|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Pistorius Verdict
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Beg pardon, but that's got nothing to do with 'ignorance of the law'. That's got to do with ignorance of the effects of the alcohol or the effects of guns.
I still find this idea that shooting a gun at someone automatically means trying to kill the person to be fundamentally odd. Every time I see a TV show where a cop aims at the bad guy's legs or their hand I'm now going to shout "attempted murder charge!" at the television.
Police shooting to only wound appears to be a purely fictional creation, for what seems to me to be good reasons (based on the little reading I've done so far on it.)
Here's an example position paper on it, and searching on "do police shoot to try to only wound someone" turns up a lot more things to read.
I read a police procedural mystery (I know, also fiction) where it was impressed on the new police officer that if she was shooting at someone, she should be aiming to kill, and it was explained why. That's what led me to this search in response to your post.
Rubber bullets for crowds, dispersal of, excepted I suppose. (Or is rubber bullets also a Hollywood myth?). Crowd control is a whole different subject than the other uses of guns, as Kent State so tragically shows. Hmmm, lots more reading to do.
[ 18. September 2014, 03:19: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Cross-posted with lilBuddha, who makes the same point, but with more knowledge.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
lilbuddha, as a matter of interest, why would you give Pistorius the maximum sentence for the crime of which he has been found guilty?
Barnabas 62, in DPP v Smith, the Law Lords did more than give the law a bit of a nudge, which is a standard judicial technique. They made huge inroads into long established principles of intent. All a bit of a tangent I suppose, given that Sth African law seems to apply what had been the recognised orthodoxy.
[ 18. September 2014, 03:25: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
lilbuddha and Autenrieth Road, that's fine so long as police only ever shoot in a self-defence or defence of others situation.
It would mean, though, that shooting merely in an effort to stop a criminal from escaping should always result in an attempted murder charge, unless there's some law somewhere that says police are permitted to use lethal force in situations where the rest of us would be up for murder.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
I suspect the latter, in one form or another. The most recent story I was reading about someone shot in the back said that police can shoot to stop someone getting away who they think poses an imminent threat to other people. I know, lots of holes to be filled in about just how far that can be stretched, and it seems to me that "stop or I'll shoot" is more than just a Hollywood trope, from news stories I've read.
I mostly agree with you in this thread, including that there might be situations where you could intentionally shoot at someone and not be up for attempted murder, but I don't know a lot about where the boundaries of this might be, not quite what I think about it.
This reminds me (perhaps in too loose a way, but it's about someone getting off after killing someone with a gun) that when I moved to Maine, there was a trial going on of a man who had been hunting and killed a woman who was wearing white gloves while hanging out her wash. He mistook her gloves for the whitetail of a deer. He got off, which I thought was dreadfully wrong for two reasons (1) I think hunters need to be held responsible for verifying what they're shooting at, and (2) he was shooting towards a house, and too close to the house -- there's an exclusion zone around houses where hunters aren't supposed to be shooting. So it seems to me he was doubly negligent. People who I talked to about this on the other hand thought it was right that he got off, because how would his wife and children manage if he were put in jail -- then you'd have two tragedies instead of just one.
I wasn't following it closely enough to be able to tell you what was reported, if anything, about why he was let off. I wonder if the powers of the Internet would turn up anything; this was in the early 90s IIRC.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
lilbuddha and Autenrieth Road, that's fine so long as police only ever shoot in a self-defence or defence of others situation.
I agree.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It would mean, though, that shooting merely in an effort to stop a criminal from escaping should always result in an attempted murder charge, unless there's some law somewhere that says police are permitted to use lethal force in situations where the rest of us would be up for murder.
I agree that police should be punished in such situations. It is not often handled this way, but I do not think that right.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
lilbuddha, as a matter of interest, why would you give Pistorius the maximum sentence for the crime of which he has been found guilty?
He hears a noise and doesn't once think it might be the other person who he knows is in the house? A noise, BTW, coming from her direction.
He reaches the pistol which is on the bed, a meter or less from where he thinks Reeva lays, but does not reach to touch her or ask if she is there? He knows she was awake moments earlier, but assumes she hasn't moved?
He has to go to the bed where he thinks Reeva is to get the gun, go round the bed, on his stumps, in complete darkness and never once wonders why she doesn't respond?
In other words, not one misstep, but several. Several opportunities to prevent a death, and none taken.
[ 18. September 2014, 03:57: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Many jurisdictions have junked the fleeing felon rule: the Supreme Court vacated it throughout the U.S. in the 80s.
Intentionally discharging a firearm at a person is always deadly force: a bullet aimed at the legs can sever an artery, or, of course, miss and hit the torso.
If there's no self-defense justification, in many jurisdictions, it'd be murder. It shows, at the least, a depraved indifference to human life; or, alternatively, intent to commit an aggravated assault.
South Africa clearly defines things differently. As so often, law isn't necessarily justice.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
lilbuddha and Autenrieth Road, that's fine so long as police only ever shoot in a self-defence or defence of others situation.
It would mean, though, that shooting merely in an effort to stop a criminal from escaping should always result in an attempted murder charge, unless there's some law somewhere that says police are permitted to use lethal force in situations where the rest of us would be up for murder.
I don't think that "stopping a criminal from escaping" by itself is generally accepted as proper use of deadly force, absent a risk to life and limb.
For example, here's an excerpt from the Boston Police Department's Rule 303 - Use of Deadly Force:
quote:
The discharge of a firearm by a member of the Department is permissible only when:
A. There is no less drastic means available to defend oneself or another from unlawful attack which an officer has reasonable cause to believe could result in death or great bodily injury, or
B. There is no less drastic means available to apprehend a fleeing felon when the officer has probable cause to believe that: (1) the subject has committed a felony during the commission of which they inflicted or threatened to inflict deadly force upon the victim, or (2) that there is substantial risk that the felon in question will cause death or great bodily injury if their apprehension is delayed, or
C. There is no less drastic means available to kill a dangerous animal or one so badly injured that humanity requires its removal from further suffering.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It would mean, though, that shooting merely in an effort to stop a criminal from escaping should always result in an attempted murder charge, unless there's some law somewhere that says police are permitted to use lethal force in situations where the rest of us would be up for murder.
Many US states have some kind of fleeing felon law on the books that allows this in some cases. The rationale is that if a dangerous criminal escapes the police, he will commit more violent crimes against other people.
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, limits the use of deadly force thus:
quote:
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
Most states do not permit ordinary people to use deadly force in the same circumstances.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
This reminds me (perhaps in too loose a way, but it's about someone getting off after killing someone with a gun) that when I moved to Maine, there was a trial going on of a man who had been hunting and killed a woman who was wearing white gloves while hanging out her wash.
[...]
I wonder if the powers of the Internet would turn up anything; this was in the early 90s IIRC.
As it happens, yes - you're probably thinking of Karen Ann Wood, shot and killed in her backyard by hunters in 1988 - a case still remarked upon in local media 25 years later.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, limits the use of deadly force thus:
quote:
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
Contra Byron, I don't read this as "vacating" the fleeing felon rule. It does place limits, but give the fleeing suspect a gun or a knife, and an officer automatically has probably cause to believe that he's a threat to someone, even if that threat isn't imminent.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
How did you do that, Dave? That's amazing.
Yes, that's the case. It turns out I was wrong in some of what I picked up back then: she wasn't hanging laundry, and the hunters were outside of the no-shooting-near-houses exclusion done.
Now to figure out if it was still before the grand jury in 1991 when I moved to Maine, or only still in the news.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Call it what you will, the man's a deranged killer. It's about the degree of (feckless, innocent) badness in the madness. What lilBuddha says and more. She was fully clothed. She was leaving. He didn't like it. He murdered her. EVERYONE knows that.
Ah well, at least South African justice is preferable to Italian as in the Meredith Kercher case.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
.
Originally posted by Gee D:
lilbuddha, as a matter of interest, why would you give Pistorius the maximum sentence for the crime of which he has been found guilty?
He hears a noise and doesn't once think it might be the other person who he knows is in the house? A noise, BTW, coming from her direction.
He reaches the pistol which is on the bed, a meter or less from where he thinks Reeva lays, but does not reach to touch her or ask if she is there? He knows she was awake moments earlier, but assumes she hasn't moved?
He has to go to the bed where he thinks Reeva is to get the gun, go round the bed, on his stumps, in complete darkness and never once wonders why she doesn't respond?
In other words, not one misstep, but several. Several opportunities to prevent a death, and none taken.
But you have not really answered the question. A sentence of the maximum is reserved for the most severe commission of the particular crime. Is this really in that category?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
lilbuddha
My criticism of the criticism of the judge (agreed with quetzalcoatl) excluded this forum. It was pointed primarily at the media. The discussion here has been serious and considered.
[ 18. September 2014, 08:17: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Crap spouted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Call it what you will, the man's a deranged killer. It's about the degree of (feckless, innocent) badness in the madness. What lilBuddha says and more. She was fully clothed. She was leaving. He didn't like it. He murdered her. EVERYONE knows that.
Ah well, at least South African justice is preferable to Italian as in the Meredith Kercher case.
Hurrah! Who needs a court of law, if EVERYONE knows something. Hell, you don't even have to demonstrate it really. Bring back Judge Jeffreys!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
@ Gee D.
We agree.
Are you with me in seeing this more as a problem with the law than with the judge? ISTM that her call made sure of a conviction; a common law murder call simply made sure of a defence appeal in circs under which S A law gave more scope for benefit of the doubt over intention.
Don't know enough about S African appeals processes to know whether an appeal court could set aside common law murder in favour of the lesser verdict of culpable homicide; if they could not, a successful appeal might lead to Pistorius walking away.
That's been my central point. The judge would be far more aware of such possibilities under S African law than the media have been in their criticism of her decision-making.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
It's becoming a bit of a habit on this thread, Martin, but * agree again with quetzalcoatl.
You're a gentle soul; very unusually, that post was the kind of "any fule know that" which is at the heart of lynch law mentality.
The sentence will tell us more about this judge's ability to separate the specific of the case from all the media hoopla. So far IMO she gives every sign of knowing precisely what she is doing.
[ 18. September 2014, 08:27: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Crap spouted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
lilbuddha, as a matter of interest, why would you give Pistorius the maximum sentence for the crime of which he has been found guilty?
He hears a noise and doesn't once think it might be the other person who he knows is in the house? A noise, BTW, coming from her direction.
He reaches the pistol which is on the bed, a meter or less from where he thinks Reeva lays, but does not reach to touch her or ask if she is there? He knows she was awake moments earlier, but assumes she hasn't moved?
He has to go to the bed where he thinks Reeva is to get the gun, go round the bed, on his stumps, in complete darkness and never once wonders why she doesn't respond?
In other words, not one misstep, but several. Several opportunities to prevent a death, and none taken.
* 'm not going to go so far as to say that he should get 15 years. One of the things about sentencing is that it tends to involve comparison with other, previous cases of the same offence, and seeing where the current case lies on the scale. So, the judge will have to look at other cases of culpable homicide in South Africa and judge where Pistorius' reckless stupidity lies on the scale. Who knows, there may have been people who did even stupider things in the course of killing a person.
Having said that, * do agree with you that those facts point to a number of easy opportunities for Pistorius to check where his girlfriend was and to not mistake her for an intruder. There's a pretty good argument that if you believe there's an intruder in your house, part of sensible behaviour would be to explicitly check where other occupants of the house are to ensure they're safe from the intruder, BEFORE you go after the intruder.
In other words, while * 'm not going to say 15 years, * am going to say * 'd be surprised if he received a light sentence. There's a pretty serious degree of carelessness involved.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Mostly, *hat Orfeo says, and in particular the first paragraph of his post. *hat those *ho live else*here must remember is that violence generally, and violence involving firearms, is much more prevalent and accepted in many countries including Sth Africa (and the USA for that matter) than in N*, Canada, Aust and the UK, or disUK as it may by no* be.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
* think one of the factors is that home invasion is greatly feared in SA, so that fear of intruders is *ell understood; in the UK this *ould be less of a factor. Of course, in the US, castle la*s might acquit Pistorius.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Crap spouted by Autenrieth Road:
How did you do that, Dave? That's amazing.
Yes, that's the case. It turns out * was wrong in some of what * picked up back then: she wasn't hanging laundry, and the hunters were outside of the no-shooting-near-houses exclusion done.
Now to figure out if it was still before the grand jury in 1991 when * moved to Maine, or only still in the news.
It was easy - * just did a Google search on the terms "maine hunting accident shooting murder" and the first seven hits were all about the Wood case.
The hunter was charged with manslaughter; the grand jury in 1988 declined to indict, but a second did in 1989. He was tried and found not guilty the following year. (NYT, Oct 22 1990)
[ 20. September 2014, 20:50: Message edited by: Cthulhu ]
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
* was thinking how confusing the various reports of this case have been. For example, quite a lot of newspapers have said that Reeva was 'fully clothed' in the toilet, indicating that she was about to leave. It seems unlikely that anybody would either go to sleep fully clothed, or go to the toilet like that. Hence, possibly P wanted to stop her leaving.
However, if you continue to look at various reports, some of them say that she wearing shorts and a t-shirt. To me, this is not 'fully clothed', and * don't think it is bizarre that somebody would sleep in those clothes. Actually, * think the judge ignored this completely.
Another example is that Reeva had her phone - some people immediately saying that this must mean either she wanted to leave, or phone for help. However, the judge reports that the toilet light was out.
Another example, that the toilet was locked, therefore Reeva was protecting herself. My wife always locks the toilet in the middle of the night - just habit.
Anyway, one could go on. * think people construct a narrative, based on a few items of news, and then everything fits that. Thus, 'P murdered Reeva', therefore all these details point to that.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Crap spouted by quetzalcoatl:
Another example is that Reeva had her phone - some people immediately saying that this must mean either she wanted to leave, or phone for help. However, the judge reports that the toilet light was out.
Also, people have been known to surf the internet on their phones while on the toilet. * do it frequently.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Crap spouted by Barnabas62:
You're a gentle soul; very unusually, that post was the kind of "any fule know that" which is at the heart of lynch law mentality.
{this was about Martin's post}
* think this is more extreme than Martin's post. There is a huge distance between thinking a person's guilt is obvious, even thinking it's so obvious most people must agree, and wanting to dispense with a trail, much less lynch them.
Martin is a gentle soul but that doesn't mean he has to pretend to a sort of naïve stupidity when faced with evidence that he thinks only points to one, logical conclusion.
"He thinks," being his perfect right as he is not a member of the jury.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What one knows to be bleeding ... obvious (ooh, there's someone in the bathroom: it can't be the woman * 'm sharing the room with whom * can't see or feel at the moment, * 'll just empty my gun through the door) and what one can find in a court of law are two entirely different things.
The guy was and IS a deranged killer.
Culpable homicide at least.
[ 18. September 2014, 22:05: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Twilight, he said
quote:
EVERYONE knows that
That's not the same as saying
quote:
that's my honest opinion and * think it's obvious from the evidence. * 'm surprised anyone sees it differently.
xpost of course.
Actually, * agree with Martin that it is culpable homicide at least. So does the judge, * reckon. She's just saying not proven on any tougher verdict.
[ 18. September 2014, 22:08: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
' course it is.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Crap spouted by Twilight:
quote:
Crap spouted by Barnabas62:
You're a gentle soul; very unusually, that post was the kind of "any fule know that" which is at the heart of lynch law mentality.
{this was about Martin's post}
* think this is more extreme than Martin's post. There is a huge distance between thinking a person's guilt is obvious, even thinking it's so obvious most people must agree, and wanting to dispense with a trail, much less lynch them.
Martin is a gentle soul but that doesn't mean he has to pretend to a sort of naïve stupidity when faced with evidence that he thinks only points to one, logical conclusion.
"He thinks," being his perfect right as he is not a member of the jury.
There's no problem with Martin thinking that Pistorius intentionally killed Reeva; it just startled me that he then asserted that everyone else also thinks that. Well, they don't at all. * know quite a lot of people who don't, and also some who believe his story about a putative intruder.
Pluralism, it's difficult, eh?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
* don't believe them. You don't.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Crap spouted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
* don't believe them. You don't.
Do you think you could stop telling me what * believe?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Yeah, but * still know. To believe that Pistorius believed that there was a lethal intruder in his bathroom and not to believe that he was deranged, is deranged. You aren't.
That he is deranged there is no question. Chronically so. Is that in itself sufficient for this acute (alcohol fuelled?) episode which had nothing to do with Reeva (noise in the bathroom? BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!) or(/and), was he acutely deranged at Reeva?
Smells, stinks like the latter. But we'll give him a pass on that with 15 years for culpable homicide.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Ah well. "Everybody" still means "everybody". Particularly when capitalised.
Speaking as one of "everybody", you understand.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Crap spouted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Yeah, but * still know. To believe that Pistorius believed that there was a lethal intruder in his bathroom and not to believe that he was deranged, is deranged. You aren't.
That he is deranged there is no question. Chronically so. Is that in itself sufficient for this acute (alcohol fuelled?) episode which had nothing to do with Reeva (noise in the bathroom? BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!) or(/and), was he acutely deranged at Reeva?
Smells, stinks like the latter. But we'll give him a pass on that with 15 years for culpable homicide.
* 'm not sure about 'deranged'; but P's propensity for firing guns in inappropriate places probably helped his cause, rather than hinder it. No doubt he is a over-wrought individual, but again, that for me, supports his story. He wildly over-reacted, but * remember at the Olympics he wildly over-reacted when he lost a heat.
* just think a lot of the people opining 'yeah, he murdered Reeva, no doubt' tend to string together a collection of circumstances (Reeva's phone, locked toilet, etc.) which don't really add up to much. So the judge dismissed all this in about ten seconds. Nel was basically bigging up a pile of feathers.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Yet Martin didn't mention a word about the phone, the locked door, what she was wearing, screams, or undigested food in her stomach many hours after he said they had eaten. Neither do * ever mention those things. It's not necessary to add in any of that to make it seem obvious to some of us that he killed Reeva in anger. Perhaps the prosecution ruined his case by bringing those iffy things in, but * would think the judge could toss all those things out and still find that it's just too [* ]unreasonable[/* ] to believe that he got his gun and went down the hall and shot through the toilet door without once glancing toward or feeling for his bedmate.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, Martin's earlier post said this:
She was fully clothed. She was leaving. He didn't like it. He murdered her. EVERYONE knows that.
Well, apart from the bizarre reference to 'EVERYONE', Martin cites here three antecedents to 'he murdered her'. Being fully clothed - well, that seems to amount to a pair of shorts and a t-shirt; she was leaving - evidence for that?; and he didn't like it, ditto.
The words 'confirmation bias' spring to mind; you start with your conclusion, and work backwards. Because Martin thinks P murdered her, therefore, he believes that Pistorius didn't like her leaving, which is itself another dubious inference.
Maybe the judge really is an idiot then, since she dismissed all of this.
If Pistorius' own story is reasonably possible, he has to be acquitted, (of intent to murder).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Okay, sorry, * missed the 'fully clothed,' part but what * don't understand is why the judge finds anything reasonable in Pistorius's story that he heard a sound in the bathroom and assumed it was an intruder, when the far, far more likely explanation for noise in the bathroom would be the other person staying in the master suite and that possibility could be checked out by extending his hand.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Crap spouted by Twilight:
Okay, sorry, * missed the 'fully clothed,' part but what * don't understand is why the judge finds anything reasonable in Pistorius's story that he heard a sound in the bathroom and assumed it was an intruder, when the far, far more likely explanation for noise in the bathroom would be the other person staying in the master suite and that possibility could be checked out by extending his hand.
* think the judge made a lot of the timeline, which is pretty complicated to follow. But the sequence - P hears sound, assumes intruder, shoots, smashes down door, phones for help, is found trying to resuscitate Reeva, grief-stricken, and so on - seemed to impress the judge.
Of course, he could be a good actor - deliberately shoot Reeva, then smash the door down, try to resuscitate her, as a support for his (fake) story, and so on.
But then you come back to reasonably possible. As long as his story fulfils this, he is acquitted. * can't see that Nel made much of an indent on it, except to keep saying, 'you're lying'. But you have to show not tell.
There are two scenarios, but the onus is not on Pistorius to prove his; it's for the state to falsify it. They didn't.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
A further interesting point: some lawyers are saying that the prosecutor (Nel) made a mistake in trying to prove that Pistorius intended to kill Reeva - some believe that this was almost impossible. Instead, he should have gone for the middle option, that is, foresight that death would occur (dolus).
The judge seems to have anticipated appeals on this ground in any case, since she explicitly argues that the state cannot assume a certain state of mind in the defendant, but has to demonstrate it, which they didn't.
So why did the state push the losing line of intent to kill? * don't know.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
If * used a powerful automatic pistol on the bathroom door because * heard noises inside, at night, in the dark, in a secure house shared with my partner, * would either have to be barking mad period/or/and trying to murder my partner whom * knew DAMN well was in there - who else? (The 'period' means * am so deranged * - a rich multiply insecure = desperate white - have no doubt it's a desperate black house breaker). Regret after blowing her head apart with a/n un/lucky shot would easily follow regardless.
Who wears shorts to bed? * believe the term used was fully dressed. For what? After a late night of half inebriated rowing where you never got ready for bed? Or you got dressed in the bathroom to LEAVE in fear? Or ... yeah, who knows?
* haven't read the case details (who NEEDS to? * 'm not on the jury - where * have served appropriately in a nasty case), but from this thread it appears they were in separate beds in the same room and/or the gun was on HER side of the room to which he 'had' to go, crippled, in the dark assuming she was just lying there?! As has been said.
This is all what it is, madness. Fear upon fear upon fear and testosterone and drink fuelled madness.
* just hope he finds a good priest and good iron to iron friends in prison. And the headspace to see and accept what he has done and that it can be redeemed in this life without him killing himself or just being lost in his own head.
Not that * believe in prison much, but he's no use to himself outside and he is a highly dangerous man on the brink of psychosis.
For everybody's sake, especially his, he needs banging up.
On the TV coverage and this thread, on a jury: culpable homicide. 10 years out in 5.
[ 19. September 2014, 23:22: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
They were in the same bed.
* think some people do sleep in loose shorts but it does seem an unusual choice for a young woman with her lover on Valentine's Day.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Pistorius strikes me as a male hysteric, quite a common phenomenon, see all the crying and vomiting in court. Very poor impulse control, so that he fires first, and then asks questions.
It's interesting how the combination of paranoia, guns, and the willingness to use them, causes such incidents; there was the recent case in the US of a man who shot his daughter coming in late, thinking she was an intruder.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Agreed q. And T. * realise on lose shorts, but according to this thread and all over the web she was 'fully clothed'. The same bed?! So he stumps ROUND to get HIS gun from HER side rather than disturb her when there's a crazed black killer in the bathroom?!?!
He will tell himself he believes this fantasy now that's for sure.
And the more * read the more * agree q. Despite his condition not seeming to fit a dissociative disorder immediately. Testeria. Fits me ... along with 'shell shock' - PTSD.
Poor wee bugger.
So, on the jury * 'd still find for culpable homicide and am still bloody suspicious, but even if she was leaving, he could still have been reacting to a killer in his head.
As usual, all will be true. She was leaving because he was a sweet scary as hell sexy little boy, he did intend to kill her, he did think there was a killer in the bathroom.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, the internet always has a field day with cases like this; and people can just spew out their own prejudices and so on. Well, why not, as long as no-one takes it seriously.
There are posts like this: 'the toilet was locked! Obviously Reeva was trying to get away from him, and phoning for help; guilty of murder'.
Wow, so glad that the courts don't operate like this anyway.
There was an interesting point when defence (Roux) asked the leading investigating officer, if he had found anything to contradict P's story: short answer, no.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
From quetzalcoatl:
There are posts like this: 'the toilet was locked! Obviously Reeva was trying to get away from him, and phoning for help; guilty of murder'.
Wow, so glad that the courts don't operate like this anyway.
OK, so what's your explanation for her being fully dressed in the toilet with the door locked and her mobile phone on her, in the small hours?
As Twilight says the dressed bit does strike me as odd.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Crap spouted by Ariel:
quote:
From quetzalcoatl:
There are posts like this: 'the toilet was locked! Obviously Reeva was trying to get away from him, and phoning for help; guilty of murder'.
Wow, so glad that the courts don't operate like this anyway.
OK, so what's your explanation for her being fully dressed in the toilet with the door locked and her mobile phone on her, in the small hours?
As Twilight says the dressed bit does strike me as odd.
Well, all of that has been discussed already. She had shorts and t-shirt on (in fact, there is a photo of her jeans on the bedroom floor); the toilet light was broken, phone could be used as a torch, or she was reading her text-messages; my wife always locks the toilet at night, habit. Clearly, Reeva went to do a pee, as her bladder was empty.
Still, if people want to get from this to 'she was terrified of him, fled to the toilet, to phone the police, and then he shot her', good luck. Thank goodness trials don't operate like that.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
People have been locked up for murder in the UK for a darn site less evidence than was available at this trial.
Although to be fair , without wanting to go into detail, they have also been cases here where folk have escaped justice by means of a cock and bull story.
An aside < One person dies horribly in Africa and the whole world is obsessed with the rights and wrongs of it . Why ? ... Because someone famous was involved . How many other people die horribly/unjustly in that troubled land on a daily basis ? >
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Crap spouted by rolyn:
An aside < One person dies horribly in Africa and the whole world is obsessed with the rights and wrongs of it . Why ? ... Because someone famous was involved . How many other people die horribly/unjustly in that troubled land on a daily basis ? >
Well, it's a bit of an "Ask not for whom the bell tolls scenario". The whole Pistorius/Steenkamp saga shows the unfortunate Shadow side to "Brave Disabled Athlete gets Beautiful Girl & they (don't) live happily afterwards" scenario.
In South Africa violence against women of the most sickening kind is endemic. According to some reports Pistorius had a history of "issues"& aggression towards women.
If he is innocent then * hope he appeals and is successful.
To me the issues and facts were quite simple and * think the conviction was correct.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Crap spouted by Twilight:
* think some people do sleep in loose shorts but it does seem an unusual choice for a young woman with her lover on Valentine's Day.
Not if you're used to living with room-mates or family who you don't necessarily want to be naked in front of.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wesley J
Silly Shipmate
# 6075
|
Posted
quote:
Crap spouted by Sir Pellinore:
[...] The whole Pistorius/Steenkamp saga shows the unfortunate Shadow side to "Brave Disabled Athlete gets Beautiful Girl & they (don't) live happily afterwards" scenario. [...]
He shouldn't have done 'er in, then.
Besides that, a quite informative thread!
--------------------
Be it as it may: Wesley J will stay. --- Euthanasia, that sounds good. An alpine neutral neighbourhood. Then back to Britain, all dressed in wood. Things were gonna get worse. (John Cooper Clarke)
Posts: 7354 | From: The Isles of Silly | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
