I always thought “shoot first, ask questions later” was meant to be an ironic joke. I never realised anybody would take it seriously.
If he didn’t do it deliberately, he’s the stupidest most dangerous lunatic with a gun ever and should be locked up forever.
If he did do it, he should be locked up forever.
So that’s that solved.
I thought I also read recently that his claim that he felt vulnearable since he didn’t have his prosthetic legs on and shot through the door from the floor did not match the bullet holes in the bathroom door which showed a downward trajectory as haing been fired from a higher up standing position.
Maybe he climbed up on the counter first. Or pulled up one of the ladders leaning against the house through the window. It all makes sense to me. Nothing fills me with a sense of horror like the sound of someone peeing.
That’s not what Pistorius says happened, so I assume the evidence doesn’t support it either. He says he woke up, got out of bed to move a fan on his balcony, closed the door, the blinds and the curtains, then heard a noise in the bathroom, went back to his bedroom for his gun, went to the bathroom door (while shouting to his girlfriend), and fired the gun.
This is murder, or at the very least depraved and criminal negligence.
As I’ve mentioned before, firing without identifying your target is profoundly negligent. He has to know, at a minimum, that the target is actually an intruder and there is really a threat. Shooting a target you cannot see and have no way of identifying (he didn’t even bother to challenge) is profoundly negligent for exactly this reason. I don’t know of any agency (whether police or military or civilian) that actually authorizes people to shoot an unidentified target.
The second major problem is that, even if he did know the target was a threat, he is still responsibile for every bullet fired. If he could not see the target, he has no way of aiming his weapon. For all he knew, his bullets could be over-penetrating and flying all over creation. It’s one thing to aim at a target and miss, it’s another thing to fire randomly because you have no way of aiming.
This guy should be in jail for the rest of his life.
I was wondering about this too. His statement said he was not wearing his prosthetics when he shot. The police say he was. It seems to me that this is a relatively simple forensic exercise and will destroy his credibility (such as it is) if the angle of entry agrees with the police scenario.
Also put me down for “guilty of illegal homicide even if his story is 100% true.” I don’t know if there is any legal significance to reckless versus negligent behavior in this case, but at a minimum he’s guilty of negligent homicide, and to me it’s clear he was absolutely beyond negligent and clearly reckless. His actions are ludicrous even when read in the best possible light offered by his defense!
Pistorius never called the cops or emergency services, did he? Neither before he killed his girlfriend or after. If he was so paranoid about security why did he allow ladders to be left against his house, and why was his balcony open (he went out there to move a fan - if it was closed he wouldn’t need to move the fan)?
StG
I’m glad someone thought of a joke for this…I was stumped.
The prosecutors are arguing that he aimed for her deliberately because if he’d fired straight through the bathroom door, he wouldn’t have hit her. (I guess the defense will say he was aiming in the direction of the window.) The two sides agree that there were no other physical signs of abuse, although there was blood on the cricket bat. The defense is also criticizing the quality of the investigation.
He did. The police, with deliberate or accidental incompetence, did not check all the phones. The site security people confirm they were called.
The police case is falling apart so badly it looks like Cleuseau levels of incompetence or a deliberate attempt to let him walk.
Their ‘argument and gunshot’ witness turns out to have been 300 or 600 metres away and heard 8 shots over a 17 minute period. She didn’t know who was arguing either.
But I agree with others here. Even with putting his story in the best of all possible lights he must go down for a long time else anyone in SA with a gun and a semi-plausible self defence story to spin can get away with murder.
Thankfully The Onion has published a useful guide because as they say:
Point 5 is particularly apposite:
You know, after more reading I found that he was amputated halfway between his knees and his ankles; so he actually has most of both of his legs. He’s not legless, he’s not half a man, he’s not a good candidate for these tiring, unfunny jokes.
Am I the only one who finds it amusing that Ambivalid is leading a crusade against hacky offensive one-liners?
Are you implying that I myself am a source of “hacky, offensive” one-liners?
(and just for the record, I NEVER said anything about the Pistorius jokes being “offensive”. Those are your words, not mine)
Dude. I’m offended by hacky stupid one-liners, if you’re looking for someone to take up the mantle of Person Who Is Offended By Shitty Jokes.
As for the OP, I think Pistorius is guilty, guilty, guilty, with a side of guilty, and a sprinkling of guilty on top. His story defies belief.
His story comes up short no matter how you cut it.
No they don’t. Unless South Africa’s legal system has changed quite dramatically from its roots, all they have to prove is that Oscar Pistorius deliberately killed Reeva Steenkamp.
A motive would certainly help, but it’s not necessary. It’s going to be up to a jury or judge (I believe Pistorius has a choice) to decide if they believe his excuse.
Trial by jury was abolished in 1969; the case will either be heard by a judge and two assessors - generally advocates or retired magistrates; questions of fact are answered by the majority decision of the three members of the court - or by a judge sitting alone. Defendants are not entitled to assessors as of right, and in any case I am led to believe that many defence advocates prefer not to have assessors.
"Your honor, we find the defendant incredibly guilty.*
*adapted from The Producers.
Let me clarify, for premeditated murder they will indeed need to prove there was an “extent of reflection” prior to Pistorius shooting Reeva. So a motive or dispute could therefore substantiate the definition of “deliberate”. There is no other conventional way to prove deliberation.
The prosecutor seems to be arguing that Pistorius knew she was in there and shot at her deliberately - and that’s all the reflection there needs to be. What we don’t know at this point is why the prosecution is so sure this was deliberate. I think the bail hearing ends on Thursday, so we may not hear that much more until the actual trial starts.