In reality my gut instinct is that he murdered her but this defense theory is a mere distraction to pull at peoples heart strings.
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 think a lot of the perception of guilt or innocence in cases that happen a abroad actually have a lot to do with the nationality of the people involved. There is a tendency to knee-jerk 'innocent' reactions when the suspect is British and a complete distrust of foreign legal systems and processes - more so if the legal set up is different to how it is here, no jury, different ways of working, language etc.
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.
If there was light, and it was normal circumstances, then yes - of course he would notice if there was someone in the bed or not.
But there was no light, and it was anything but normal circumstances, so it really wouldn't be that spectacular a fail not to notice, if it was dark, and he was focusing on the direction of the bathroom where he'd heard the noise.
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.
Not at all necessary - grab a gun as a precaution, not knowing exactly what to expect. See the window open, hear noise in toilet. put two and two together and make a split second reckless decision to shoot.
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.
Only if you remove all context and circumstance from the equation.
Big-money bids are said to be coming in for his story. "Everybody wants to interview him," van Zyl (Oscar's agent) added. "We're not going to do any interviews at this time. We'll sit down with the lawyers and make a decision."
Sounds like they're already totting up how much he can make from selling his story. What c***s.
Ah, haven't 'we' seen this enough before in the past to know that it means nothing at all?
It's basically a very nothing statement. People want to interview him - well, I would imagine they do given the nature of the media - but they're not going to give any at the moment - again, I would imagine that until the trial he can't anyway. And any talk with the lawyers would more than likely give that answer.
Only if you remove all context and circumstance from the equation.
There was no context or circumstance. There was no burglar, nor had there ever been, so there was no reason to believe a noise was a burglar that needed shooting.
You dont seem to consider the possibility that he is not telling the truth.
The circumstances are that their are two people in a room, and a noise is made in the en suite. Quite likely it is the other person from the bedroom.
It's nothing to do with point scoring, I think they should keep their mouths shut and keep a low profile. But they won't, because the PR drive is in earnest now and I am sure they are reading from scripts.
I agree, and the extent of Pistorius's spin machine surprised me, as revealed by GinaH's excellent post (no. 4313 on page 173). In addition to hiring former editor of The Sun, Stuart Higgins, OP is also using the very expensive services of Vuma Reputation Management who specialize in crisis management. Every utterance by OP's family, friends and supporters, be it verbal, tweet, whatever, will be orchestrated by VRM, even to the extent, as you say, of scripting what they say.
There was no context or circumstance. There was no burglar, nor had there ever been, so there was no reason to believe a noise was a burglar that needed shooting.
You dont seem to consider the possibility that he is not telling the truth.
But maybe, just maybe not knowing until later that there wasnt a burglar, he did hear a noise and, without passing Go, his fear/nervousness about such an event caused the reaction that an actual burglar would have caused.
No real burglar is going to wake you up to tell you that any suruptious noise you hear is, in fact, them.
As said before, the fact that he killed someone isn't in dispute at all, but personally I would like to know who he thought that someone was. Going Wild West over a perceived intruder is different (to me) than deliberately shooting someone you are supposed to care for.
Barry Bateman was aked about this on his Twitter feed this morning. He said it wasn't true. Invesitgating Officer was cross examined and said there were no signs of assault on Reeva's body. And, a piece of evidence that strong certainly refutes the mistaken identity theory, which would have been brought up by the prosecution.
But maybe, just maybe not knowing until later that there wasnt a burglar, he did hear a noise and, without passing Go, his fear/nervousness about such an event caused the reaction that an actual burglar would have caused.
No real burglar is going to wake you up to tell you that any suruptious noise you hear is, in fact, them.
As said before, the fact that he killed someone isn't in dispute at all, but personally I would like to know who he thought that someone was. Going Wild West over a perceived intruder is different (to me) than deliberately shooting someone you are supposed to care for.
If there were grounds for such suspicion, then maybe, although the actions were still wrong. There weren't though. how many times has he had dangerous burglars in the bathroom?
However, he's in the bedroom with his other half. The most likely person to be in the bathroom is her. It doesn't take much effort to establish that fact.
Apart from Reeva's parents' interview posted yesterday, I don't hear much about Reeva. What a sad, sad interview. Her 'Jo'burg Dad' is right: Reeva's voice needs to be heard and it isn't much atm:( By all accounts it sounds like she was a really lovely woman.
Barry Bateman was aked about this on his Twitter feed this morning. He said it wasn't true. Invesitgating Officer was cross examined and said there were no signs of assault on Reeva's body. And, a piece of evidence that strong certainly refutes the mistaken identity theory, which would have been brought up by the prosecution.
So, evil untrue crap from the Daily Mail.
Others have reported the same, so you cant claim the Mail made this up.
If I was famous and lived in South Africa I doubt I would trust a panic button to bring me help quicker than shooting my own gun. I doubt I would even if I was not famous.
Of course, you can't expect an immediate response, but it would make sense to press it if you thought you or anyone else in the house might get overpowered/killed/injured by the intruder.
If there were grounds for such suspicion, then maybe, although the actions were still wrong. There weren't though. how many times has he had dangerous burglars in the bathroom?
I would have also thought those houses would have sophisticated intruder detection systems, would such a system not detect someone putting a ladder up the side of the house in the night and climbing through a window?
Barry Bateman was aked about this on his Twitter feed this morning. He said it wasn't true. Invesitgating Officer was cross examined and said there were no signs of assault on Reeva's body. And, a piece of evidence that strong certainly refutes the mistaken identity theory, which would have been brought up by the prosecution.
So, evil untrue crap from the Daily Mail.
The other thing is, look at the headline:
"DID beat model girlfriend with a cricket bat"
That's not a proper sentence.
Maybe its a cynical misquote:
"Police said there was a possibility that he did beat model girlfriend with a cricket bat, which is currently being examined by forensic team for evidence"
Which at least would make sense, if a bit less titillating.
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?
It's not justification for violence IMO, but that doesn't mean they aren't genuinely scared.
I'm not sure what you mean by a fear that someone gay may molest them. If you just mean that a gay person might make a pass, it's hardly the same thing. If you mean that the person is genuinely concerned about genuine molestation (gay or otherwise) then it's a much different sort of fear. It's still not on the same page as worrying about an armed intruder in your home, especially when the armed intruders in SA have a reputation for rape as well as murder.
Equally, believing he could have been genuinely scared of an intruder doesn't mean you approve of him shooting an actual intruder if there had been one.
Similarly, his actual level of risk living in a gated community isn't the issue. It's how scared he was of an intruder, and there is plenty of evidence that this is something that had concerned him before he even got together with this girlfriend.
I'll repeat, I don't think paranoia is an acceptable excuse for killing someone, even if they are an intruder unless it really is self-defence, but it's a hugely different crime if a paranoid person over-reacts and kills an intruder (or someone they think to be one) who they think may have a gun of their own, compared with knowingly killing your girlfriend who you know isn't a physical threat.
I've no idea what he was thinking, but none of the mooted actions are logical. Knowingly shooting his girlfriend would have been an illogical and irrational thing to do, so I'm not sure why people want to rule out accidentally shooting on the grounds of it not being logical.
The whole thing is a mess, and a disaster for everyone involved, and there has been so many police blunders and spreading of mis-information (lies) about the case, with a lot more evidence still to be analysed and presented. There is a strange fascination on DS with collating (partial) facts to construct a conclusive case against all manner of sometimes innocent and sometimes guilty parties.
I would have also thought those houses would have sophisticated intruder detection systems, would such a system not detect someone putting a ladder up the side of the house in the night and climbing through a window?
If there were grounds for such suspicion, then maybe, although the actions were still wrong. There weren't though. how many times has he had dangerous burglars in the bathroom?
However, he's in the bedroom with his other half. The most likely person to be in the bathroom is her. It doesn't take much effort to establish that fact.
How many times do you need a dangerous burglar in the bathroom?
I'm not disputing that his actions were wrong at all. I'm just positing that the brain is a funny old thing at times and that if you are nervous of something happening to the degree he seemed to be then a noise where you don't expect a noise to be could make logic and reason fly away and leave the only explanation for it as the thing you are most nervous of.
Then logic and reason come back and you are left in the middle of a tragedy.
Comments
I think a lot of the perception of guilt or innocence in cases that happen a abroad actually have a lot to do with the nationality of the people involved. There is a tendency to knee-jerk 'innocent' reactions when the suspect is British and a complete distrust of foreign legal systems and processes - more so if the legal set up is different to how it is here, no jury, different ways of working, language etc.
If there was light, and it was normal circumstances, then yes - of course he would notice if there was someone in the bed or not.
But there was no light, and it was anything but normal circumstances, so it really wouldn't be that spectacular a fail not to notice, if it was dark, and he was focusing on the direction of the bathroom where he'd heard the noise.
. http://ow.ly/hZB6d
I dont think many think it was a cold blooded, planned murder, more a spontaneous violent act during a domestic.
Not at all necessary - grab a gun as a precaution, not knowing exactly what to expect. See the window open, hear noise in toilet. put two and two together and make a split second reckless decision to shoot.
Ofcourse there could be an innocent explanation for it!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-mystery-blade-runners-1727475
Only if you remove all context and circumstance from the equation.
Ah, haven't 'we' seen this enough before in the past to know that it means nothing at all?
It's basically a very nothing statement. People want to interview him - well, I would imagine they do given the nature of the media - but they're not going to give any at the moment - again, I would imagine that until the trial he can't anyway. And any talk with the lawyers would more than likely give that answer.
There was no context or circumstance. There was no burglar, nor had there ever been, so there was no reason to believe a noise was a burglar that needed shooting.
You dont seem to consider the possibility that he is not telling the truth.
The circumstances are that their are two people in a room, and a noise is made in the en suite. Quite likely it is the other person from the bedroom.
I agree, and the extent of Pistorius's spin machine surprised me, as revealed by GinaH's excellent post (no. 4313 on page 173). In addition to hiring former editor of The Sun, Stuart Higgins, OP is also using the very expensive services of Vuma Reputation Management who specialize in crisis management. Every utterance by OP's family, friends and supporters, be it verbal, tweet, whatever, will be orchestrated by VRM, even to the extent, as you say, of scripting what they say.
From the top of the story:
'DID beat model girlfriend with a cricket bat' police tell horrified family and show them photographs of her extensive head injuries to prove it'
And yet, the bat is apparently:
"Currently being examined by forensic team for evidence"
Isn't that in the wrong order?
But maybe, just maybe not knowing until later that there wasnt a burglar, he did hear a noise and, without passing Go, his fear/nervousness about such an event caused the reaction that an actual burglar would have caused.
No real burglar is going to wake you up to tell you that any suruptious noise you hear is, in fact, them.
As said before, the fact that he killed someone isn't in dispute at all, but personally I would like to know who he thought that someone was. Going Wild West over a perceived intruder is different (to me) than deliberately shooting someone you are supposed to care for.
Barry Bateman was aked about this on his Twitter feed this morning. He said it wasn't true. Invesitgating Officer was cross examined and said there were no signs of assault on Reeva's body. And, a piece of evidence that strong certainly refutes the mistaken identity theory, which would have been brought up by the prosecution.
So, evil untrue crap from the Daily Mail.
If there were grounds for such suspicion, then maybe, although the actions were still wrong. There weren't though. how many times has he had dangerous burglars in the bathroom?
However, he's in the bedroom with his other half. The most likely person to be in the bathroom is her. It doesn't take much effort to establish that fact.
Thanks, Bella.
Apart from Reeva's parents' interview posted yesterday, I don't hear much about Reeva. What a sad, sad interview. Her 'Jo'burg Dad' is right: Reeva's voice needs to be heard and it isn't much atm:( By all accounts it sounds like she was a really lovely woman.
Others have reported the same, so you cant claim the Mail made this up.
The other thing is, look at the headline:
"DID beat model girlfriend with a cricket bat"
That's not a proper sentence.
Maybe its a cynical misquote:
"Police said there was a possibility that he did beat model girlfriend with a cricket bat, which is currently being examined by forensic team for evidence"
Which at least would make sense, if a bit less titillating.
Thanks BellaRosa (nice name btw).
Well yes, again, we've pretty much established that much.
The interest, surely, surrounds the possible events prior to the shooting.
I'm not sure what you mean by a fear that someone gay may molest them. If you just mean that a gay person might make a pass, it's hardly the same thing. If you mean that the person is genuinely concerned about genuine molestation (gay or otherwise) then it's a much different sort of fear. It's still not on the same page as worrying about an armed intruder in your home, especially when the armed intruders in SA have a reputation for rape as well as murder.
Equally, believing he could have been genuinely scared of an intruder doesn't mean you approve of him shooting an actual intruder if there had been one.
Similarly, his actual level of risk living in a gated community isn't the issue. It's how scared he was of an intruder, and there is plenty of evidence that this is something that had concerned him before he even got together with this girlfriend.
I'll repeat, I don't think paranoia is an acceptable excuse for killing someone, even if they are an intruder unless it really is self-defence, but it's a hugely different crime if a paranoid person over-reacts and kills an intruder (or someone they think to be one) who they think may have a gun of their own, compared with knowingly killing your girlfriend who you know isn't a physical threat.
I've no idea what he was thinking, but none of the mooted actions are logical. Knowingly shooting his girlfriend would have been an illogical and irrational thing to do, so I'm not sure why people want to rule out accidentally shooting on the grounds of it not being logical.
The whole thing is a mess, and a disaster for everyone involved, and there has been so many police blunders and spreading of mis-information (lies) about the case, with a lot more evidence still to be analysed and presented. There is a strange fascination on DS with collating (partial) facts to construct a conclusive case against all manner of sometimes innocent and sometimes guilty parties.
I thought the same a few good posts back jzee.
How many times do you need a dangerous burglar in the bathroom?
I'm not disputing that his actions were wrong at all. I'm just positing that the brain is a funny old thing at times and that if you are nervous of something happening to the degree he seemed to be then a noise where you don't expect a noise to be could make logic and reason fly away and leave the only explanation for it as the thing you are most nervous of.
Then logic and reason come back and you are left in the middle of a tragedy.