If true... I'll be surprised if any witnesses can prove the alleged argument was coming from Oscar's house.
It's not so much a matter of proof, but rather multiple neighbours claiming the same thing, plus the apparent reports or regular previous incidents of neighbours phoning the police because of domestic incidents previously.
1. Was it a) domestic/rage incident or was it b) a mistaken intruder threat?
2. Was it self defense to shoot trough the door or was it murder (know matter who was behind the door)
On point 1 I cant decide, because there is not enough evidence. I think there are a lot of discrepancies which make you doubt OPs story up to the point of the shooting but nothing that couldnt be amix of coincidence or bad judgement.
But on point 2 I would say definitely murder as I don't think there are grounds for OP to feel threatened by what we know was the reality (a woman having a pee). Even in the worst scenario in OPs head there was not much of a threat. So for me it is murder.
If we believe OP on point 1 he behaved in a completely reckless way which goes against a lot of common sense for survival, and sounds more like Rambo. But idiocy is not a mitigating circumstance in a case like this. The poor woman is dead as a minimum because he is an irresponsible fool. If he is let off with this, it basically gives anyone the right to shoot someone in their own home, guest, partner whatever because you can always claim they made a funny noise.
I would agree with all of that.
Given what we now know about him, and his reckless, hot headedness (I guess we saw a bit of that in London), I certainly have no problem believing that he could have acted in the reckless, stupid even, manner in which he did. He doesn't have the hindsight that we do, after all.
And I agree completely that once the perceived threat was contained, the self defence argument is weakened.
But with the caveat that, if violent crime is rife in SA, to the extent where he could have legitimately believed there was a good chance any intruder had superior firepower behind the door, then arguably there's a case for shooting first. (Even if it reckless.)
I could also accept that, in the heat of a violent argument he started waving a gun around, Reeva fled to the bathroom, and he went after her immediately and shot.
But I struggle with the scenario that she went to the loo, then he thought that was an opportunity to get the gun, and shoot her through the door. That scenario makes no sense to me.
For me the things that need to be established are:
1. How dark it could have been.
2. Whether or not it can be shown that there is any other evidence of violence from that night.
It's not so much a matter of proof, but rather multiple neighbours claiming the same thing, plus the apparent reports or regular previous incidents of neighbours phoning the police because of domestic incidents previously.
It creates a balance of probability.
I need to hear more about these incidents before I pass judgement on them.
If an actual former partner comes out and says that he hit her or abused her, I will believe her.
5'2", not 5'11". I remember this because it's the same height as me.
My main scepticism of the "premeditated murder" argument is that if you plan to murder someone, surely you come up with a better plan? Even if the premeditation was quite short, you'd get rid of the body at least. Realistically, he had about 24 hours before someone noticed she wasn't around, and longer before she was officially reported missing. He lives in a country with scads of unoccupied wilderness, deep rivers with crocodiles in them and a sky-high suspicious death rate. Disposing of a body there would be far less difficult than many other places.
How would he get her body out of the house in a gated community with security swarming all over it? He probably knew his gun shots had been heard. There was no way he could have hidden the killing for a few hours let alone a whole day.
Even if he did plan it for a few minutes before (i.e. premeditated), he might have regretted it immediately after shooting her, and especially after getting her out of the cubicle.
If true... I'll be surprised if any witnesses can prove the alleged argument was coming from Oscar's house.
Flaming heck, I just said didn't I.... "IF true" meaning if it ties in with him murdering her in cold blood because they'd been arguing, him losing control of himself completely, her running and hiding into the toilet cucible and him shooting at her through the door.
Your stats relate to Alan Oliveira and his two sets of legs...
Yes, I did. I've put the correction in my previous responses:
"Edit: I've discovered my finding was wrong:
Oliveira stands 1.77 meters (5-foot-9) on his everyday legs but, three weeks before the Paralympics, switched to blades that boosted his height to 1.81 meters (5-foot-11) in competition, the London Guardian reported.
If they are downwards through the lock or hinges, they would indicate "trying to break the door down" which would not support his story, but rather that he was trying to get at his girlfriend to attack (as he can't kick the door down).
Although if the shots were shown to be downwards through the lock or hinges, then that would suggest, whatever else, that he wasn't shooting to kill.
I could also accept that, in the heat of a violent argument he started waving a gun around, Reeva fled to the bathroom, and he went after her immediately and shot.
But I struggle with the scenario that she went to the loo, then he thought that was an opportunity to get the gun, and shoot her through the door. That scenario makes no sense to me.
Or the argument continued through the door, then he snapped.
Lead prosecutor Gerrie Nel, summing up why the world-famous Paralympian should not be bailed, accused Pistorius of not taking the charges against him seriously.
As Pistorius's composure crumbled, Mr Nel argued that under South African law, you can be charged with murder if you kill someone without being in immediate danger, even if you argue you acted in self-defence.
For that reason, if Pistorius fired four shots through a door at someone locked in the lavatory, he could still be charged with murder, regardless of who he believed he was shooting at, Mr Nel claimed.
Branding the athlete's account of the shooting "improbable", Mr Nel said Pistorius at times appeared to be "under the impression he may not be charged", journalists in the courtroom reported.
Although if the shots were shown to be downwards through the lock or hinges, then that would suggest, whatever else, that he wasn't shooting to kill.
True, but it also suggests he's lying, and the most obvious reason would be that he wasn't intending to kill her, but was in the middle of a domestic violence incident.
Which would still make it murder, accidental or not.
Or the argument continued through the door, then he snapped.
If four rounds were fired, how are you divvying those up between shots that may have been fired through the lock and hinges, and shots which hit Reeva?
This is the sort of stuff that forensics should be able to shed some light on.
If four rounds were fired, how are you divvying those up between shots that may have been fired through the lock and hinges, and shots which hit Reeva?
This is the sort of stuff that forensics should be able to shed some light on.
But I struggle with the scenario that she went to the loo, then he thought that was an opportunity to get the gun, and shoot her through the door. That scenario makes no sense to me.
Makes no sense to me either. For me its either rage and spur of the moment killing or extreme recklessness. I know SA has a bad crime problem, but I think the "shoot first" defense is weakened by no sight of the intruder and nothing that reconfirms the intruder after the initial noise/noises. Also the intruder is considerably disadvantaged by their confinement and "blindness".
You can say you feel threatened all you like but if there isn't any evidence you were then for me it negates self defense. Otherwise you could use self defense in any circumstance because you can always claim you felt threatened.
I thought the argument here was that he may have shot at the lock / hinges to force entry.
If he shot downwards, then the intention would be either to wound rather than kill, or force entry by shooting at the lock / hinges.
But yes, it may be that if they were arguing, and she was crouching down, and yelling, he could have aimed in that direction.
Incidentally, do we know exactly where she was - was she on the far side of the toilet, or between the toilet and the door?
That sort of info will only come into its own when the trial begins, and frankly such detailed forensic items take a darn sight longer than a week to gather.
Although if the shots were shown to be downwards through the lock or hinges, then that would suggest, whatever else, that he wasn't shooting to kill.
To me it sounds like he was trying to gain access - whether that was before he felt he had hit the "intruder" or otherwise who knows? If he was terrified at the time why would he want to gain access? The possibility is there that RS locked herself in the loo for safety reasons and things escalated...
Just because no one has come forward to say he was violent doesn't mean he hasn't done it before or started doing it with reeva!
Make of this what you will. He spent one night in jail after one such domestic incident in 2009.
First there was the revelation yesterday that the police had been called to his home in the past for reasons of a “domestic nature.” Now it has come out that authorities were called to Pistorius’ home just hours before the shooting due to neighbors complaining about a loud argument between the couple.
Makes no sense to me either. For me its either rage and spur of the moment killing or extreme recklessness. I know SA has a bad crime problem, but I think the "shoot first" defense is weakened by no sight of the intruder and nothing that reconfirms the intruder after the initial noise/noises. Also the intruder is considerably disadvantaged by their confinement and "blindness".
You can say you feel threatened all you like but if there isn't any evidence you were then for me it negates self defense. Otherwise you could use self defense in any circumstance because you can always claim you felt threatened.
I'd agree up to a point, but think it would still depend on the specific circumstances.
In this example, if there had been an armed intruder, they would have had to pass OP to flee the scene.
OP, knowing that he was between an armed intruder, and their freedom, could well have felt threatened.
Put it this way, if i thought there was an intruder in our house, in the toilet upstairs, I'd feel pretty threatened.
Make of this what you will. He spent one night in jail after one such domestic incident in 2009.
First there was the revelation yesterday that the police had been called to his home in the past for reasons of a “domestic nature.” Now it has come out that authorities were called to Pistorius’ home just hours before the shooting due to neighbors complaining about a loud argument between the couple.
Police have confirmed that they've been called to Pistorius's exclusive gated community in the past for "incidents of a domestic nature,"
Crikey, I didn't realise one of those police domestic incidents was on that very night.
One thing that would prove, if true, is that the neighbours have verifiable proof that they can hear arguments from his house, and his house for certain.
Comments
It's not so much a matter of proof, but rather multiple neighbours claiming the same thing, plus the apparent reports or regular previous incidents of neighbours phoning the police because of domestic incidents previously.
It creates a balance of probability.
Life's full of surprises.
Your stats relate to Alan Oliveira and his two sets of legs...
That made me lol
I would agree with all of that.
Given what we now know about him, and his reckless, hot headedness (I guess we saw a bit of that in London), I certainly have no problem believing that he could have acted in the reckless, stupid even, manner in which he did. He doesn't have the hindsight that we do, after all.
And I agree completely that once the perceived threat was contained, the self defence argument is weakened.
But with the caveat that, if violent crime is rife in SA, to the extent where he could have legitimately believed there was a good chance any intruder had superior firepower behind the door, then arguably there's a case for shooting first. (Even if it reckless.)
I could also accept that, in the heat of a violent argument he started waving a gun around, Reeva fled to the bathroom, and he went after her immediately and shot.
But I struggle with the scenario that she went to the loo, then he thought that was an opportunity to get the gun, and shoot her through the door. That scenario makes no sense to me.
For me the things that need to be established are:
1. How dark it could have been.
2. Whether or not it can be shown that there is any other evidence of violence from that night.
3. The angle of shots fired.
I need to hear more about these incidents before I pass judgement on them.
If an actual former partner comes out and says that he hit her or abused her, I will believe her.
How would he get her body out of the house in a gated community with security swarming all over it? He probably knew his gun shots had been heard. There was no way he could have hidden the killing for a few hours let alone a whole day.
Even if he did plan it for a few minutes before (i.e. premeditated), he might have regretted it immediately after shooting her, and especially after getting her out of the cubicle.
Flaming heck, I just said didn't I.... "IF true" meaning if it ties in with him murdering her in cold blood because they'd been arguing, him losing control of himself completely, her running and hiding into the toilet cucible and him shooting at her through the door.
Just because no one has come forward to say he was violent doesn't mean he hasn't done it before or started doing it with reeva!
Yes, I did.
"Edit: I've discovered my finding was wrong:
"
Although if the shots were shown to be downwards through the lock or hinges, then that would suggest, whatever else, that he wasn't shooting to kill.
As Pistorius's composure crumbled, Mr Nel argued that under South African law, you can be charged with murder if you kill someone without being in immediate danger, even if you argue you acted in self-defence.
For that reason, if Pistorius fired four shots through a door at someone locked in the lavatory, he could still be charged with murder, regardless of who he believed he was shooting at, Mr Nel claimed.
Branding the athlete's account of the shooting "improbable", Mr Nel said Pistorius at times appeared to be "under the impression he may not be charged", journalists in the courtroom reported.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/9885801/Oscar-Pistorius-the-only-reason-you-fire-four-shots-is-to-kill-claims-prosecution.html
Interesting , as its basically what most of us think too
That sounds pretty plausible to me.
True, but it also suggests he's lying, and the most obvious reason would be that he wasn't intending to kill her, but was in the middle of a domestic violence incident.
Which would still make it murder, accidental or not.
Unless he knew by the sound of her voice where she was, and fired in the direction of the sound?.
Also, arent we all taking it as gospel that the lights werent on?.
If four rounds were fired, how are you divvying those up between shots that may have been fired through the lock and hinges, and shots which hit Reeva?
This is the sort of stuff that forensics should be able to shed some light on.
Exactly, we don't know anything at this point.
I thought the argument here was that he may have shot at the lock / hinges to force entry.
If he shot downwards, then the intention would be either to wound rather than kill, or force entry by shooting at the lock / hinges.
But yes, it may be that if they were arguing, and she was crouching down, and yelling, he could have aimed in that direction.
Incidentally, do we know exactly where she was - was she on the far side of the toilet, or between the toilet and the door?
Makes no sense to me either. For me its either rage and spur of the moment killing or extreme recklessness. I know SA has a bad crime problem, but I think the "shoot first" defense is weakened by no sight of the intruder and nothing that reconfirms the intruder after the initial noise/noises. Also the intruder is considerably disadvantaged by their confinement and "blindness".
You can say you feel threatened all you like but if there isn't any evidence you were then for me it negates self defense. Otherwise you could use self defense in any circumstance because you can always claim you felt threatened.
That sort of info will only come into its own when the trial begins, and frankly such detailed forensic items take a darn sight longer than a week to gather.
To me it sounds like he was trying to gain access - whether that was before he felt he had hit the "intruder" or otherwise who knows? If he was terrified at the time why would he want to gain access? The possibility is there that RS locked herself in the loo for safety reasons and things escalated...
Make of this what you will. He spent one night in jail after one such domestic incident in 2009.
First there was the revelation yesterday that the police had been called to his home in the past for reasons of a “domestic nature.” Now it has come out that authorities were called to Pistorius’ home just hours before the shooting due to neighbors complaining about a loud argument between the couple.
I'd agree up to a point, but think it would still depend on the specific circumstances.
In this example, if there had been an armed intruder, they would have had to pass OP to flee the scene.
OP, knowing that he was between an armed intruder, and their freedom, could well have felt threatened.
Put it this way, if i thought there was an intruder in our house, in the toilet upstairs, I'd feel pretty threatened.
Crikey, I didn't realise one of those police domestic incidents was on that very night.
One thing that would prove, if true, is that the neighbours have verifiable proof that they can hear arguments from his house, and his house for certain.