Oscar Pistorius

[vegster]

Thank goodness for that, justice is done. All along Oscar was the victim here, stitched up by alleged "friends " and ex girfriends and the State who wanted blood. In reality this shy,unassuming and potential self harmer, has been forced to face the wrath of a nation's hostility all over a simple misunderstanding involving a beautiful unarmed girl,and a firearm loaded with hollow point bullets which are NOT illegal.

Hopefully he can get bail very soon so he can try to resume a normal life. Poor chap he needs a break, lets hope he can a have a few beers with friends and go up the range and shoot some off soon.

 

[The Truth]

I'm starting to think maybe Reeva was to blame the whole time? A lesson must be learnt here. If someone shouts at you with a gun, shout back.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

I always thought he would be done on the homocide charge but not murder.

However, I am SHOCKED that the judge, with the evidence provided, has stated that she believes Oscar thought it was an intruder and not Reeva.

From the outset I saw this (obviously my opinion only) as an argument that got out of hand with Oscar losing his rag and instantly regretting what he had done. I just couldn't fathom the idea that he hadn't checked that Reeva was in the bed still before shooting.

I'm not even going to pretend that I would have checked where my partner was out of being "manly". Mine would have been out of fear. More of a "shit, did you hear that?", before going to check it out....or sending her...

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

M'lady's really f***ed up on this one.

 

[One Love]

I always thought he would be done on the homocide charge but not murder.

However, I am SHOCKED that the judge, with the evidence provided, has stated that she believes Oscar thought it was an intruder and not Reeva.

From the outset I saw this (obviously my opinion only) as an argument that got out of hand with Oscar losing his rag and instantly regretting what he had done. I just couldn't fathom the idea that he hadn't checked that Reeva was in the bed still before shooting.

I'm not even going to pretend that I would have checked where my partner was out of being "manly". Mine would have been out of fear. More of a "shit, did you hear that?", before going to check it out....or sending her...

No, probably most people's opinion but not the person's that mattered.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Mine would have been out of fear. More of a "shit, did you hear that?", before going to check it out....or sending her...

Ha ha, yes, mine would probably be - you better check downstairs honey!

 

[The Truth]

Did any of the defence team investigate the potency of Reevas number 2's?

 

[Yoda]

The motive was that he was an insecure jealous individual who completely lost it for a moment, probably after she said she was leaving him or was seeing someone else or something. After losing it, he realised what he'd done and called for help. The prosecution put all this in their case. Pistorius crumbled on the witness stand.

His version just doesn't work at all. If you were worried about your partner you'd make sure they were awake and phoning the police while you armed yourself. There is no logic in his defence. The is no logic in Reeva not replying from within the toilet when she hears him shouting. He has got away with murder, simple as.

But is that not circumstantial? Where is the proof BEYOND reasonable doubt that this is what happened?

He may well have intended to kill her, but without that, you cannot convict him of premeditated murder.

 

[Bold Seagull]

But is that not circumstantial? Where is the proof BEYOND reasonable doubt that this is what happened?

He may well have intended to kill her, but without that, you cannot convict him of premeditated murder.

Common-law murder doesn't require 'malice aforethought' if the intention was to kill, even in the heat of the moment. The judge crucially has said that she did believe he could not foresee that firing 4 shots through a door would kill the person on the other side. I think for many people, that is difficult to comprehend.

 

[Easy 10]

But is that not circumstantial? Where is the proof BEYOND reasonable doubt that this is what happened?

He may well have intended to kill her, but without that, you cannot convict him of premeditated murder.

Whether he knew it was her or not, he still murdered the person behind the door. Surely you cannot fire 4 shots at close range through a door into an enclosed space without that being an intent to kill. For the murder charge to fall down on the notion that "He did not forsee it as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door" is, I think, an astonishing conclusion.

Baffling.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Whether he knew it was her or not, he still murdered the person behind the door. Surely you cannot fire 4 shots at close range through a door into an enclosed space without that being an intent to kill. For the murder charge to fall down on the notion that "He did not forsee it as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door" is, I think, an astonishing conclusion.

Baffling.

You'd think a single shot fired from the gun with the possibility of hitting someone is completely foreseeable that it could cause their death. I can't get my head around this crucial case turning interpretation. The judge is effectively saying to my mind that firing a gun at someone, or with the possibility of hitting someone isn't foreseeable that you could kill them. How else can you read what she is saying?

 

[Creaky]

Whether he knew it was her or not, he still murdered the person behind the door. Surely you cannot fire 4 shots at close range through a door into an enclosed space without that being an intent to kill. For the murder charge to fall down on the notion that "He did not forsee it as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door" is, I think, an astonishing conclusion.

Baffling.

That is an objective view in the cold light of day.

Subjectively, in a panic, in the dark - the intent may well not have been to kill.

 

[Yoda]

Whether he knew it was her or not, he still murdered the person behind the door. Surely you cannot fire 4 shots at close range through a door into an enclosed space without that being an intent to kill. For the murder charge to fall down on the notion that "He did not forsee it as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door" is, I think, an astonishing conclusion.

Baffling.

He's on his stubs and shooting at an angle that would hit their legs. How's he to know what position they are in behind a closed door.
We know the angle of the bullets, he's shooting at an angle to incapacitate them.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

Whether he knew it was her or not, he still murdered the person behind the door. Surely you cannot fire 4 shots at close range through a door into an enclosed space without that being an intent to kill. For the murder charge to fall down on the notion that "He did not forsee it as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door" is, I think, an astonishing conclusion.

Baffling.

It's like hoofing a football at a table full of bone china and saying 'I didn't mean to break anything'

Essentially the judge has said that she has to take Oscar's word for it as he was the only one there even though he was an unreliable witness. I'll have some of whatever she is smoking.

 

[Easy 10]

You'd think a single shot fired from the gun with the possibility of hitting someone is completely foreseeable that it could cause their death. I can't get my head around this crucial case turning interpretation. The judge is effectively saying to my mind that firing a gun at someone, or with the possibility of hitting someone isn't foreseeable that you could kill them. How else can you read what she is saying?

Exactly. I've never heard anything like it. Its a bizarre interpretation, and a verdict that surely sets an incredibly dangerous precedent.

That is an objective view in the cold light of day.

Subjectively, in a panic, in the dark - the intent may well not have been to kill.

Panicking or not, if you fire four times at someone through a door at short range, what else is could the intent be ?

 

[Easy 10]

He's on his stubs and shooting at an angle that would hit their legs. How's he to know what position they are in behind a closed door.
We know the angle of the bullets, he's shooting at an angle to incapacitate them.

So he's cool enough to decide to shoot 4 times from close range at such an angle as to incapacitate them, but not cool enough to be able to forsee that there was a possibility this could lead to the person being killed ?

Was he acting in blind panic, or considering what he was doing ? He can't have it both ways.

 

[Creaky]

Exactly. I've never heard anything like it. Its a bizarre interpretation, and a verdict that surely sets an incredibly dangerous precedent.



Panicking or not, if you fire four times at someone through a door at short range, what else is could the intent be ?

By definition people in a panic don't think.

 

[Easy 10]

By definition people in a panic don't think.

So a claim of "I wasn't thinking, I was in a panic" now removes intent to kill from the equation.

Certainly ups the stakes doesn't it.

 

[Creaky]

So a claim of "I wasn't thinking, I was in a panic" now removes intent to kill from the equation.

Certainly ups the stakes dosn't it.

As stated on a number of occasions it is up to the prosecution to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt - it is not up to the defendant to prove lack of intent. In this case the prosecution have failed to do this.

 

[Easy 10]

And lets remember, he wasn't actually under attack here, he wasn't defending himself at that moment. Nobody was running at him with an axe. He had time to draw breath and make a decision...and he decided to fire.

He has literally got away with murder.