Oscar Pistorius

[Be nice for biscuits]

no, I understand what you are saying. I’m just saying that you are wrong.

I think we are pissing in the wind here. The kind of people that would see someone setting their house on fire and still defend the culprit.

a white man of privilege in South Africa the subject of wrongful conviction

 

[BettyCrocker]

You clearly don’t. A hypothetical scenario cannot be wrong as it was not cited as a fact.
Debates are about exchanging and exploring view points.

But if it makes you happy to be right and snap at everyone who says or does something that you dont like it is your prerogative.

And this is getting too off topic now

but this isn’t a hypothetical scenario is it?!!!

He killed her. He shot her multiple times and killed her. It’s not hypothetical, it’s fact. Why are you so hell bent on defending him?? Seriously?

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

Yawn keep on defending a DV killer. If you can’t see it’s wrong to defend a DV killer I am beyond caring for your opinion.



Unintentional? How many times did he fire the gun, without knowing who was in the bathroom?

This is not at all what Moobiemoo said.

And to answer your question: four times. He could theoretically have pulled the trigger many times as he was in a panic.

 

[Be nice for biscuits]

This is not at all what Moobiemoo said.

And to answer your question: four times. He could theoretically have pulled the trigger many times as he was in a panic.

Utter rubbish, once yes, twice maybe, three times mmmmm, four times....you are as irrational as him. If you repeated an action that could cost you your job four times do you think that would be regarded as a mistake? He lived on a secure compound not a shanty town, so trying to distort with the context of South Africa being dangerous isn’t going to wash. I’ve been to dangerous parts of the world and usually to be a victim you invite the danger on yourself by being in a particularly poor area displaying wealth or stupidity.

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

but this isn’t a hypothetical scenario is it?!!!

He killed her. He shot her multiple times and killed her. It’s not hypothetical, it’s fact. Why are you so hell bent on defending him?? Seriously?

I am nit defending him!

Do you know that shooting and killing someone does not equal with murder? It is murder if it was intentional.
That is she the first charge was manslaughter - the judge felt that there was reasonable doubt that it was intentional. And she is an accomplished woman or do you think she has too little intellect or was smoking something?

 

[BettyCrocker]

This is not at all what Moobiemoo said.

And to answer your question: four times. He could theoretically have pulled the trigger many times as he was in a panic.

you clearly have no knowledge or any
Comprehension of the type of marksman he is or the weapon he used. He was a trained and skilled Marksman. He was comfortable with weapons. He knew exactly how to aim through the door to get her. This wasn’t some panicked man shooting at random because he was scared.

I am nit defending him!

Do you know that shooting and killing someone does not equal with murder? It is murder if it was intentional.
That is she the first charge was manslaughter - the judge felt that there was reasonable doubt that it was intentional. And she is an accomplished woman or do you think she has too little intellect or was smoking something?

but it WAS intentional. Get a grip. He knew she (or the “intruder”) was in the bathroom and he shot to kill. How on earth can you even try to say that his actions weren’t intentional? What else was he trying to do?!

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

Utter rubbish, once yes, twice maybe, three time mmmmm, four times....you are as irrational as him.

The opposite. Panic causes overreaction. Did Yiu never see someone that frantically killed a bee/ cockroach/ other insect as they were scared or disgusted? Even though it would have been enough to hit it once? The panic clouds the mind

you clearly have no knowledge or any
Comprehension of the type of marksman he is or the weapon he used. He was a trained and skilled Marksman. He was comfortable with weapons. He knew exactly how to aim through the door to get her. This wasn’t some panicked man shooting at random because he was scared.



but it WAS intentional. Get a grip. He knew she (or the “intruder”) was in the bathroom and he shot to kill. How on earth can you even try to say that his actions weren’t intentional? What else was he trying to do?!

Of course he intended to shoot, this isn’t even under discussion.

If it would have been an intruder do you think he would have been charged with murder

 

[BettyCrocker]

The opposite. Panic causes overreaction. Did Yiu never see someone that frantically killed a bee/ cockroach/ other insect as they were scared or disgusted? Even though it would have been enough to hit it once? The panic clouds the mind



Of course he intended to shoot, this isn’t even under discussion.

If it would have been an intruder do you think he would have been charged with murder

you are ridiculous.

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

you clearly have no knowledge or any
Comprehension of the type of marksman he is or the weapon he used. He was a trained and skilled Marksman. He was comfortable with weapons. He knew exactly how to aim through the door to get her. This wasn’t some panicked man shooting at random because he was scared.



but it WAS intentional. Get a grip. He knew she (or the “intruder”) was in the bathroom and he shot to kill. How on earth can you even try to say that his actions weren’t intentional? What else was he trying to do?!

Of course he intended to shoot, this isn’t even under discussion.
The discusSion is about whether he intended to kill his girlfriend

If it would have been an intruder do you think he would have been charged with murder

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

you are ridiculous.

Oh, we are back to being offensive? Always a good tactic if it becomes too intellectually challenging.

I no longer want to discuss this with you, I won’t learn anything from you and I have no interest in people that offend others that have a different opinion

Moobiemoo is full of

At least she has brains

 

[Be nice for biscuits]

Of course he intended to shoot, this isn’t even under discussion.
The discusSion is about whether he intended to kill his girlfriend

If it would have been an intruder do you think he would have been charged with murder

Yes because he fired four times with an incredibly destructive weapon.

 

[BettyCrocker]

Of course he intended to shoot, this isn’t even under discussion.
The discusSion is about whether he intended to kill his girlfriend

If it would have been an intruder do you think he would have been charged with murder

He intended to kill Reeva. And the poor girl died in the most horrific way at the hands of the man who should have been her protector. Trying to argue that he has been wrongly convicted is disgusting. Trying to imply that this was some sort of miscarriage of justice and that Oscar Pistorius was some sort of poor, scared man, terrified of an intruder is just horseshit.

Oh, we are back to being offensive? Always a good tactic if it becomes too intellectually challenging.

I no longer want to discuss this with you, I won’t learn anything from you and I a, it I getestet in people that offend others that have a different opinion



At least she has brains

if you seriously think I’m being offensive you need to get off tattle.

 

[Be nice for biscuits]

Oh, we are back to being offensive? Always a good tactic if it becomes too intellectually challenging.

I no longer want to discuss this with you, I won’t learn anything from you and I a, it I getestet in people that offend others that have a different opinion



At least she has brains

Ok if we are throwing insults, both of you appear to be Ill-informed and incomprehensibly stupid. If I shot my partner four times in the same circumstances do you think her family would defend me and say it was an accident. Of course not, because that isn’t an accident.

 

[Sunraged]

The last couple of pages gave me a good giggle.

Just as an aside, I'm pretty sure Pol Pot was fitted up. Definite patsy.

 

[BettyCrocker]

The last couple of pages gave me a good giggle.

Just as an aside, I'm pretty sure Pol Pot was fitted up. Definite patsy.

Yup. I’m sure Myra Hindley was also just a scared soul who acted out of fear and didn’t mean any harm....!

 

[LennyBriscoe]

I so agree with you.

I always find it a little concerning if people have a firm view on someone they have never met or something they have not witnessed.

This also applies to the media, their headlines and reporting can definitely influence people

I think many people, especially people like me who love and are fascinated by true crime will have seen something or read something about the case or even watched the trial. I think most people take both sides into consideration and go with what they think is more likely (rightly or wrongly). With the greatest of respect you have quite a firm view about it because you appear to be struggling to accept that he maybe did kill her in cold blood.

We will never ever know what happened sadly but the person who can speak has the opportunity to tailor a narrative to suit their own end. I doubt he set out to kill her but as others have said, he was known to have a red hot temper and to act like a petulant man child when things weren’t going his way. I thank god we aren’t allowed to legally have guns in the way they are in other countries as it would be so easy for the ‘wrong’ person to have a gun to hand.

I would have thought he would have had more security if I’m honest so I was suspicious about the intruder from the start.

And if I’m being totally honest, I was completely unimpressed by his antics in court - wailing and snotting through the trial made him look insincere imo. Whatever happened before it, he shot the gun that took someone’s life and if he had any sort of decency, I would have hoped he had some respect for Reena’s family.

 

[Nazzie]

We already discussed wrongful convictions. Do you know the movie “Betty Sue Waters”?

Initially Oscar was found guilty of manslaughter, then due to pressure from media and protest groups there was an appeal and he was found guilty of murder. The judge was harassed due to her first verdict, which was found to be too lenient.
So there was reasonable doubt.

Excuse me, but this is simply untrue.

He was initially found guilty of culpable homicide. In her verdict, Masipa made an extremely serious error of law which is why the state appealled. They had to - nothing whatsoever to do with “pressure” from the media or anyone else.

The appeal succeeded and Pistorous was convicted of murder, which he should have been in the first place if Masipa had properly applied the law. She then sentenced him to a woeful 6 years, yet again misapplying the law and so, yet again, the state had to appeal. Again, Masipa’s finding was thrown out and he was given the proper sentence for murder...15 years, minus time served.

Masipa was not harrassed. She screwed up, very badly, multiple times. If she was criticised, so what? She deserved to be...her verdicts were absurd.

Pistorius murdered Reeva Steenkamp. That’s the verdict & whether he intentionally murdered her or not is somewhat irrelevant - although, notably, not to his fans who seem to think it matters.

I will say that all of the evidence contradicts his version. All of it. Even just the crime scene photos themselves proves that what he says happened, didn’t. His only explanation for that was “police tampering” - a claim he not only failed to prove but didn’t even try to.

It’s worth remembering that all 5 of the supreme court judges felt, on the evidence, that Pistorius could be convicted of the higher degree (“dolus directus’) which indicates that his version was entirely unsatisfactory to them as well as to most other observers.

He’s a murderer. Why he still has people trying to downgrade the horror of leaving a human being with their head exploded jn a toilet is totally beyond me. And rather sickening, quite honestly.

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

I think many people, especially people like me who love and are fascinated by true crime will have seen something or read something about the case or even watched the trial. I think most people take both sides into consideration and go with what they think is more likely (rightly or wrongly). With the greatest of respect you have quite a firm view about it because you appear to be struggling to accept that he maybe did kill her in cold blood.

We will never ever know what happened sadly but the person who can speak has the opportunity to tailor a narrative to suit their own end. I doubt he set out to kill her but as others have said, he was known to have a red hot temper and to act like a petulant man child when things weren’t going his way. I thank god we aren’t allowed to legally have guns in the way they are in other countries as it would be so easy for the ‘wrong’ person to have a gun to hand.

I would have thought he would have had more security if I’m honest so I was suspicious about the intruder from the start.

And if I’m being totally honest, I was completely unimpressed by his antics in court - wailing and snotting through the trial made him look insincere imo. Whatever happened before it, he shot the gun that took someone’s life and if he had any sort of decency, I would have hoped he had some respect for Reena’s family.

Not sure if you read all my postings, but I don’t struggle to accept that he “might” have killed her.

What I d not accept are opinions that basically say “THIS“ is what he thought and “THAT” is exactly what he did. Because how should they know?
If these people then continue to call everyone who dares to doubt something stupid then I respect their views even less.

It is these opinions that I find to be firm. I explored whether there “might” have been a possibility that things were different, that he didn’t intend to murder her in cold blood.
I am not saying “this is what it was”, I wondered whether there was a possibility.
Just like you he looked insincere “in your opinion”, but you didn’t say he was insincere as you cant know this for sure.


And the (experienced and accomplished) judge also did, as the first verdict was manslaughter

Excuse me, but this is simply untrue.

He was initially found guilty of culpable homicide. In her verdict, Masipa made an extremely serious error of law which is why the state appealled. They had to - nothing whatsoever to do with “pressure” from the media or anyone else.

The appeal succeeded and Pistorous was convicted of murder, which he should have been in the first place if Masipa had properly applied the law. She then sentenced him to a woeful 6 years, yet again misapplying the law and so, yet again, the state had to appeal. Again, Masipa’s finding was thrown out and he was given the proper sentence for murder...15 years, minus time served.

Masipa was not harrassed. She screwed up, very badly, multiple times. If she was criticised, so what? She deserved to be...her verdicts were absurd.

Pistorius murdered Reeva Steenkamp. That’s the verdict & whether he intentionally murdered her or not is somewhat irrelevant - although, notably, not to his fans who seem to think it matters.

I will say that all of the evidence contradicts his version. All of it. Even just the crime scene photos themselves proves that what he says happened, didn’t. His only explanation for that was “police tampering” - a claim he not only failed to prove but didn’t even try to.

It’s worth remembering that all 5 of the supreme court judges felt, on the evidence, that Pistorius could be convicted of the higher degree (“dolus directus’) which indicates that his version was entirely unsatisfactory to them as well as to most other observers.

He’s a murderer. Why he still has people trying to downgrade the horror of leaving a human being with their head exploded jn a toilet is totally beyond me. And rather sickening, quite honestly.

I respect your opinion, but want to correct a few facts:

- Culpable homicide is what manslaughter is called in South Africa. Here we don’t have the term “culpable homicide”.
- Intention is NOT irrelevant to murder. If you kill some unintentionally it is manslaughter, if you intend to kill them it is murder.
- Can you please tell me what the serious error in the first judgement was? And in the sentencing?
To my knowledge she found reasonable doubt which is a permissible interpretation of the facts and the sentence was the correct sentence for manslaughter. Where did she apply the law incorrectly? It is a genuine question.

I have read that there was a lot of pressure on the court to increase the sentence and that the judge was called names.

 

[LennyBriscoe]

Not sure if you read all my postings, but I don’t struggle to accept that he “might” have killed her.

What I d not accept are opinions that basically say “THIS“ is what he thought and “THAT” is exactly what he did. Because how should they know?
If these people then continue to call everyone who dares to doubt something stupid then I respect their views even less.

It is these opinions that I find to be firm. I explored whether there “might” have been a possibility that things were different, that he didn’t intend to murder her in cold blood.
I am not saying “this is what it was”, I wondered whether there was a possibility.
Just like you he looked insincere “in your opinion”, but you didn’t say he was insincere as you cant know this for sure.


And the (experienced and accomplished) judge also did, as the first verdict was manslaughter



I respect your opinion, but want to correct a few facts:

- Culpable homicide is what manslaughter is called in South Africa. Here we don’t have the term “culpable homicide”.
- Intention is NOT irrelevant to murder. If you kill some unintentionally it is manslaughter, if you intend to kill them it is murder.
- Can you please tell me what the serious error in the first judgement was? And in the sentencing?
To my knowledge she found reasonable doubt which is a permissible interpretation of the facts and the sentence was the correct sentence for manslaughter. Where did she apply the law incorrectly? It is a genuine question.

I have read that there was a lot of pressure on the court to increase the sentence and that the judge was called names.

What I meant was you appear to be struggling to accept he might have killed her in cold blood - apologies if you haven’t said this but I thought you believed he didn’t murder her, he thought it was someone else in the house or he was scared and shot out.

But surely the point in discussion forums is people can put their opinions even if someone disagrees with us? You are questioning people’s views that he intentionally killed her even though they are telling you why they think that. And people are struggling to believe your theory that this is a miscarriage of justice. I don’t know a huge amount about the case really (I’ve learned more about it on this thread) but in my opinion, he was angry at something she said or did, she walked away and he grabbed the gun and shot her. I don’t think he was asleep, I don’t think he was confused and I don’t think anyone got into his gated house.

If it’s true the first person he called was his Solicitor then that says an awful lot about him. That screams “how can I protect me?” I don’t know anything about South Africa really but I’m not sure a famous white male would have anything to fear from the justice system so why not phone an ambulance?

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

What I meant was you appear to be struggling to accept he might have killed her in cold blood - apologies if you haven’t said this but I thought you believed he didn’t murder her, he thought it was someone else in the house or he was scared and shot out.

But surely the point in discussion forums is people can put their opinions even if someone disagrees with us? You are questioning people’s views that he intentionally killed her even though they are telling you why they think that. And people are struggling to believe your theory that this is a miscarriage of justice. I don’t know a huge amount about the case really (I’ve learned more about it on this thread) but in my opinion, he was angry at something she said or did, she walked away and he grabbed the gun and shot her. I don’t think he was asleep, I don’t think he was confused and I don’t think anyone got into his gated house.

If it’s true the first person he called was his Solicitor then that says an awful lot about him. That screams “how can I protect me?” I don’t know anything about South Africa really but I’m not sure a famous white male would have anything to fear from the justice system so why not phone an ambulance?

I don’t think you read my posts at all.
I donot “have a theory”. I was discussing whether there might be the possibility that he really believed there was an intruder. At some stage I said his version sounds unlikely.

I don’t have a problem accepting any opinion - but I will form my own and not have anyone else’s opinion forced on me. I have a brain, thank you very much.

What I dont appreciate are offensive comments like “this is horse tit, she is full of tit, you are stupid, you are ridiculous“ etc etc. Especially if those people describe Pistorius to be aggressive and offensive. Ironic much?

No, they didn’t tell me why they think that.

And you didn’t answer my questions.

Plus: Someone here said that his lawyer was the first person he called. This isnt true. I first believed what the poster said but then did my own research and found out that the poster was incorrect.
He called the property manager that lived close by for him to get help:

Oscar Pistorius 'broken' after shooting Reeva Steenkamp

South African athlete Oscar Pistorius "was broken" after shooting his girlfriend, his neighbour says, as the murder trial resumes after a break.

www.bbc.com