Pretty sure you’re going to Hell for that.
That’s not what it sounds like to me. It sounds like he intentionally murdered his girlfriend. I agree that your scenario is absolute best case.
Google “Castle Doctrine.”
Yea. I was trying to be open-minded.
Tried it once before, back in 1989. didn’t like it then either.
My money would be on some form of homicide. Little of his story rings true. I want to know how he was doing all this ‘going to the balcony, getting my gun from under the bed’ in pitch darkness without his legs on as he claims.
Just reading the reports I found something glaring to me. He says he was up and without his legs. Got scared and shot through the door. Found her and carried her downstairs and tried to save her. So how did he carry her without his legs? Or did he take the time to retrieve his legs, put them on and then carry her downstairs?
As far as I know, home invasions are rarely mounted to steal table lamps (or ashtrays, or black velvet paintings). You could have as well asked about shooting a starving man stealing bread to feed his family.
Most home invasions I’ve read/heard about were armed criminals looking for cash, jewelry, guns and drugs. The latest iteration of break-and-enter involves picking homes where the residents are known to be home. There’s more to this act than raising a few bucks to buy coke … it’s becoming a gang related badge of courage and a means of terrorizing the suburbanites.
I’ve lived in a couple of neighborhoods where daytime home invasions were so common that homeowners would routinely take their dogs to work with them so they wouldn’t find them shot or poisoned at the end of the day.
His version is that he heard a noise and opened fire, then put his legs on, went to the bathroom and realized she was inside, broke down the door with the bat, and carried her downstairs. The prosecution says he walked to the bathroom door and shot her. I thought there were some earlier reports that the prosecutors were suggesting he shot her (or perhaps hit her) and then she ran into the bathroom, where he killed her. I would think forensics can resolve this and they’re trying to see if she was struck with the bat. His story is hard to believe at this point. It’s hard to believe how this could be seen as anything close to responsible behavior: the defense story is that he heard a noise, assumed there was a burglar in the bathroom, and didn’t check to make sure it wasn’t his girlfriend. Who here hasn’t been woken during the night by their partner going to the bathroom? How many shootings would there be every year if people regularly opened fire in those kinds of circumstances?
Sure. But this guy was living in the most secure compound in SA. Armed guards, electrified perimeter fences etc. He had no reason whatsoever to make the ‘noises in bathroom, better get blasting’ leap.
His story is ridiculous. But I am willing to concede he might just be such a gutless coward that his first response to the possibility of a threat is to start shooting.
Am I missing out on a forum in-joke or is that your actual shower?
Granted … I was responding to Sicks Ate’s comment regarding lamp thieves. It’s pretty clear Pistorius’ story is shaky. That doesn’t bear on the general subject of defending your home from intruders.
I’m all for defending against home intruders, I just think as a general principle that if you use a gun as self-defence you better be 100% certain of your target or you have to take the full consequences.
Otherwise it just becomes a license to kill any inconvenient family members in circumstances where a plausible self-defence scenario can be spun.
There can be no ‘oops, my bad, feel MY pain’ excuse. If it is not a pre-meditated murder charge it has to be something with double-digit jail time.
In cases like this, where there was no reason at all to suspect a threat and every reason to exercise caution, there is no excuse.
This guy just shot her without giving her a chance to identify herself.
To take a complete 180 from my position re the Zimmerman thing, I’ll bet the following happens. The first story will become untenable. He’ll claim he lied as he was too humiliated to tell the truth. He’ll claim she abused him and was in the locked bathroom with his prosthetics as she was cruelly withholding them from him. He may have to say he cornered her in there during attempt to get them back.
Any takers?
I’m betting on the roid rage defense. It was an accident because he was wacked out on goofballs and was not responsible for his actions.
The 'roid thing won’t work as the prosecutors are using the fact he put on his legs after shooting her but before breaking down the door as evidence of his state of mind. He will have to explain that. His total desperation to get his prosthetics back caused him to snap and getting them back was his first priority. The humiliation and scared feeling of being without the prosthetics mentioned in his affidavit plus embarrassment that he was being abused made him lie in the affidavit.
And keep in mind I’m not saying anyone will buy it!
Hell I might even believe the roid rage defense - it sounds too stupid to be premeditated. I mean, if you are really premeditating murder, shooting through the door is really going to make 100% sure you hit anyone, let alone kill them ?
I think I just lost my own bet unless the prosthetics did not leave easily identifiable marks on the door or were obscured by the bat as he kicked the door with his prosthetics per his affidavit here: http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/19/world/africa/south-africa-pistorius-affadavit/index.html
No shizzle Sherlockizzle, I already agreed Pistorius is likely guilty of wrongdoing.
After following the utter shambles the prosecutors case has fallen into I think he’ll walk, so to speak, on basis of reasonable doubt. Especially with the cremated body which stops checking any evidence of bullet entry angles etc.
To be honest it looks to me like the police didn’t want to prosecute a national hero and are deliberately putting forward an extreme case unsupported by evidence.
That or they are a bunch of clowns.
At this point, I have to rethink my position.
If somebody is living alone in a home, and it is dark, and there is* no reason to believe that anybody else *should be in the house, I believe that he should be allowed to keep shooting until he hears a body hit the ground.
That being said, the status of his house in a ‘secure’ community is irrelevant. Check out the David Letterman deal. If there was no forced entry, that doesn’t mean that this guy is a murderer. A person, in an alleged secure community, may feel that he can leave his door unlocked. I know a few people who do not bother to lock their doors, and they aren’t in secured areas. In the darkness, (if that was, indeed, the case) it doesn’t matter what kind of community you live in-if somebody is in your house, not supposed to be there, then the trespasser is SOL.
That reeks of the sort of urban legend Snopes is always debunking. Have you got some sort of substantial citation for that, or is it just something you’ve heard?