hear better what's going on ....
There is absolutely no evidence of this apart from Pistorius' self serving testimony.

Why didn't he, as a first order priority, establish the location of Reeva?

No, the guy is a proven violent hothead. And a murderer without doubt.
__________________
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 10th December 2015, 01:42 AM   #242
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by icerat View Post
3) Assuming she heard, how would Reeva, in reality in the toilet, know that Oscar was referring to someone in the toilet? Wouldn't the intelligent thing be to stay quite and not attract the attention of the intruder? That's what I'd do. Maybe even try to carefully open the door so I can hear better what's going on ....
I'd think it would be quite easy for her to determine where OP's voice was coming from, auditory clues would be a giveaway. He'd be coming down a narrow corridor, the sound waves of his voice would have entered the bathroom and bounced around off the hard reflective surfaces, giving it a very distinctive echo-ey sound. If he'd been addressing an intruder from the main bedroom, his voice would be muffled by the wall in-between, and there would be far more sound absorption from soft furnishings (the blackout curtains, the carpet, the bed, etc)
Hard Cheese 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 10th December 2015, 03:31 AM   #243
TofuFighter
Graduate Poster
 
TofuFighter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,598
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Exactly. When he pointed the gun, he intended to kill whoever was behind the door. It doesn't matter who it was, or what the state of their bladder was. When he decided to kill someone, anyone, behind a shut door, he was committing murder.
I don't think that's necessarily true. His testimony was:
"Then I heard a noise from inside the toilet, what I perceived to be somebody coming out of the toilet. Before I knew it, I fired four shots at the door."

Pointing a gun is not intent to kill. His testimony suggests that he did not make a decision to kill anyone.
__________________
"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 10th December 2015, 03:46 AM   #244
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,731
Originally Posted by TofuFighter View Post
I don't think that's necessarily true. His testimony was:
"Then I heard a noise from inside the toilet, what I perceived to be somebody coming out of the toilet. Before I knew it, I fired four shots at the door."

Pointing a gun is not intent to kill. His testimony suggests that he did not make a decision to kill anyone.
Is there a reason you can think of which might have led him to skew his testimony thus?

Never mind his testimony, look at his actions. Shooting through a door into a small cubicle can only be done with the intent to kill whoever is behind the door.
__________________
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 10th December 2015, 04:02 AM   #245
TofuFighter
Graduate Poster
 
TofuFighter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,598
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Is there a reason you can think of which might have led him to skew his testimony thus?

Never mind his testimony, look at his actions. Shooting through a door into a small cubicle can only be done with the intent to kill whoever is behind the door.
Yes, there is no telling how much of what he said was the truth.

I would say that if you are in a frantic state of mind, and suddenly startled and then pull the trigger, perhaps even involuntarily, there is no intent.

This is a person who was on his stumps, so it is conceivable that he felt vulnerable. That would need to be balanced, i guess, with the fact that he was at least somewhat familiar with guns.
__________________
"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 10th December 2015, 05:13 AM   #246
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,197
Quote:
"Then I heard a noise from inside the toilet, what I perceived to be somebody coming out of the toilet. Before I knew it, I fired four shots at the door."
This is actually damning testimony. Because he didn't just happen to have a handgun in his hand. When he thought he heard a noise -- he didn't see an intruder or hear their voice, this is all based on Pistorius thinking he'd heard "a noise" -- his response was to get a loaded handgun. Then he went to confront the person. That demonstrates his intent. He had other options. He had the means to avoid this situation. Instead he chose to arm himself and go confront whoever it was in his bathroom.

I'm sure from a legal standpoint this is all on him. He was the one who thought he heard "a noise." He was the one who then chose to go and arm himself with a loaded handgun. He was the one who failed to make contact with the other occupant of the apartment. He failed to take steps to ensure he didn't wind up shooting 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 10th December 2015, 05:36 AM   #247
TofuFighter
Graduate Poster
 
TofuFighter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,598
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
This is actually damning testimony. Because he didn't just happen to have a handgun in his hand. When he thought he heard a noise -- he didn't see an intruder or hear their voice, this is all based on Pistorius thinking he'd heard "a noise" -- his response was to get a loaded handgun. Then he went to confront the person. That demonstrates his intent. He had other options. He had the means to avoid this situation. Instead he chose to arm himself and go confront whoever it was in his bathroom.

I'm sure from a legal standpoint this is all on him. He was the one who thought he heard "a noise." He was the one who then chose to go and arm himself with a loaded handgun. He was the one who failed to make contact with the other occupant of the apartment. He failed to take steps to ensure he didn't wind up shooting Steenkamp.
I don't see it exactly that way.

He heard a noise coming from the bathroom and armed himself. That does not demonstrate intent to kill.
He went towards the bathroom and noticed the window was open, thus supposedly confirming his suspicion of an intruder.

Yes, he had other options. I find it difficult to believe that hearing a noise at night when one is not expected, that someone would not go to investigate. That is what i do. Is it not what you would do? If i thought it was an intruder, i would try to take some kind of weapon with me to defend myself.

I don't disagree with much of the appeal judge's findings, but as i have previously mentioned, the ruling that Pistorius knew he was not in danger was puzzling for me.
__________________
"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 10th December 2015, 09:17 AM   #248
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,891
Originally Posted by TofuFighter View Post
I don't see it exactly that way.

He heard a noise coming from the bathroom and armed himself. That does not demonstrate intent to kill.
He went towards the bathroom and noticed the window was open, thus supposedly confirming his suspicion of an intruder.

Yes, he had other options. I find it difficult to believe that hearing a noise at night when one is not expected, that someone would not go to investigate. That is what i do. Is it not what you would do? If i thought it was an intruder, i would try to take some kind of weapon with me to defend myself.

I don't disagree with much of the appeal judge's findings, but as i have previously mentioned, the ruling that Pistorius knew he was not in danger was puzzling for me.
Why do you make the highlighted comments? We only have Pistorius' word for it. The word of a hothead with a history of impulsive violence.
__________________
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 10th December 2015, 12:37 PM   #249
Scordatura
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA, near the Isle of Lucy
Posts: 387
If we're going to start nitpicking Oscar's movements the night he murdered Reeva again then let me add something that I couldn't resolve. Oscar said when he brought the fan in from the balcony he closed the curtains around it. How exactly did that work in such a way that no light entered the room?

I tried it with my own similar fan and couldn't get the curtains to close completely around it; no matter how I finessed them there was always a substantial gap. If I closed the curtains behind it then the curtains got sucked into the back of the fan, closing off the airflow. If I closed them around the fan it left an inverted “V” which allowed light into the room. The only way to keep the room pitch black would be to use clips or pins to close the curtains above and below the fan, and Oscar didn't do that.

It's the sum of many little details that keep people scratching their heads over the events that night. Oscar “froze” when he heard the first noise but his personality was to “move towards the danger” yet when he faced the danger the gun just went off – four times – before he knew it. He didn't even bother to wait for any indication from Reeva that she was awake and heard him when he whispered to her to call the police. He screamed “Get the f out of my house!” but didn't give the intruder any time to actually do it. He didn't fire a warning shot because he was afraid it would ricochet and hit him but he shot because he didn't think at all. Even number one fan Masipa had trouble believing his bizarre claims and contradictory statements.
Scordatura 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 10th December 2015, 12:50 PM   #250
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,031
Originally Posted by TofuFighter View Post
I would say that if you are in a frantic state of mind, and suddenly startled and then pull the trigger, perhaps even involuntarily, there is no intent.
Pulling a trigger involuntarily four times would be abnormal.

Oscar is a gun nut. Gun nuts usually learn to use a gun properly, and one of the things you don't do is blaze shots off.

If it had been involuntary, I'd expect to see one or two shots and no more. The four is a deliberate action.

Originally Posted by TofuFighter View Post
I don't disagree with much of the appeal judge's findings, but as i have previously mentioned, the ruling that Pistorius knew he was not in danger was puzzling for me.
Wasn't the door locked?

He can't be in danger is the door is locked. He would hear it being unlocked before seeing the door even begin to open. I agree with the court that if someone has locked themselves in a bathroom, someone outside the bathroom cannot be in immediate danger.
__________________
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 10th December 2015, 02:48 PM   #251
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,936
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Pulling a trigger involuntarily four times would be abnormal.

Oscar is a gun nut. Gun nuts usually learn to use a gun properly, and one of the things you don't do is blaze shots off.

If it had been involuntary, I'd expect to see one or two shots and no more. The four is a deliberate action.

Absolutely. Two salient points are these: firstly, Pistorius had received extensive training in hand gun use - partly as a requirement for getting a firearms licence, and partly from his own additional private training. There is zero doubt that a) he knew exactly how to handle and fire the weapon he had in his hand that night, and b) he explicitly knew the law on when one can use a firearm and when one cannot.

And secondly, Pistorius actually admitted in one of his many-changing versions of events (can't remember whether it was in a police statement or in court testimony) that he took deliberate aim and fired the four shots off under full control of the weapon. That was the version where he was claiming that the "intruder" behind the door was about to open the door and attack him. It's only once (I would suggest) his lawyers got hold of him and had a good shake that he switched to - and maintained - the composite story that he thought the "intruder" was about to burst out of the toilet, but that the mythical sudden noise had made him reflexively and involuntarily squeeze the trigger (yeah, FOUR times......).



Quote:
Wasn't the door locked?

He can't be in danger is the door is locked. He would hear it being unlocked before seeing the door even begin to open. I agree with the court that if someone has locked themselves in a bathroom, someone outside the bathroom cannot be in immediate danger.

This was a big problem for Pistorius. He knew that all the evidence proved that the toilet door had been locked from the inside at and after the firing of the shots, since he (Pistorius) had had to break down the door to gain entry to the room (as evidenced by the broken and splintered door panels). Obviously if the door had not been locked, he could - and would - simply have opened the door in the normal fashion once the shots had been fired.

Now, had Pistorius been mentally astute from the get-go, he could perhaps have claimed that the bathroom door really had begun to open just a tiny bit - and that it was this which caused him to fire in self-defence. He might then have just about got away with claiming that Steenkamp had reacted to being shot by pulling the door shut again and quickly locking it before collapsing. That would then be consistent with Pistorius having to break down the door to gain entry.

But probably in the heat of the situation (and since he had so many other lies to be thinking about), Pistorius set in stone the fact that the toilet door had been closed and locked throughout the whole episode. I suppose the thought might have crossed his mind that trajectory analysis of the bullet paths might in any case allow the state to be sure that the door was closed when he fired the gun - but actually I don't think the trajectory analysis would have been able to determine with certainty whether the door was closed or just ajar - given that nobody knew with certainty what the position of the gun was as the shots were fired.

And on top of that, I would strongly suggest that Pistorius knew very well that the door really had factually been closed and locked throughout. And that's because I think he pursued Steenkamp to the bathroom, and had already tried to open the locked door. Indeed, I suggest that the very locking of the door by Steenkamp - thus preventing Pistorius from any ability to exercise his control over her - was a major factor in the enragement that culminated in Pistorius firing the gun through the door (probably, IMO, exacerbated significantly further by Steenkamp announcing through the door that she was about to call for help - with all that that would entail for Pistorius and his image).
LondonJohn 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 10th December 2015, 03:09 PM   #252
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,349
Originally Posted by Scordatura View Post
If we're going to start nitpicking Oscar's movements the night he murdered Reeva again then let me add something that I couldn't resolve. Oscar said when he brought the fan in from the balcony he closed the curtains around it. How exactly did that work in such a way that no light entered the room?

I tried it with my own similar fan and couldn't get the curtains to close completely around it; no matter how I finessed them there was always a substantial gap. If I closed the curtains behind it then the curtains got sucked into the back of the fan, closing off the airflow. If I closed them around the fan it left an inverted “V” which allowed light into the room. The only way to keep the room pitch black would be to use clips or pins to close the curtains above and below the fan, and Oscar didn't do that.
The police photos show the fan entirely within the room, but with the curtains open pretty wide. If the fan had been at that spot, he could have closed the curtains entirely, but as I mentioned upthread he would then have been plunged into *total* darkness after being exposed to the balcony light. I don't think many would choose to do that, as it leaves you fumbling around in a pitch-black room.

The defence case was that the police moved the fan and opened the curtains to some extent.
GlennB 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 10th December 2015, 05:49 PM   #253
Scordatura
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA, near the Isle of Lucy
Posts: 387
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
The police photos show the fan entirely within the room, but with the curtains open pretty wide. If the fan had been at that spot, he could have closed the curtains entirely, but as I mentioned upthread he would then have been plunged into *total* darkness after being exposed to the balcony light. I don't think many would choose to do that, as it leaves you fumbling around in a pitch-black room.

The defence case was that the police moved the fan and opened the curtains to some extent.
I agree that it would have been difficult for Oscar to maneuver around the room in total darkness after losing his night vision. I can't remember if he turned the balcony light off or not.

As for the fan, it's hard to tell from the photos – the fan looks awfully close to the curtains, which is why it made sense to me that he'd just snug the curtains around it. Maybe I'm thinking too deeply into it. Oscar's defense statement said that he brought the fan in, closed the doors, blinds and curtains which left the bedroom in pitch dark. In his EIC though he said he brought the fan in and closed the curtains around it. Going by that statement, when I tried doing the same I couldn't block out all the light.

Not much was made about the fan until it came up during testimony when Nel asked how he went out onto the balcony to call for help without tripping over it or knocking it over. That's when Oscar claimed police moved it. I can see an officer opening the curtains without thinking to let more light in but there's no reason to move the fan that I can see. And from the pictures, if it's in the original position then I think the curtains would impede any airflow behind it. Plus, IIRC the cord wouldn't reach the plug if it was where Oscar said it was.

Here's an article with a photo of the fan:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...m-9251722.html

See how close it is to the curtains?
Scordatura 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 10th December 2015, 07:19 PM   #254
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,197
Originally Posted by TofuFighter View Post
I don't see it exactly that way. He heard a noise coming from the bathroom and armed himself. That does not demonstrate intent to kill.
I didn't mean his arming himself meant he intended to kill the person in the water closet. I meant in a legal sense, if you arm yourself and go to confront someone, then under the law, that means the shooter had the intention to use the weapon if necessary. Pistorius testified:
Quote:
"Then I heard a noise from inside the toilet, what I perceived to be somebody coming out of the toilet. Before I knew it, I fired four shots at the door."
He thought someone was about to emerge from the toilet and he took an action that could reasonably be foreseen as causing the death of the person in the water closet. Again, in a legal sense, if he holds his fire and a struggle ensued, even against an unarmed intruder, that would, I'm sure, have changed the legal finding. But he fired before he knew who it was.

In other words, in a legal review of an incident in your home where you admit you chose to pick up a loaded handgun, in doing that you are essentially taking legal ownership for whatever events follow. You can tell the court, "I only wanted it for defense," but a handgun is not a very effective defense unless you are prepared to use it.
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 10th December 2015, 07:21 PM   #255
Grey2000
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 32
Being a South African myself I can speak to the climate of fear. Its very real.

HOWEVER, I've experienced 3 separate home invasions, on two of these occasions I've had a partner lying next to me.

On both of those occasions my FIRST thought was to check that my partner okay, before I did anything.

(BTW in all three cases, luckily, screaming and shouting bloody murder was enough to scare the intruders away...)

It beggars belief to imagine that Oscar simply presumed that Reeva was still asleep in bed, and didn't check. Never mind the fact that he claimed he shouted for her to call the police NEVER questioning the lack of response from her.

No amount of 'fear' can address the stunning lack of logical thinking in his story.

In fact the only theory that fits the facts perfectly is the argument,seek refuge,enraged murder theory.

As for the bladder, that's probably a question of time. She could have going to the toilet 30 minutes before or something like that.I could be wrong, but there's probably way of telling exactly when she urinated.
Grey2000 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 10th December 2015, 07:25 PM   #256
Grey2000
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 32
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Indeed, I suggest that the very locking of the door by Steenkamp - thus preventing Pistorius from any ability to exercise his control over her - was a major factor in the enragement that culminated in Pistorius firing the gun through the door (probably, IMO, exacerbated significantly further by Steenkamp announcing through the door that she was about to call for help - with all that that would entail for Pistorius and his image).
A well-supposed and, I believe, highly likely, scenario.
Grey2000 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 10th December 2015, 07:33 PM   #257
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Didn't Oscar live in a gated community with security? Doesn't that change things just a bit?
__________________
"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 10th December 2015, 07:34 PM   #258
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,197
There's another element to this incident that is being overlooked. I'm thinking of all the cops and legal advocates I've heard over the years saying, "Everyone forgets the victim. How about their rights?"

Is it proper to kill someone who is staying over for using your bathroom in the middle of the night without telling you? Because from Reeva Steenkamp's perspective, that is -- at best -- what happened to her.
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 10th December 2015, 07:49 PM   #259
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,031
Originally Posted by Grey2000 View Post
It beggars belief to imagine that Oscar simply presumed that Reeva was still asleep in bed, and didn't check. Never mind the fact that he claimed he shouted for her to call the police NEVER questioning the lack of response from her.
Well said.

Originally Posted by Grey2000 View Post
As for the bladder, that's probably a question of time. She could have going to the toilet 30 minutes before or something like that.I could be wrong, but there's probably way of telling exactly when she urinated.
It's a red herring and makes no impact on the case at all.
__________________
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 10th December 2015, 10:40 PM   #260
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,753
Originally Posted by TofuFighter View Post
...
Pointing a gun is not intent to kill. His testimony suggests that he did not make a decision to kill anyone.
Pointing a gun may not be intent to kill, but pointing at someone and pulling the trigger four times sure as hell is. I might even be willing to consider the possibility that the first shot might have been the result of squeezing the trigger under stress. But not three more times. He indisputably intended to kill somebody, whether it was Reeva or an "intruder."
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
Old 10th December 2015, 10:44 PM   #261
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,753
Originally Posted by Grey2000 View Post
...
HOWEVER, I've experienced 3 separate home invasions, on two of these occasions I've had a partner lying next to me.....
Damn, what did you do after the first one? Get an alarm system? Install better locks? Buy a gun? I doubt you said "Ah, that's just the way it is."
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
Old 10th December 2015, 10:51 PM   #262
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,753
Originally Posted by Grey2000 View Post
....
As for the bladder, that's probably a question of time. She could have going to the toilet 30 minutes before or something like that.I could be wrong, but there's probably way of telling exactly when she urinated.
I don't understand this bladder business. Isn't it the case that a body pretty much releases its contents when its muscles cease functioning? How often does a body -- which might get to the coroner days after its demise -- have a full bladder at autopsy? And why does it matter? Is it implausible that after arguing with P., Reeva went to the bathroom for the usual purpose -- maybe preparing to leave the house -- without realizing that she was in mortal danger?
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
Old 11th December 2015, 01:35 AM   #263
Grey2000
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 32
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Damn, what did you do after the first one? Get an alarm system? Install better locks? Buy a gun? I doubt you said "Ah, that's just the way it is."
Unbelievably you just kind of get used to the situation in a sort of fatalistic way. I'm always amazed by how amazed people from other countries are when they hear stories of what we've come to accept as normal. I have to remind myself that my society's level of 'ambient violence' is not common in other countries.

So all you really do is beef up security as best you can. Hence every single suburban home having some version of bars, spikes, razor-wire, alarm systems, security gates etc.

Before my second home invasion I thought I'd secured the kitchen door with a very strong security gate. I was wrong, they simply brute-forced the weakest point, the lock, with a crowbar.

It has to be said though, I live in Cape Town, where burglaries are usually unarmed, often committed by teenagers. In Johanesburg you are much more likely to have armed robberies, with actual physical violence being committed.

I remember watching Louis Theroux's doc where he interviews a particularly bad character called Malerven where he describes how he gets what he wants. Including putting a child in an oven and threatening to turn it on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsgt0BYDHeI

Then you realize that for the criminals its not even a question of morality, its just what they do. Violence is a part of their skillset.

Last edited by Grey2000; 11th December 2015 at 01:38 AM. Reason: Addition
Grey2000 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 11th December 2015, 01:51 AM   #264
TofuFighter
Graduate Poster
 
TofuFighter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,598
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Pulling a trigger involuntarily four times would be abnormal.

Oscar is a gun nut. Gun nuts usually learn to use a gun properly, and one of the things you don't do is blaze shots off.

If it had been involuntary, I'd expect to see one or two shots and no more. The four is a deliberate action.



Wasn't the door locked?

He can't be in danger is the door is locked. He would hear it being unlocked before seeing the door even begin to open. I agree with the court that if someone has locked themselves in a bathroom, someone outside the bathroom cannot be in immediate danger.

I have never been a fan of guns, I don't know enough about them to do anything but speculate whether a person could fire four shots in fright. As someone familiar with guns, you really wouldn't expect it of Pistorius, but it remains possible.

The door was apparently locked, but could Pistorius know that at the time? It was dark in the bathroom. If he did hear a noise, like the latch turning, it's possible he thought it was being opened so that the intruder could attack.

Since Pistorius' ammunition could pierce the door, could not an intruder's?
__________________
"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 11th December 2015, 02:11 AM   #265
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,731
Originally Posted by TofuFighter View Post
......Since Pistorius' ammunition could pierce the door, could not an intruder's?
Well, Pistorius knew exactly where to shoot. Any shots into that small cubicle would hit their target. Anyone on the inside of that cubicle shooting out would have no idea at all where to point the gun, particularly if they were an intruder entering the flat for the first time, and obviously with no knowledge of the layout. The idea that Pistorius thought his life in danger from shots from within a toilet behind a closed door is not tenable.
__________________
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 11th December 2015, 02:21 AM   #266
TofuFighter
Graduate Poster
 
TofuFighter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,598
Originally Posted by Desert Fox View Post
Didn't Oscar live in a gated community with security? Doesn't that change things just a bit?
In what respect?
He did live in a secure gated community at the time, but i am not sure what the inference is.
__________________
"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 11th December 2015, 03:09 AM   #267
TofuFighter
Graduate Poster
 
TofuFighter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,598
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Well, Pistorius knew exactly where to shoot. Any shots into that small cubicle would hit their target. Anyone on the inside of that cubicle shooting out would have no idea at all where to point the gun, particularly if they were an intruder entering the flat for the first time, and obviously with no knowledge of the layout. The idea that Pistorius thought his life in danger from shots from within a toilet behind a closed door is not tenable.
Any intruder who would have entered the cubicle would have seen the layout of the bathroom before entering it, having come through the window in the main bathroom area. Granted, someone inside the cubicle wouldn't know exactly where Pistorius was standing, but given that he was apparently almost constantly shouting at both the intruder and towards his bedroom, there would be some clue as to his position.
Pistorius was also on his stumps, so probably not moving too swiftly.
__________________
"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 11th December 2015, 03:14 AM   #268
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Many's the time I've wanted to shoot at whatever foul thing might be in a fuming bathroom stall. Not once did I want to open the door and see the author of the damnable deed.
marplots 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 11th December 2015, 03:30 AM   #269
TofuFighter
Graduate Poster
 
TofuFighter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,598
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
I didn't mean his arming himself meant he intended to kill the person in the water closet. I meant in a legal sense, if you arm yourself and go to confront someone, then under the law, that means the shooter had the intention to use the weapon if necessary. Pistorius testified:

He thought someone was about to emerge from the toilet and he took an action that could reasonably be foreseen as causing the death of the person in the water closet. Again, in a legal sense, if he holds his fire and a struggle ensued, even against an unarmed intruder, that would, I'm sure, have changed the legal finding. But he fired before he knew who it was.

In other words, in a legal review of an incident in your home where you admit you chose to pick up a loaded handgun, in doing that you are essentially taking legal ownership for whatever events follow. You can tell the court, "I only wanted it for defense," but a handgun is not a very effective defense unless you are prepared to use it.
IF we assume that he believed that Steenkamp was not in the cubicle, it is certain that he would believe that it could only be an intruder there. Firing before he knew who it was, then, becomes irrelevant, doesn't it? It is, in his mind, certainly someone who is potentially dangerous.

I think I am misunderstanding something in your second paragraph. If i intend to use a handgun for defense, and do, it is no longer a defense but an attack? (i need to read it some more, but i can't stay atm).
__________________
"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 11th December 2015, 04:02 AM   #270
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Originally Posted by TofuFighter View Post
In what respect?
He did live in a secure gated community at the time, but i am not sure what the inference is.
It would reduce the likelihood of being attacked and potentially reduce the fear involved.
__________________
"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 11th December 2015, 04:31 AM   #271
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by TofuFighter View Post
IF we assume that he believed that Steenkamp was not in the cubicle, it is certain that he would believe that it could only be an intruder there. Firing before he knew who it was, then, becomes irrelevant, doesn't it? It is, in his mind, certainly someone who is potentially dangerous.

I think I am misunderstanding something in your second paragraph. If i intend to use a handgun for defense, and do, it is no longer a defense but an attack? (i need to read it some more, but i can't stay atm).
Interesting that caution is employed when accepting Pistorius' very straightforward narrative after accidentally killing his girl friend.
Always accept the immediate account and shoot it down later. All who have tried have failed, including Nel.
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 11th December 2015, 04:38 AM   #272
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Interesting that caution is employed when accepting Pistorius' very straightforward narrative after accidentally killing his girl friend.
Always accept the immediate account and shoot it down later. All who have tried have failed, including Nel.
I kind of asked this elsewhere but am curious - If we operate the way you are suggesting, will a domestic violence incident where the victim dies ever be able to be prosecuted as a murder? It can always, or almost always be argued, as the defendant was afraid of an attacker.

Edit: Let us take the prosecution's basic case, no frills, where there is an issue between a boyfriend and girlfriend. The girlfriend retreats into a bathroom and locks the door. The boyfriend shoots her through the door. He claims that he though there was a burglar. If that is accepted, is there any ability to prosecute at all.
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- - - -Bertrand Russell

Last edited by Desert Fox; 11th December 2015 at 04:41 AM.
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 11th December 2015, 05:03 AM   #273
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by Desert Fox View Post
I kind of asked this elsewhere but am curious - If we operate the way you are suggesting, will a domestic violence incident where the victim dies ever be able to be prosecuted as a murder? It can always, or almost always be argued, as the defendant was afraid of an attacker.

Edit: Let us take the prosecution's basic case, no frills, where there is an issue between a boyfriend and girlfriend. The girlfriend retreats into a bathroom and locks the door. The boyfriend shoots her through the door. He claims that he though there was a burglar. If that is accepted, is there any ability to prosecute at all.
I just wish the discussion could be limited to knowledge of Pistorius.

Nothing else matters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAGnKpE4NCI
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 11th December 2015, 05:10 AM   #274
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,197
Originally Posted by TofuFighter View Post
IF we assume that he believed that Steenkamp was not in the cubicle, it is certain that he would believe that it could only be an intruder there. Firing before he knew who it was, then, becomes irrelevant, doesn't it?
I think we're talking about two different things here. You're looking at this in somewhat of a moralistic, social point of view. I think you're also addressing this in terms of whether nor not it was actually premeditated murder of his girlfriend as many people obviously believe. I'm not. The evidence neither supports that or rules it out. I'm looking at this in terms of what the court decided and if they acted properly. I think they did.

TofoFighter are you arguing it was a justifiable shooting, thus Pistorius should not have been charged? The court has ruled, have they not, that his actions were unlawful? That fear is not always a valid defense for the use of deadly force, especially in a case like this where his actions took the life of a completely innocent person. Because of that there are legal consequences. The court has looked at the circumstances and said no, the threat did not rise to the level that justified the use of deadly force. If it had been a home invader found dead in the water closet would that have changed the legal consequences? If they turned out to have been unarmed? I would think Pistorius might still have been charged. It would have been easier for him to tailor his defense -- maybe by saying he knew it was an invader, he'd caught sight of them -- but if the person was unarmed or possibly turned out to be mentally ill he might well have been charged I think. If it had turned out to be some obsessed fan of his? Charged.

Apparently in South Africa there are certain criteria when a homeowner is legally justified in using deadly force and certain criteria when they are not legally justified. I've already described what I think are the reasons Pistorius was not legally justified in using deadly force in this incident. Two courts have obviously seemed to have agreed. The reasoning is that based on what Pistorius knew or could have known at the moment he pulled the trigger, it was not enough to justify killing. It is what it is.
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 11th December 2015, 05:19 AM   #275
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
I think we're talking about two different things here. You're looking at this in somewhat of a moralistic, social point of view. I think you're also addressing this in terms of whether nor not it was actually premeditated murder of his girlfriend as many people obviously believe. I'm not. The evidence neither supports that or rules it out. I'm looking at this in terms of what the court decided and if they acted properly. I think they did.

TofoFighter are you arguing it was a justifiable shooting, thus Pistorius should not have been charged? The court has ruled, have they not, that his actions were unlawful? That fear is not always a valid defense for the use of deadly force, especially in a case like this where his actions took the life of a completely innocent person. Because of that there are legal consequences. The court has looked at the circumstances and said no, the threat did not rise to the level that justified the use of deadly force. If it had been a home invader found dead in the water closet would that have changed the legal consequences? If they turned out to have been unarmed? I would think Pistorius might still have been charged. It would have been easier for him to tailor his defense -- maybe by saying he knew it was an invader, he'd caught sight of them -- but if the person was unarmed or possibly turned out to be mentally ill he might well have been charged I think. If it had turned out to be some obsessed fan of his? Charged.

Apparently in South Africa there are certain criteria when a homeowner is legally justified in using deadly force and certain criteria when they are not legally justified. I've already described what I think are the reasons Pistorius was not legally justified in using deadly force in this incident. Two courts have obviously seemed to have agreed. The reasoning is that based on what Pistorius knew or could have known at the moment he pulled the trigger, it was not enough to justify killing. It is what it is.
I am continually surprised that anyone here cares what SA law determines. There are only two questions

1. Did he know that Reeva was behind the door?
2. What is the correct penalty if

a he did.
b he knew it was an intruder
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 11th December 2015, 05:28 AM   #276
icerat
Philosopher
 
icerat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: sweden
Posts: 5,532
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
There is absolutely no evidence of this apart from Pistorius' self serving testimony.
what other evidence could there be?

Quote:
Why didn't he, as a first order priority, establish the location of Reeva?
Because he already "knew" where she was.

Quote:
No, the guy is a proven violent hothead. And a murderer without doubt.
No argument on the first. Second depends on legal nuances I'll leave to the court.
__________________
Benford's law of controversy - Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available
icerat 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 11th December 2015, 05:32 AM   #277
icerat
Philosopher
 
icerat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: sweden
Posts: 5,532
Originally Posted by katy_did View Post
There's also no evidence to positively support it, aside from incredulity that he couldn't not have noticed Reeva in bed, which is why it's such a dead end when it comes to discussion!
didn't the court establish (or at least, the prosecution not challenge) that from Pistorius position with the blackened curtains this was in fact quite credible?
__________________
Benford's law of controversy - Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available
icerat 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 11th December 2015, 05:37 AM   #278
icerat
Philosopher
 
icerat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: sweden
Posts: 5,532
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
I'd think it would be quite easy for her to determine where OP's voice was coming from, auditory clues would be a giveaway. He'd be coming down a narrow corridor, the sound waves of his voice would have entered the bathroom and bounced around off the hard reflective surfaces, giving it a very distinctive echo-ey sound. If he'd been addressing an intruder from the main bedroom, his voice would be muffled by the wall in-between, and there would be far more sound absorption from soft furnishings (the blackout curtains, the carpet, the bed, etc)
Seriously? Now with the fear of a potential intruder you have her doing sophisticated acoustic analyses to determine where her boyfriend is? A smart phone app on the toilet I suppose?
__________________
Benford's law of controversy - Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available
icerat 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 11th December 2015, 05:45 AM   #279
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,731
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I am continually surprised that anyone here cares what SA law determines.
Why? It was the law under which Pretorius acted, and the law which he was found guilty of breaking. If you think he should have been tried under, say, Norwegian law, you probably ought to explain why.


Originally Posted by Samson View Post
There are only two questions

1. Did he know that Reeva was behind the door?
2. What is the correct penalty if

a he did.
b he knew it was an intruder
No. No, no, no. You can keep on trying to frame this to suit your argument (that it's OK to shoot anyone in your house if you are frightened), but you are wrong. Shooting through a shut door knowing you are going to kill someone who hasn't threatened you is always going to be murder.
__________________
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 11th December 2015, 05:52 AM   #280
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Why? It was the law under which Pretorius acted, and the law which he was found guilty of breaking. If you think he should have been tried under, say, Norwegian law, you probably ought to explain why.




No. No, no, no. You can keep on trying to frame this to suit your argument (that it's OK to shoot anyone in your house if you are frightened), but you are wrong. Shooting through a shut door knowing you are going to kill someone who hasn't threatened you is always going to be murder.
I am only interested in the facts as he believed at that moment, which reduce to
1. He shot at Reeva
2. He shot at an intruder.

I am absolutely sure 2 is the correct answer.

And if anyone proposes a hybrid answer, he was not sure, so he shot anyway, then I will eat my hat.
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
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 03:45 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.