I know a lot of people have a problem with this, but I dont. If somebody comes into my house in the middle of the night (as OP says he believed had happened) then I believe they loose any rights and whatever happens to them is their own fault.
But no one did come into his house. And he brutally shot an innocent person. I still don't believe his story, I suspect that they rowed and he went Rambo.
But no one did come into his house. And he brutally shot an innocent person. I still don't believe his story, I suspect that they rowed and he went Rambo.
And if it is proved that he did then I hope he gets the full force of the law, but so far the prosecution has not shown anything to say this happened so I can only go on what I know so far and I dont think that is what went down.
And living in a gated community that hasn't had a break in in years.
I have lived in my house in a very quiet small estate for 25 years and there has never been any breakin' in our estate since I moved in, does not mean that if I hear a noise in the middle of the night it wouldnt worry me.
And living in a gated community that hasn't had a break in in years.
I'm not sure that washes. Oscar Pistorius is South Africa's most famous sportsman, the most internationally famous Paralympic of all time. I don't doubt for a moment that he believed his notoriety singled him out as a potential target.
But that doesn't stop the fear of it happening though.
It still doesn't excuse shooting blindly through a door into a tiny cubicle fully aware that anyone behind that door will probably be killed. If that turns out to be the truth (which I doubt), he should go to prison, because his intention was to kill whomever was behind that door.
But no one did come into his house. And he brutally shot an innocent person. I still don't believe his story, I suspect that they rowed and he went Rambo.
No-one is denying that though. The charge relates to a premeditated killing not a case of mistaken identity.
It still doesn't excuse shooting blindly through a door into a tiny cubicle fully aware that anyone behind that door will probably be killed. If that turns out to be the truth (which I doubt), he should go to prison, because his intention was to kill whomever was behind that door.
It may not excuse it but, IMO, it certainly makes it more understandable.
No-one is denying that though. The charge relates to a premeditated killing not a case of mistaken identity.
He went back into that bedroom (according to him) got his gun, and went down the hallway preparing to kill whomever was in the cubicle. That's premeditated. Nothing to do with mistaken identity.
He went back into that bedroom (according to him) got his gun, and went down the hallway preparing to kill whomever was in the cubicle. That's premeditated. Nothing to do with mistaken identity.
At no point does he say he went back into the bedroom. My understanding is that he went from the balcony throught the bedroom to the bathroom collecting his gun on the way.
Have the earlier reports about the bat been discredited, that it was blood-stained ? And the rumour that Reeva might have had head injuries, apart from the bullet to the head ? Have they all been refuted ?
(Because if her injuries were only those caused by bullets, OP's version of events is possible.)
At no point does he say he went back into the bedroom. My understanding is that he went from the balcony throught the bedroom to the bathroom collecting his gun on the way.
Makes no odds. He went from the balcony then, through the bedroom, picking up his gun (but failing spectacularly to notice his girlfriend was not in bed) and then onto the bathroom. Where he opened fire. From the moment he left that balcony he was going to kill. Premeditated.
Have the earlier reports about the bat been discredited, that it was blood-stained ? And the rumour that Reeva might have had head injuries, apart from the bullet to the head ? Have they all been refuted ?
(Because if her injuries were only those caused by bullets, OP's version of events is possible.)
To my knowledge they were not talked about at the bail hearing, but if they are relevent I am sure they will come out in the trial
Have the earlier reports about the bat been discredited, that it was blood-stained ? And the rumour that Reeva might have had head injuries, apart from the bullet to the head ? Have they all been refuted ?
(Because if her injuries were only those caused by bullets, OP's version of events is possible.)
As far as I know there has been no official announcement connecting the bat to the injuries. It was more tabloid tittle-tattle printed prior to the bail hearing. It seems she was killed with the bullets alone.
The things I could believe were exaggerated we're his feelings of terror and, sadly, the concern for Reeva,
I could see that believing the thing he had worried about for sometime was actually happening, there was an adrenaline surge, gung-ho-ness took over and he probably didn't gave her a second thought until it was over.
In the cold light of day that doesn't sound so good.
That's actually exactly what I think happened. I don't think he was terrified, I think he was charged up about it and on an adrenaline rush. I even think he might have gone to the bathroom with his gun but not really expecting to find anything at first (I'm sure the incident with the washing machine wasn't a one off either). Then he saw the window open, heard someone in the toilet and the rest is history.
His actions don't fit with his words of being terrified and his primary concern to protect Reeva
ETA: Although saying that, would he really risk not telling the truth 100% just for the sake of his ego
Makes no odds. He went from the balcony then, through the bedroom, picking up his gun (but failing spectacularly to notice his girlfriend was not in bed) and then onto the bathroom. Where he opened fire. From the moment he left that balcony he was going to kill. Premeditated.
How do you know that based on the facts that we know so far? Maybe he only decided to fire his gun when he was in the bathroom and heard more noised in the toilet and saw the bathroom window opened and was afraid that the person in the toilet was going to open the door and shoot him - self defence
How do you know that based on the facts that we know so far? Maybe he only decided to fire his gun when he was in the bathroom and heard more noised in the toilet and saw the bathroom window opened and was afraid that the person in the toilet was going to open the door and shoot him - self defence
That's a huge leap in logic. Firing blindly through a door is not self defence. If that was accepted by any future judge and he got off, it would be carte blanche for anybody to claim they feel threatened by a noise so they shoot to kill.
That's a huge leap in logic. Firing blindly through a door is not self defence. If that was accepted by any future judge and he got off, it would be carte blanche for anybody to claim they feel threatened by a noise so they shoot to kill.
I am just trying to show that we really dont know what was going through his mind at that time, so we cant say it was premeditated. Until there is more evidence to show that he intended to kill we cannot say it was premeditated.
I think what OP said is basically the truth, that he shot Reeva in the belief that she was an intruder. I believe that he saw someone through the open door of the toilet cubicle, which was either open already to some extent, or he kicked it open. He shot a shadowy indistinct figure in the knee, hand and then the head, presuming the person to be an intruder. At the time he fired the shots he was so convinced in his own mind that he was shooting an intruder, it did not occur to him at the time that it might be Reeva. I think there was just enough light to discern the shape of someone, but not enough to determine who it was at the time he fired the bullets.
I find it very hard to believe that he could have secured 3 hits firing blind through a closed door. Also, the location of the hits: to the knee, to immobilise a potential assailant. Then, the hand to disarm someone who might have a gun (he might have seen something in the figure's hand and assumed it was a gun: this may have been Reeva holding her mobile phone.) Then, the head shot to kill.
The placement of the bullets is too precise to be achieved by firing blindly through a door, even in a very confined space.
You might expect most of the bullets to miss, and if any hit, it would most like hit the largest area, the torso. The knee, the hand, and even the head, are relatively small targets and require aiming at to hit.
What I think happened is that after discharging the bullets, he looked inside the cubicle and found that it was Reeva, probably already dead.
This looks very bad for him, because he shot her through the open door.
So, he makes up the story about firing through a closed and locked door, to eliminate in his own mind the thought that he should have been able to tell who the person was that he shot at.
He fires extra bullets through the door, and then disposes of the evidence of the extra bullets and cartridges by flushing them down the toilet.
So, essentially he is telling the truth, but since he is now stuck with the firing through the door story, if it is demonstrated in court that this was not possible, he might be convicted of murder because his testimony will be discredited, even if, had he told the truth, he might have been acquited, especially if he believed at the time that the figure was armed with a pistol, himself mistaking Reeva holding her mobile phone for an intruder holding a gun. Self-defence is your perception that you are in immediate danger.
It would be ironic if he is unfairly convicted because he wanted to change the details of what happened and is discredited, when in truth he always mistook her for an intruder and is completely telling the truth about that and his apprehension at the time.
The 2 sets of bullets being fired 17 minutes apart has an explanation if he decided to fire extra bullets to give the story that he shot through a closed and locked door.
But living in a gated community should really lower the probable risk of a home invasion otherwise why live in one?
In a way this is similar to the "Gay Panic" defense. Somone claims they become out of control due to fear in that case of someone gay molesting them.
To what extent can fear be a justification?
A few pages back, there were links give to artilces that said that living in a gated community increased the level of worry about attacks not lessened it.
You have all these people worried about the same thing all living together and, in effect, winding themselves up more - and the conspicuous security was a constant reminder of what they were nervous of.
Comments
But no one did come into his house. And he brutally shot an innocent person. I still don't believe his story, I suspect that they rowed and he went Rambo.
And living in a gated community that hasn't had a break in in years.
And if it is proved that he did then I hope he gets the full force of the law, but so far the prosecution has not shown anything to say this happened so I can only go on what I know so far and I dont think that is what went down.
But that doesn't stop the fear of it happening though.
I have lived in my house in a very quiet small estate for 25 years and there has never been any breakin' in our estate since I moved in, does not mean that if I hear a noise in the middle of the night it wouldnt worry me.
I'm not sure that washes. Oscar Pistorius is South Africa's most famous sportsman, the most internationally famous Paralympic of all time. I don't doubt for a moment that he believed his notoriety singled him out as a potential target.
It still doesn't excuse shooting blindly through a door into a tiny cubicle fully aware that anyone behind that door will probably be killed. If that turns out to be the truth (which I doubt), he should go to prison, because his intention was to kill whomever was behind that door.
No-one is denying that though. The charge relates to a premeditated killing not a case of mistaken identity.
It may not excuse it but, IMO, it certainly makes it more understandable.
and check if reeva was ok
He went back into that bedroom (according to him) got his gun, and went down the hallway preparing to kill whomever was in the cubicle. That's premeditated. Nothing to do with mistaken identity.
At no point does he say he went back into the bedroom. My understanding is that he went from the balcony throught the bedroom to the bathroom collecting his gun on the way.
(Because if her injuries were only those caused by bullets, OP's version of events is possible.)
Makes no odds. He went from the balcony then, through the bedroom, picking up his gun (but failing spectacularly to notice his girlfriend was not in bed) and then onto the bathroom. Where he opened fire. From the moment he left that balcony he was going to kill. Premeditated.
Perhaps putting his legs on would have taken too long and he felt he had to act quickly
To my knowledge they were not talked about at the bail hearing, but if they are relevent I am sure they will come out in the trial
As far as I know there has been no official announcement connecting the bat to the injuries. It was more tabloid tittle-tattle printed prior to the bail hearing. It seems she was killed with the bullets alone.
That's actually exactly what I think happened. I don't think he was terrified, I think he was charged up about it and on an adrenaline rush. I even think he might have gone to the bathroom with his gun but not really expecting to find anything at first (I'm sure the incident with the washing machine wasn't a one off either). Then he saw the window open, heard someone in the toilet and the rest is history.
His actions don't fit with his words of being terrified and his primary concern to protect Reeva
ETA: Although saying that, would he really risk not telling the truth 100% just for the sake of his ego
How do you know that based on the facts that we know so far? Maybe he only decided to fire his gun when he was in the bathroom and heard more noised in the toilet and saw the bathroom window opened and was afraid that the person in the toilet was going to open the door and shoot him - self defence
But living in a gated community should really lower the probable risk of a home invasion otherwise why live in one?
In a way this is similar to the "Gay Panic" defense. Somone claims they become out of control due to fear in that case of someone gay molesting them.
To what extent can fear be a justification?
That's a huge leap in logic. Firing blindly through a door is not self defence. If that was accepted by any future judge and he got off, it would be carte blanche for anybody to claim they feel threatened by a noise so they shoot to kill.
If he is cleared that opens the door for people to murder people in their houses and use this defence.
Remember that the Srein Dewani story was less believed in SA than here where they know the reality of how you would act in situation X.
I am just trying to show that we really dont know what was going through his mind at that time, so we cant say it was premeditated. Until there is more evidence to show that he intended to kill we cannot say it was premeditated.
I find it very hard to believe that he could have secured 3 hits firing blind through a closed door. Also, the location of the hits: to the knee, to immobilise a potential assailant. Then, the hand to disarm someone who might have a gun (he might have seen something in the figure's hand and assumed it was a gun: this may have been Reeva holding her mobile phone.) Then, the head shot to kill.
The placement of the bullets is too precise to be achieved by firing blindly through a door, even in a very confined space.
You might expect most of the bullets to miss, and if any hit, it would most like hit the largest area, the torso. The knee, the hand, and even the head, are relatively small targets and require aiming at to hit.
What I think happened is that after discharging the bullets, he looked inside the cubicle and found that it was Reeva, probably already dead.
This looks very bad for him, because he shot her through the open door.
So, he makes up the story about firing through a closed and locked door, to eliminate in his own mind the thought that he should have been able to tell who the person was that he shot at.
He fires extra bullets through the door, and then disposes of the evidence of the extra bullets and cartridges by flushing them down the toilet.
So, essentially he is telling the truth, but since he is now stuck with the firing through the door story, if it is demonstrated in court that this was not possible, he might be convicted of murder because his testimony will be discredited, even if, had he told the truth, he might have been acquited, especially if he believed at the time that the figure was armed with a pistol, himself mistaking Reeva holding her mobile phone for an intruder holding a gun. Self-defence is your perception that you are in immediate danger.
It would be ironic if he is unfairly convicted because he wanted to change the details of what happened and is discredited, when in truth he always mistook her for an intruder and is completely telling the truth about that and his apprehension at the time.
The 2 sets of bullets being fired 17 minutes apart has an explanation if he decided to fire extra bullets to give the story that he shot through a closed and locked door.
A few pages back, there were links give to artilces that said that living in a gated community increased the level of worry about attacks not lessened it.
You have all these people worried about the same thing all living together and, in effect, winding themselves up more - and the conspicuous security was a constant reminder of what they were nervous of.