I And he didn't seem to be interested in 'defending' anyone - enough to check they were even there.
I think that's exactly where you hit the nail on head and for me the massive flaw in his story. His defence is trying to make us believe that he was so scared of an intruder that he started shooting a door like a maniac, but at the same time he didn't care about the safety of his girlfriend.
Why if he was so terrified of this imaginary intruder that he killed his girlfriend in the process, would he presume there was just one intruder, if he was really that paranoid he must have believed the house teeming with them, so how come he did not even spare a second thought for Reeva's well being, when he was of the opinion that the only way to be safe was to shoot everything that moves, even if you do not even know who it is, and she was defenceless?
I've seen people care more for their goldfish than he cared for her in his version of events.
I think that's exactly where you hit the nail on head and for me the massive flaw in his story. His defence is trying to make us believe that he was so scared of an intruder that he started shooting a door like a maniac, but at the same time he didn't spare one single thought for the safety of his girlfriend.
Why if he was so terrified of this imaginary intruder that he killed his girlfriend in the process, would he presume there was just one intruder, if he was really that paranoid he must have believed the house teeming with them, so how come he did not even spare a second thought for Reeva's well being, when he was of the opinion that the only way to be safe was to shoot everything that moves, even if you do not even know who it is, and she was defenceless?
I've seen people care more for this their goldfish than he cared for her in his version of events.
Yes, it's far more likelely to have been several rather than one, but he didn't worry about that, he concentrated on the just the one, who was inexplicably hiding in the toilet.
Could the decision to plead not guilty to the lesser charges be a ploy by the defence, in order to show OP to be a complete fool around guns, ie to show that he is an idiot, and it was his idiotic behaviour which caused RS's death, not his malicious behaviour. If that makes sense.
Could be. I have been assuming that there is a strategic reason behind it which I'm not clever enough to discern
How do we know he was the one who was jealous and possessive (as people on this thread suggested) and not the other way around? It's a genuine question, as I haven't been following the trial properly.
This presumption about the dynamics between them has been irritating me throughout.
Only OP knows what the state of his mind was at the time of the offence. You are assuming he did suspect a burglar. The area he lived in was the safest in that region; security was high.
I don't think people are making that assumption. It happens to be his defence though, which is his right. Whats happening is that its being tested, not on DS but in court.
In 2004 a former Springbok rugby player, Rudi Visagi, was charged with murder after he mistook his daughter for a car thief and shot her dead in her car in the driveway.
He assumed that his daughter was asleep when he heard her Volkswagen Golf being driven away at 5am on Sunday from their smallholding in South Africa.
He got out of bed, took his 7.65mm pistol, and fired a shot through the bedroom window.
When he went outside he discovered his daughter slumped behind the wheel.
She had been hit in the neck and was declared dead upon arrival an hour later at a clinic in the nearby town of Nelspruit.
A blood-stained present on the front passenger seat suggested his daughter had been on her way to surprise her boyfriend on his birthday, without telling her parents of the plan.
The father did not serve any time in jail and in his case he was not in fear of his life as the person he thought was a thief was not in his house.
There have been many cases of intruders being shot dead in houses in South Africa and a jail sentence has not resulted.
The law that lethal force may be used when it is your last available alternative to defend your property and would also be justified to prevent serious bodily harm and to prevent rape was introduced in South Africa in1994 with the new constitution.
Rudi Visagi killed his daughter in 2004 when he mistakenly took her to be a car thief
His lawyer, in a submission to the prosecuting authority, argued that Visagie should not be prosecuted on humanitarian grounds as the death of his daughter had been punishment enough.
Steve Tuson of the Wits Law Clinic applauded the decision. "If the facts as portrayed in the media, that there was a genuine mistaking of circumstances and that it was reasonable for him to assume that the car was being stolen, then strictly speaking his conduct was negligent.
"Any punishment the court may well impose can in no way approach the punishment Visagie must put on himself. He must be living a thousand agonies every single day," he said.
Makhosini Nkosi, spokesperson for the National Prosecuting Authority, confirmed that Visagie would not be prosecuted.
"There's no doubt that Visagie's culpability in the matter can be argued successfully in court, but we believe that justice wouldn't ultimately be served.
"He has been through traumatic circumstances, and his pain would only have been aggravated by his part in her death. We feel he has learned a hard lesson and the courts cannot achieve more than that," he said.
In 2004 a former Springbok rugby player, Rudi Visagi, was charged with murder after he mistook his daughter for a car thief and shot her dead in her car in the driveway.
He assumed that his daughter was asleep when he heard her Volkswagen Golf being driven away at 5am on Sunday from their smallholding in South Africa.
He got out of bed, took his 7.65mm pistol, and fired a shot through the bedroom window.
When he went outside he discovered his daughter slumped behind the wheel.
She had been hit in the neck and was declared dead upon arrival an hour later at a clinic in the nearby town of Nelspruit.
A blood-stained present on the front passenger seat suggested his daughter had been on her way to surprise her boyfriend on his birthday, without telling her parents of the plan.
The father did not serve any time in jail and in his case he was not in fear of his life as the person he thought was a thief was not in his house.
There have been many cases of intruders being shot dead in houses in South Africa and a jail sentence has not resulted.
Tragic.
Do you think there was any suspicion that the parent killed his daughter deliberately?
As for the intruders - perhaps that suggests that OP thought he could either - get away with killing the intruder with no threat present, if you believe his story, or think he could get away with killing his girlfriend by pretending he thought it was an intruder.
I think that's exactly where you hit the nail on head and for me the massive flaw in his story. His defence is trying to make us believe that he was so scared of an intruder that he started shooting a door like a maniac, but at the same time he didn't care about the safety of his girlfriend.
Why if he was so terrified of this imaginary intruder that he killed his girlfriend in the process, would he presume there was just one intruder, if he was really that paranoid he must have believed the house teeming with them, so how come he did not even spare a second thought for Reeva's well being, when he was of the opinion that the only way to be safe was to shoot everything that moves, even if you do not even know who it is, and she was defenceless?
I've seen people care more for their goldfish than he cared for her in his version of events.
You seem to be saying that you don't think he cared about his girlfriend. So is it possible that he was more interested in getting to the bathroom to confront an intruder and just overlooked or ignored Reeva?
He was shouting for the intruder to leave the house so is it possible that when he got to the bathroom and heard the noise that they had been driven in there?
The South African (News for Global South Africans)
By Carol Freeman on 16 February, 2013 8:38 pm in News, (extract below)
Putting the celebrity aside, this kind of story would never normally attract this degree of media attention – “Man slays woman partner” happens all too frequently for it to merit more than a few column inches. Violence against women is epidemic in South Africa. It has been estimated that a woman is killed by her male partner every six hours, the highest rate of death by domestic violence in the world.
The horrific truth is that of the 16,000 murders which happen in South Africa each year, many relate to domestic violence. Black women in South Africa have more to fear from the people with whom they share their homes than from an outside intruder.
South Africa is already internationally notorious for its high crime rate, but domestic violence is swept up along with the other crime statistics, and the intimate nature of these crimes goes largely unreported, but for the attention drawn to it by women’s groups
You seem to be saying that you don't think he cared about his girlfriend. So is it possible that he was more interested in getting to the bathroom to confront an intruder and just overlooked or ignored Reeva?
He was shouting for the intruder to leave the house so is it possible that when he got to the bathroom and heard the noise that they had been driven in there?
That's his defense, he overlooked her, and his story -that he shouted. Certainly IF we believe him, he didn't care much about his girlfriend.
And if we don't, he didn't care much either, to use litotes a bit.
The South African (News for Global South Africans)
By Carol Freeman on 16 February, 2013 8:38 pm in News, (extract below)
Putting the celebrity aside, this kind of story would never normally attract this degree of media attention – “Man slays woman partner” happens all too frequently for it to merit more than a few column inches. Violence against women is epidemic in South Africa. It has been estimated that a woman is killed by her male partner every six hours, the highest rate of death by domestic violence in the world.
The horrific truth is that of the 16,000 murders which happen in South Africa each year, many relate to domestic violence. Black women in South Africa have more to fear from the people with whom they share their homes than from an outside intruder.
South Africa is already internationally notorious for its high crime rate, but domestic violence is swept up along with the other crime statistics, and the intimate nature of
these crimes goes largely unreported, but for the attention drawn to it by women’s groups
One of the most awful statistics about murder of partner is that if , and I use the word he advisedly, he owns a gun the risk of being murderd rises by a shocking 700% tho that is in America which has a higher per capita gun ownership than S Africa.
You seem to be saying that you don't think he cared about his girlfriend. So is it possible that he was more interested in getting to the bathroom to confront an intruder and just overlooked or ignored Reeva?
He was shouting for the intruder to leave the house so is it possible that when he got to the bathroom and heard the noise that they had been driven in there?
Yes, that's basically what his version of the story tell us, that he was so callous that he did not even care for her safety, and that will contradict another line of defence that they loved each other very much, so this could have never been a result an angry exchange. He simply cannot have it both ways. He cannot pursue several line of defence that contradict each other. (well I hope, apparently everything is "allowed" in this trial).
He's rich. He's famous. He's disabled. I think those three things alone would make him concerned about his personal safety in South Africa.
Fair enough, that's why he lived behind a fortress and had the best security money could buy, in relation to the already secure houses of most people over there.
Yes, that's basically what his version of the story tell us, that he was so callous that he did not even care for her safety, and that will contradict another line of defence that they loved each other very much, so this could have never been a result an angry exchange. He simply cannot have it both ways. He cannot pursue several line of defence that contradict each other. (well I hope, apparently everything is "allowed" in this trial).
And yet it's easy to imagine a psychological state in which his thoughts revolved solely around the 'intruder' in the bathroom and which doesn't preclude the notion that he cared about Steenkamp.
Fair enough, that's why he lived behind a fortress and had the best security money could buy, in relation to the already secure houses of most people over there.
And of course robberies in such places are often the result of the security guards being involved.
O I give up. ! jeeez
Last try
The FACTS 'IN THIS CASE' are....that Oscar shot and killed his girlfriend Reeva - (that bit you must follow). It is insult to the people on here to suggest that they wouldn't care if Oscar had shot an obese older woman who was his cleaner !!! You are suggesting scenarios outside of the FACTS of this case , which is all we are talking about, and you are speaking hypothetically of Oscar having killed some other person who wasn't a model for a living !! it's ludicrous, and irrelevant.
Anyone else want to take this on ? ^_^
And yet it's easy to imagine a psychological state in which his thoughts revolved solely around the 'intruder' in the bathroom and which doesn't preclude the notion that he cared about Steenkamp.
Mmmm, does it? He didn't care enough to ensure her safety, that doesn't seem like he cared all that much.
Comments
What kind of person would actually buy that house? Gruesome
They sold a flat in London where Nillson lived a year or so ago.
People will buy it if it's cheap enough. Bit of a scrub, coat of paint, get someone to give it a blessing.
I think that's exactly where you hit the nail on head and for me the massive flaw in his story. His defence is trying to make us believe that he was so scared of an intruder that he started shooting a door like a maniac, but at the same time he didn't care about the safety of his girlfriend.
Why if he was so terrified of this imaginary intruder that he killed his girlfriend in the process, would he presume there was just one intruder, if he was really that paranoid he must have believed the house teeming with them, so how come he did not even spare a second thought for Reeva's well being, when he was of the opinion that the only way to be safe was to shoot everything that moves, even if you do not even know who it is, and she was defenceless?
I've seen people care more for their goldfish than he cared for her in his version of events.
Yes, it's far more likelely to have been several rather than one, but he didn't worry about that, he concentrated on the just the one, who was inexplicably hiding in the toilet.
Could be. I have been assuming that there is a strategic reason behind it which I'm not clever enough to discern
This presumption about the dynamics between them has been irritating me throughout.
No, we really must not.
I don't think people are making that assumption. It happens to be his defence though, which is his right. Whats happening is that its being tested, not on DS but in court.
But we CAN consider how the high statistics of burglary may be important?
(Even though OP lived in one of the saftest places in the country).
He assumed that his daughter was asleep when he heard her Volkswagen Golf being driven away at 5am on Sunday from their smallholding in South Africa.
He got out of bed, took his 7.65mm pistol, and fired a shot through the bedroom window.
When he went outside he discovered his daughter slumped behind the wheel.
She had been hit in the neck and was declared dead upon arrival an hour later at a clinic in the nearby town of Nelspruit.
A blood-stained present on the front passenger seat suggested his daughter had been on her way to surprise her boyfriend on his birthday, without telling her parents of the plan.
The father did not serve any time in jail and in his case he was not in fear of his life as the person he thought was a thief was not in his house.
There have been many cases of intruders being shot dead in houses in South Africa and a jail sentence has not resulted.
Rudi Visagi killed his daughter in 2004 when he mistakenly took her to be a car thief
His lawyer, in a submission to the prosecuting authority, argued that Visagie should not be prosecuted on humanitarian grounds as the death of his daughter had been punishment enough.
Steve Tuson of the Wits Law Clinic applauded the decision. "If the facts as portrayed in the media, that there was a genuine mistaking of circumstances and that it was reasonable for him to assume that the car was being stolen, then strictly speaking his conduct was negligent.
"Any punishment the court may well impose can in no way approach the punishment Visagie must put on himself. He must be living a thousand agonies every single day," he said.
Makhosini Nkosi, spokesperson for the National Prosecuting Authority, confirmed that Visagie would not be prosecuted.
"There's no doubt that Visagie's culpability in the matter can be argued successfully in court, but we believe that justice wouldn't ultimately be served.
"He has been through traumatic circumstances, and his pain would only have been aggravated by his part in her death. We feel he has learned a hard lesson and the courts cannot achieve more than that," he said.
Tragic.
Do you think there was any suspicion that the parent killed his daughter deliberately?
As for the intruders - perhaps that suggests that OP thought he could either - get away with killing the intruder with no threat present, if you believe his story, or think he could get away with killing his girlfriend by pretending he thought it was an intruder.
You seem to be saying that you don't think he cared about his girlfriend. So is it possible that he was more interested in getting to the bathroom to confront an intruder and just overlooked or ignored Reeva?
He was shouting for the intruder to leave the house so is it possible that when he got to the bathroom and heard the noise that they had been driven in there?
By Carol Freeman on 16 February, 2013 8:38 pm in News, (extract below)
Putting the celebrity aside, this kind of story would never normally attract this degree of media attention – “Man slays woman partner” happens all too frequently for it to merit more than a few column inches. Violence against women is epidemic in South Africa. It has been estimated that a woman is killed by her male partner every six hours, the highest rate of death by domestic violence in the world.
The horrific truth is that of the 16,000 murders which happen in South Africa each year, many relate to domestic violence. Black women in South Africa have more to fear from the people with whom they share their homes than from an outside intruder.
South Africa is already internationally notorious for its high crime rate, but domestic violence is swept up along with the other crime statistics, and the intimate nature of these crimes goes largely unreported, but for the attention drawn to it by women’s groups
That's his defense, he overlooked her, and his story -that he shouted. Certainly IF we believe him, he didn't care much about his girlfriend.
And if we don't, he didn't care much either, to use litotes a bit.
One of the most awful statistics about murder of partner is that if , and I use the word he advisedly, he owns a gun the risk of being murderd rises by a shocking 700% tho that is in America which has a higher per capita gun ownership than S Africa.
He's rich. He's famous. He's disabled. I think those three things alone would make him concerned about his personal safety in South Africa.
Then perhaps he should have locked his windows, listened for his dogs, got the ladders moved and used the panic alarm.
Yes, that's basically what his version of the story tell us, that he was so callous that he did not even care for her safety, and that will contradict another line of defence that they loved each other very much, so this could have never been a result an angry exchange. He simply cannot have it both ways. He cannot pursue several line of defence that contradict each other. (well I hope, apparently everything is "allowed" in this trial).
Fair enough, that's why he lived behind a fortress and had the best security money could buy, in relation to the already secure houses of most people over there.
And yet it's easy to imagine a psychological state in which his thoughts revolved solely around the 'intruder' in the bathroom and which doesn't preclude the notion that he cared about Steenkamp.
This is a good article about the whole white male macho gun toting SAfrican.
Also addresses the shocking domestic abuse issues.
http://www.ibtimes.com/oscar-pistorius-symbol-south-african-mens-war-violence-against-women-1093778.com
It also addresses his possible insecurities about being disabled.
And of course robberies in such places are often the result of the security guards being involved.
Perhaps. Doesn't make him guilty though.
It was music to my eyes to read 'I give up'
But then you didn't
Once I think it happened on the estate where he lived. So not often.
Mmmm, does it? He didn't care enough to ensure her safety, that doesn't seem like he cared all that much.
Makes a lot of his story implausible, and him a liar.