c4countdown

Apart from the Judge obviously, does anyone else honestly believe that Oscar Pistorius thought there was an "intruder" in his bathroom?

It was certainly a surprising verdict. I didn't think he had a leg to stand on.

I remember when I first heard the story thinking that she must have been hiding to surprise him or something, and it all went horribly wrong. When I then learned that they had been in bed together and that she had got up to the toilet, I immediately assumed that he must have knowingly blown her away as the scenario sounded so ridiculous. TBH though I listened to a lot of the trial and the case for premeditated murder wasn't good enough to convict. Now I'm not a fancy big city lawyer (gasp) but I'm staggered that he's only got culpable homicide and escaped the dolus eventualis charge as it seemed clear enough that he deliberately killed the person in his toilet, rather than the death being accidental/due to negligence.

I THINK that the suggestion is, that he shot at a door perhaps trying to scare someone, whereas he couldn't realistically presume to be ABLE to kill someone through a door.... Like if they were on the other side of the room, he'd just be be stopping bullets. I think.

Zarte Siempre wrote:I THINK that the suggestion is, that he shot at a door perhaps trying to scare someone, whereas he couldn't realistically presume to be ABLE to kill someone through a door.... Like if they were on the other side of the room, he'd just be be stopping bullets. I think.

I didn't really understand your last sentence (and I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not) but the prosecution presented plenty of evidence (IMO) to suggest he was very aware of the damage his ammunition would do and that his aim was purposeful.

I think it boiled down to him not being able to make a judgment on whether he would be likely to kill the person behind the door because of his mental state at the prospect of his house being broken into. Which is very subjective. I imagine at some point during the trial they would've had expert witnesses on the matter.

But it's Friday and any stand someone takes strongly I will vehemently oppose.

Jon O'Neill wrote:I think it boiled down to him not being able to make a judgment on whether he would be likely to kill the person behind the door because of his mental state at the prospect of his house being broken into. Which is very subjective. I imagine at some point during the trial they would've had expert witnesses on the matter.

Well yes, they had lots of "expert" witnesses, and he went away for a full psych evaluation which concluded his mental state was just fine.
I dunno, the verdict just seems very unsatisfactory to me. I still can't really accept that you don't give whoever's in the toilet the chance to identify themselves (and what the hell they're doing there) unless you actually just want to kill them. Firing the gun should be an absolute last resort.

Jon Corby wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:I think it boiled down to him not being able to make a judgment on whether he would be likely to kill the person behind the door because of his mental state at the prospect of his house being broken into. Which is very subjective. I imagine at some point during the trial they would've had expert witnesses on the matter.

Well yes, they had lots of "expert" witnesses, and he went away for a full psych evaluation which concluded his mental state was just fine.
I dunno, the verdict just seems very unsatisfactory to me. I still can't really accept that you don't give whoever's in the toilet the chance to identify themselves (and what the hell they're doing there) unless you actually just want to kill them. Firing the gun should be an absolute last resort.

I wasn't referring to the details of his actual psyche, I meant experts on how people react to fear, i.e. the fight-or-flight response, and how it can change what somebody would do under normal circumstances.

I always try to apply logic in these cases.. It's very tempting to believe that he blew his girlfriend's brains out and that he's pure evil. But how many people really do that in the real world? We all grow up watching Eastenders and other bullshit where every other character has murderous capabilities. What we don't see enough of is how people in the real world actually react in stressful situations. I think it's much more likely that he just freaked out and went into panic mode, than that he knowingly shot through the door to kill whoever was in there.

And just another quick gripe while we're on the subject, although nobody in here has or probably will mention it.. but I've heard it at work today from at least three people.

They reject the court's decision, which is fine (although completely baseless as they openly admit to not having read the facts of the case), then they put forward the arguments you're making, which is fine, then say "I can't believe he has gotten away with murder, imagine how his family must feel"... like that makes him any more or less guilty. Is it a lesser offence to murder someone without a family? I don't think so..

Jon O'Neill wrote:I always try to apply logic in these cases.. It's very tempting to believe that he blew his girlfriend's brains out and that he's pure evil.

Sure, me too. As I said, my first instinct upon hearing that they were in bed together and she got up to the loo was that it stank to high heaven and his story was too implausible to be true. However, I would then have expected the prosecution to produce evidence of escalating violence in the relationship, an argument earlier, some kind of motive, anything, and to be fair they produced nothing even close.

Oscar knew what his gun & ammunition were capable of though (zombie-stopper video etc), he signed off that he understood when it was acceptable to use it, and it certainly wasn't in this case. He had written tweets before about going into stealth/combat/Rambo mode on hearing noises. He had ample opportunity in this case to call for help, even escape (he went past an exit to get his gun) but instead waded in. I think it's fairly clear that he made a choice to shoot the intruder. It wasn't self-defence, and it wasn't an accident, other than that he got the wrong person.

Of course, if it had have been an intruder, his actions would have been less scrutinized and we would assume he had far greater justification for using lethal force probably without being too interested in the facts. That accidents like this are not commonplace tells us his actions were not reasonable.

I get bored of writing IMO so hopefully it's obvious which bits of that are opinion and which aren't. Actually it probably would have been quicker though than having to add this paragraph.

Essentially, guns If he armed himself with any other weapon, this couldn't have happened.

Jon O'Neill wrote:It's very tempting to believe that he blew his girlfriend's brains out and that he's pure evil. But how many people really do that in the real world?

Well, as someone I used to work with pointed out, he did complain about the length of the prosthetic legs of the competitor that beat him in the 200 metres in the Paralympics. So it's not like he came into this an innocent man...

Unbelieavably, South African "Legal Experts" are predicting he won't serve any prison time at all, as it's his first offence!
An ex-girlfriend of his, in today's Daily Mirror, reveals the type of character I think most of us already suspect he is.
The funny thing is, if a jury had come up with that verdict, most people would be saying, that they had been dazzled by his "celebrity".

9-00pm BBC3 Tonight....OSCAR PISTORIUS: THE TRUTH.

This article isn't breaking news, but I think it is worth reading (along with with any other non-tabloid coverage):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... trial.html

5 years, out in 10 months, they certainly make an example of murderers in South Africa!

Steven M. McCann wrote:5 years, out in 10 months, they certainly make an example of murderers in South Africa!

yes but it's a south african prison
5 years, out in 10 months, dead in 10 days

Steven M. McCann wrote:5 years, out in 10 months, they certainly make an example of murderers in South Africa!

He didn't commit murder!

Because he's a celebrity they might have to keep him in an isolated cell - also known as "box 23".

So Culpable Homicide isn't murder? I stand corrected.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Because he's a celebrity they might have to keep him in an isolated cell - also known as "box 23".

lmao

Steven M. McCann wrote:So Culpable Homicide isn't murder? I stand corrected.

Homicide just means you killed someone. Doesn't necessarily mean you meant to.